text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'It is known that the greatest common divisor of two Fibonacci numbers is again a Fibonacci number. It is called the *strong divisibility property*. However, this property does not hold for every second order sequence. In this paper we study the generalized Fibonacci polynomials and classify them in two types depending on their Binet formula. We give a complete characterization for those polynomials that satisfy the strong divisibility property. We also give formulas to calculate the $\gcd$ of those polynomials that do not satisfy the strong divisibility property.'
---
Rigoberto Flórez\
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science\
The Citadel\
Charleston, SC\
U.S.A.\
[[email protected]]{}\
\
Robinson A. Higuita\
Instituto de Matemáticas\
Universidad de Antioquia\
Medellín\
Colombia\
[[email protected]]{}\
\
Antara Mukherjee\
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science\
The Citadel\
Charleston, SC\
U.S.A.\
[[email protected]]{}
.2 in
Introduction
============
It is well known that the greatest common divisor ($\gcd$) of two Fibonacci numbers is a Fibonacci number [@koshy]. Thus, $\gcd(F_m,F_n)=F_{\gcd(m,n)}$. It is called the *strong divisibility property* or *Fibonacci gcd property*. In this paper we study divisibility properties of generalized Fibonacci polynomials (GFP) and in particular we give characterization of the strong divisibility property for these polynomials.
We classify the GFP in two types, the Lucas type and the Fibonacci type, depending on their closed formulas or their Binet formulas (see for example, $L_n(x)$ (\[bineformulados\]) and $R_n(x)$ (\[bineformulauno\]), and the Table \[equivalent\]). That is, if after solving the characteristic polynomial of the GFP we obtain a closed formula that look like the Binet formula for Fibonacci (Lucas) numbers, it is called Fibonacci (Lucas) type polynomials. Familiar examples of Fibonacci type polynomials are: Fibonacci polynomials, Pell polynomials, Fermat polynomials, Chebyshev polynomials of second kind, Jacobsthal polynomials and one type of Morgan-Voyce polynomials. Examples of Lucas type polynomials are: Lucas polynomials, Pell-Lucas polynomials, Fermat-Lucas polynomials, Chebyshev polynomials of first kind, Jacobsthal-Lucas polynomials and second type of Morgan-Voyce polynomials.
In Theorem \[gcd:property:fibonacci\] we prove that a GFP satisfies the strong divisibility property if and only if it is of Fibonacci type. The Theorem \[second:main:thm\] shows that the Lucas type polynomials satisfy the strong divisibility property partially and also gives the $gcd$ for those cases in which the property is not satisfied.
A Lucas type polynomial is equivalent to a Fibonacci type polynomial if they both have the same recurrence relation but different initial conditions (see also Flórez et al. [@florezHiguitaMuk]). The Theorem \[combine:gcd:Lucas:Fibobacci\] proves that two equivalent GFP satisfies the strong divisibility property partially and gives the $gcd$ for those cases in which the property is not satisfied.
In 1969 Webb and Parberry [@Webb] extended the strong divisibility property to the Fibonacci Polynomials. In 1974 Hoggatt and Long [@HoggattLong] proved the strong divisibility property for one type of generalized Fibonacci polynomial. In 1978 Hoggatt and Bicknell-Johnson [@hoggatt] extended the result mentioned in [@HoggattLong] to some cases of Fibonacci type polynomials. However, they did not prove the necessary and sufficient condition and their paper does not cover the Lucas type case. In 2005 Rayes, Trevisan, and Wang [@Rayes] proved that the strong divisibility property holds partially for the Chebyshev polynomials (we prove the general result in Theorem \[second:main:thm\]). Over the years several other authors have been also interested in the divisibility properties of sequences, some papers are [@hall; @kimberling; @kimberlingStrong1; @kimberlingStrong2; @lucas; @mcdaniel; @norfleet; @ward].
Lucas [@lucas] proved the strong divisibility property (SDP) for Fibonacci numbers. However, the study of SDP for Lucas numbers took until 1991, when McDaniel [@mcdaniel] provided proofs that the Lucas numbers satisfy the SDP partially. In 1995 Hilton et al. [@hilton] gave some more precise results about this property. As mentioned above several authors have been interested in the divisibility properties for Fibonacci type polynomials. However, the Lucas type polynomials have been less studied. Here we complete three cases of the SDP. Indeed, we give a characterization for the SDP for Fibonacci type polynomials and study both the SDP for Lucas type polynomials and the SDP for the combinations of Lucas type polynomials and Fibonacci type polynomials. Finally we provide an open question for the most general case of combination of two polynomials.
Generalized Fibonacci polynomials GFP {#General:Fibonacci:Polynomial}
=====================================
In the literature there are several definitions of generalized Fibonacci polynomials. However, the definition that we introduce here is simpler and covers other definitions. The background given in this section is a summary of the background given in [@florezHiguitaMuk]. However, the definition of generalized Fibonacci polynomial here is not exactly the same as in [@florezHiguitaMuk]. The *generalized Fibonacci polynomial* sequence, denoted by GFP, is defined by the recurrence relation
$$\label{Fibonacci;general}
G_0(x)=p_0(x), \; G_1(x)= p_1(x),\; \text{and} \; G_{n}(x)= d(x) G_{n - 1}(x) + g(x) G_{n - 2}(x) \text{ for } n\ge 2$$
where $p_0(x)$ is a constant and $p_1(x)$, $d(x)$ and $g(x)$ are non-zero polynomials in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ with $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$.
For example, if we let $p_0(x)=0$, $p_1(x)=1$, $d(x)=x$, and $g(x)=1$ we obtain the regular Fibonacci polynomial sequence. Thus, $$F_0(x)= 0, \; F_1(x)= 1, \; \text{and} \; F_{n}(x)= x F_{n - 1}(x) + F_{n - 2}(x) \text{ for } n\ge 2.$$
Letting $x=1$ and choosing the correct values for $p_0(x)$, $p_1(x)$, $d(x)$ and $g(x)$, the generalized Fibonacci polynomial sequence gives rise to three classical numerical sequences, the Fibonacci sequence, the Lucas sequence and the generalized Fibonacci sequence.
In Table \[familiarfibonacci\] there are more familiar examples of GFP (see [@florezHiguitaMuk; @Pell; @Fermat; @koshy]). Hoggatt and Bicknell-Johnson [@hoggatt] show that Schechter polynomials are another example of generalized Fibonacci polynomials.
\[!ht\]
Fibonacci type and Lucas type polynomials
-----------------------------------------
If we impose some conditions on the Definition (\[Fibonacci;general\]) we obtain two type of distinguishable polynomials. We say that a sequences as in (\[Fibonacci;general\]) is *Lucas type* or *first type* if $2p_{1}(x)=p_{0}(x)d(x)$ with $p_{0}\ne 0$. We say that a sequences as in (\[Fibonacci;general\]) is *Fibonacci type* or *second type* if $p_{0}(x)=0$ with $p_{1}(x)$ a constant.
If $d^2(x)+4g(x)> 0$, then the explicit formula for the recurrence relation (\[Fibonacci;general\]) is given by
$$\label{solutionrecurrencerelationuno}
G_{n}(x) = t_1 a^{n} + t_2 b^{n}$$
where $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ are the solutions of the quadratic equation associated to the second order recurrence relation $G_{n}(x)$. That is, $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ are the solutions of $z^2-d(x)z-g(x)=0$. The explicit formula for $G_{n}(x)$ given in (\[solutionrecurrencerelationuno\]) with $G_{0}(x)=p_{0}(x)$ and $G_{1}(x)=p_{1}(x)$ imply that $$\label{solutionrecurrencerelationdos}
t_{1}=\dfrac{p_{1}(x)-p_{0}(x)b(x)}{a(x)-b(x)} \text{ and } t_{2}=\dfrac{-p_{1}(x)+p_{0}(x)a(x)}{a(x)-b(x)}$$
Using (\[solutionrecurrencerelationuno\]) and (\[solutionrecurrencerelationdos\]) we obtain the Binet formulas for the Generalized Fibonacci sequences of the Lucas type and Fibonacci type. Thus, substituting $2p_{1}(x)=p_{0}(x)d(x)$ in (\[solutionrecurrencerelationdos\]) we obtain that $t_{1}=t_{2}= p_{0}(x)/2$. Substituting this in (\[solutionrecurrencerelationuno\]) and letting $\alpha$ be $2/p_{0}(x)$ we obtain the Binet formula for Generalized Fibonacci sequence of *Lucas type* or *first type* $$\label{bineformulados}
L_n(x)=\frac{a^{n}(x)+b^{n}(x)}{\alpha}.$$ We want $\alpha$ be an integer, therefore $|p_{0}(x)|=1 \text { or } 2$.
Now, substituting $p_{0}(x)=0$ and the constant $p_{1}(x)$ in (\[solutionrecurrencerelationdos\]) we obtain that $t_{1}=t_{2}=p_{1}(x)$. Substituting this in (\[solutionrecurrencerelationuno\]) we obtain the Binet formula for Generalized Fibonacci sequence of *Fibonacci type* or *second type* $$\label{bineformulaunogeneral}
R_n(x)=\frac{p_{1}(x)\left(a^{n}(x)-b^{n}(x)\right)}{a(x)-b(x)}.$$ In this paper we are interested only on $R_n(x)$ when $p_1(x)=1$. Therefore, the Binet formula $R_n(x)$ that we use here is $$\label{bineformulauno}
R_n(x)=\frac{a^{n}(x)-b^{n}(x)}{a(x)-b(x)}.$$
Note that $a(x)+b(x)=d(x)$, $a(x)b(x)= -g(x)$ and $a(x)-b(x)=\sqrt{d^2(x)+4g(x)}$ where $d(x)$ and $g(x)$ are the polynomials defined on the generalized Fibonacci polynomials.
A generalized Fibonacci polynomial which satisfies the Binet formula (\[bineformulados\]) is said to be of *first type* or *Lucas type* and it is of *Second type* or *Fibonacci type* if it satisfies the Binet formula (\[bineformulauno\]). Horadam [@horadam-synthesis] and André-Jeannin [@Richard] have studied these polynomials in detail.
The sequence of polynomials that have Binet representations $R_n(x)$ or $L_n(x)$ depend only on $d(x)$ and $g(x)$ defined on the generalized Fibonacci polynomials. We say that a generalized Fibonacci sequence of Lucas (Fibonacci) type is *equivalent* to a sequence of the Fibonacci (Lucas) type, if their recursive sequences are determined by the same polynomials $d(x)$ and $g(x)$. Notice that two equivalent polynomials have the same $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ in their Binet representations.
For example, the Lucas polynomial is a GFP of Lucas type, whereas the Fibonacci polynomial is a GFP of Fibonacci type. Lucas and Fibonacci polynomials are equivalent because $d(x)=x$ and $g(x)=1$ (see Table \[familiarfibonacci\]). Note that in their Binet representations they both have $a(x)= (x+\sqrt{x^2+4})/2$ and $b(x)=(x-\sqrt{x^2+4})/2$. The Table \[equivalent\] is based on information from the following papers [@Richard; @florezHiguitaMuk; @horadam-synthesis]. The leftmost polynomials in Table \[equivalent\] are of the Lucas type and their equivalent polynomials are in the third column on the same line. In the last two columns of Table \[equivalent\] we can see the $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ that the pairs of equivalent polynomials share. It is easy to obtain the characteristic equations of the sequences given in Table \[familiarfibonacci\], and the roots of the equations are $a(x)$ and $b(x)$.
For the sake of simplicity throughout this paper we use $a$ in place of $a(x)$ and $b$ in place of $b(x)$ when they appear in the Binet formulas. We use the notation $G_n^{*}$ or $G_n^{'}$ for $G_n$ depending on when it satisfies the Binet formulas (\[bineformulados\]) or (\[bineformulauno\]), respectively, (see Section \[mainresults:section\]).
For most of the proofs of GFP of Lucas type it is required that $\gcd(p_0(x), p_1(x))=1$, $\gcd(p_0(x), d(x))=1$ and $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$. It is easy to see that $\gcd(\alpha, G_{n}^{*}(x))=1$. Therefore, for the rest the paper we suppose that these four mentioned conditions hold for all generalized Fibonacci polynomial sequences of Lucas type treated here. We use $\rho$ to denote $\gcd(d(x),G_1(x))$. Notice that in the definition Pell-Lucas we have that $p_0(x)=2$ and $p_1(x)=2x$. Thus, the $\gcd(p_0(x),p_1(x))\ne 1$. Therefore, Pell-Lucas does not satisfy the extra conditions that were just imposed for Generalized Fibonacci polynomial. To solve this problem we define *Pell-Lucas-prime* as follows: $$Q_0^{\prime}(x)= 1, \; Q_1^{\prime}(x)= x, \; \text{and} \; Q_{n}^{\prime}(x)= 2x Q_{n - 1}^{\prime}(x) + Q_{n - 2}^{\prime}(x) \text{ for } n\ge 2.$$ It easy to see that $2Q_{n}^{'}(x)=Q_{n}(x)$ and that $\alpha=2$. Flórez, Junes and Higuita [@florezHiguitaJunes] worked similar problems for numerical sequences.
**Note.** The definition of Generalized Fibonacci Polynomial in [@florezHiguitaMuk] differs with definition on this papers due to the initial conditions on the Fibonacci type polynomials. Thus, the initial conditions for the Fibonacci type polynomials in [@florezHiguitaMuk] is $G_{0}(x)=p_{0}(x)=1$ and so implicitly $G_{-1}(x)=0$. However, our definition for the Lucas type polynomials are the same in both papers.
\[!ht\]
Divisibility properties of Generalized Fibonacci Polynomials
============================================================
In this section we prove a few divisibility and $\gcd$ properties which are true for all GFP. These results will be used in a section later on to prove the main results of this paper.
Proposition \[prop2;1\] parts (1) and (2) is a generalization of Proposition 2.2 in [@florezjunes]. The proof here is similar the proof in [@florezjunes] since both use properties of integral domains. The reader can therefore update the proof in the afore-mentioned paper to obtain the proof of this proposition.
\[prop2;1\] Let $p(x), q(x), r(x),$ and $s(x)$ be polynomials.
(1) If $\gcd(p(x),q(x))=\gcd(r(x),s(x))=1$, then $$\gcd(p(x)q(x),r(x)s(x))=\gcd(p(x),r(x))\gcd(p(x),s(x))\gcd(q(x),r(x))\gcd(q(x),s(x)).$$
(2) If $\gcd(p(x),r(x))=1\gcd(q(x),s(x))=1$, then $$\gcd(p(x)q(x),r(x)s(x))=\gcd(p(x),s(x))\gcd(q(x),r(x)).$$
(3) If $z_1(x)=\gcd(p(x),r(x))$ and $z_2(x)=\gcd(q(x),s(x))$, then $$\gcd(p(x)q(x),r(x)s(x))=\frac{\gcd( z_2(x)p(x),z_1(x)s(x))\gcd( z_1(x)q(x), z_2(x)r(x))}{z_1(x)z_2(x)}.$$
We prove part (3). Since $\gcd(p(x),r(x))=z_1(x) $ and $\gcd(q(x),s(x))=z_2(x)$, there are polynomials $P(x)$, $S(x)$, $Q(x)$ and $R(x)$ with $\gcd(P(x),R(x))=\gcd(Q(x),S(x))=1$, such that $ p(x) = z_1(x) P(x),\; s(x)= z_2(x) S(x),\; r(x) = z_1(x) R(x), \;
q(x)= z_2(x) Q(x)$. So, $$\begin{aligned}
\gcd(p(x)q(x),r(x)s(x)) &=&\gcd(z_1(x) P(x) z_2(x)Q(x), z_1(x) R(x) z_2(x)S(x))\\
&=&z_1(x)z_2(x)\gcd( P(x)Q(x), R(x)S(x)).\\\end{aligned}$$ From part (2) we know that $
\gcd( P(x)Q(x), R(x) S(x))=\gcd( P(x),S(x))\gcd( Q(x), R(x)).
$ Now it is easy to see that $$\gcd(p(x)q(x),r(x)s(x))=\frac{\gcd( z_2(x)p(x),z_1(x)s(x))\gcd( z_1(x)q(x), z_2(x)r(x))}{z_1(x)z_2(x)}.$$ This proves part (3).
We recall that $\rho=\gcd(d(x),G_1(x))$ and that for GFP of Lucas type it is required that $\gcd(p_0(x), p_1(x))=1$, $\gcd(p_0(x), d(x))=1$, $\gcd(p_0(x), g(x))=1$ and $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$. We also recall $p_0(x)=0$ and $p_1(x)=1$ for GFP of Fibonacci type.
For the rest of the paper we use the notation $G_n^{*}$ if the generalized Fibonacci polynomial $G_n$ satisfies the Binet formula (\[bineformulados\]) and $G_n^{'}$ if the generalized Fibonacci polynomial $G_n$ satisfies the Binet formula (\[bineformulauno\]). We use $G_n$ if the result does not need the mentioned classification to be true. We recall that for Lucas type polynomials $|p_{0}(x)| =1 \text{ or } 2$ and for Fibonacci type polynomial $p_{1}(x) =1$.
\[gcdlemmas\] If $\{ G_{n}(x)\}$ is a GFP of either Lucas or Fibonacci type, then
(1) $\gcd(d(x), G_{2n+1}(x))=G_1(x)$ for every positive integer $n$,
(2) If the GFP is of Lucas type, then $\gcd(d(x), G_{2n}^{*}(x))= 1$ and
if the GFP is of Fibonacci type, then $\gcd(d(x), G_{2n}^{\prime}(x))= d(x)$
(3) $\gcd(g(x), G_n(x))=\gcd(g(x), G_{1}(x))=1,$ for every positive integer $n$.
We prove part (1) by induction, the proof of part (2) is similar and we omit it.
Let $\{G_n\}$ a GFP. Let $S(n)$ be the statement $$\rho=\gcd(d(x), G_{2n+1}(x))\text{ for }n\ge 1.$$ To prove $S(1)$ we suppose that $\gcd(d(x), G_{3}(x))=r$. Thus, $r$ divides any linear combination of $d(x)$ and $G_3(x)$. Therefore, $r$ divides $G_3(x)-d(x) G_2(x)$. This and given that $G_3(x)= d(x) G_{2}(x) + g(x) G_{1}(x)$, imply that $r\mid g(x)G_{1}(x)$. So, $r\mid \gcd(d(x),g(x)G_{1}(x))$. Since $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$, we have that $r\mid \rho$. It is easy to see that $\rho \mid r$. Thus, $r=\gcd(d(x),G_1(x))$. This proves $S(1)$.
We suppose that $S(n)$ is true for $n=k-1$. That is, suppose that $\gcd(d(x), G_{2k-1}(x)) = \rho$. To prove $S(k)$ we suppose that $\gcd(d(x), G_{2k+1}(x))=r'$. Thus, $r'$ divides any linear combination of $d(x)$ and $G_{2k+1}(x)$. Therefore, $r'$ divides $G_{2k+1}(x)-d(x) G_{2k}(x)$. This and given that $G_{2k+1}(x)= d(x) G_{2k}(x) + g(x) G_{2k-1}(x)$, imply that $r'\mid g(x)G_{2k-1}(x)$. Therefore, $r'\mid \gcd(d(x),g(x)G_{2k-1}(x))$. Since $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$, we have that $r'\mid \gcd(d(x),G_{2k-1}(x))$. By the inductive hypothesis we know that $\gcd(d(x), G_{2k-1}(x)) = \rho$. Thus, $r'\mid \rho$. It is easy to see that $\gcd(d(x),G_{2k+1}(x))$ divides $r'$. So, $r'=\gcd(G_1(x), d(x))$.
We now show that depending on the type of the sequence it holds that $\gcd(d(x),G_1(x))=G_1$. If $\{G_n(x)\}$ is a GFP of Fibonacci type, by definition of $p(x)$ we that $G_1(x)=1$ (see comments after Binet formula ). Suppose that $\{G_n(x)\}$ is a GFP of Lucas type. Recall that $2p_{1}(x)=p_{0}(x)d(x)$ and that $|p_{0}(x)|=1 \text { or } 2$. The conclusion is straightforward since $G_1(x)=(a(x)+b(x))/\alpha=d(x)/\alpha$.
Proof of part (2). Let $S(n)$ be the statement $$\rho=\gcd(d(x), G_{2n}(x))\text{ for }n\ge 1.$$ To prove $S(2)$ we suppose that $\gcd(d(x), G_{4}(x))=r$. Thus, $r$ divides any linear combination of $d(x)$ and $G_4(x)$. Therefore, $r$ divides $G_4(x)-d(x) G_3(x)$. This and given that $G_4(x)= d(x) G_{3}(x) + g(x) G_{2}(x)$, imply that $r\mid g(x)G_{2}(x)$. Therefore, $r\mid \gcd(d(x),g(x)G_{2}(x))$. Since $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$, we have that $r\mid \rho$. It is easy to see that $\rho \mid r$. Thus, $r=\gcd(d(x),G_2(x))$. This proves $S(2)$.
We suppose that $S(n)$ is true for $n=k-1$. That is, suppose that $\gcd(d(x), G_{2k-2}(x)) = \rho$. To prove $S(k)$ we suppose that $\gcd(d(x), G_{2k}(x))=r'$. Thus, $r'$ divides any linear combination of $d(x)$ and $G_{2k}(x)$. Therefore, $r'$ divides $G_{2k}(x)-d(x) G_{2k-1}(x)$. This and given that $G_{2k}(x)= d(x) G_{2k-1}(x) + g(x) G_{2k-2}(x)$, imply that $r'\mid g(x)G_{2k-2}(x)$. Therefore, $r'\mid \gcd(d(x),g(x)G_{2k-2}(x))$. Since $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$, we have that $r'\mid \gcd(d(x),G_{2k-2}(x))$. By the inductive hypothesis we know that $\gcd(d(x), G_{2k-2}(x)) = \rho$. Thus, $r'\mid \rho$. It is easy to see that $\gcd(d(x),G_{2k}(x))$ divides $r'$. So, $r'=\gcd(G_2(x), d(x))$.
We observe that for a GFP of Fibonacci type it holds that $G_2^{\prime}(x)=a(x)+b(x)=d(x)$. So, it is clear that $\gcd(G_{2n}^{\prime}(x),d(x))=d(x)$. For a GFP of Lucas type it holds that $G_0^{*}(x)$ is a non-zero constant. Since $G_2^{*}(x)=d(x)G_1^{*}(x)+G_{0}^{*}g(x)$, and $\gcd(d(x), g(x))=1$, we have $$\gcd(d(x),G_2^{*}(x))=\gcd(d(x),d(x)G_1^{*}(x)+G_{0}^{*}g(x))=\gcd(d(x),G_0^{*}(x)g(x))=1.$$
Proof of part (3). We now prove that $\gcd(g(x), G_1(x))=1$ by cases. If $G_1(x)$ is of the Fibonacci type, the conclusion is straightforward. As a second case we suppose that $G_1(x)$ is of the Lucas type. That is $G_1(x)$ satisfies the Binet formula (\[bineformulados\]). Therefore, we have that $$\gcd(g(x), G_1(x))=\gcd(g(x), L_1(x)) = \gcd(g(x), [a+b]/\alpha)=\gcd(g(x), d(x)/\alpha).$$ Since $\gcd(g(x), d(x))=1$, we have that $\gcd(g(x), d(x)/\alpha)=1$. This completes the proof.
\[gcdforproposition4\] If $\{G_{n}(x)\}$ is a GFP polynomial sequence, then for every positive integer $n$ it holds that
(1) $\gcd(G_{n}(x), G_{n+1}(x))$ divides $\gcd(G_{n}(x),g(x)G_{n-1}(x))=\gcd(G_{n}(x),G_{n-1}(x))$,
(2) $\gcd(G_{n}(x), G_{n+2}(x))$ divides $\gcd(G_{n}(x), d(x)G_{n+1}(x))$.
We prove part (1), the proof of part (2) is similar and we omit it. If $r$ is equal to $ \gcd(G_{n}(x), G_{n+1}(x))$, then $r$ divides any linear combination of $G_{n}(x)$ and $G_{n+1}(x)$. Therefore, $r\mid (G_{n+1}(x)-d(x) G_{n}(x))$. This and the recursive definition of $G_{n+1}(x)$ imply that $r\mid g(x)G_{n-1}(x)$. Therefore, $r\mid \gcd(g(x)G_{n-1}(x),G_{n}(x))$. Since $\gcd(g(x),G_{n}(x))=1$, we have that $\gcd(g(x)G_{n-1}(x),G_{n}(x))=\gcd(G_{n-1}(x),G_{n}(x))$. This completes the proof.
\[gcddistance1;2\] Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers with $0<|m-n|\le 2$.
(1) If $\{G_{t}^{*}(x)\}$ is a GFP of Lucas type, then $$\gcd(G_m^{*}(x),G_n^{*}(x))=
\begin{cases}
G_{1}^{*}(x), & \mbox{if $m$ and $n$ are both odd;} \\
1, & \mbox{otherwise. }
\end{cases}$$
(2) If $\{G_{t}^{\prime}(x)\}$ is a GFP of Fibonacci type, then $$\gcd(G_m^{\prime}(x),G_n^{\prime}(x))=
\begin{cases}
G_{2}^{\prime}(x) & \mbox{if $m$ and $n$ are both even;} \\
1, & \mbox{otherwise. }
\end{cases}$$
We prove part (1) using several cases based on the values of $m$ and $n$. The proof of part (2) is similar and we omit. We first provide the proof for the case when $m$ and $n$ are consecutive integers using induction on $m$. Let $S(m)$ be the statement $$\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x), G_{m+1}^{*}(x))=1\text{ for } m\ge 1.$$ First we prove $S(1)$. From Lemma \[gcdforproposition4\] part (1), we know that $$\label{formula1:for:gcddistance1;2}
\gcd(G_{1}^{*}(x),G_{2}^{*}(x)) \text{ divides } \gcd(G_{1}^{*}(x), g(x)G_{0}^{*}(x)).$$ Since $$\gcd(G_{0}^{*}(x),G_{1}^{*}(x))=\gcd(p_{0}(x),p_{1}(x))=1,$$ we have that $$\gcd(G_{1}^{*}(x),g(x)G_{0}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{1}^{*}(x),g(x)).$$ This, (\[formula1:for:gcddistance1;2\]) and Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) imply that $\gcd(G_{1}^{*}(x),G_{2}^{*}(x))=1$.
We suppose that $S(m)$ is true for $m=k-1$. Thus, suppose that $\gcd(G_{k-1}^{*}(x),G_{k}^{*}(x))=1$. We prove that $S(k)$ is true. From Lemma \[gcdforproposition4\] part (1), we know that $$\label{formula2:for:gcddistance1;2}
\gcd(G_{k}^{*}(x),G_{k+1}^{*}(x)) \text{ divides } \gcd(G_{k}^{*}(x), g(x)G_{k-1}^{*}(x)).$$ From Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) we know that $\gcd(G_{k}^{*}(x),g(x))=1$. So, $$\gcd(G_{k}^{*}(x), g(x)G_{k-1}^{*}(x))= \gcd(G_{k}^{*}(x), G_{k-1}^{*}(x)).$$ This, (\[formula2:for:gcddistance1;2\]) and the inductive hypothesis imply that $\gcd(G_{k}^{*}(x),G_{k+1}^{*}(x)=1$.
We now prove the proposition for consecutive even integers (this proof is actually a direct consequence of the previous proof). From Lemma \[gcdforproposition4\] part (2), we have $\gcd(G_{2k}^{*}(x), G_{2k+2}^{*}(x))$ divides $\gcd(G_{2k}^{*}(x),d(x)G_{2k+1}^{*}(x))$. From Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (2) we know that $\gcd(d(x),G_{2k}^{*}(x))=1$. This implies that $\gcd(G_{2k}^{*}(x),d(x)G_{2k+1}^{*}(x))= \gcd(G_{2k}^{*}(x),G_{2k+1}^{*}(x))$. From the previous part –that is, the case when $m$ and $n$ are consecutive integers– of this proof we conclude that $\gcd(G_{2k}^{*}(x),G_{2k+1}^{*}(x))=1$. This proves that $\gcd(G_{2k}^{*}(x), G_{2k+2}^{*}(x))=1$.
Finally we prove the proposition for consecutive odd integers. From the recursive definition of GFP we have that $\gcd(G_{2k+1}^{*}(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))$ equals $$\gcd(d(x)G_{2k}^{*}(x)+g(x)G_{2k-1}^{*}(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))=\gcd(d(x)G_{2k}^{*}(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))$$ From the first case in this proof we know that $\gcd(G_{2k}^{*}(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))=1$. This implies that $\gcd(G_{2k+1}^{*}(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))=\gcd(d(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))$. This and Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] imply that $$\gcd(G_{2k+1}^{*}(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))=\gcd(d(x),G_{2k-1}^{*}(x))=G_1^{*}(x).$$ This completes the proof of part (1).
Identities and other properties of Generalized Fibonacci Polynomials {#mainresults:section}
====================================================================
In this section we present some identities that the GFP satisfy. These identities are required for the proofs of certain divisibility properties of the GFP. The results in this section are proved using the Binet formulas (see Section \[General:Fibonacci:Polynomial\]). Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property1\] part (1) is a variation of a result proved by Hoggatt and Long [@HoggattLong], similarly Proposition \[divisity:property:fibonacci\] is a variation of a divisibility property proved by them in the same paper.
In 1963 Ruggles [@koshy] proved that $F_{n+m}= F_{n} L_{m}-(-1)^m F_{n-m}$. Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property1\] parts (2) and (3) are a generalization of this numerical identity. In 1972 Hansen [@hansen] proved that $ 5 F_{m +n - 1}=L_{m} L_{n} + L_{m - 1} L_{n -1} $. Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property2\] part (1) is a generalization of this numerical identity.
\[divisity:Hogat:property1\] If $\{ G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ and $\{ G_{n}^{'}(x)\}$ are equivalent GFP sequences, then
(1) $G_{m+n+1}^{'}(x)= G_{m+1}^{'}(x)G_{n+1}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{m}^{'}(x)G_{n}^{'}(x)$,
(2) if $n\ge m$, then $G_{n+m}^{'}(x)= \alpha G_{n}^{'}(x) G_{m}^{*}(x)-(-g(x))^{m} G_{n-m}^{'}(x)$,
(3) if $n\ge m$, then $G_{n+m}^{'}(x)= \alpha G_{m}^{'}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x) +(-g(x))^{m} G_{n-m}^{'}(x)$.
We prove part (1). We know that $\{ G_{n}^{'}(x)\}$ satisfies the Binet formula (\[bineformulauno\]). That is, $R_n(x)= (a^{n}-b^{n})/(a-b)$ . (Recall that we use $a:=a(x)$ and $b:=b(x)$.)
Therefore, $G_{m+1}^{'}(x)G_{n+1}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{m}^{'}(x)G_{n}^{'}(x)$ is equal to, $$\left[(a^{m+1}-b^{m+1})(a^{n+1}-b^{n+1})+g(x)(a^{m}-b^{m})(a^{n}-b^{n})\right]/(a-b)^{2}.$$ Simplifying and factoring terms we obtain, $$\left[\left(a^{n+m}(a^2+g(x))+b^{n+m}(b^2+g(x))\right)-(a^nb^m+b^na^m)(ab+g(x))\right]/(a-b)^{2}.$$ Next, since $ab=-g(x)$, we see that the above expression is equal to, $$\left[a^{n+m}(a^2+g(x))+b^{n+m}(b^2+g(x))\right]/(a-b)^{2}.$$ This, with the facts that, $(a^2+g(x))=a(a-b)$ and $(b^2+g(x))=-b(a-b)$, shows that the above expression is equal to $$\left(a^{n+m+1}-b^{n+m+1}\right) /(a-b)=R_{n+m+1}(x).$$
We prove part (2) the proof of part (3) is identical and we omit it. Suppose that $G_{k}^{*}(x)$ is equivalent to $G_{k}^{'}(x)$ and that $G_{k}^{*}(x)$ is of the Lucas type for all $k$. For simplicity let us suppose that $\alpha=1$ (the proof when $\alpha\neq 1$ is similar, so we omit it). Using the Binet formulas (\[bineformulados\]) and (\[bineformulauno\]) we obtain that $G_{n}^{'}(x) G_{m}^{*}(x)-(-g(x))^{m} G_{n-m}^{'}(x)$ equals $$\displaystyle{\frac{(a^{n}-b^{n})(a^{m}+b^{m})-(-g(x))^{m}(a^{n-m}-b^{n-m})}{(a-b)}}.$$ After performing the indicated multiplication and simplifying we obtain that this expression is equal to $$\left[\frac{a^{n+m}-b^{n+m}}{a-b} \right]+ \left[\frac{a^{n}b^{m}-a^{m}b^{n}-(-g(x))^m a^{n-m}+(-g(x))^mb^{n-m}}{a-b}\right].$$ Since $-g(x)=ab$, it is easy to see that the expression in the right bracket is equal to zero. Thus, $(a^{n+m}-b^{n+m})/(a-b)= G_{n+m}^{'}(x)$. This completes the proof of part (2).
\[divisity:Hogat:property2\] Let $\{ G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ and $\{ G_{n}^{'}(x)\}$ be equivalent GFP sequences. If $m\ge 0$ and $n\ge 0$, then
(1) $(a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x) = \alpha^2 G_{m+1}^{*}(x)G_{n+1}^{*}(x)+\alpha^2 g(x)G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x),$
(2) $G_{m+n+2}^{*}(x) = \alpha G_{m+1}^{*}(x)G_{n+1}^{*}(x)+g(x)[\alpha G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x)-G_{m+n}^{*}(x)].$
In this proof we use $\alpha=1$, the proof when $\alpha\neq 1$ is similar, so we omit it. (Recall, once again, that we use $a:=a(x)$ and $b:=b(x)$.)
Proof of part (1). Since $ G_{n}^{*}(x)$ is a Fibonacci polynomial of the Lucas type, we have that $G_{n}^{*}(x)$ satisfies the Binet formula $L_n(x)= (a^{n}+b^{n})/\alpha$ given in (\[bineformulados\]). Therefore, $$\label{divisity:Hogat:property2:formula1}
G_{m+1}^{*}(x)G_{n+1}^{*}(x)+g(x)G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x)$$ is equal to, $$\left[a^{n+1}+b^{n+1}\right]\left[a^{m+1}+b^{m+1}\right]+g(x)\left[a^{n}+b^{n}\right]\left[a^{m}+b^{m}\right].$$ Simplifying and factoring we see that this expression is equal to $$a^{m+n}\left[a^2+g(x)\right]+b^{m+n}\left[b^2+g(x)\right]+(ab+g(x))\left[a^mb^n+a^nb^m\right].$$ Since $$ab=-g(x),\; a^2+g(x)=a(a-b),\text{ and } b^2+g(x)=-b(a-b),$$ we have that the expression in (\[divisity:Hogat:property2:formula1\]) is equal to $(a-b)(a^{m+n+1}-b^{m+n+1})$. We recall that $G_{m+n+1}^{'}(x)$ is equivalent to $G_{m+n+1}^{*}(x)$. Thus, $G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x) =(a^{m+n+1}-b^{m+n+1})/(a-b)$. Therefore, $(a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x) =(a-b)\left[a^{m+n+1}-b^{m+n+1}\right]$. This completes the proof of part (1).
Proof of part (2). From the proof of part (1) we know that $$(a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x)=(a-b)[a^{m+n+1}-b^{m+n+1}].$$ Simplifying the right side of the previous equality we have that $$(a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x)=a^{m+n+2}-ba^{m+n+1}- ab^{m+n+1} + b^{m+n+2}.$$ So, $(a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x)=a^{m+n+2}+ b^{m+n+2} -ab[a^{m+n}+ b^{m+n}]$. We recall that $ab=-g(x)$. Thus, $$(a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x)=a^{m+n+2}+ b^{m+n+2} + g(x)[a^{m+n}+ b^{m+n}].$$ This and the Binet formula (\[bineformulados\]), imply that $$(a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x)=G_{m+n+2}^{*}(x) + g(x)G_{m+n}^{*}(x).$$ So, the proof follows from part (1) of this Proposition.
\[Dic2\] Let $\{ G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ be a GFP sequence of the Lucas type. If $m$, $n$, $r$, and $q$ are positive integers, then
(1) if $m\leq n$, then $G_{m+n}^{*}(x)=\alpha G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}(g(x))^mG_{n-m}^{*}(x)$,
(2) if $r<m$, then there is a polynomial $T(x)$ such that $$G_{mq+r}^{*}(x)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
G_{m}^{*}(x)T(x)+(-1)^{m(t-1)+t+r}(g(x))^{(t-1)m+r} G_{m-r}^{*}(x), & \hbox{ if } $q$ \hbox{ is odd;} \\
G_{m}^{*}(x)T(x)+(-1)^{(m+1)t}(g(x))^{mt} G_{r}^{*}(x), & \hbox{ if } $q$ \hbox{ is even}
\end{array}
\right.$$
where $t=\left\lceil \frac{q}{2} \right\rceil$,
(3) if $n>1$, then there is a polynomial $T_n(x)$ such that $$G_{2^nr}^{*}(x)= G_{r}^{*}(x)T_n(x)+(2/\alpha)(g(x))^{2^{n-1}r}.$$
We prove part (1). Since $G_{m}^{*}(x)$ and $G_{n}^{*}(x)$ are of the Lucas type, they both satisfy the Binet formula (\[bineformulados\]). Thus, $$G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x)=\left(\frac{a^m+b^m}{\alpha}\right)\left(\frac{a^n+b^n}{\alpha}\right)
=\frac{a^{m+n}+b^{m+n}}{\alpha^2}+\frac{(ab)^{m}\left(a^{n-m}+b^{n-m}\right)}{\alpha^2}.$$ So, $G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x)=\left[G_{n+m}^{*}(x)+(ab)^mG_{n-m}^{*}(x)\right]/\alpha.$ This and $ab=-g(x)$, imply that $$G_{m+n}^{*}(x)=\alpha G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x)-(-g(x))^{m} G_{n-m}^{*}(x).$$ This completes the proof of part (1).
We first prove part (2) when $q$ is odd by induction. Suppose $q=2t-1$, and let $S(t)$ be the following statement. For every positive integer $t$ there is a polynomial $T_t(x)$ such that $$G_{m(2t-1)+r}^{*}(x)=G_{m}^{*}(x)T_t(x)+(-1)^{m(t-1)+t+r}(g(x))^{(t-1)m+r} G_{m-r}^{*}(x).$$ From part (1), taking $T_1(x)=\alpha G_{r}^{*}(x)$, it is easy to see that $S(t)$ is true if $t=1$.
We suppose that $S(k)$ is true. That is, suppose that there is a polynomial $T_{k}(x)$ such that $$\label{formula1:for:Dic2}
G_{m(2k-1)+r}^{*}(x)=G_{m}^{*}(x)T_k(x)+(-1)^{m(k-1)+t+r}(g(x))^{(k-1)m+r} G_{m-r}^{*}(x).$$
We prove that $S(k+1)$ is true. Notice that $G_{m(2k+1)+r}^{*}(x)=G_{(2km+r)+m}^{*}(x)$. Therefore, from part (1) we have $$G_{m(2k+1)+r}^{*}(x)=\alpha G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{2km+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}g^m(x)G_{m(2k-1)+r}^{*}(x).$$ This and $S(k)$ (see (\[formula1:for:Dic2\])), imply that $G_{m(2(k+1)+r}^{*}(x)$ equals $$\alpha G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{2km+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}(g(x))^{m}G_{m}^{*}(x)T_k (x)+(-1)^{km+(t+1)+r}(g(x))^{km+r} G_{m-r}^{*}(x).$$ Therefore, $G_{m(2(k+1)+r}^{*}(x)$ equals $$G_{m}^{*}(x)[\alpha G_{2km+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}(g(x))^{m}T_k (x)]+(-1)^{km+(t+1)+r}(g(x))^{km+r} G_{m-r}^{*}(x).$$ This, with $T_{k+1}(x):=\alpha G_{2km+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}(g(x))^mT_k (x)$, implies $S(k+1)$. This complete the proof when $q$ is odd.
We now prove part (2) when $q$ is even by induction –this proof is similar to the case when $q$ is odd–. Suppose $q=2t$, and let $H(t)$ be the following statement. For every positive integer number there is a polynomial $T_t(x)$ such that $$G_{m(2t)+r}^{*}(x)=G_{m}^{*}(x)T_t(x)+(-1)^{(m+1)t}(g(x))^{mt} G_{r}^{*}(x).$$ From part (1), taking $T_1(x)=\alpha G_{r}^{*}(x)$, it is easy to see that $H(t)$ is true if $t=1$.
We suppose that $H(k)$ is true. That is, suppose that there is a polynomial $T_{k}(x)$ such that $$\label{formula2:for:Dic2}
G_{m(2k)+r}^{*}(x)=G_{m}^{*}(x)T_k(x)+(-1)^{(m+1)k}(g(x))^{mk} G_{r}^{*}(x).$$
We prove that $H(k+1)$ is true. Notice that $G_{2m(k+1)+r}^{*}(x)=G_{((2k+1)m+r)+m}^{*}(x)$. Therefore, from part (1) we have that $$G_{2m(k+1)+r}^{*}(x)=\alpha G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{(2k+1)m+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}(g(x))^m G_{2mk+r}^{*}(x).$$ This and $H(k)$ (see (\[formula2:for:Dic2\])), imply that $G_{m(2(k+1))+r}^{*}(x)$ equals $$\alpha G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{(2k+1)m+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}(g(x))^mG_{m}^{*}(x)T_{k} (x)+(-1)^{(k+1)(m+1)}(g(x))^{m(k+1)}G_{r}^{*}(x).$$ Therefore, $G_{m(2(k+1))+r}^{*}(x)$ equals $$G_{m}^{*}(x) \left[\alpha G_{(2k+1)m+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m+1}(g(x))^mT_{k} (x)\right]+(-1)^{(m+1)(k+1)}(g(x))^{m(k+1)} G_{r}^{*}(x).$$ This with $T_{k+1}(x):=\alpha G_{(2k+2)m+r}^{*}(x)+(-1)^{m}(g(x))^mT_{k} (x)$, implies $H(k+1)$.
We finally prove part (3) by induction. Since $G_{n}^{*}(x)$ is of the Lucas type, by the Binet formula it is easy to see that $G_0(x)=2/\alpha$. Let $S(n)$ be the statement: for every positive integer $n$ there is a polynomial $T_n(x)$ such that $G_{2^nr}^{*}(x)= G_{r}^{*}(x)T_n(x)+(2/\alpha)g^{2^{n-1}r}(x)$.
Proof of $S(2)$. From part (1) we have $G_{2^2r}^{*}(x)= G_{2r+2r}^{*}(x)=\alpha(G_{2r}^{*}(x))^2-(2/\alpha)(g(x))^{2r}$. Applying again the result in part (1) for $G_{2r}^{*}(x)$ (and simplifying) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
G_{2^2r}^{*}(x)&=&\alpha[\alpha(G_{r}^{*}(x))^2-\frac{2}{\alpha}(-g(x))^{r}]^2-\frac{2}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2r}\\
&=&G_{r}^{*}(x)[\alpha^3(G_{r}^{*}(x))^3+(-1)^{r+1}4\alpha G_r^{*}(x)(g(x))^{r}]+\frac{4}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2r} -\frac{2}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2r}\\
&=&G_{r}^{*}(x)T_2(x)+\frac{2}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2r}.\end{aligned}$$ where $T_2(x)=\alpha^3(G_{r}^{*}(x))^3+(-1)^{r+1}4\alpha G_{r}^{*}(x)(g(x))^{r}$. This proves $S(2)$.
We suppose that $S(k)$ is true for $k>2$, and we prove $S(k+1)$ is true. That is, we suppose that for a fixed $k$ there is a polynomial $T_k(x)$ such that $$G_{2^kr}^{*}(x)= G_{r}^{*}(x)T_k(x)+(2/\alpha)g^{2^{k-1}r}(x).$$ From part (1) we have $G_{2^{k+1}r}^{*}(x)= G_{2^k r+2^k r}^{*}(x)=\alpha(G_{2^k r}^{*}(x))^2-(2/\alpha)(g(x))^{2^k r}$. Using the result from the inductive hypothesis $S(k)$ and simplifying, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
G_{2^{k+1}r}^{*}(x)&=&\alpha[ G_{r}^{*}(x)T_k(x)+\frac{2}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2^{k-1} r} ]^2-\frac{2}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2^k r}\\
&=&G_{r}^{*}(x)[\alpha G_{r}^{*}(x)T_k ^2(x)+4T_k(x)(g(x))^{2^{k-1} r} ]+\frac{4}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2^k r} -\frac{2}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2^kr}\\
&=&G_{r}^{*}(x)T_{k+1}(x)+\frac{2}{\alpha}(g(x))^{2^kr},\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{k+1}(x)=\alpha G_{r}^{*}(x)T_k ^2(x)+4T_k(x)(g(x))^{2^{k-1} r} $. This completes the proof of part (3).
In the following part of this section, we present two divisibility properties for the GFP.
\[divisity:property:fibonacci\] If $\{ G_{n}^{'}(x)\}$ is a GFP sequence of the Fibonacci type, then $G_{m}^{'}(x)$ divides $G_{n}^{'}(x)$ if and only if $m$ divides $n$.
We first prove the sufficiency. Based on the hypothesis that $m$ divides $n$, there is an integer $q\ge1$ such that $n=mq$. Then, using the Binet formula (\[bineformulauno\]), we have that,
$$G_{m}^{'}(x)=(a^m-b^m)/(a-b)\,\, \text{ and }\,\, G_{mq}^{'}(x)=(a^{mq}-b^{mq})/(a-b).$$
It is easy to see –using induction on $q$– that $(a^m-b^m)$ divides $(a^{mq}-b^{mq})$ which implies that $G_{m}^{'}(x)$ divides $G_{mq}^{'}(x)$. This proves the sufficiency.
We now prove the necessity. Suppose that $m$ does not divide $n$ and that $G_{m}^{'}(x)$ divides $G_{n}^{'}(x)$ for $m$ and $n$ greater than $1$. Therefore, there integers $q$ and $r$ with $0<r<n$ such that $n=mq+r$. Then by Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property1\] part (1) $$\begin{aligned}
G_{n}^{'}(x) &=& G_{mq+r}^{'}(x) \\
&=& G_{mq+1}^{'}(x)G_{r}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{mq}^{'}(x)G_{r-1}^{'}(x)\\
&=& \left(d(x)G_{mq}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{mq-1}^{'}(x)\right)G_{r}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{mq}^{'}(x)G_{r-1}^{'}(x)\\
&=& d(x)(x) G_{mq}^{'}(x) G_{r}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{mq-1}^{'}(x)G_{r}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{mq-1}^{'}(x)G_{r}^{'}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Grouping terms and simplifying we obtain, $$G_{n}^{'}(x)=G_{mq}^{'}(x)G_{r+1}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{mq-1}^{'}(x)G_{r}^{'}(x).$$ This and the fact that $G_{m}^{'}(x)\mid G_{n}^{'}(x)$ and $G_{m}^{'}(x) \mid G_{mq}^{'}(x)$ imply that $$G_{m}^{'}(x)\mid g(x)G_{mq-1}^{'}(x)G_{r}^{'}(x).$$ From Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) and Proposition \[gcddistance1;2\] we know that $\gcd(G_{mq}^{'}(x),g(x))=1$ and $\gcd(G_{mq-1}^{'}(x), G_{mq}^{'}(x))=1$, respectively. This implies that $G_{m}^{'}(x)\mid G_{r}^{'}(x).$ That is a contradiction since degree ($G_{r-1}^{'}(x))<$ degree $(G_{m-1}^{'}(x))$. This completes the proof.
\[divisibity:property:first:type\] Let $m$ be a positive integer that is not a power of two. If $G_{m}^{*}(x)$ is a GFP of Lucas type, then for all odd divisors $q$ of $m$, it holds that $G_{m/q}^{*}(x)$ divides $G_{m}^{*}(x)$. More over $G_{m/q}^{*}(x)$ is of the Lucas type.
Let $q$ be an odd divisor of $m$. If $q=1$ the result is obvious. Let us suppose that $q\not = 1$. Therefore, there is an integer $d>1$ such that $m=dq$. Using the Binet formula (\[bineformulados\]), where $a:=a(x)$ and $b:=b(x)$, we have $G_{m}^{*}(x)=G_{dq}^{*}(x)=(a^{dq}+b^{dq})/\alpha$. Let $X=a^{d}$ and $Y=b^{d}$. Using induction it is possible to prove that $X+Y$ divides $X^q+Y^q$. This implies that there is a polynomial $Q(x)$ such that $(X^q+Y^q)/\alpha=Q(x)(X+Y)/\alpha$. Therefore, $$G_{m}^{*}(x)=G_{dq}^{*}(x)=(a^{dq}+b^{dq})/\alpha=Q(x)(a^{d}+b^{d})/\alpha.$$ This and the Binet formula (\[bineformulados\]) imply that $G_{m}^{*}(x)=G_{d}^{*}(x) Q(x)$.
Characterization of the strong divisibility property {#gcd:characterization}
====================================================
In this section we prove the main results of this paper. Thus, we prove the necessary and sufficient condition for the strong divisibility property for generalized Fibonacci polynomial of the Fibonacci type. We also prove that the strong divisibility property holds partially for generalized Fibonacci polynomial of the Lucas type. The other important result in this section is that the strong divisibility property holds partially for a generalized Fibonacci polynomial and its equivalent. The results here therefore provide a complete characterization of the strong divisibility property satisfied by the GFP of Fibonacci type.
We note that if $G_{m}^{*}(x)$ and $G_{n}^{\prime}(x)$ are two equivalent polynomial from Table \[equivalent\], then $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x), G_{n}^{'}(x))$ is either one or $G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{*}(x)$. However, it is not true in general. Here we give an example of a couple GFP polynomials that do not satisfies this property. Firstly we define a Fibonacci type polynomial $$G_0^{\prime}(x)=0, \; G_1^{\prime}(x)= 1,\; \text{and} \; G_{n}^{\prime}(x)= (2x+1) G_{n - 1}^{\prime}(x) + G_{n - 2}^{\prime}(x) \text{ for } n\ge 2.$$ We now define the equivalent polynomial of the Lucas type $$G_0^{*}(x)=2, \; G_1^{*}(x)= 2x+1,\; \text{and} \; G_{n}^{*}(x)= (2x+1) G_{n - 1}^{*}(x) + G_{n - 2}^{*}(x) \text{ for } n\ge 2.$$ After some calculations we can see that $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x), G_{n}^{'}(x))$ is one, two or $G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{*}(x)$. Using the same polynomials we can see also that $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x))$ is one, two or $G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{*}(x)$. If we do the same calculations for numerical sequences (Fibonacci and Lucas numbers), we can see that they have the same behaviour.
In this section we use the notation $E_{2}(n)$ to represent the *integer exponent base two* of a positive integer $n$ which is defined to be the largest integer $k$ such that $2^{k}\mid n$.
\[Dic1\] If $R(x)$, $S(x)$ and $T(x)$ are polynomial in $\mathbb{Z}[x]$, then $$\gcd(R(x),T(x))=\gcd(R(x),R(x)S(x)-T(x)).$$
\[propiedadDivision\] Let $\{ G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ be a GFP sequence of the Lucas type. If $m \mid n$ and $E_2(n)=E_{2}(m)$, then $
\gcd(G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=G_{m}^{*}(x).
$
First of all we recall that $E_{2}(n)$ is the largest integer $k$ such that $2^{k}\mid n$. We suppose that $n=mq$ with $q\in\mathbb{N}$. Since $E_{2}(m)=E_{2}(n)=E_{2}(mq)$, we conclude that $q$ is odd. This, Lemma \[Dic1\] and Proposition $\ref{Dic2}$ part (2) imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\gcd(G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))&=&\gcd(G_{qm}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))\\
&=&\gcd (G_{m}^{*}(x)T(x)+(-1)^{(n-1)m+n}(g(x))^{(n-1)m} G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))\\
&=&G_{m}^{*}(x). \hspace{10.1cm}\end{aligned}$$ This proves the proposition.
\[divisity:property:firstype\] Let $G_{m}^{*}(x)$ be a GFP of Lucas type. If $m>0$ is not a power of two, then for all odd divisors $q$ of $m$, it follows that $G_{m/q}^{*}(x)$ divides $G_{m}^{*}(x)$. More over $G_{m/q}^{*}(x)$ is of the Lucas type.
It is easy to see that $E_2(m/q)=E_2(m)$. Therefore, the conclusion follows by Proposition \[propiedadDivision\].
\[propiedadDivisioncase2\] Let $d_{k}=\gcd(G_0 ^*(x),G_{k} ^{*}(x))$ where $G_{k}^{*}(x)$ is GFP of the Lucas type. Suppose that there is an integer $k'>0$ such that $d_{k'}=2$. If $m$ is the minimum positive integer such that $d_{m}=2$, then $m|n$ if and only if $d_{n}=2$.
We suppose $m$ is the minimum positive integer such that $d_{m}=2$. Suppose that $m|n$, by Proposition \[propiedadDivision\] we know that $\gcd(G^* _{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=G_{m}^{*}(x)$ (we recall that $G^*_{0}(x)=p_0(x)$ and $|p_0(x)|=1$ or $2$). This and the fact that $2|G_{m} ^*(x)$, implies that $\gcd(G_{0} ^*(x),G_{n} ^*(x))=2$. This proves that $d_{n}=2$.
Suppose that there is $n\in \mathbb{N}-\{m\}$ that satisfies that $d_{n}=2$ (note $2|\gcd(G^{*}_{m}(x),G_{n} ^*(x)$). From the division algorithms we have that there are integer $q$ and $r$ such that $n=mq+r$ where $0\le r< m$. This and Proposition \[Dic2\] part (2), imply that $$\gcd(G^{*} _{m}(x),G_{n} ^*(x))=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\gcd(G^* _{m}(x),(g(x))^{(t-1)m+r} G_{m-r}^{*}(x)) & \hbox{ if } $q$ \hbox{ is odd;} \\
\gcd(G^* _{m}(x),(g(x))^{mt} G_{r}^{*}(x)) & \hbox{ if } $q$ \hbox{ is even.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ This, Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3), implies that $\gcd(G^* _{m}(x),G_{n} ^*(x))$ is either $\gcd(G^* _{m}(x),G_{m-r}^{*}(x))$ or $\gcd(G^* _{m}(x),G_{r}^{*}(x))$. From this and the fact that $2|\gcd(G^* _{m}(x),G_{n} ^*(x))$, we have that $\gcd(G^* _{r}(x),G^* _{0}(x))=2$ or $\gcd(G^* _{m-r}(x),G^*_{0}(x))=2$ . This holds only if $r=0$, due to definition of $m$. Therefore, $n=mq$.
\[fundamental\] Let $G_{k}^{*}(x)$ be a GFP of Lucas type and let $n=mq+r$ where $m, q$ and $r$ are positive integers with $r<m$. If $m_1= m-r$ when $q$ is odd and $m_1=r$ when $q$ is even, then $
\gcd(G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x)).
$
Let $$f(x)=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{m(t-1)+t+r}(g(x))^{(t-1)m+r} , & \mbox{ if $q$ is odd;}\\
(-1)^{(m+1)t}(g(x))^{mt}, & \mbox{ if $q$ is even.}
\end{cases}$$ This and Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) imply that $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),f(x))=1$. Therefore, by Proposition \[Dic2\] part (2) it follows that $\gcd(G_{mq+r}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m}^{*}(x)T(x)+f(x)G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*})$. Now it is easy to see that $$\gcd (G_{m}^{*}(x)T(x)+f(x)G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*})=\gcd (f(x) G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x)).$$ Since $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),f(x))=1$, by Proposition \[prop2;1\] part (1) we have $\gcd (f(x) G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))$.
\[second:main:thm\] Let $\{ G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ be a GFP of the Lucas type. If $m$ and $n$ are positive integers and $d=\gcd(m,n)$, then $$\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))= \begin{cases} G_{d}^{*}(x) & \mbox{ if }\; E_{2}(m)= E_{2}(n);\\
\gcd(G_{d}^*(x),G_{0}^*(x)) & \mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
First of all we prove the result for $E_{2}(n)=E_{2}(m)$. From the Euclidean algorithm we know that there are non-negative integers $q$ and $r$ such that $n=mq+r$ with $r<m$. Let $d=\gcd(m,n)$. Clearly, if $r=0$, then $d=m$. Therefore, the result holds by Proposition \[propiedadDivision\].
We suppose that $r\neq 0$. If we take $m_1$ as in Lemma \[fundamental\], then $$\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{mq+r}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x)).$$ Let $M_1=\{m,m_1 \}$. Notice that $\gcd(m_1,m)=d$, $E_2(m)=E_2(m_1)$ and that $m_1<m$. Therefore, there are non-negative integers $q_1$ and $r_1$ such that $m=m_1q_1+r_1$ with $r_1<m_1$. Again, if $r_1=0$, by Proposition \[propiedadDivision\] we obtain that $
\gcd(G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{m_1}^{*}(x))=G_{d}^{*} (x).
$ If $r_1\neq 0$ we repeat the previous step and then we can guarantee that $$\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m_2}^{*}(x)),$$ where $$m_2=\begin{cases}m_1-r_1 & \mbox{ if $q$ is odd};\\
r_1 & \mbox{ if } \mbox{ if $q$ is even}.
\end{cases}$$ We repeat this procedure $t$ times until we obtain the ordered decreasing sequence $m>m_1>m_2>\cdots >m_t\geq d$ such that $E_2(m)=E_2(m_t)$ and $\gcd(m_t,m_{t-1})=d$, where $$m_t=\begin{cases}m_{t-1}-r_{t-1} & \mbox{ if $q$ is odd};\\
r_{t-1} & \mbox{ if } \mbox{ if $q$ is even}.
\end{cases}$$ Notice that $M_t=\{m, m_1, m_2, \ldots, m_t\} =M_{t-1}\cup\{m_t\}$ is an ordered set of natural numbers, therefore there is a minimum element. Since $M_t$ is constructed with a sequence of decreasing positive integer numbers, there must be an integer $k$ such that $M_{t}\subset M_k$ for all $t<k$ and $M_{k+1}$ is undefined. Thus, the procedure ends with $M_k$. Note that $m>m_1>m_2>\cdots >m_k \geq d$ such that $E_2(m)=E_2(m_k)$ and $\gcd(m_k,m_{k-1})=d$.
[**Claim**]{}. The minimum element of $M_k$ is $m_k=d$ and $m_{k}\mid m_{k-1}$.
Proof of claim. From the Euclidean algorithm we know that there are non-negative integers $q_k$ and $r_k$ such that $m_{k-1}=m_kq_k+r_k$ with $r_k<m_k$. If $r_k\neq 0$ we can repeat the procedure describe above to obtain a new set $M_{k+1}$ with $M_{k} \subset M_{k+1}$. That is a contradiction. Therefore, $r_k=0$. So, $m_{k-1}=m_kq_k$. This implies that $\gcd(m_k,m_{k-1})=d$. Thus, $m_k=d$. This proves the claim.
The Claim and the Proposition \[propiedadDivision\] allow us to conclude that $$\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{m_1}^{*}(x))=\cdots=\gcd (G_{m_{k-1}}^{*}(x),G_{m_{k}}^{*}(x))=G_{d}^{*}.$$
We now prove by cases that $\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{d}^{*}(x),G_{0}^{*}(x))$ if $E_{2}(n)\neq E_{2}(m)$ and $d=\gcd(n,m)$.
**Case 1.** Suppose that $m<n$ and that $E_2(n)<E_2(m)$. From the Euclidean algorithm there are two non-negative integers $q$ and $r$ such that $n=mq+r$ with $r<m$. Let $m_1= m-r$ when $q$ is odd and $m_1=r$ when $q$ is even (as defined as in Lemma \[fundamental\]). Since $n=mq+r$ and $E_2(n)<E_2(m)$, we have that $r\neq 0$. It is easy to see that $E_2(n)=E_2(r)$, and therefore $E_2(n)=E_2(m_1)$. This and Lemma \[fundamental\] imply that $
\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{m_1}^{*}(x)).
$ Since $E_2(m_1)=E_2(n)<E_2(m)$ and $m_1<m$, the criteria for Case 2 are satisfied here, so the proof of this case may be completed as we are going to do in Case 2 below.
**Case 2.** Suppose that $E_2(m)<E_2(n)$ and that $m<n$. From the Euclidean algorithm we know that there are two non-negative integers $r$ and $q$ such that $n=mq+r$ with $ r<m$. If $r=0$, then $q$ must be even (because $E_2(m)<E_2(n)$). Let $k=E_2(q)$ and we consider two subcases on $k$.
**Subcase 1.** If $k=1$, then $q=2t$ where $t$ is odd. Therefore, by the Proposition \[Dic2\] part (1) we have that $
G_{n}^{*}(x)=G_{2mt}^{*}(x)=\alpha (G_{mt}^{*}(x))^2+(-1)^{mt+1}(G_0 ^*(x))(-g(x))^{mt}.
$ This, Proposition \[propiedadDivision\], Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) and Lemma \[Dic1\] imply that
$$\begin{aligned}
\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))&=& \gcd\left(\alpha (G_{mt}^{*}(x))^2+(-1)^{mt+1}G_0 ^*(x)(-g(x))^{mt}, G_{m}^{*}(x)\right) \\
&=& \gcd((-1)^{mt+1}G_0 ^*(x)(-g(x))^{mt},G_{m}^{*}(x)) \\
&=& \gcd(G_0 ^*(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))\\
&=& \gcd(G_0 ^*(x),G_{d}^{*}(x)).
\end{aligned}$$
**Subcase 2.** If $k>1$, then $q=2^kt$ where $t$ is odd. Therefore, by the Proposition \[Dic2\] part (3), there is a polynomial $T_k(x)$ such that $
G_{n}^{*}=G_{2^kmt}^{*}=G_{mt}^{*}(x)T_k(x)+G_0 ^*(x)g^{2^{k-1}mt}(x).
$ This, Proposition \[propiedadDivision\], Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) and Lemma \[Dic1\] imply $$\begin{aligned}
\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))&=& \gcd(G_{mt}^{*}(x)T_k(x)+G_0 ^*(x) g^{2^{k-1}mt}(x) , G_{m}^{*}(x)) \\
&=& \gcd(G_0 ^*(x) g^{2^{k-1}mt}(x) ,G_{m}^{*}(x)) \\
&=&\gcd(G_0 ^*(x) ,G_{m}^{*}(x))\\
&=& \gcd(G_0 ^*(x),G_{d}^{*}(x)).
\end{aligned}$$
Let us now suppose that $r\neq 0$. This and Lemma \[fundamental\], imply that $
\gcd (G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd (G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{m_1}^{*}(x)),
$ where $m_1= m-r$ when $q$ is odd and $m_1=r$ when $q$ is even (as defined as in Lemma \[fundamental\]). Therefore, $m_1<m<n$ and $\gcd(m,n)=\gcd(m,m_1)=d$.
We analyze both, the case in which $m_1\mid m$ and the case in which $m_1 \nmid m$. Suppose that $m=m_1 q_2$ and we consider two cases for $q_2$.
**Subcase $q_2$ is odd.** If $q_2$ is odd we have that $E_2(m_1)=E_2(m)$. Therefore, by Proposition \[propiedadDivision\] we obtain that $$\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{m_1}^{*}(x))=G_{d}^{*}(x)\; \text{ and }\; E_{2}(G_{d}^{*}(x))<E_{2}(G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$ This imply that $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{d}^{*}(x),G_{0}^{*}(x))$.
**Subcase $q_2$ is even.** If $q_2$ is even, then $E_2(m_1)<E_{2}(m)$. Now it is easy to see that $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{0}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{d}^{*}(x),G_{0}^{*}(x))$.
Now suppose that $m_1 \nmid m$. Therefore there are two non-negative integers $r_2$ and $q_2$ such that $m=m_1q_2+r_2$ where $0<r_2<m_1$. From Lemma \[fundamental\] we guarantee that we can find $m_2$ such that $m_2<m_1$, $\gcd(m_1,m_2)=d$ and $\gcd(G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m_2}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))$. In this form we construct a set $M_t= \{n, m, m_1, m_2, \ldots, m_t\}$ where $n> m>m_1>\cdots >m_t$ such that $\gcd(m_j,m_{j-1})=d$ and $$\gcd(G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m_1}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\cdots=
\gcd(G_{m_j}^{*}(x),G_{m_{j-1}}^{*}(x)).$$ From Lemma \[fundamental\] we know that $n> m>m_1>\cdots >m_j$ ends only if $r_j=0$. Since $M_j= \{n, m, m_1, m_2, \ldots, m_j\}$ is an ordered sequence of natural numbers, it has a minimum element $m_j$.
Therefore, $m_{j}\mid m_{j-1}$. It is easy to see that $
\gcd(G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m_j}^{*}(x),G_{m_{j-1}}^{*}(x))$. This is equivalent to $\gcd(G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{m}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{d}^{*}(x),G_{0}^{*}(x)).
$ This completes the proof.
Let $d_{k}=\gcd(G_0 ^*(x),G_{k} ^{*}(x))$ where $G_{k}^{*}(x)$ is GFP of the Lucas type. If $m$ and $n$ are positive integers such that $E_{2}(n)\ne E_{2}(n)$, then
(1) Suppose that there is an integer $k'>0$ such that $d_{k'}=2$. If $r$ is the minimum positive integer such that $d_{r}=2$, then $$\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))= \begin{cases} 2 & \mbox{ if }\; r|\gcd(m,n);\\
1 & \mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
(2) If $d_{k}\ne 2$ for every positive integer $k$, then $\gcd(G_{m}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=1$.
It straightforward from Proposition (\[propiedadDivisioncase2\]).
\[gcd:fibonaccilucas:samegcdlucaslucas\] Let $\{ G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ and $\{ G_{n}^{'}(x)\}$ be equivalent GFP. If $m$ and $n$ are positive integers, then
(1) $\gcd(G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)),$
(2) if $m>n$, then $\gcd(G^{'}_{m-n+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)),$
(3) if $m<n$, then $\gcd(G^{'}_{n-m+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m-1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)).$
We first prove part (1) by induction. Let $S(n)$ be the statement (recall that $a-b=a(x)-b(x)$): for every $n\ge 1$ $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{n}^{*}(x))=1$. Recall that in a GFP of Lucas type holds that $\gcd(p_0(x), p_1(x))=\gcd(p_0(x), d(x))=1$ and that $2p_1(x)=p_0(x)d_(x)$. From this and using Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property2\] part (1) with $m=n=0$, it is easy to see that $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{1}^{*}(x))=1$. We now prove that $S(2)$ is also true. It is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{2}^{*}(x))&=&\gcd(a^2(x)+b^2(x)-2ab,G_2^{*}(x))\\
&=&\gcd(G_{2}^{*}(x)+2g(x),G_{2}^{*}(x))\\
&=&\gcd(2g(x),G_{2}^{*}(x)).\end{aligned}$$
From Lemma (\[gcdlemmas\]) part (3) we know that $\gcd(g(x),G_{2}^{*}(x))=1$. This implies that either $$\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{2}^{*}(x))=1 \; \text{ or } \; \gcd((a-b)^2,G_{2}^{*}(x))=2.$$ If $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{2}^{*}(x))=2$, then $2\mid \left(d^2(x)+4g(x)\right)$ and $2\mid G_{2}^{*}(x)$. So, $2\mid d^2(x)$ and $2\mid G_{2}^{*}(x)$. From Lemma (\[gcdlemmas\]) part (2) we know that $\gcd(d(x),G_{2}^{*}(x))=1$. This implies that $2 \mid 1$. Therefore, $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{2}^{*}(x))=1$. This proves $S(2)$.
Suppose that that $S(n)$ is true for some $k$. Thus, suppose that $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{k}^{*}(x))=1$. We prove that $S(k+1)$ is true. Suppose that $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{k+1}^{*}(x))=r(x)$. Therefore, $r(x)\mid(a-b)^2$ and $r(x)\mid G_{k+1}^{*}(x)$. So, $r(x) \mid [(a-b)^2G^{'} _{2k+1}(x)-\alpha^2(G^*_{k+1}(x))^2]$. From Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property2\] part (1) we know that if $m=n=k$, then $$(a-b)^2G^{'} _{k+k+1}(x)=\alpha^2 G_{k+1}^{*}(x)G_{k+1}^{*}(x)+\alpha^2g(x)G_{k}^{*}(x)G_{k}^{*}(x).$$ Thus, $
(a-b)^2G^{'} _{2k+1}(x)-\alpha^2(G^{*}_{k+1}(x))^2=\alpha^2g(x)(G^{*}_k (x))^2.
$ This implies that $r(x)$ divides $ \alpha^2 g(x)(G^{*} _k(x))^2$. Since $|\alpha| = 1$ or $2$, from the definition of GFP and Proposition \[gcddistance1;2\] is easy to see that $\gcd(\alpha,g(x))=1$. We know that $\gcd(\alpha, G_n)=1$ for every $n$. So, $\gcd(\alpha, r(x))=1$. We recall that from Lemma (\[gcdlemmas\]) part (3), that $\gcd(g(x),G_{k+1}^{*}(x))=1$. This and $r(x)\mid G_{k+1}^{*}(x)$ imply that $\gcd(r(x),g(x))=1$. Now it is easy to see that $r(x)\mid (G^{*} _{k}(x))^2$. Since $r(x)\mid (a-b)^2$ and $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{k}^{*}(x))=1$, we have that $r(x)=1$. This proves that $S(k+1)$ is true. That is, $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{n}^{*}(x))=1$.
We now prove that $\gcd(G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)).$ Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property2\] part (1), implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\gcd((a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))&=&\gcd(\alpha^{2}G_{m+1}^{*}(x)G_{n+1}^{*}(x)+\alpha^{2}g(x)G_{m}^{*}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))\\
&=&\gcd(\alpha^{2} G_{m+1}^{*}(x)G_{n+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)).\end{aligned}$$ From Proposition \[gcddistance1;2\] and $\gcd (\alpha, G_{n+1})=1$ we know that $\gcd(\alpha^{2} G_{n+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=1$. Therefore, by Proposition \[prop2;1\] part (2) we have $\gcd(G_{m+1}^{*}(x)G_{n+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))$. This implies that $$\gcd((a-b)^2G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$ This and $\gcd((a-b)^2,G_{n}^{*}(x))=1$ imply that $$\gcd(G^{'}_{m+n+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m+1}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$
Proof of part (2). From Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) it is easy to see that $\gcd(G_{m-n+1}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x))$ is equal to $\gcd((g(x))^n G_{m+1-n}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x))$. This and Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property1\] part (2) (after interchanging the roles of $m$ and $n$), imply that $\gcd(G_{m-n+1}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x))$ equals $$\gcd(\alpha G_{m+1}^{'}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x)-G_{m+1+n}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{m+n+1}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$ The conclusion follows from part (1).
Proof of part (3). From Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) it is easy to see that $$\gcd(G_{n-m+1}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x)) =\gcd((-g(x))^{m-1} G_{n-(m-1)}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$ This and Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property1\] part (3), imply that $\gcd(G_{m-n+1}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x))$ equals $$\gcd(G_{n+m-1}^{'}(x)-\alpha G_{m-1}^{'}(x)G_{n}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{n+(m-2)+1}^{'}(x), G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$ The conclusion follows from part (1).
\[combine:gcd:Lucas:Fibobacci\] Let $\{ G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ and $\{ G_{n}^{'}(x)\}$ be equivalent GFP. If $m$ and $n$ are positive integers and $\gcd(m,n)=d$, then $$\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))= \begin{cases}
G_{d}^{*}(x) & \mbox{ if } E_2(m)>E_2(n); \\
\gcd(G_{ d }^{*}(x),G_{0}^{*}(x)) & \mbox{ otherwise. }
\end{cases}$$
We suppose that $E_2(m)>E_2(n)$. We prove this part of the Theorem by cases.
[**Case**]{} $m>n$. Since $m>n$, there is a positive integer $l$ such that $m=n+l$. Therefore, $\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G^{'}_{l-1+n+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))$. This and Proposition \[gcd:fibonaccilucas:samegcdlucaslucas\] part (1) imply that $\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{l}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))$. Since $E_2(m)>E_2(n)$ and $m=n+l$, we have that $E_2(l)=E_2(n)$. This and Theorem \[second:main:thm\] imply that $\gcd(G_{l}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=G_{\gcd(l,n)}^{*}(x)$. From Lemma \[Dic1\] it is easy to see that $\gcd(l,n)=\gcd(m,n)$. Thus, $\gcd(G_{l}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{*}(x)$. So, $\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{*}(x)$.
[**Case**]{} $m<n$. The proof of this case is similar to the proof of Case $m>n$. It is enough to replace $m$ by $n-(l+1)$ in $\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))$, and then use Proposition \[gcd:fibonaccilucas:samegcdlucaslucas\] part (3).
We now suppose that $E_2(m)\le E_2(n)$. We prove this part of the Theorem by cases.
[**Case**]{} $m>n$. So, there is a positive integer $l$ such that $m= l+n$. Therefore by Proposition \[gcd:fibonaccilucas:samegcdlucaslucas\] part (1) we have $$\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G^{'}_{n+(l-1)+1}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{l}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$ Note that if $m=n+l$ and $E_2(m)\le E_2(n)$, then there are integers $k_1$, $k_2$, $q_1$ and $q_2$ with $k_1\leq k_2$ such that $m=2^{k_1} q_1$ and $n=2^{k_2} q_2$. Since $m=n+l$, we see that $E_2(l)\neq E_2(n)$. This and Theorem \[second:main:thm\] imply that $\gcd(G_{l}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{0}^{*}(x),G_{\gcd(n,l)}^{*}(x))$. Thus, $\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))=\gcd(G_{0}^{*}(x),G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{*}(x))$.
[**Case**]{} $m<n$. The proof of this case is similar to the proof of Case $m>n$. It is enough to replace $m$ by $n-(l+1)+1$ in $\gcd(G^{'}_{m}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x))$, and then use Proposition \[gcd:fibonaccilucas:samegcdlucaslucas\] part (3).
[**Case**]{} $m=n$. Since $n=(2n-1)-n+1$, taking $m=2n-1$ in Proposition \[gcd:fibonaccilucas:samegcdlucaslucas\] part (2) and using Theorem \[second:main:thm\] we obtain that $$\gcd(G'_{n}(x),G^{*} _{n}(x))=\gcd(G'_{(2n-1)-n+1}(x),G^{*} _{n}(x))=\gcd(G^{*} _{2n}(x),G^{*} _n(x))=\gcd(G_{0}^{*}(x),G_{n}^{*}(x)).$$ This completes the proof.
Hoggatt and Bicknell-Johnson [@hoggatt Thm. 3.4] proved that Fibonacci polynomials, Chebyshev polynomials of second kind, Morgan-Voyce polynomial, and Schechter polynomial satisfy the strong divisibility property. Theorem \[gcd:property:fibonacci\] proves the necessary and sufficient condition for the polynomials in a generalized Fibonacci polynomial sequence to satisfy the strong divisibility property. Norfleet [@norfleet] also prove the some strong divisibility property for GFP of Fibonacci type.
\[gcd:property:fibonacci\] Let $\{ G_{k}(x)\}$ be a GFP of either Fibonacci type or Lucas type. For any two positive integers $m$ and $n$ it holds that $\gcd(G_{m}(x),G_{n}(x))=G_{\gcd(m,n)}(x)$ if and only if $\{ G_{k}(x)\}$ is a sequence of GFP of the Fibonacci type.
Let $\{ G_{n}^{'}(x)\}$ be a generalized Fibonacci polynomial sequence of the Fibonacci type, we now show that $\gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x))$ divides $G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{'}(x)$ for $m>0$, $n>0$ and vice versa.
If $G_{n}^{'}$ is of Fibonacci type, by Proposition \[divisity:property:fibonacci\], it is clear that $G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{'} \mid \gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x))$. Next we show that $\gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x))$ divides $G_{\gcd(m,n)}^{'}$.
Let $k=\gcd(m,n)$ and suppose without lost of generality that $k$ is neither equal $n$ nor equal $m$. The Bézout identity implies that there are two positive integers $r$ and $s$ such that $k=rm-sn$. So, $rm=k+sn$ and $G_{rm}^{'}(x) =G_{k+sn}^{'}(x)$ This, Proposition \[divisity:Hogat:property1\] part (1), and the fact that $k+sn=(k+(sn-1))+1$, imply that $$G_{rm}^{'}(x)= G_{k+1}^{'}(x)G_{s'n}^{'}(x)+g(x)G_{k}^{'}(x)G_{sn-1}^{'}(x).$$
We note that, by Proposition \[divisity:property:fibonacci\], $G_{m}^{'}(x)$ divides $G_{rm}^{'}(x)$ and $G_{n}^{'}(x)$ divides $G_{sn}^{'}(x)$. Since $\gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x)) \mid G_{m}^{'}(x)$ and $\gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x)) \mid G_{n}^{'}(x)$, and $G_{m}^{'}(x)\mid G_{rm}^{'}(x)$ and $G_{n}^{'}(x)\mid G_{s'n}^{'}(x)$, we have that $\gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x))$ divides $G_{rm}^{'}(x)$ and $G_{s'n}^{'}(x)$. This together with Lemma \[gcdlemmas\] part (3) and the fact that $\gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x))$ does not divide $G_{s'n-1}^{'}(x)$, implies that $\gcd(G_{m}^{'}(x),G_{n}^{'}(x))$ divides $G_{k}^{'}(x)$.
Conversely, suppose that $\{ G_{n}(x)\}$ is a generalized Fibonacci polynomial sequence such that the strong divisibility property holds, or $\gcd(G_{m}(x),G_{n}(x))=G_{\gcd(m,n)}(x)$ for any two positive integers $m$ and $n$, we now show that both $G_{m}(x)$ and $G_{n}(x)$ are GFP of the Fibonacci type. We prove this using the method of contradiction.
If $G_{m}(x)$ and $G_{n}(x)$ are in $\{ G_{n}(x)\}$ such that they are both GFP of the Lucas type, then by Theorem \[second:main:thm\] we obtain a contradiction. This completes the proof.
The gcd properties of Familiar GFP and questions
================================================
In this section we formulate a general question and present three tables which are corollaries of the main results in Section \[gcd:characterization\]. These tables give us the strong divisibility property of the familiar polynomials which satisfy the Binet formulas (\[bineformulados\]) and (\[bineformulauno\]). Table \[corollary\_Fibonacci\] gives the gcd’s for Fibonacci polynomials, Pell polynomials, Fermat polynomials, Jacobsthal polynomials, Chebyshev’s second kind polynomials and one type of Morgan-Voyce $B_n$ polynomials. Table \[corollary\_lucas\] gives the strong divisibility property of the Lucas polynomials, Pell-Lucas polynomials, Fermat-Lucas polynomials, Jacobsthal-Lucas polynomials, Chebyshev’s first kind polynomials and Morgan-Voyce $C_n$ polynomials, while Table \[corollary\_lucas\_2\] gives the $\gcd$ of a polynomial of the Lucas type and its equivalent.
We should note here that in the case of Table \[corollary\_lucas\], the strong divisibility property is partially satisfied since it only holds when the largest powers of 2 that divides $m$ and the largest powers of 2 that divides $n$ are both equal. (That is, $E_{2}(m)= E_{2}(n)$.) Similarly the strong divisibility property only holds in Table \[corollary\_lucas\_2\] when $E_{2}(n)<E_{2}(m)$.
\[!ht\]
\[!ht\]
\[!ht\]
Questions
---------
1. Let $\{G_{n}^{*}(x)\}$ and $\{ S_{n}(x)\}$ be generalized Fibonacci polynomial sequences of Lucas type and Fibonacci type, respectively. If $S_{n}(x) $ is not the equivalent of $G_{n}^{*}(x)$, what is the $\gcd(G_{k}^{*}(x),S_{m}(x))$? We believe that the answer is: $1$ or $x$.
2. Let $\{G_{n}(x)\}$ and $\{S_{n}(x)\}$ be two different Fibonacci polynomial sequences of the same type, then do they satisfy the strong divisibility property?
3. ([**Conjecture.**]{}) The GFP $T_{n}$ and $S_{m}$ satisfy the strong divisibility property if and only if $T_{n}$ and $S_{m}$ are both of Fibonacci type and they belong to the same generalized Fibonacci polynomial sequence. Theorems \[combine:gcd:Lucas:Fibobacci\] and \[gcd:property:fibonacci\] are evidence that the conjecture is true.
4. Let $\mathcal{R}$ be a set of recursive functions. If $\mathcal{F} : \mathbb{N} \to \mathcal{R}$, $\mathcal{G} : \mathcal{R} \times \mathcal{R} \to \mathcal{R}$ and $g: \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$, under what conditions $\mathcal{G} \circ (\mathcal{F} \times \mathcal{F} )= \mathcal{F} \circ g$ for all $\mathcal{F}\in \mathcal{R}$ and a fix $g$?
Acknowledgement
===============
The first and last authors were partially supported by The Citadel Foundation.
[99]{}
R. André-Jeannin, Differential properties of a general class of polynomials, *Fibonacci Quart.* **33** (1995), 453–458.
R. André-Jeannin, A generalization of Morgan-Voyce polynomials, *Fibonacci Quart.* **32** (1994), 228–231.
R. Flórez, R. Higuita and A. Mukherjee, Alternating sums in the Hosoya polynomial triangle, *J. Integer Seq.*, **17** (2014), Article 14.9.5.
R. Flórez, R. Higuita and L. Junes, 9-modularity and gcd properties of generalized Fibonacci numbers, *Integers*, **14** (2014), Paper No. A55, 14pp.
R. Flórez and L. Junes, gcd properties in Hosoya’s triangle, *Fibonacci Quart.* **50** (2012), 163–174.
M. Hall, Divisibility Sequences of Third Order, *Amer. J. Math.* **58** (1936), 577-584.
R. T. Hansen, Generating Identities for Fibonacci and Lucas Triples , *Fibonacci Quart.* **10** (1972), 571–578.
P. Hilton, P. J. Pedersen, and L. Vrancken, On certain arithmetic properties of Fibonacci and Lucas numbers, *Fibonacci Quart.* **3** (1995), 211–217.
V. E. Hoggatt, Jr., and C. T. Long, Divisibility properties of generalized Fibonacci polynomials, *Fibonacci Quart.* **12** (1974), 113–120.
V. E. Hoggatt, Jr., and M. Bicknell-Johnson, Divisibility properties of polynomials in Pascal’s triangle, *Fibonacci Quart.* **16** (1978), 501–513.
A. F. Horadam, A synthesis of certain polynomial sequences, *Applications of Fibonacci numbers*, Vol. 6 (Pullman, WA, 1994), 215–229, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1996.
C. Kimberling, , Greatest common divisors of sums and differences of Fibonacci, Lucas, and Chebyshev polynomials, *Fibonacci Quart.* **17** (1979), 18–22.
C. Kimberling, Strong divisibility sequences and some conjectures, *Fibonacci Quart.* **17** (1979), 13–17.
C. Kimberling, Strong divisibility sequences with nonzero initial term, *Fibonacci Quart.* **16** (1978), 541–544.
E. Lucas, Théorie des fonctions numériques simplement périodiques, *Amer. J. Math.* 1 (1878), 184-240, 289-321.
A. F. Horadam and J. M. Mahon, Pell and Pell-Lucas polynomials, *Fibonacci Quart.* **23** (1985), 7–20.
A. F. Horadam, Chebyshev and Fermat polynomials for diagonal functions, *Fibonacci Quart.* **17** (1979), 328–333.
T. Koshy, *Fibonacci and Lucas Numbers with Applications*, John Wiley, New York, 2001.
J. Lahr, Fibonacci and Lucas numbers and the Morgan-Voyce polynomials in ladder networks and in electric line theory, *Fibonacci numbers and their applications*, (Patras, 1984), 141–161.
W. McDaniel, The g.c.d. in Lucas sequences and Lehmer number sequences, *Fibonacci Quart.* **29** (1991), 24–29.
A. M. Morgan-Voyce, Ladder network analysis using Fibonacci numbers, *IRE Trans. Circuit Th.* **CT-6** (1959), 321–322.
M. Norfleet, Characterization of second-order strong divisibility sequences of polynomials, *Fibonacci Quart.* **43** (2005), 166–169.
M. O. Rayes, V. Trevisan, and P. S. Wang, Factorization properties of Chebyshev polynomials, *Comput. Math. Appl.* **50** (2005), 1231–1240.
M. N. S. Swamy, Properties of the polynomials defined by Morgan-Voyce, *Fibonacci Quart.* **4** (1966a), 73–81.
M. Ward, Note on divisibility sequences, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* **42** (1936), 843-845.
W. A. Webb and E. A. Parberry, Divisibility properties of Fibonacci polynomials, *Fibonacci Quart.* **7** (1969), 457–463.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSC 2010: Primary 11B39; Secondary 11B83.
*Keywords:* Greatest common divisor, strong divisibility property, generalized Fibonacci polynomial, Fibonacci polynomial, Lucas polynomial.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'J. Przytycki has established a connection between the Hochschild homology of an algebra $A$ and the chromatic graph homology of a polygon graph with coefficients in $A$. In general the chromatic graph homology is not defined in the case where the coefficient ring is a non-commutative algebra. In this paper we define a new homology theory for directed graphs which takes coefficients in an arbitrary ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule, for $A$ possibly non-commutative, which on polygons agrees with Hochschild homology through a range of dimensions.'
author:
- 'Paul Turner[^1] and Emmanuel Wagner'
title: The homology of digraphs as a generalisation of Hochschild homology
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
This paper addresses a question of J. Przytycki. When defining the Hochschild homology of an algebra with coefficients in a bimodule, the differential displays a certain cyclical feature which makes it sometimes convenient to write the tensor factors of $n$-chain generators, not linearly, but instead as the vertices of an $(n+1)$-sided polygon. Przytycki has a beautiful interpretation of this appearance of $n$-gons in terms of the chromatic homology of graphs developed by of Helme-Guizon and Rong ([@HeGuRo]): a variant of this theory constructed using an algebra $A$ and an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$-bimodule $M$ applied to the $n$-gon is the Hochschild homology of $A$ with coefficients in $M$ through a range of dimensions increasing with $n$. In general chromatic homology of a graph is only defined when the algebra is commutative, but in the case of the $n$-gon or a line graph, the non-commutative case also makes sense. In speculating about possible generalisations of Hochschild homology in [@Pr] Przytycki writes that he believes “graph homology is the proper generalization of Hochschild homology: from a polygon to any graph”. The remaining problem being, however, that one does not know in general how to define chromatic graph homology involving non-commutative algebras. To paraphrase, Przytycki’s question is:
> [*Given a (possibly non-commutative) algebra $A$ and an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule $M$, can one construct a functor from some category of graphs to graded modules such that on $n$-gons this functor agrees with Hochschild homology through a range of dimensions ?*]{}
In this paper we consider finite based directed graphs, that is digraphs whose vertex set is finite and for which there is a distinguished vertex, the [*base vertex*]{}. Given a triple $(\Gamma,
A, M)$ consisting of a based digraph $\Gamma$, an $R$-algebra $A$ and an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule $M$ our main purpose is to define homology groups ${\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A, M)$ with nice functorial properties. There are two key ideas necessary to embrace non-commutative algebras: firstly one must give up on having “cube” (as seen in the construction of chromatic graph homology) and secondly one needs directed edges in order to be able to multiply non-commuting elements (the head and tail providing information on which element comes first). The base vertex is necessitated by the appearance of the bimodule $M$. In order to obtain a functor it is essential that we use the approach initiated in [@EvTu] relating Khovanov-type homology to the homology of posets with coefficients in a presheaf.
The construction goes roughly as follows. We replace a digraph $\Gamma$ by its poset of directed multipaths ${P(\Gamma)}$ and then define the homology groups $H_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}})$ as the homology of the poset ${P(\Gamma)}$ with coefficients in an arbitrary coefficient system (pre-sheaf) ${\mathcal{F}}$. Armed with these generalities we construct from a pair $(A,M)$ where $A$ is an algebra and $M$ an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule, a particular coefficient system ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}$. This coefficient system generalises the construction of the chromatic homology of graphs. The homology groups we are after are then defined by $${\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A,M) = H_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}).$$
These homology groups satisfy some nice properties and give one possible answer to Przytycki’s question. Let ${\text{{\bf DirGr}}_b}$ denote the category of finite based digraphs with base vertex preserving inclusions of digraphs as morphisms and let ${\text{{\bf GrMod}}}$ denote the category of ${\mathbb{Z}}$-graded $R$-modules. We then have:
[**Theorem \[thm:main\]**]{} [*Let $A$ be an $R$-algebra and $M$ an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule. Then $${\mathcal{H}}_*(- ,A,M) \colon {\text{{\bf DirGr}}_b}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf GrMod}}}$$ is a functor with the property that if $\Gamma$ is a consistently directed $n$-gon then for $0\leq i \leq n-2$ $${\mathcal{H}}_i(\Gamma, A, M ) \cong {H\!H}_i (A;M)$$ where on the right hand side we have the Hochschild homology of the algebra $A$ with coefficients in the bimodule $M$.* ]{}
An interesting special case arises when $M=A$. In this case unbased digraphs suffice and we write ${\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A) = {\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A,A)$. This is functorial in both variables:
[**Theorem \[thm:restricted\]**]{}[ *$
\;\; {\mathcal{H}}_*(- , -) \colon {\text{{\bf DirGr}}}\times {\text{{\bf Alg}}}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf GrMod}}}$ is a bifunctor.* ]{}
By the previous theorem this bifunctor has the property if $\Gamma$ is a consistently directed $n$-gon then for $0\leq i \leq n-2$, $${\mathcal{H}}_i(\Gamma ,A ) \cong {H\!H}_i (A).$$
The homology of directed graphs
===============================
In this section we will be dealing with the category ${\text{{\bf DirGr}}}$ whose objects are finite directed graphs (unbased) and whose morphisms are inclusions of directed graphs. Our interest will be to construct homology of directed graphs for an arbitrary coefficient system. Note that a directed graph $\Gamma$ comes with [*tail*]{} and [*head* ]{} functions $$t,h\colon Edge(\Gamma) {\rightarrow}Vert(\Gamma)$$ taking a directed edge $e$ to its tail and its head respectively.
We will assume familiarity with the basics of posets. As usual we will denote a partial ordering by $\leq$ with $x<y$ meaning $x\leq y$ and $x\neq y$. We recall that an element $y$ is said to [*cover*]{} another element $x$ if $x<y$ and there is no $z$ such that $x<z<y$. In such a circumstance we write $x\prec y$. The [*Hasse diagram*]{} of a poset $P$ is the directed graph with one vertex for each element of $P$ and an oriented arc from $x$ to $y$ if and only if $x\prec y$. The [*Boolean lattice*]{} on a set is the poset of subsets partially ordered by inclusion and its Hasse diagram is a hypercube. A poset may be regarded as a category with one object for each element and a unique morphism from $x$ to $y$ whenever $x\leq y$. Such morphisms compose in the obvious way.
Let $\Gamma$ be a finite digraph and let ${\mathbb{B}}(\Gamma)$ be the Boolean lattice on its edge set $Edge(\Gamma)$.
A [*simple path*]{} in $\Gamma$ is a sequence of edges $e_1, \ldots
, e_n$ such that $h(e_i) = t(e_{i+1})$ and no vertex is encountered twice. A [*multipath*]{} in $\Gamma$ is a collection of disjoint simple paths.
Let $P(\Gamma)$ be the subposet of ${\mathbb{B}}(\Gamma)$ consisting of multipaths in $\Gamma$. We will refer to it as the [*path poset*]{} of $\Gamma$. By convention there is one empty path $\emptyset$ and this is a (global) minimal element for ${P(\Gamma)}$ which we will denote by 0. There may be several (local) maxima. As mentioned in the previous paragraph we may choose to view ${P(\Gamma)}$ as a category with a unique morphism between any two related elements.
In Figure \[fig:poset\] we see a digraph $\Gamma$ along with an illustration of its path poset.
The assignment of a digraph to its path poset gives a covariant functor $$P(-) \colon {\text{{\bf DirGr}}}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Posets}}}.$$ Given an inclusion $f\colon \Gamma^\prime {\rightarrow}\Gamma$ we write $\tilde {f}\colon
P(\Gamma^\prime) {\rightarrow}P(\Gamma)$ for $P(f)$. Note that this is an injective map of posets with the property that if $x\prec y$ in $P(\Gamma^\prime)$ then $\tilde {f}(x)\prec \tilde {f}(y)$ in $P(\Gamma)$.
We note for later use the following lemma concerning such path posets.
\[lem:diamond\]$~$\
1. For $x \in {P(\Gamma)}$, the interval $[0,x]=\{y\in {P(\Gamma)}\mid y\leq x\}$ is a Boolean lattice of rank ${| {x}|}$.
2. If $x\prec y \prec z$ in ${P(\Gamma)}$ then there exists a unique $y^\prime\neq y$ such that $x\prec y^\prime \prec z$.
For (i) we simply note that given a multipath then each subset of its edges is again a multipath. For (ii), the stated property is true for Boolean lattices and so the result follows by considering the interval $[0,z]$.
In general the homology of posets only becomes interesting (especially in the presence of a global minimum) if one allows local systems of coefficients. Let $R$ be a commutative ring and let ${\text{{\bf Mod}}}$ be the category of $R$-modules.
A [*coefficient system*]{} for a digraph $\Gamma$ consists of a covariant functor ${P(\Gamma)}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$. These form the objects of a category ${\text{Coeff}}(\Gamma)$ whose morphisms are natural transformations of functors.
One can take the homology of any small category with coefficients in a functor and we now recall this construction restricted to our particular setting i.e. where the category is a path category of a digraph $\Gamma$ and the functor ${\mathcal{F}}\colon P(\Gamma) {\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$ is a coefficient system. We will define a chain complex ${\mathcal{S}}_*(\Gamma,
{\mathcal{F}})$ whose homology, by definition, is the homology of $\Gamma$ with coefficients in ${\mathcal{F}}$.
We set $${\mathcal{S}}_k(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}) = \bigoplus_{x_0x_1\ldots x_k} {\mathcal{F}}(x_0)$$ where the sum is over all sequences $x_0 \leq x_1 \leq \cdots \leq x_k$ in ${P(\Gamma)}$ of length $k+1$. A typical element is therefore a sum of elements of the form $\lambda x_0x_1\ldots x_k$ where $\lambda\in {\mathcal{F}}(x_0)$. To turn this into a complex we define $d\colon {\mathcal{S}}_k(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}_{k-1}(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}) $ by $$d(\lambda x_0x_1\ldots x_k) = {\mathcal{F}}(x_0\leq x_1)(\lambda)x_1\ldots x_k
+ \sum_{i=1}^k (-1)^i\lambda x_0 \ldots \hat{x_i}\ldots x_k.$$ It is a standard fact (easily checked) that $d^2=0$ and so $({\mathcal{S}}_*( \Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}), d)$ is a chain complex. We are now free to take homology and we define the [*homology of the directed graph*]{} $\Gamma$ [*with coefficients in* ]{} ${\mathcal{F}}$ to be the graded $R$-module $$H_*(\Gamma ;{\mathcal{F}}) = H({\mathcal{S}}_*(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}), d).$$
Homology has nice functorial properties as we see in the next proposition.
\[prop:nat\]$~$\
1. Let $\Gamma$ be a finite directed graph. Then $$H_*(\Gamma; -)\colon {\text{Coeff}}(\Gamma){\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$$ is a covariant functor.
2. Let $f\colon \Gamma^\prime {\rightarrow}\Gamma$ be an inclusion and let ${\mathcal{F}}\colon P(\Gamma) {\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$ be a coefficient system for $\Gamma$. Then there is an induced homomorphism $$f_* \colon H_*(\Gamma^\prime ; {\mathcal{F}}\circ \tilde {f}) {\rightarrow}H_*(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}).$$ Such induced homomorphisms are well behaved under composition of inclusions.
\(i) Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ be coefficient systems and let $\tau$ be a morphism from ${\mathcal{F}}$ to ${\mathcal{G}}$. That is, ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ are functors $P(\Gamma) {\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$ and $\tau$ is a natural transformation ${\mathcal{F}}{\stackrel{\bullet}{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{G}}$ consisting of a map $\tau_x\colon {\mathcal{F}}(x) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{G}}(x)$ for each $x\in {P(\Gamma)}$ satisfying the usual naturality requirements. We now define a homomorphism $$\tau^\prime \colon {\mathcal{S}}_k(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}_k(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{G}})$$ by setting $$\tau^\prime (\lambda x_0 \ldots x_k) = \tau_{x_0}(\lambda) x_0 \ldots x_k.$$ The naturality of $\tau$ guarantees that this is a chain map and thus induces $$\tau_*\colon H_*(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}) {\rightarrow}H_*(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{G}})$$ as required.
Furthermore, given another natural transformation $\sigma\colon {\mathcal{G}}{\stackrel{\bullet}{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{K}}$ one has $(\sigma\tau)^\prime = \sigma^\prime \circ \tau^\prime$ from which it follows that $(\sigma\tau)_* = \sigma_* \circ \tau_*$.
\(ii) Recalling that $\tilde{f}$ is the induced map on path posets, there is a homomorphism $$f^\prime\colon {\mathcal{S}}_k(\Gamma^\prime ; {\mathcal{F}}\circ \tilde {f}) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}_k(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}})$$ defined by $$f^\prime(\lambda x_0 \ldots x_k) = \lambda \tilde {f} (x_0) \ldots \tilde {f}(x_k).$$ This is a chain map since, by definition, ${\mathcal{F}}\circ \tilde {f}(x\leq y) = {\mathcal{F}}(\tilde {f}(x) \leq \tilde{f}(y))$. In homology this defines $f_*$.
Given $g\colon \Gamma^{\prime \prime}{\rightarrow}\Gamma^\prime$ we have $\widetilde{fg}= \tilde{f} \circ \tilde{g}$ from which it follows immediately that $(fg)_*=f_*\circ g_*$.
Similar calculations to those in the above proof show that the maps $f_*$ are natural with respect to morphisms of coefficient systems. Spelt out more clearly this means the following. Let $f\colon \Gamma^\prime {\rightarrow}\Gamma$ be an inclusion of finite digraphs and let ${\mathcal{F}}_1, {\mathcal{F}}_2 \colon P(\Gamma) {\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$ be coefficient systems. Given a natural transformation $\tau\colon {\mathcal{F}}_1{\stackrel{\bullet}{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{F}}_2$, define a natural transformation $\tilde{\tau}$ from ${\mathcal{F}}_1\circ \tilde{f}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_2\circ \tilde{f}$ by $ \tilde{\tau}_x
= \tau_{\tilde{f}(x)}$. Under such circumstances the following diagram commutes.
$$\xymatrix{
H_*(\Gamma^\prime ; {\mathcal{F}}_1 \circ \tilde {f}) \ar[d]_{\tilde{\tau}_*}\ar[rr]^{f_{1*}} & & H_*(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}_1) \ar[d]^{\tau_*}\\
H_*(\Gamma^\prime ; {\mathcal{F}}_2 \circ \tilde {f}) \ar[rr]^{f_{2*}}& & H_*(\Gamma ; {\mathcal{F}}_2)
}$$
The homology groups ${\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A, M)$
===================================================
The category ${\text{{\bf DirGr}}_b}$ has as objects finite digraphs that are equipped with a preferred [*base vertex*]{}. Morphisms are inclusions that take base vertex to base vertex. There is a forgetful functor ${\text{{\bf DirGr}}_b}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf DirGr}}}$ and we can take homology by first applying this functor and then proceeding as in the previous section.
Our task in this section is to construct a coefficient system ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M} \colon
{P(\Gamma)}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$, given a based digraph $\Gamma$, a (possibly non-commutative) unital $R$-algebra $A$ and an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule $M$. Once achieved the main definition of the paper will be $${\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A,M) = H_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}).$$
We will take the tensor product of modules over unordered sets so we recall here what this means. Let $S$ be a finite set and suppose we have a family of $R$-modules indexed by $S$, that is for each $\alpha\in S$ we have an $R$-module $M_\alpha$. The [*unordered tensor product*]{} of this family, denoted $$\bigotimes_{\alpha\in S} M_\alpha$$ is formed by considering all possible orderings of the set $S$, taking the direct sum of the ordered tensor product for each and then identifying these via the obvious canonical isomorphisms induced from permutations.
We now proceed with the construction of ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}\colon {P(\Gamma)}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$. For $x\in {P(\Gamma)}$ let $\Gamma_x$ be the directed graph with the same vertex set as $\Gamma$ and with edge set consisting of the edges in the multipath $x$ (along with their directions). We will write $\pi_0(\Gamma_x)$ for the set of connected components of $\Gamma_x$. We note that if $x\prec y$ then $\Gamma_y$ contains all the edges of $\Gamma_x$ with one addition. Since all paths are simple this additional edge clearly joins two separate components of $\Gamma_x$. There is evidently a canonical identification of the components of $\Gamma_x$ and $\Gamma_y$ not involved in this fusion.
For $x\in {P(\Gamma)}$ consider the following family of $R$-modules $\{M_\alpha \}$ indexed by the set $\pi_0(\Gamma_x)$. If the component indexed by $\alpha$ contains the base vertex then $M_\alpha=M$ otherwise $M_\alpha=A$. Now we define ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(x)$ to be the unordered tensor product $${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M} (x) = \bigotimes_{\alpha \in \pi_0(\Gamma_x)} M_\alpha.$$
To define the homomorphisms ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(x\leq y)$ we first consider what happens in the case $x\prec y$. Here $\Gamma_y$ consists of $\Gamma_x$ with an additional edge $e$ and as noted above two distinct components in $\Gamma_x$ become one in $\Gamma_y$. The idea is to define a homomorphisms using the canonical identification between components away from those that fuse, and multiplication or the actions of $A$ on $M$ for those that fuse. The key point is that the order of multiplication is determined by the head and tail of $e$.
For temporary purposes let $I$ be an ordering of $\pi_0(\Gamma_x)$ and $J$ be an ordering of $\pi_0(\Gamma_y)$. With respect to these orderings suppose the two components of $\Gamma_x$ that fuse are indexed by $i$ and $i^\prime$ and the new fused component in $\Gamma_y$ is indexed by $j$. We now define a homomorphism (here we use the ordered tensor product)
$$\mu\colon M_{i} \otimes M_{i^\prime} \longrightarrow M_{j}$$ by $$\mu(a\otimes b) = \begin{cases}
ab & \text{ if $i$ indexes the component containing $t(e)$}\\
ba & \text{ if $i$ indexes the component containing $h(e)$}
\end{cases}$$ Here the expression $ab$ has several possible meanings: if the base vertex is not involved in the fusion of components then it means the multiplication in the algebra $A$; if $M_i=M$ (i.e. $i$ indexes the component containing the base vertex) then $M_j=A$ and $M_k=M$ and $ab$ means the right action of $A$ on $M$; if $M_j=M$ (i.e. $j$ indexes the component containing the base vertex) then $M_i=A$ and $M_k=M$ and $ab$ means the left action of $A$ on $M$. One similarly interprets $ba$. By combining this map with the canonical permutation identification on the remaining tensor factors this gives a homomorphism of ordered tensor products $\bigotimes_I M_i
{\rightarrow}\bigotimes_J M_j$.
The above defines a homomorphism $${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(x\prec y) \colon {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(x) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(y).
$$
Let $\sigma$ be a permutation taking an ordering $I$ to another $I^\prime$. In the above construction the maps $\mu$ depend on the tensor factors corresponding to $t(e)$ and $h(e)$ not on the factors position in any ordering. It follows that there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\bigotimes_I M_i \ar[r]^\mu \ar[d]_{\sigma} & \bigotimes_J M_j\\
\bigotimes_{I^\prime} M_{i^\prime} \ar[ru]^\mu
}$$ and so the maps $\mu$ are compatible with the symmetric group action.
\[lem:seqlengthtwo\] If $x\prec y \prec z$ and $x\prec y^\prime \prec z$ then $${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}( y \prec z) \circ {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}( x \prec y) = {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}( y^\prime \prec z) \circ {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}( x \prec y^\prime).$$
By Lemma \[lem:diamond\] (ii) we know that $y$ and $y^\prime$ are the only two elements lying between $x$ and $z$ in this way. Suppose $\Gamma_y=\Gamma_x \cup \{e\}$ and $\Gamma_{y^\prime}=\Gamma_x \cup \{e^\prime\}$. If $e$ and $e^\prime$ are not both contained in a single simple path of $\Gamma_z$ then the result is clear. If they are both contained in the same simple path of $\Gamma_z$ then without loss of generality we may suppose that $e$ comes before $e^\prime$. Now choose an ordering on the components of $\Gamma_x$ so that the simple path before $e$ is labelled 1, the simple path between $e$ and $e^\prime$ is labelled 2 and the simple path after $e^\prime$ is labelled 3 (see Figure \[fig:paths\]).
Now suppose we have ordering of the components of $\Gamma_y$ such that $1$ indexes the component of $\Gamma_y$ containing $e$ and 2 indexes the component at the head of $e^\prime$. Similarly, suppose we have ordering of the components of $\Gamma_{y^\prime}$ such that $1$ indexes the component at the tail of $e$ and 2 indexes the component containing $e^\prime$. In $\Gamma_z$ the simple path containing $e$ and $e^\prime$ is indexed by $1$. Then by the associativity of $\mu$ the following diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{
M_1\otimes M_2 \otimes M_3 \ar[r]^{\mu \otimes 1} \ar[d]^{1 \otimes \mu }&
M_1\otimes M_2 \ar[d]^{\mu } \\
M_1\otimes M_2 \ar[r]^{\mu } & M_1
}$$ from which the result easily follows.
We now extend this to define a map ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(x\leq y)\colon {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(x) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(y)$ for any $x\leq y$. Pick a sequence $x\prec x_1 \prec \cdots \prec x_l \prec y$ and set $${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(x\leq y) = {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}( x_l \prec y) \circ \cdots \circ {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}( x \prec x_1).$$ Courtesy of Lemma \[lem:seqlengthtwo\] we immediately see that this does not depend on the particular choice of sequence. We have thus shown that
${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}\colon {P(\Gamma)}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf Mod}}}$ as defined above is a covariant functor, i.e. ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}$ is a coefficient system for $\Gamma$.
We finally arrive at the principal definition of this section.
Let $A$ be a unital $R$-algebra, $M$ an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule and $\Gamma$ a finite based digraph. Using the coefficient system ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}$ above we define $${\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A,M) = H_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}).$$
The following theorem provides one possible answer to Przytycki’s question.
\[thm:main\] Let $A$ be an $R$-algebra and $M$ an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$ bimodule. Then $${\mathcal{H}}_*(- ,A,M) \colon {\text{{\bf DirGr}}_b}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf GrMod}}}$$ is a functor with the property that if $\Gamma$ is a consistently directed $n$-gon then for $0\leq i \leq n-2$ $${\mathcal{H}}_i(\Gamma, A, M ) \cong {H\!H}_i (A;M)$$ where on the right hand side we have the Hochschild homology of the algebra $A$ with coefficients in the bimodule $M$.
Before proving this Theorem let us recall Przytycki’s result relating the chromatic homology of graphs to Hochschild homology [@Pr]. We will state the results using homological grading conventions. Firstly recall that (homologically graded) chromatic homology of a graph $G$ is defined as follows. Let $A$ be a [*commutative*]{} $R$-algebra. Let ${\mathbb{B}}$ be the Boolean lattice (the “cube” as it is usually referred to) on the edges of $G$. An element of ${\mathbb{B}}$ is a subgraph of $G$ with the same vertex set as $V$ and will typically contain some isolated vertices. To each such subgraph $x$ associate the module ${\mathcal{F}}(x)$ being a tensor product of copies of $A$, one for each connected component. To each edge $\zeta$ of the cube (covering relation in the Boolean lattice) associate a map $d_\zeta$ being given by the algebra multiplication if two connected components fuse, or the identity map otherwise. Letting $N$ be the number of edges in $G$, one defines, for $i=0,1, \ldots , N$ $${\mathcal{C}}_i (\Gamma) = \bigoplus_{x\in {P(\Gamma)}, {| {x}|} = N-i} {\mathcal{F}}(x).$$ A differential $d\colon {\mathcal{C}}_i( \Gamma) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}_{i-1}( \Gamma)$ can be defined for $a\in {\mathcal{F}}(x)$ by $$d(a) = \bigoplus_{\zeta} \epsilon(\zeta) d_\zeta (a),$$ where $\epsilon(\zeta)=\pm 1$. This gives a complex, whose homology is the chromatic graph homology of $G$ using the algebra $A$. All this is well documented elsewhere (see [@HeGuRo; @HeGuPrRo] for details).
Przytycki extends the above in the following way (see [@Pr] for details). Suppose $M$ is an ${A\!\!-\!\! A}$-bimodule (where as above $A$ is commutative) and suppose $v_1$ is a chosen base vertex of $G$. Modify the above construction by replacing $A$ by $M$ whenever associating a module to a component containing $v_1$. Moreover, in the definition of the differential, partial derivatives between subgraphs having the same number of components are set to zero. Denote the result $\hat{H}_*^{A,M}(G)$.
If we take $G=P_n$, an $n$-sided polygon, then taking coherent directions on each edge (so that the whole polygon is oriented clockwise or anti-clockwise) then Przytycki argues the above may be extended to the case where $A$ is non-commutative. (From our point of view, the existence of this global orientation, means that each subgraph is again consistently directed and is thus a multipath in our set up).
Przytycki’s main result (with homological grading conventions) is:
[**Theorem**]{}(Przytycki) $$\hat{H}_i^{A,M}(P_n) \cong {H\!H}_{i-1} (A;M)\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \text{for $1\leq i \leq n-1$}.$$
Thus, modified chromatic homology of polygons agrees with Hochschild homology through a range of dimensions. We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:main\] above.
(of Theorem \[thm:main\]) Let $f\colon \Gamma^\prime {\rightarrow}\Gamma$ be a (basepoint preserving) inclusion. We wish to define a chain map $$f^\prime\colon {\mathcal{S}}_*(\Gamma^\prime, {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}){\rightarrow}{\mathcal{S}}_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M})$$ Here we are writing ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}$ for the coefficient system constructed above for the graph $\Gamma^\prime$.
Firstly, we construct a morphism of coefficient systems $\tau\colon {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}{\stackrel{\bullet}{\longrightarrow}}{\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}\circ \tilde{f}$. For $x\in
P(\Gamma)$ the graph $\Gamma_{\tilde{f}(x)}$ is isomorphic to the graph $\Gamma^\prime_x \cup W $ where $W$ consists of the vertices in $\Gamma$ which are not in (the image of) $\Gamma^\prime$. We can thus make the identification $${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(\tilde{f}(x)) \cong {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) \otimes \bigotimes_{W}A.$$ Moreover, if $x\prec y$ in $\Gamma^\prime$ then these identifications make the following diagram commute. $$\xymatrix{{\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(\tilde{f}(x)) \;\;\;\;\;\; \cong \ar[d]_{{\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}\circ \tilde{f}(x\prec y)}& {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) \otimes \bigotimes A \ar[d]^{{\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x\prec y)} \\
{\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(\tilde{f}(y)) \;\;\;\;\;\; \cong & {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(y) \otimes \bigotimes A
}$$
We now define $\tau_x$ to be the composition $${\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) \cong
{\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) \otimes_{R} \bigotimes R {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) \otimes_{R} \bigotimes A \cong
{\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}(\tilde{f}(x))$$ where the map shown is just the identity on ${\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) $ and the unit map of the algebra $R{\rightarrow}A$ on the remaining tensor factors.
For $x\prec y$ in $\Gamma^\prime$, the diagram above shows that $$\xymatrix{{\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) \ar[d]_{{\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x\prec y)} \ar[r]^(.4){\tau_x} & {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x) \otimes \bigotimes A \ar[d]^{{\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(x\prec y)\otimes Id} \\
{\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(y) \ar[r]_(.4){\tau_y} & {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}(y) \otimes \bigotimes A
}$$ Now suppose $x\leq y$ in $\Gamma^\prime$. We may choose a sequence $x\prec x_1 \prec \cdots \prec x_m \prec y$ and noting that $\tilde{f}(x)\prec \tilde{f}(x_1) \prec \cdots \prec \tilde{f}(x_m) \prec \tilde{f}(y)$ we see $\tau$ is natural by repeated use of the above diagram. Thus it is thus a morphism of coefficient systems as desired.
From Proposition \[prop:nat\] (i) we now get a homomorphism $$\tau_* \colon H_*(\Gamma^\prime , {\mathcal{F}}^\prime_{A,M}) {\rightarrow}H_*(\Gamma^\prime , {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}\circ \tilde{f}).$$
Invoking part (ii) of Proposition \[prop:nat\] we also have a homomorphism $$f_* \colon H_*(\Gamma^\prime , {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}\circ \tilde{f}) {\rightarrow}H_*(\Gamma , {\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}).$$
The composition $f_*\circ \tau_*$ gives a homomorphism $$f_\bullet \colon {\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma^\prime, A, M) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A, M)$$ which is the map in homology induced by $f$.
It remains to show that if $g\colon \Gamma^{\prime\prime} {\rightarrow}\Gamma^\prime$ is an inclusion then $(fg)_\bullet = f_\bullet \circ
g_\bullet$. This amounts to showing that the top and bottom routes around the following diagram are the same (where we have omitted the subscripts $A,M$ and are being a little liberal in our multiple uses of the letter $\tau$).
[$$\xymatrix{
& H_*(\Gamma^{\prime\prime}, {\mathcal{F}}^{\prime}\circ \tilde{g}) \ar[r]^{g_*} \ar[rdd]_{\tilde{\tau}_*} &
H_*(\Gamma^{\prime}, {\mathcal{F}}^{\prime}) \ar[r]^{\tau_*} &
H_*(\Gamma^{\prime}, {\mathcal{F}}\circ \tilde{f}) \ar[rd]^{f_*}& \\
H_*(\Gamma^{\prime\prime}, {\mathcal{F}}^{\prime\prime}) \ar[ru]^{\tau_*} \ar[rrd]_{\tau_*}&
&&&
H_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}})\\
&& H_*(\Gamma^{\prime\prime}, {\mathcal{F}}\circ \widetilde{fg}) \ar[uur]_{g_*} \ar[urr]_{(fg)_*} &&
}$$ ]{}
The left-hand triangle commutes directly from the definition of the maps $\tau$, and the right-hand triangle commutes from the statement in Proposition \[prop:nat\] (ii) that the induced maps behave well under composition. The middle square commutes by the comments immediately after the proof of Proposition \[prop:nat\].
In order to make the connection with Hochschild homology we combine Przytycki’s result with the work of Everitt and the first author [@EvTu]. It is clear that if $\Gamma= P_n$ with consistent directions, then ${P(\Gamma)}$ is the Boolean lattice on the edges of $P_n$ minus its maximum element.
Moreover the functor ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}$ constructed on ${P(\Gamma)}$ agrees with the (implicit) functor used in the construction of $\hat{H}_{i+1}^{A,M}$ in this case. Since the graph is a polygon, the only partial derivative in Przytycki’s set-up that are set to zero are those from corank $1$ elements to the maximal element and this corresponds to the absence of the maximum element of the Boolean lattice in ${P(\Gamma)}$.
It now follows from the main result of [@EvTu] that the homology of the path category of category $P_n$ with coefficients in ${\mathcal{F}}_{A,M}$ is isomorphic to $ \hat{H}_{i+1}^{A,M}(P_n)$ with a grading shift: $${\mathcal{H}}_i(P_n, A,M) \cong H_i(P_n , {\mathcal{F}}_{A,m}) \cong \hat{H}_{i+1}^{A,M}(P_n).$$ Combining this with Przytycki’s result gives the desired isomorphism.
When $M=A$ the base vertex become irrelevant and we may define for an (unbased) digraph $\Gamma$ the homology groups ${\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A) =
{\mathcal{H}}_*(\Gamma, A,A)$, where on the right-hand side any base vertex for $\Gamma$ will do. Letting ${\text{{\bf Alg}}}$ denote the category of $R$-algebras we have:
\[thm:restricted\] $
{\mathcal{H}}_*(- , -) \colon {\text{{\bf DirGr}}}\times {\text{{\bf Alg}}}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf GrMod}}}$ is a bifunctor.
Functoriality in the first variable follows from the previous theorem. For the second variable, let $f\colon A {\rightarrow}B$ be an algebra homomorphism. For $x\in {P(\Gamma)}$ we have $${\mathcal{F}}_{A,A}(x) = \bigotimes A \;\;\;\; \text{ and } \;\;\;\; {\mathcal{F}}_{B,B}(x) = \bigotimes B$$ where the tensor product is over the same indexing set in both cases. We can therefore define a homomorphism $\sigma_x\colon
{\mathcal{F}}_{A,A}(x) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{F}}_{B,B}(x)$ by $\sigma_x=\bigotimes f$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism of algebras, the $\sigma_x$ define a natural transformation $\sigma \colon {\mathcal{F}}_{A,A}
\stackrel{\bullet}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{F}}_{B,B}$. By Proposition \[prop:nat\] (i) this induces a map $H_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}}_{A,A} ) {\rightarrow}H_*(\Gamma, {\mathcal{F}}_{B,B} )$ as required. Composition of algebra homomorphisms is easily seen to give a well defined composition of these induced maps.
If one fixes the directed graph $\Gamma$ the above gives a functor $${\mathcal{H}}^{\Gamma}_*(-)\colon {\text{{\bf Alg}}}{\rightarrow}{\text{{\bf GrMod}}}.$$ One is tempted to call ${\mathcal{H}}^{\Gamma}_*(A)$ the [*homology of the algebra $A$ with coefficients in the digraph $\Gamma$*]{}. Such homology theories of algebras are probably worthy of study in their own right. We limit ourselves here to the observation that if $\gamma$ is an oriented cycle of length $n$ in $\Gamma$ then there is an inclusion of digraphs $\gamma {\rightarrow}\Gamma$ which by functoriality and Theorem \[thm:main\] gives a map $$\gamma_*\colon {H\!H}_{i}(A) {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{H}}^{\Gamma}_*(A)$$ for $i=0,1,\ldots , n-2$.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by SNF project no. 200020-121506/1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
$^{1}$Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Wien\
Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria
- |
$^{2}$Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften\
Inselstraße 22-26, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
title: |
Renormalisation of $\phi^4$-theory on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^2$\
in the matrix base
---
hep-th/0307017
[[Harald [Grosse]{}$^1$ and Raimar [Wulkenhaar]{}$^2$]{}]{}
**Abstract**
As a first application of our renormalisation group approach to non-local matrix models \[hep-th/0305066\], we prove (super-) renormalisability of Euclidean two-dimensional noncommutative $\phi^4$-theory. It is widely believed that this model is renormalisable in momentum space arguing that there would be logarithmic UV/IR-divergences only. Although momentum space Feynman graphs can indeed be computed to any loop order, the logarithmic UV/IR-divergence appears in the renormalised two-point function—a hint that the renormalisation is not completed. In particular, it is impossible to define the squared mass as the value of the two-point function at vanishing momentum. In contrast, in our matrix approach the renormalised $N$-point functions are bounded everywhere and nevertheless rely on adjusting the mass only. We achieve this by introducing into the cut-off model a translation-invariance breaking regulator which is scaled to zero with the removal of the cut-off. The naïve treatment without regulator would not lead to a renormalised theory.
Introduction
============
In spite of enormous efforts, the renormalisation of quantum field theories on the noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^D$ is not achieved. These models show a phenomenon called *UV/IR-mixing* [@Minwalla:1999px] which was analysed to all orders by Chepelev and Roiban [@Chepelev:1999tt; @Chepelev:2000hm]. The conclusion of the power-counting theorem is that, in general, field theories on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^D$ are not renormalisable if their commutative counterparts are worse than logarithmically divergent. The situation is better for models with at most logarithmic divergences. Applying the power-counting analysis to the real $\phi^4$-model on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^2$, one finds “that the divergences from all connected Green’s functions at non-exceptional external momenta can be removed in the counter-term approach” (literally quoted from [@Chepelev:2000hm §4.3]). The problem is, however, that non-exceptional momenta can become arbitrarily close to exceptional momenta so that the renormalised Green’s functions are *unbounded*. Although one can probably live with that, it is not a desired feature of a quantum field theory.
We have elaborated in [@Grosse:2003aj] the Wilson-Polchinski renormalisation group approach [@Wilson:1973jj; @Polchinski:1983gv] for dynamical matrix models where the propagator is neither diagonal nor constant. We have derived a power-counting theorem for ribbon graphs by solving the exact renormalisation group equation perturbatively. The power-counting degree of divergence of a ribbon graph is determined by its topology and the asymptotic behaviour of the cut-off propagator. Our motivation was to provide a renormalisation scheme for very general noncommutative field theories, because the typical noncommutative geometries are matrix geometries. The noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^D$ is no exception as there exists a matrix base [@Gracia-Bondia:1987kw] in which the $\star$-product interaction becomes the trace of an ordinary product of matrices. The propagator becomes complicated in the matrix base but as we show in this paper, the difficulties can be overcome.
In [@Grosse:2003aj] we have only completed the first (but most essential) step of Polchinski’s approach [@Polchinski:1983gv], namely the integration of the flow equation between a finite initial scale $\Lambda_0$ and the renormalisation scale $\Lambda_R$. In order to prove renormalisability the limit $\Lambda_0\to\infty$ has to be taken. This step is model dependent. We focus in this paper on the real $\phi^4$-theory on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^2$. The naïve idea would be to take the standard $\phi^4$-action at the initial scale $\Lambda_0$, with $\Lambda_0$-dependent bare mass to be adjusted such that at $\Lambda_R$ it is scaled down to the renormalised mass. Unfortunately, this does not work. In the limit $\Lambda_0\to\infty$ one obtains an unbounded power-counting degree of divergence for the ribbon graphs. The solution is the observation that the cut-off action at $\Lambda_0$ is (due to the cut-off) not translation invariant. We are therefore free to break the translational symmetry of the action at $\Lambda_0$ even more by adding a harmonic oscillator potential for the fields $\phi$. We prove that there exists a $\Lambda_0$-dependence of the oscillator frequency $\Omega$ with $\lim_{\Lambda_0 \to \infty} \Omega=0$ such that the effective action at $\Lambda_R$ is convergent (and thus bounded) order by order in the coupling constant in the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$. This means that the partition function of the original (translation-invariant) $\phi^4$-model without cut-off and with suitable divergent bare mass is solved by Feynman graphs with propagators cut-off at $\Lambda_R$ and vertices given by the bounded expansion coefficients of the effective action at $\Lambda_R$. Hence, this model is renormalisable, and there is no problem with exceptional configurations.
We are optimistic that in the same way we can renormalise the $\phi^4$-model on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^4$ [@gw3].
$\phi^4$-theory on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^D$
================================================
The regularised action in the matrix base
-----------------------------------------
The noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^D$, $D=2,4,6,\dots$, is defined as the algebra $\mathbb{R}^D_\theta$ which as a vector space is given by the space $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^D)$ of (complex-valued) Schwartz class functions of rapid decay, equipped with the multiplication rule [@Gracia-Bondia:1987kw] $$\begin{aligned}
(a\star b)(x) &= \int \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi)^D} \int d^D y \;
a(x{+}\tfrac{1}{2} \theta {\cdot} k)\, b(x{+}y)\,
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} k \cdot y}\;,
\label{starprod}
\\*
& (\theta {\cdot} k)^\mu = \theta^{\mu\nu} k_\nu\;,\quad k{\cdot}y =
k_\mu y^\mu\;,\quad \theta^{\mu\nu}=-\theta^{\nu\mu}\;. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The entries $\theta^{\mu\nu}$ in (\[starprod\]) have the dimension of an area.
We are going to study a regularised $\phi^4$-theory on $\mathbb{R}^D_\theta$ defined by the action $$\begin{aligned}
S_D[\phi] &= \int d^Dx \Big( \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\nu}
\big(\partial_\mu \phi \star \partial_\nu \phi +4 \Omega^2
((\theta^{-1})_{\mu\rho} x^\rho \phi ) \star
((\theta^{-1})_{\nu\sigma} x^\sigma \phi) \big) + \frac{1}{2}
\mu_0^2 \,\phi \star \phi \nonumber
\\
&\hspace*{10em} + \frac{\lambda}{4!} \phi \star \phi \star \phi \star
\phi\Big) \;,
\label{action}\end{aligned}$$ which is given by adding a harmonic oscillator potential to the standard $\phi^4$-action. The potential beaks translation invariance. We shall learn that the renormalisation of standard $\phi^4$-theory has to be performed along a path of actions (\[action\]).
Our goal is to write the classical action (\[action\]) in an adapted base. We place ourselves into a coordinate system in which $\theta$ has in $D$ dimensions the form $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\mu\nu} &=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\boldsymbol{\theta}_1 & 0 & \dots & 0 \\
0 & \boldsymbol{\theta}_2 & \dots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \dots & \boldsymbol{\theta}_{\frac{D}{2}}
\end{array}\right)\;, &
\boldsymbol{\theta}_i = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \theta_i \\
- \theta_i & 0
\end{array}\right)\;.\end{aligned}$$ Now an adapted base of $\mathbb{R}^D_\theta$ is $$\begin{aligned}
b_{mn}(x) &= f_{m_1n_1}(x_1,x_2) \,f_{m_2n_2}(x_3,x_4) \dots
f_{m_{D/2}n_{D/2}}(x_{D-1},x_D) \;,
\label{bbas}
\\*
& m=(m_1,m_2,\dots,m_{D/2})\in \mathbb{N}^{\frac{D}{2}}\,,~
n=(n_1,n_2,\dots,n_{D/2})\in \mathbb{N}^{\frac{D}{2}}\;, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the base $f_{mn}(x_1,x_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ is introduced in (\[fmn\]) in Appendix \[appA\].
The advantage of this base is that the $\star$-product (\[starprod\]) is represented by a product (\[fprodmat\]) of infinite matrices and that the multiplication by $x^\rho$ is easy to realise. This means that expanding the fields according to $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x)=\sum_{m,n \in \mathbb{N}^{\frac{D}{2}}} \phi_{mn} b_{mn}(x) \;,
\label{phimat}\end{aligned}$$ the interaction term $\phi\star\phi\star\phi\star\phi$ in (\[action\]) becomes very simple. The price for this simplification is, however, that the kinetic term given by the first line in (\[action\]) becomes very complicated. In [@Grosse:2003aj] we have extended the first stept of Polchinski’s renormalisation proof [@Polchinski:1983gv] of commutative $\phi^4$-theory to a renormalisation method suited for dynamical matrix models with arbitrary non-diagonal and non-constant propagators. The kinetic term of the action (\[action\]) fits precisely into the scope of [@Grosse:2003aj].
Computation of the propagator in the two-dimensional case
---------------------------------------------------------
For the remainder of this paper we restrict ourselves to $D=2$ dimensions. The four-dimensional case will be treated elsewhere [@gw3]. Using the formulae collected in Appendix \[appA\] we first calculate the kinetic term in two dimensions: $$\begin{aligned}
G_{mn;kl}
&:= \int \frac{d^2x}{2\pi\theta_1} \, \Big(\big(\partial_1 f_{mn}
\star \partial_1 f_{kl} + \partial_2 f_{mn} \star \partial_2 f_{kl}
\nonumber
\\*
&\qquad \qquad + \frac{4 \Omega^2}{\theta^2} \big( (x_1 f_{mn}) \star
(x_1 f_{kl}) + (x_2 f_{mn}) \star (x_2 f_{kl}) \big) + \mu_0^2\,
f_{mn}\star f_{kl} \Big) \nonumber
\\
& =\int \frac{d^2x}{2\pi\theta_1} \,
\Big( \frac{1{+}\Omega^2}{\theta_1^2} f_{mn}
\star (a\star \bar{a}+\bar{a} \star a) \star f_{kl}
+\frac{1{+}\Omega^2}{\theta_1^2} f_{kl} \star (a\star \bar{a}
+\bar{a} \star a) \star f_{mn} \nonumber
\\*
&\qquad -\frac{2(1{+}\Omega^2)}{\theta_1^2}
f_{mn} \star a \star f_{kl} \star \bar{a}
-\frac{2(1{+}\Omega^2)}{\theta_1^2} f_{kl} \star a \star f_{mn} \star \bar{a}
+ \mu_0^2 \, f_{mn}\star f_{kl} \Big) \nonumber
\\*
&=\Big(\mu_0^2+ \frac{2(1{+}\Omega^2)}{\theta_1}(m{+}n{+}1)
\Big) \delta_{nk} \delta_{ml} \nonumber
\\*
&\qquad - \frac{2(1{-}\Omega^2)}{\theta_1} \sqrt{(n{+}1)(m{+}1)}
\delta_{n+1,k}\delta_{m+1,l} - \frac{2(1{-}\Omega^2)}{\theta_1} \sqrt{nm}
\delta_{n-1,k}\delta_{m-1,l}\;.
\label{G2Dcal}\end{aligned}$$ Defining $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^2 &= \frac{2(1+\Omega^2)}{\theta_1} \;, & \sqrt{\omega} &=
\frac{1-\Omega^2}{1+\Omega^2} \;,
\label{mu}\end{aligned}$$ with $-1 < \sqrt{\omega} \leq 1$, we can rewrite (\[G2Dcal\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
G_{mn;kl} &= \big(\mu_0^2{+} (n{+}m{+}1)\mu^2
\big) \delta_{nk} \delta_{ml} \nonumber
\\*
& - \mu^2 \sqrt{\omega\, (n{+}1)(m{+}1)}\,
\delta_{n+1,k}\delta_{m+1,l} - \mu^2 \sqrt{\omega\,nm}\,
\delta_{n-1,k} \delta_{m-1,l}\,.
\label{G2D}\end{aligned}$$ Now the action (\[action\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
S_2[\phi] &= 2\pi\theta_1 \sum_{m,n,k,l} \Big( \frac{1}{2}
\phi_{mn} G_{mn;kl} \phi_{kl} + \frac{\lambda}{4!}
\phi_{mn} \phi_{nk} \phi_{kl} \phi_{lm}\Big)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Next we are going to invert $G_{mn;kl}$, i.e. we solve in the two-dimensional case $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k,l=0}^\infty G_{mn;kl} \Delta_{lk;sr} = \sum_{k,l=0}^\infty
\Delta_{nm;lk} G_{kl;rs} = \delta_{mr} \delta_{ns}\,.
\label{GD}\end{aligned}$$ The indices $m,n,k,l$ of each term contributing to (\[G2D\]) are restricted by $$\begin{aligned}
m+k=n+l\;.
\label{mnkl}\end{aligned}$$ Since the same relation is induced for the propagator $\Delta_{lk;nm}$ as well, the problem to solve (\[GD\]) factorises into the independent equations $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l=0}^\infty G_{m,m+\alpha;l+\alpha,l}
\Delta_{l,l+\alpha;r+\alpha,r} = \sum_{l=0}^\infty
\Delta_{m+\alpha,m;l,l+\alpha} G_{l+\alpha,l;r,r+\alpha} =
\delta_{mr} \,.
\label{GDv}\end{aligned}$$ We define $\Delta_{mn;kl}=0$ and $G_{mn;kl}=0$ if one of the indices $m,n,k,l$ is negative. For each $\alpha$ we have to invert an infinite square matrix. We therefore introduce a cut-off $\mathcal{N}$ with $0\leq m,n,k,l,r,s < \mathcal{N}$ above. Our strategy is to diagonalise the massless kinetic term $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(\mathcal{N})}_{m,m+\alpha;l+\alpha,l}\Big|_{\mu_0=0} & =\mu^2
\sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}} U_{m+1,i}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}\,
v_i \, U_{i,l+1}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)*} \;,
\nonumber
\\*
\delta_{ml} &= \sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}} U_{mi}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}
U_{il}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)*} =\sum_i
U_{mi}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)*} U_{il}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}
\;.
\label{GUlU}\end{aligned}$$ To see what result we can expect let us consider the eigenvalue problem of $\mathcal{N}=4+\alpha$ and $\alpha \geq 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
&G^{(4)}_{m,m+\alpha;l+\alpha,l}\Big|_{\mu_0=0} -v \mu^2 \delta_{ml}^{(4)}
\nonumber
\\*
&= \mu^2 \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
\alpha{+}1{-}v & -\sqrt{1(\alpha{+}1)\omega} & 0 & 0 \\
-\sqrt{1(\alpha{+}1)\omega} & \alpha{+}3{-}v &
-\sqrt{2(\alpha{+}2)\omega} & 0 \\
0 & -\sqrt{2(\alpha{+}2)\omega} & \alpha{+}5{-}v &
-\sqrt{3(\alpha{+}3)\omega} \\
0 & 0 & -\sqrt{3(\alpha{+}3)\omega} & \alpha{+}7{-}v
\end{array}
\right)_{\!\!m+1,l+l} \nonumber
\\
&= \mu^2 \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
\sqrt{\alpha{+}1}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_1(v)} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-\sqrt{\frac{1\, \omega }{A^{\alpha,\omega}_1(v)}} &
\sqrt{\alpha{+}2}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_2(v)} & 0 & 0
\\
0 & -\sqrt{\frac{2 \omega}{A^{\alpha,\omega}_2(v)}} &
\sqrt{\alpha{+}3}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_3(v)} & 0
\\
0 & 0 & -\sqrt{\frac{3\omega}{A^{\alpha,\omega}_3(v)}} &
\sqrt{\alpha{+}4}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_4(v)}
\end{array}\right)
\nonumber
\\*
& \qquad \times \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
\sqrt{\alpha{+}1}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_1(v)}
&-\sqrt{\frac{1\,\omega}{A^{\alpha,\omega}_1(v)}} & 0 & 0
\\
0 & \sqrt{\alpha{+}2}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_2(v)} &
-\sqrt{\frac{2\omega}{A^{\alpha,\omega}_2(v)}} & 0
\\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{\alpha{+}3}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_3(v)} &
-\sqrt{\frac{3\omega}{A^{\alpha,\omega}_3(v)}}
\\
0 & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{\alpha{+}4}\sqrt{A^{\alpha,\omega}_4(v)}
\end{array}\right),
\label{G2N}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\alpha,\omega}_n(v) &:= \frac{1}{\alpha{+}n}\Big(
\alpha+2n-1-v
-\frac{(n{-}1)\omega}{A^{\alpha,\omega}_{n-1}(v)}\Big)\;, \qquad
n\geq 1\;.
\label{Anla}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $0\leq \omega:=(\sqrt{\omega})^2 \leq 1$. With the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\alpha,\omega}_n(v) &= \frac{n}{\alpha{+}n} \frac{
L_n^{\alpha,\omega}(v)}{L_{n-1}^{\alpha,\omega}(v)}\;,\qquad
L^{\alpha,\omega}_0(v) \equiv 1\;,
\label{Laguerre}\end{aligned}$$ (\[Anla\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
0 = n L^{\alpha,\omega}_n (v) - (\alpha+2n-1-v)
L^{\alpha,\omega}_{n-1}(v) + \omega(\alpha+n-1)
L^{\alpha,\omega}_{n-2}(v) \;.
\label{Laguerrerec}\end{aligned}$$ For $\omega=1$ we recognise this relation as the recursion relation of Laguerre polynomials [@GR §8.971.6]. We thus denote the $
L^{\alpha,\omega}_n(v)$ as *deformed Laguerre polynomials*, with $ L^{\alpha,1}_n(v)\equiv L^\alpha_n(v)$ being the usual Laguerre polynomials.
At given matrix cut-off $\mathcal{N}$ it follows from (\[G2N\]) and (\[Laguerre\]) that the eigenvalues $v_i$ are the zeroes of the deformed Laguerre polynomial $L^{\alpha,\omega}_{\mathcal{N}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
L^{\alpha,\omega}_{\mathcal{N}}\big(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}\big)
&=0\;, \qquad i=1,\dots,\mathcal{N}\;,
\\
U^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}_{ji} = U^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)*}_{ij}
&=\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(\alpha{+}\mathcal{N}) \Gamma(j)
\omega^{\mathcal{N}}}{ \Gamma(\alpha{+}j) \Gamma(\mathcal{N})
\omega^j} }
\frac{L_{j-1}^{\alpha,\omega}(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})}{
L_{\mathcal{N}-1}^{\alpha,\omega}(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})}
U_{\mathcal{N}i}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)} \nonumber
\\*
&= \frac{\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(j)}{\omega^{j-1}\Gamma(\alpha+j)}}
L_{j-1}^{\alpha,\omega} (v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})}{
\sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^\mathcal{N}
\frac{\Gamma(h)}{\omega^{h-1}\Gamma(\alpha+h)}
\big(L_{h-1}^{\alpha,\omega}(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})\big)^2
}} \;, \quad j=1,\dots,\mathcal{N}\;.
\label{UNa}\end{aligned}$$
Inserting (\[UNa\]) into (\[GUlU\]) and (\[GDv\]) we obtain for $\alpha=n{-}m=k{-}l\geq 0$ the solutions $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{ml}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)} &= \sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}
\frac{\sqrt{\frac{m!l!}{\omega^{m+l}\,(m+\alpha)!(l+\alpha)!}}
L^{\alpha,\omega}_m(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})
L^{\alpha,\omega}_l(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}) }{
\sum_{h=0}^{\mathcal{N}-1} \frac{h!}{ \omega^h(\alpha+h)!}
\big(L_{h}^{\alpha,\omega}(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})\big)^2
} \;,
\label{orthN}
\\
G_{m,m+\alpha;l+\alpha,l}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}
&= \sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}
\frac{\sqrt{\frac{m!l!}{\omega^{m+l}\,(m+\alpha)!(l+\alpha)!}}
L^{\alpha,\omega}_m(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})
L^{\alpha,\omega}_l(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}) }{
\sum_{h=0}^{\mathcal{N}-1} \frac{h!}{ \omega^h(\alpha+h)!}
\big(L_{h}^{\alpha,\omega}(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})\big)^2}
\Big( \mu_0^2 + \mu^2 v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}\Big)\;,
\label{GN}
\\
\Delta_{m+\alpha,m;l,l+\alpha}^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}
&= \sum_{i=1}^{\mathcal{N}}
\frac{\sqrt{\frac{m!l!}{\omega^{m+l}\,(m+\alpha)!(l+\alpha)!}}
L^{\alpha,\omega}_m(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})
L^{\alpha,\omega}_l(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}) }{
\sum_{h=0}^{\mathcal{N}-1} \frac{h!}{ \omega^h(\alpha+h)!}
\big(L_{h}^{\alpha,\omega}(v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)})\big)^2}
\;\frac{1}{\mu_0^2 + \mu^2 v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,\omega)}}\;.
\label{DeltaN}\end{aligned}$$ Since the kinetic term (\[G2D\]) is symmetric in $(m\leftrightarrow
n,\,k\leftrightarrow l)$, we obtain the analogue of (\[GN\]) and (\[DeltaN\]) in the case $\alpha=n{-}m=k{-}l\leq 0$ by exchanging $(m\leftrightarrow n,\,k\leftrightarrow l)$. Note that the recursion relation (\[Laguerrerec\]) and the orthogonality (\[orthN\]) yield directly the kinetic term (\[G2D\]).
Remarks on the limit $\mathcal{N}\to \infty$
--------------------------------------------
Now we have to take the limit $\mathcal{N}\to \infty$, which can be done explicitly for $\omega=0$ and $\omega=1$. For $\omega=0$ we can invert (\[G2D\]) directly: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{(\omega=0)}_{nm;lk}=
\frac{\delta_{ml}\delta_{nk}}{\mu_0^2 + \mu^2 (m+n+1)}\;.\end{aligned}$$ For $\omega=1$ the zeroes $v_i^{(\mathcal{N},\alpha,1)}$ of the true Laguerre polynomials $L^\alpha_n$ become continuous variables $v$, and $\big(\sum_{h=0}^\infty
\frac{h!}{(\alpha+h)!}\big(L_h^\alpha(v)\big)^2 \big)^{-1}$ is promoted to the measure of integration. This measure is identified by comparison of (\[orthN\]) with the standard orthogonality relation [@GR §8.904] of Laguerre polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{ml} &= \int_0^\infty dv\; v^\alpha
\,\mathrm{e}^{-v} \sqrt{\frac{m!l!}{(m{+}\alpha)!(l{+}\alpha)!}}
L^{\alpha}_m(v) L^\alpha_l(v) \;.\label{orth}\end{aligned}$$ We thus have to translate (\[DeltaN\]) in the limit $\mathcal{N}\to
\infty$ into $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{(\omega=1)}_{nm;lk} &= \int_0^\infty dv\; v^{n-m}
\,\mathrm{e}^{-v} \sqrt{\frac{m!l!}{n!k!}} \,
\frac{L^{n-m}_m(v) \,L^{k-l}_l(v)}{ \mu_0^2+v \mu^2}
\delta_{m+k,n+l}\;.
\label{Deltaexact}\end{aligned}$$ We have derived the formula (\[Deltaexact\]) for $n{-}m=k{-}l\geq 0$ only. However, due to the identity $$\begin{aligned}
L^{-\alpha}_{m+\alpha}(v) = \frac{m!}{(m{+}\alpha)!} (-1)^\alpha
v^\alpha L^\alpha_m(v) \end{aligned}$$ it can be transformed into the $(m\leftrightarrow n,l\leftrightarrow
k)$-exchanged form so that (\[Deltaexact\]) holds actually for any $n{-}m=k{-}l$.
Introducing a Schwinger parameter and using [@GR §7.414.4] we can integrate (\[Deltaexact\]) to $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{(\omega=1)}_{nm;lk} &= \frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \int_0^\infty \!\!dt
\int_0^\infty dv\; v^{n-m}
\,\mathrm{e}^{-v(1+\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2}t)-t}
\sqrt{\frac{m!l!}{n!k!}} \, L^{n-m}_m(v) \,L^{k-l}_l(v)
\,\delta_{m+k,n+l} \nonumber
\\*
&= \frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \sqrt{\frac{(n{+}l)!}{n!l!}
\frac{(m{+}k)!}{m!k!}}
\,\delta_{m+k,n+l}
\int_0^\infty \!\!\! dt
\;\frac{\big(\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2} t\big)^{m+l} \,\mathrm{e}^{-t}
}{ \big(1{+}\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2}t\big)^{n+l+1}}\,
F\Big({-}m,{-}l;{-}n{-}l;1{-}\frac{\mu_0^4}{\mu^4 t^2}\Big) \,.
\label{2F1}\end{aligned}$$ Again, due to the property [@GR §9.131.1] of the hypergeometric function the result (\[2F1\]) is invariant under the exchange $m\leftrightarrow n$ and $k\leftrightarrow l$.
We recall that in the momentum space version of the $\phi^4$-model, the interactions contain oscillating phase factors which to our opinion [@Grosse:2003aj] make a Wilson-Polchinski treatment impossible. Here we use an adapted base which eliminates the phase factors from the interaction. At first sight it seems that these oscillations reappear in the propagator via the Laguerre polynomials. We see, however, from (\[2F1\]) that this is not the case. The interpolation of the matrix propagator consists of two monotonous and apparently smooth parts which are glued together at $\alpha=0$. We show in Figure \[fig0\]
(120,35) (-20,-150) (45,-150) (135,10)[(0,1)[15]{}]{} (135,10)[(4,-1)[12]{}]{} (135,10)[(3,1)[10]{}]{} (132,31) (132,27) (146,14) (148,5) (25,0) (85,0)
how $\Delta_{10,10+i;j+i,j}$ depends on the parameters $i,j$ for the indices. The monotonous behaviour is perfect for the renormalisation group approach. One observes that the maximum of $\Delta_{nm;lk}$ for given (large enough) $n$ is found at $m=n=k=l$. The decay rate of $\Delta_{nm;lk}$ for increasing indices decides according to [@Grosse:2003aj] about renormalisability. It turns out that $\Delta_{nm;lk}^{(\omega=1)}$ decays too slowly so that we have to pass to $\omega<1$. For $\theta_1\to \infty$ one obtains an ordinary matrix model, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\theta_1 \to \infty}
\Delta_{nm;lk}=\frac{1}{\mu_0^2} \delta_{ml} \delta_{nk}\;.\end{aligned}$$ This should be compared with [@Becchi:2003dg].
It would be desirable to have an explicit formula as (\[2F1\]) for the $\mathcal{N}\to\infty$ limit in case of $\omega< 1$, too. For that purpose a deeper understanding of the deformed Laguerre polynomials is indispensable.
The general strategy of renormalisation
=======================================
Projection to the irrelevant part
---------------------------------
Guided by Wilson’s understanding of renormalisation [@Wilson:1973jj] in terms of the scaling of effective Lagrangians, Polchinski has given a very efficient renormalisation proof of commutative $\phi^4$-theory in four dimensions [@Polchinski:1983gv]. We have adapted in [@Grosse:2003aj] this method to non-local matrix models defined by a kinetic term (Taylor coefficient matrix of the two-point function) which is neither constant nor diagonal. Introducing a cut-off in the measure $\prod_{m,n} d\phi_{mn}$ of the partition function $Z$, the resulting effect is undone by adjusting the effective action $L[\phi]$ (and other terms which are easy to evaluate). If the cut-off function is a smooth function of the cut-off scale $\Lambda$, the adjustment of $L[\phi,\Lambda]$ is described by a differential equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \frac{\partial L[\phi,\Lambda]}{\partial \Lambda} &=
\sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} \Lambda \frac{\partial
\Delta^K_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)}{\partial \Lambda} \bigg( \frac{\partial
L[\phi,\Lambda]}{\partial \phi_{mn}}\frac{\partial
L[\phi,\Lambda]}{\partial \phi_{kl}} - \frac{1}{\mathcal{V}_D}
\Big[\frac{\partial^2 L[\phi,\Lambda]}{\partial \phi_{mn}\,\partial
\phi_{kl}}\Big]_\phi \bigg) \;,
\label{polL}\end{aligned}$$ where $\big[F[\phi]\big]_\phi:= F[\phi]-F[0]$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^K_{nm;lk}(\Lambda) =
K[m,n;\Lambda] \Delta_{nm;lk} K[k,l;\Lambda]\;.
\label{GKDK1} \end{aligned}$$ Here, $K[m,n;\Lambda]$ is the cut-off function which for finite $\Lambda$ has finite support in $m,n$ and satisfies $K[m,n;\infty]=1$. By $\mathcal{V}_D$ we denote the volume of an elementary cell.
In [@Grosse:2003aj] we have derived a power-counting theorem for $L[\phi,\Lambda]$ by integrating (\[polL\]) perturbatively between the initial scale $\Lambda_0$ and the renormalisation scale $\Lambda_R \ll \Lambda_0$. The power-counting degree is given by topological data of ribbon graphs and two scaling exponents of the (summed and differentiated) cut-off propagator. The power-counting theorem in [@Grosse:2003aj] is model independent. The subtraction of divergences necessary to carry out the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$ has to be worked out model by model.
In this paper we will perform the subtraction of divergences for the regularised $\phi^4$-model on $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$. The first step is to extract from the power-counting theorem [@Grosse:2003aj] the set of relevant and marginal interactions. As we will derive in Section \[scaling\] and Appendix \[appB\], there is an infinite number of relevant interactions if the regularisation $\Omega$ is not applied. For $\Omega\neq 0$, which means $\omega<1$, the marginal interaction is (apart from the initial $\phi^4$-interaction) given by the planar one-loop two-point function $$\begin{aligned}
& \parbox{25mm}{\begin{picture}(22,30)
\put(0,0){\epsfig{file=a12.eps}}
\put(-1,6){\mbox{\scriptsize$m_1$}}
\put(3,0){\mbox{\scriptsize$n_1$}}
\put(14,2){\mbox{\scriptsize$m_2$}}
\put(21,4){\mbox{\scriptsize$n_2$}}
\put(10,16){\mbox{\scriptsize$l$}}
\end{picture}}
+~~ \parbox{25mm}{\begin{picture}(22,30)
\put(0,0){\epsfig{file=a12a.eps}}
\put(-1,22){\mbox{\scriptsize$n_1$}}
\put(4,26){\mbox{\scriptsize$m_1$}}
\put(16,28){\mbox{\scriptsize$n_2$}}
\put(21,22){\mbox{\scriptsize$m_2$}}
\put(10,11){\mbox{\scriptsize$l$}}
\end{picture}}
\qquad = \rho_{[m_1]}[\Lambda]\, \delta_{m_1n_2} \delta_{m_2n_1}
+ \rho_{[m_2]}[\Lambda]\, \delta_{m_1n_2} \delta_{m_2n_1}\;.
\label{r1}\end{aligned}$$ For this graph we have to provide boundary conditions at $\Lambda_R$. The simplicity of the divergent sectors makes the renormalisation very easy. On the other hand, the simplicity hides the beauty of renormalisation so that we choose a slightly more general setting to present the strategy.
For presentational reasons let us assume that the divergent graphs have the same structure of external lines as (\[r1\]) but possibly an arbitrary number of vertices, $$\begin{aligned}
\parbox{30mm}{\begin{picture}(25,18)
\put(0,0){\epsfig{file=r1.eps}}
\put(-2,6){\mbox{\scriptsize$m_1$}}
\put(2,0){\mbox{\scriptsize$n_1$}}
\put(4,16){\mbox{\scriptsize$m_2$}}
\put(-2,14){\mbox{\scriptsize$n_2$}}
\end{picture}}
\qquad = \rho_{[m_2]}[\Lambda]\, \delta_{m_1n_2} \delta_{m_2n_1}\;.
\label{r1g}\end{aligned}$$ In this case the corresponding $\rho_{[m]}$-functions for different indices $m$ must be expected to be independent, which means that the model would be determined by an infinite number of free parameters. Since this is not acceptable, we require according to [@Grosse:2003aj] that the parameters $\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R]$ are scaled by the same amount to $\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_0]$ (reduction of couplings [@Zimmermann:1984sx]). Expanding $\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda]$ as a formal power series in the coupling constant $\lambda$, $\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda]=\sum_{V=1}^\infty
\big(\frac{\lambda}{\mu^2}\big)^V \rho^{(V)}_{[m]}[\Lambda]$ and normalising the renormalised mass $\mu_0$ by $\rho_{[0]}[\Lambda_R]=0$, we thus demand in general $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\frac{\mu_0^2}{\mu^2}
+ \sum_{V'=1}^V \big(\frac{\lambda}{\mu^2}\big)^{V'}
\rho^{(V')}_{[m]}[\Lambda_R]}{\frac{\mu_0^2}{\mu^2} }
\sim \frac{\frac{\mu_0^2}{\mu^2}
+ \sum_{V'=1}^V \big(\frac{\lambda}{\mu^2}\big)^{V'}
\rho^{(V')}_{[m]}[\Lambda_0]}{\frac{\mu_0^2}{\mu^2}
+ \sum_{V'=1}^V \big(\frac{\lambda}{\mu^2}\big)^{V'}
\rho^{(V')}_{[0]}[\Lambda_0]}+ \mathcal{O}(\lambda^V)\;.
\label{consistency}\end{aligned}$$ This leads order by order in $\lambda$ to relations $a \sim b$ which mean $\lim_{\Lambda_0 \to \infty} \frac{a}{b}=1$.
At the initial scale $\Lambda=\Lambda_0$ the effective action thus reads $$\begin{aligned}
L[\phi,\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
&= \frac{\lambda}{4!} \sum_{m,n,k,l} \phi_{mn} \phi_{nk} \phi_{kl}
\phi_{lm} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m,n} \rho^0_{[m]} \phi_{mn} \phi_{nm}\;.
\label{ct}\end{aligned}$$ Each summation index runs over $\mathbb{N}$. The solution of (\[polL\]) with initial condition (\[ct\]) will have a completely different form in terms of $\phi_{mn}$, but the projection to the same $\phi$-structure as in (\[ct\]) can still be defined: $$\begin{aligned}
L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
&= \frac{\lambda}{4!} \sum_{m,n,k,l} \phi_{mn} \phi_{nk} \phi_{kl}
\phi_{lm} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m,n} \rho_{[m]}
[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0] \phi_{mn} \phi_{nm}
\nonumber
\\*
&+ \text{ different $\phi$-structures}\;.\label{init0}\end{aligned}$$ The marginal part of the four-point function will turn out to be scale-independent. We identify $\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]\equiv \rho^0_{[m]}$.
At the end we are interested in the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$. For this purpose we have to admit a $\Lambda_0$-dependence of $\omega$ and $\rho^0_{[m]}$ the determination of which is the art of renormalisation. For fixed $\Lambda=\Lambda_R$ but variable $\Lambda_0$ we consider the identity $$\begin{aligned}
&L[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0',\omega[\Lambda_0'],\rho^0[\Lambda_0']]
-L[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0'',\omega[\Lambda_0''],\rho^0[\Lambda_0'']]
\nonumber
\\*
& \equiv \int_{\Lambda_0''}^{\Lambda_0'} \frac{d\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_0} \;
\Big(\Lambda_0 \frac{d}{d\Lambda_0}
L[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega[\Lambda_0],\rho^0[\Lambda_0]]\Big)
\nonumber
\\*
&= \int_{\Lambda_0''}^{\Lambda_0'} \frac{d\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_0} \;
\Big(\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial
L[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial\Lambda_0}
+ \Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}
\frac{\partial
L[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial\omega}
+ \Lambda_0 \frac{d \rho^0}{d \Lambda_0}
\frac{\partial
L[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial\rho^0}
\Big)\;.
\label{taut}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have omitted for simplicity the dependence of $L$ on $\phi$ as well as the indices on $\rho^0$. The model is defined by fixing the boundary condition for the $\rho$-coefficients at $\Lambda_R$, i.e.by keeping $\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
=\text{constant}$: $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= d \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\nonumber
\\*
&= \frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{
\partial \Lambda_0} d\Lambda_0
+ \frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{
\partial \omega} d\omega
+ \sum_n \frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{
\partial \rho^0_{[n]}} d\rho^0_{[n]}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that we can invert the matrix $\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{
\partial \rho^0_{[n]}}$, which is possible in perturbation theory, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d \rho^0_{[n]}}{d \Lambda_0} &=
- \sum_m \frac{\partial \rho^0_{[n]}}{
\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial
\Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&- \sum_m \frac{\partial \rho^0_{[n]}}{
\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial
\omega} \frac{d\omega}{d\Lambda_0} \;.
\label{rhoLam}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting (\[rhoLam\]) into (\[taut\]) we see that the following function[^1] will be important: $$\begin{aligned}
R[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
&:= \Lambda_0 \frac{\partial
L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{ \partial \Lambda_0}
+ \frac{\partial L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial \omega}
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&- \sum_{m,n} \frac{\partial L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{
\partial \rho_{[m]}^0} \frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial
\rho_{[n]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]} \Lambda_0 \frac{\partial
\rho_{[n]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{ \partial \Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&- \sum_{m,n} \frac{\partial L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{
\partial \rho_{[m]}^0} \frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial
\rho_{[n]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]} \frac{\partial
\rho_{[n]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial \omega}
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}\;.
\label{V}\end{aligned}$$ Now we can rewrite (\[taut\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&L[\phi,\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0',\omega[\Lambda_0'],\rho^0[\Lambda_0']]
- L[\phi,\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0'',\omega[\Lambda_0''],\rho^0[\Lambda_0'']]
\nonumber
\\*
&\qquad\qquad
= \int_{\Lambda_0''}^{\Lambda_0'} \frac{d\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_0} \;
R[\phi,\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega[\Lambda_0],\rho^0[\Lambda_0]]\;.
\label{Vlim}\end{aligned}$$ Since $R$ is linear in $L$, the splitting (\[init0\]) together with (\[V\]) leads for all $\Lambda$ to a vanishing projection of $R$ to its $\rho$-coefficient. In other words, $R$ *projects to the irrelevant part* of the effective action, which is indispensable for the existence of the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$ controlled by (\[Vlim\]). We have to show, however, that this really eliminates all divergences.
Flow equations
--------------
For this purpose we need estimations for $R$. This is achieved by computing the $\Lambda$-scaling of $R$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \frac{\partial R}{\partial \Lambda}
&= \Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial \omega}
\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&- \sum_{m,n} \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}
\Big(\Lambda \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[n]}}
\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}}{\partial \Lambda_0}
- \sum_{m,n} \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}
\Big(\Lambda \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[n]}}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}}{\partial \omega}
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
& + \sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[n]}}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \rho_{[k]}^0}
\Big(\Lambda \frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
\frac{\partial \rho_{[k]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[l]}}
\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial \rho_{[l]}}{\partial \Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&+ \sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[n]}}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \rho_{[k]}^0}
\Big(\Lambda \frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
\frac{\partial \rho_{[k]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[l]}}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[l]}}{\partial \omega}
\Lambda_0\frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&- \sum_{m,n} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[n]}}
\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
- \sum_{m,n} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}{\partial \rho_{[n]}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega}
\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}}{\partial \Lambda}\Big)
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}\;.
\label{VV}\end{aligned}$$ We have omitted the dependencies for simplicity and made use of the fact that the derivatives with respect to $\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\rho^0,\omega$ commute. Using (\[polL\]) we compute the terms on the rhs of (\[VV\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0 }\Big( \Lambda
\frac{\partial L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial \Lambda}
\Big) \nonumber
\\*
&= \sum_{m',n',k',l'} \frac{1}{2} \Lambda \frac{\partial
\Delta^K_{n'm';l'k'}(\Lambda)}{\partial \Lambda}
\bigg( 2 \frac{\partial L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{
\partial \phi_{m'n'}} \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi_{k'l'}}
\Big( \Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]\Big) \nonumber
\\*
&\hspace*{6em} - \frac{1}{\mathcal{V}_2} \Big[\frac{\partial^2}{
\partial \phi_{m'n'}\,\partial \phi_{k'l'}}\Big( \Lambda_0
\frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]\Big)\Big]_\phi \bigg)
\equiv M\Big[L,\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda_0}
\Big] \;.
\label{V2}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial
L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial \Lambda} \Big) &=
M\Big[L,\frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}^0}\Big]\;,
\nonumber
\\*
\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega}\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial
L[\phi,\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial \Lambda} \Big) &=
M\Big[L,\frac{\partial L}{\partial \omega}\Big]\;.
\label{V2a}\end{aligned}$$ In the same way as in (\[init0\]) we expand $M[L,\,.\,]$ on the rhs of (\[V2\]) with respect to the $\phi$-structures, $$\begin{aligned}
M[L,\,.\,] &= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m,n} M_{[m]}[L,\,.\,] \phi_{mn} \phi_{nm}
+ \text{ different $\phi$-structures}\;.
\label{M24}\end{aligned}$$ Because of the $\Lambda$-derivatives there is no analogue of the initial four-point function. The distinguished expansion coefficients are due to (\[V2\]) and (\[init0\]) identified with $$\begin{aligned}
M_{[m]}\Big[L, \Lambda_0 \frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda_0} \Big] &=
\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0 }\Big( \Lambda
\frac{\partial \rho_{[m]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\rho^0]}{\partial \Lambda}
\Big)\;,
\nonumber
\\*
M_{[m]}\Big[L, \frac{\partial L}{\partial \omega} \Big] &=
\frac{\partial}{\partial \omega}\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial
\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\rho^0]}{\partial \Lambda} \Big)\;,
\nonumber
\\*
M_{[m]}\Big[L, \frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho^0_{[n]}} \Big] &=
\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho^0_{[n]}}\Big( \Lambda \frac{\partial
\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\rho^0]}{\partial \Lambda} \Big)\;.
\label{MaMa}\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[V2\]), (\[V2a\]) and (\[MaMa\]) as well as the linearity of $M[L,\,.\,]$ in the second argument we can rewrite (\[VV\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \frac{\partial R}{\partial \Lambda} = M[L,R] - \sum_m
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}} M_{[m]}[L,R]\;,
\label{VVV}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0] :=
\sum_n \frac{\partial L[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{ \partial
\rho_{[n]}^0} \frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}^0}{\partial
\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}\;.
\label{Lr}\end{aligned}$$ In the same way as for $R$, the $\Lambda$-scaling of (\[Lr\]) is computed to $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda} \Big( \frac{\partial
L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}} \Big)
&= M\Big[L, \frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}}\Big] - \sum_{n}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[n]}} M_{[n]}\Big[L, \frac{\partial
L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}}\Big]\;.
\label{LLr}\end{aligned}$$
Expansion as power series in the coupling constant
--------------------------------------------------
Now we expand the functions just introduced as formal power series in the coupling constant $\lambda$ and with respect to the number of fields $\phi$, expressing all dimensionful quantities in terms of the volume $\mathcal{V}_2$ of the elementary cell: $$\begin{aligned}
L[\phi,\Lambda] &= \lambda \sum_{V =1}^\infty
\big(\lambda \mathcal{V}_2 \big)^{V-1}
\sum_{N=2}^\infty \frac{1}{N!} \sum_{m_i,n_i}
A^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda] \phi_{m_1n_1}\cdots \phi_{m_Nn_N}\;,
\label{Lg}
\\
R[\phi,\Lambda] &= \lambda \sum_{V =1}^\infty
\big(\lambda \mathcal{V}_2 \big)^{V-1}
\sum_{N=2}^\infty \frac{1}{N!} \sum_{m_i,n_i}
R^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda] \phi_{m_1n_1}\cdots \phi_{m_Nn_N}\;,
\label{Rg}
\\
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}}[\phi,\Lambda]
&= \sum_{V =0}^\infty
\big(\lambda \mathcal{V}_2 \big)^{V}
\sum_{N=2}^\infty \frac{1}{N!} \sum_{m_i,n_i}
H^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda] \phi_{m_1n_1}\cdots \phi_{m_Nn_N}\;,
\label{Hg}\end{aligned}$$ We have suppressed the additional dependence of $L,R,\frac{\partial
L}{\partial \rho_{[m]}},A^{(V)},R^{(V)},H^{(V)}$ on $\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0$.
All functions $A^{(V)},R^{(V)},H^{(V)}$ have mass dimension zero. The Polchinski equation (\[polL\]) as well as its derived equations (\[LLr\]) and (\[VVV\]) can now with (\[V2\]) be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda}
& A^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\nonumber
\\*
&=
\sum_{N_1=2}^N \sum_{V_1=1}^{V-1}
\sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
A^{(V_1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N_1-1}n_{N_1-1};mn}[\Lambda]
A^{(V-V_1)}_{m_{N_1}n_{N_1};\dots;m_{N}n_{N};kl}[\Lambda]
\nonumber
\\*[-1ex]
&\hspace*{15em} + \Big(\binom{N}{N_1{-}1} -1\Big) \text{ permutations}
\nonumber
\\*
& - \sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
A^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N}n_{N};mn;kl}[\Lambda]\;,
\label{polL2}
\\
\Lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda}
& H^{[\hat{m}](V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\nonumber
\\*
&= \sum_{N_1=2}^N \sum_{V_1=1}^{V}
\sum_{m,n,k,l} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
A^{(V_1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N_1-1}n_{N_1-1};mn}[\Lambda]
H^{[\hat{m}](V-V_1)}_{m_{N_1}n_{N_1};\dots;m_{N}n_{N};kl}[\Lambda]
\nonumber
\\*[-1ex]
&\hspace*{15em} + \Big(\binom{N}{N_1{-}1} -1\Big) \text{ permutations}
\nonumber
\\*
&
- \sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
H^{[\hat{m}](V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N}n_{N};mn;kl}[\Lambda]
\nonumber
\\*
&
+ \sum_{\hat{n}} \sum_{V_1=1}^{V}
H^{[\hat{n}](V-V_1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N}n_{N}}[\Lambda]
\Big(\sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
H^{[\hat{m}](V_1)}_{m'n';n'm';mn;kl}[\Lambda]
\Big)_{[\hat{n}]}\;,
\label{polB2}
\\
\Lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda}
& R^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\nonumber
\\*
&= \sum_{N_1=2}^N \sum_{V_1=1}^{V-1}
\sum_{m,n,k,l} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
A^{(V_1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N_1-1}n_{N_1-1};mn}[\Lambda]
R^{(V-V_1)}_{m_{N_1}n_{N_1};\dots;m_{N}n_{N};kl}[\Lambda]
\nonumber
\\*[-1ex]
&\hspace*{15em} + \Big(\binom{N}{N_1{-}1} -1\Big) \text{ permutations}
\nonumber
\\*
&
- \sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
R^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N}n_{N};mn;kl}[\Lambda]
\nonumber
\\*
&
+ \sum_{\hat{n}} \sum_{V_1=1}^{V}
H^{[\hat{n}](V-V_1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N}n_{N}}[\Lambda]
\Big(\sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
R^{(V_1)}_{m'n';n'm';mn;kl}[\Lambda]
\Big)_{[\hat{n}]}\;,
\label{polV2}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda) := \frac{1}{\mathcal{V}_2} \Lambda
\frac{\partial \Delta^K_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)}{\partial \Lambda}\;.
\label{Q}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the projection $(~)_{[m]}$ to the $\rho_{[m]}$-coefficients in (\[polB2\]) and (\[polV2\]) are due to (\[r1g\]) non-zero on the 1PI functions only.
Renormalisation of the $\phi^4$-model
=====================================
Scaling of the cut-off propagator {#scaling}
---------------------------------
We have $\mathcal{V}_2=2\pi\theta_1=\frac{8\pi}{(1+\sqrt{\omega})\mu^2}$. We choose the smooth cut-off function $$\begin{aligned}
K(m,n;\Lambda) &= K\Big(\frac{m \mu^2}{\Lambda^2}\Big)
K\Big(\frac{n \mu^2}{\Lambda^2}\Big) \;, \qquad \text{where}
\nonumber
\\*
K(x) &\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^+) \text{ is monotonous with }
K(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 \qquad& \text{for } x\leq 1\;,\\
0 \qquad& \text{for } x\geq 2\;.
\end{array}\right.
\label{cut-off}\end{aligned}$$ This choice satisfies the dimensional normalisation $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m} \text{sign} \Big(
\max_{n,l} \big|K(m,n;\Lambda) K(l{+}n{-}m,l;\Lambda)\big| \Big)
\leq \sum_{m=0}^{\frac{2\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}-1} 1
= 2 \Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)^2
\label{volumefactor}\end{aligned}$$ of a two-dimensional model [@Grosse:2003aj]. We obtain with (\[GKDK1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \frac{\partial \Delta_{nm;lk}^K(\Lambda)}{\partial \Lambda}
&= - \sum_{j\in\{m,n,k,l\}} \frac{2 j \mu^2}{\Lambda^2}
K'\Big(\frac{j \mu^2}{\Lambda^2}\Big) \prod_{i \in \{m,n,k,l\}\setminus
\{j\}} K\Big(\frac{i\mu^2}{\Lambda^2}\Big) \Delta_{nm;lk}\;.
\label{DK1}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\mathrm{supp}\, K'(x)=[1,2]$ and $\mathrm{supp}\, K(y)=[0,2]$, (\[DK1\]) is non-zero only if the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2} \leq \max(m,n,k,l) &\leq
\frac{2\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}
\label{Qc}\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied. Note that due to (\[pmax\]) and (\[mu\]) this also corresponds to a momentum cut-off $p_{\text{max}} \approx \sqrt{8}
\Lambda$. We compute in Appendix \[appB\] the $\Lambda$-dependence of the maximised propagator for selected values of $\mu_0$ and $\omega$, which is extremely well reproduced by (\[Form1\]). We thus obtain for the maximum of (\[Q\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\big|Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)\big| & \leq
\frac{(1{+}\sqrt{\omega})\mu^2}{8\pi} \,(16 \max_x
|K'(x)|)\,\big|\Delta^{\mathcal{C}}_{nm;lk}\big|_{\mathcal{C}
=\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}}
\nonumber
\\*
& \leq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle
C_0 \frac{\mu^2}{(1{-}\omega)^{\frac{1}{2}} \Lambda^2}\,
\delta_{m+k,n+l}\qquad & \text{for } \omega<1\;,
\\[2ex]
\displaystyle C_0 \frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0 \Lambda}\,
\delta_{m+k,n+l} \qquad & \text{for } \omega=1\;,
\end{array}\right.
\label{est0}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_0=0.78\,C_0'\, \max_x |K'(x)|$. The constant $C_0'
\gtrapprox 1$ corrects the fact that (\[Form1\]) holds asymptotically only. Next, from (\[Form2\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\max_n \sum_{k} \max_{m,l}
\big|Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)\big| & \leq
\frac{(1{+}\sqrt{\omega})\mu^2}{8\pi} \,(16 \max_x |K'(x)|)
\max_n \sum_{k} \max_{m,l}
\big|\Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}}
\big|_{\mathcal{C}=\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}} \nonumber
\\*
& \leq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle
C_1 \frac{\mu^2}{(1{-}\omega) \Lambda^2}\qquad & \text{for }
\omega<1\;,
\\[2ex]
\displaystyle C_1 \frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2} \qquad & \text{for }
\omega=1\;,
\end{array}\right.
\label{est1}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1=1.28\,C_1'\, \max_x |K'(x)|$. We conclude from [@Grosse:2003aj] that the scaling exponents of the propagator are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_0&=\delta_1=2 \qquad \text{for } \omega<1\;, &
\delta_0&=1\;,~~\delta_1=0 \qquad \text{for }\omega=1\;.\end{aligned}$$ We thus have a regular model for $\omega<1$ and an anomalous (and not renormalisable) model for $\omega=1$. We also need the product of (\[est0\]) with (\[volumefactor\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\max_{m,n,k,l} \big|Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)\big|\;
\sum_{m'} \text{sign} \Big(
\max_{n',l'} |K(m',n';\Lambda) K(l'{+}n'{-}m',l';\Lambda)| \Big)
\nonumber
\\*
&\qquad \leq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle
2 C_0 \frac{1}{(1{-}\omega)^{\frac{1}{2}}} \qquad & \text{for } \omega<1\;,
\\[2ex]
\displaystyle 2 C_0 \frac{\Lambda}{\mu_0} \qquad & \text{for } \omega=1\;.
\end{array}\right.
\label{est2}\end{aligned}$$
Verification of the consistency condition
-----------------------------------------
We first have to verify the consistency condition (\[consistency\]), which in the present case simplifies considerably. Since the expansion stops at first order in the coupling constant, $\rho^{(V)}_{[m]}\equiv 0$ for $V>1$, we get the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{[0]}[\Lambda_0]\sim
\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_0]-\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R]\;.\end{aligned}$$ The initial value $\rho_{[m]}[\Lambda_R]$ drops out, and according to (\[r1\]) we have to verify $$\begin{aligned}
1 = \lim_{\Lambda_0 \to \infty}
\frac{\displaystyle \int_{\Lambda_R}^{\Lambda_0}
\frac{d\Lambda}{\Lambda} \sum_n Q_{nm;mn}(\Lambda)}{
\displaystyle \int_{\Lambda_R}^{\Lambda_0}
\frac{d\Lambda}{\Lambda} \sum_n Q_{n0;0n}(\Lambda)}
\equiv \lim_{\Lambda_0 \to \infty}
\frac{\sum_n
(\Delta^K_{nm;mn}(\Lambda_0)-\Delta^K_{nm;mn}(\Lambda_R))}{
\sum_n (\Delta^K_{n0;0n}(\Lambda_0)-\Delta^K_{n0;0n}(\Lambda_R))}\;,
\label{lim1}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used (\[Q\]). Let $\Lambda_m \ll \Lambda_0$ be the minimal scale such that for $n\geq \frac{\Lambda_m^2}{\mu^2}$ the value of the propagator $\Delta_{nm;mn}$ lies in the interval formed by the two asymptotics of Figure \[fig3\]. We have $\Lambda_m^2 \approx 2 C_m m \mu^2$ where $C_m$ is of order $1$. Then we have with (\[asDelta\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\frac{\Lambda_m^2}{\mu^2}-1} \Delta_{nm;mn}
+ \sum_{n=\frac{\Lambda_m^2}{\mu^2}}^{\frac{\Lambda_0^2}{\mu^2}-1}
\frac{1}{\mu^2(n-\frac{9\omega-5}{4}m+5)}
&< \sum_n \Delta^K_{nm;mn}(\Lambda_0)
\nonumber
\\*[-2ex]
&< \sum_{n=0}^{\frac{\Lambda_m^2}{\mu^2}-1} \Delta_{nm;mn}
+ \sum_{n=\frac{\Lambda_m^2}{\mu^2}}^{\frac{2\Lambda_0^2}{\mu^2}-1}
\frac{1}{\mu^2(n-\frac{9\omega-5}{4}m-2)}\;.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $ \sum_n \Delta^K_{nm;mn}(\Lambda_0)$ is logarithmically divergent for $\Lambda_0\to \infty$ and that (\[lim1\]) holds independently of the finite quantities $\sum_n
\Delta^K_{nm;mn}(\Lambda_R)$ and $\sum_{n=0}^{\frac{\Lambda_m^2}{\mu^2}-1} \Delta_{nm;mn}$ and independently of the cut-off function (\[cut-off\]).
Estimations for the interaction coefficients
--------------------------------------------
According to [@Grosse:2003aj] the Polchinski equation (\[polL2\]) is solved by ribbon graphs characterised by the number $V$ of vertices, the number $V^e$ of external vertices, the number $B$ of boundary components, the genus $\tilde{g}$ and the segmentation index $\iota$. We also recall that it is necessary to sum over indices of the external legs of ribbon graphs. There are $s\leq V^e+ \iota
- 1$ summations over different outgoing indices where the corresponding incoming index of the trajectories are kept fixed. We write symbolically $\sum_{\mathcal{E}^s}$ for the index summation.
We can now quote directly the power-counting theorem proven in [@Grosse:2003aj], inserting (\[est0\]), (\[est1\]) and (\[est2\]):
\[lemA\] The homogeneous parts $A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}$ of the coefficients of the effective action describing a regularised $\phi^4$-theory on $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ in the matrix base are for $2 \leq N\leq 2V{+}2$ and $\sum_{i=1}^N (m_i{-}n_i)=0$ bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\mathcal{E}^{s}} \big|A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho_0] \big|
\nonumber
\\*
&\quad
\leq \Big(\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}\Big)^{2-V-B-2\tilde{g}}
\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\omega}}\Big)^{3V-\frac{N}{2}-1
+B+2\tilde{g}-V^e-\iota+s}
\,P^{2V-\frac{N}{2}}\Big[\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big]\;,
\label{ANnorm1}\end{aligned}$$ where $P^q[X]$ denotes a polynomial in $X$ up to degree $q$. We have $A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{ m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}\equiv 0$ for $N>2V{+}2$ or $\sum_{i=1}^N (m_i{-}n_i)\neq 0$. $\square$
The choice of the boundary conditions is at the same time determined by (\[ANnorm1\]) and required to prove (\[ANnorm1\]). We notice that the marginal interaction coefficients are those with $V= B = 1$ (and $\tilde{g}= 0$, but this holds automatically for $V = 1$). We can impose the boundary conditions for $A^{(1,1,1,0,0)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}$ at $\Lambda_0$ whereas for $A^{(1,1,1,0,0)}_{m_1n_1;m_2n_2}$ the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$ later on requires to choose the boundary condition at $\Lambda_R$. We thus demand $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(1,1,1,0,0)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
&= \frac{1}{6} \Big(\delta_{n_1m_2} \delta_{n_2m_3}\delta_{n_3m_4}
\delta_{n_4m_1} + 5 \text{ permutations } \Big)\;,
\nonumber
\\*
A^{(1,1,1,0,0)}_{m_1n_1;m_2n_2}[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
& \equiv (\rho_{[m_1]}+ \rho_{[m_2]})[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\delta_{m_1n_2} \delta_{m_2n_1} = 0 \;,
\nonumber
\\*
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0] &= 0\qquad \text{for all } V+B>2\;.
\label{initcond}\end{aligned}$$
We remark that for $\omega = 1$ and an optimal choice of the boundary conditions for $A^{(V;V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}$ in agreement with [@Grosse:2003aj] we would get $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\mathcal{E}^{s}} \big|A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,1,\rho^0] \big|
\nonumber
\\*
&\quad
\leq \Big(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\Big)^{V-\frac{N}{2}+3-B-2\tilde{g}
-V^e-\iota+s}
\Big(\frac{\mu}{\mu_0}\Big)^{3V-\frac{N}{2}-1
+B+2\tilde{g}-V^e-\iota+s}
\,P^{2V-\frac{N}{2}}\Big[\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big]\;.
\label{ANnorm2}\end{aligned}$$ There would be an infinite number of relevant interaction coefficients, which means that the model is not renormalisable when keeping $\omega =
1$.
For the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$ of the theory we are interested in the functions $R^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}$, see (\[Vlim\]). The $R^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}$ are the solution of the differential equation (\[polV2\]) given again by ribbon graphs. These graphs are identical to the graphs representing the $A$-functions. The differential equation (\[polV2\]) actually simplifies in the model under consideration because for $\omega < 1$ the projection $(~)_{[\hat{n}]}$ is of at most first order in the coupling constant. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(\sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
R^{(V_1)}_{m'n';n'm';mn;kl}[\Lambda]
\Big)_{[\hat{n}]}=0 \qquad \text{unless } V_1=1\end{aligned}$$ in the last line of (\[polV2\]). However, the rhs of (\[polV2\]) for $V = 1$ and $N = 4$ is identically zero, because $R^{(1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_6n_6}=0$ by graphical reasons and $H^{(0)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}=0$ due to the fact that $A^{(1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda]=
A^{(1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda_0]$ is independent of $\rho^0_{[m]}$, see (\[Lr\]) and (\[initcond\]). We thus obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&R^{(1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
=R^{(1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\nonumber
\\*
&=\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
A^{(1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\Big|_{\Lambda=\Lambda_0}
+ \frac{\partial A^{(1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,
\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial \omega}
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&- \sum_n H^{[n](0)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_4n_4}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,
\omega,\rho^0] \Big( \Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
\rho_{[n]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\Big|_{\Lambda=\Lambda_0} \!\!
+ \frac{\partial \rho_{[n]}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]}{\partial \omega}
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega}{d \Lambda_0} \Big)
\nonumber
\\*
&=0 \;.
\label{R4}\end{aligned}$$ We have $R^{(1,1,1,0,0)}_{m_1n_1;m_2n_2}=0$ by definition (\[V\]). The conclusion is that (\[polV2\]) simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda}
& R^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda]
\nonumber
\\*
&= \sum_{N_1=2}^N \sum_{V_1=1}^{V-1}
\sum_{m,n,k,l} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
A^{(V_1)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N_1-1}n_{N_1-1};mn}[\Lambda]
R^{(V-V_1)}_{m_{N_1}n_{N_1};\dots;m_{N}n_{N};kl}[\Lambda]
\nonumber
\\*[-1ex]
&\hspace*{15em} + \Big(\binom{N}{N_1{-}1} -1\Big) \text{ permutations}
\nonumber
\\*
&
- \sum_{m,n,k,l} \frac{1}{2} Q_{nm;lk}(\Lambda)
R^{(V)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_{N}n_{N};mn;kl}[\Lambda]\;.
\label{polV2beta}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we do not have to evaluate the $H$-functions for $\omega < 1$.
\[lemV\] The homogeneous parts $R^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}$ of the coefficients of the $\Lambda_0$-varied effective action describing a regularised $\phi^4$-theory on $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ in the matrix base are for $2
\leq N\leq 2V{+}2$ and $\sum_{i=1}^N (m_i{-}n_i)=0$ bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\mathcal{E}^{s}} \big|R^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0] \big|
\nonumber
\\*
&\quad
\leq \frac{\Lambda^2}{\Lambda_0^2}
\Big(\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}\Big)^{2-V-B-2\tilde{g}}
\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\omega}}\Big)^{3V-\frac{N}{2}-1
+B+2\tilde{g}-V^e-\iota+s}
\,P^{2V-\frac{N}{2}}\Big[\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big]\;,
\label{VNnorm1}\end{aligned}$$ for $V+B>2$. We have $R^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}\equiv 0$ for $N>2V{+}2$, for $V+B=2$ or for $\sum_{i=1}^N (m_i{-}n_i)\neq 0$.
*Proof.* We first derive the initial condition. From (\[initcond\]) we learn that for $V+B>2$ we have $A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]\equiv 0$ *independent of* $\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0$: $$\begin{aligned}
0&= \Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\nonumber
\\*
& = \frac{\partial}{\partial \omega}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
= \frac{\partial}{\partial \rho^0}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]\;,
\label{initV}\end{aligned}$$ for $V+B>2$. The first line has to be considered with care: $$\begin{aligned}
0 =\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
&\equiv
\Lambda_0 \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda_0}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]\Big|_{\Lambda=\Lambda_0}
\nonumber
\\*
&+ \Lambda \frac{\partial}{\partial \Lambda}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]\Big|_{\Lambda=\Lambda_0} \;.
\label{LL0}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting (\[ANnorm1\]) into (\[LL0\]) and further into (\[initV\]) we obtain the initial condition for the functions $R$ defined in (\[V\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\mathcal{E}^{s}} \big|R^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0] \big|
\nonumber
\\*
&\qquad \leq
\Big(\frac{\Lambda_0^2}{\mu^2}\Big)^{2-V-B-2\tilde{g}}
\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\omega}}\Big)^{3V-\frac{N}{2}-1
+B+2\tilde{g}-V^e-\iota+s}
\,P^{2V-\frac{N}{2}}\Big[\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big]\;.
\label{VNnorm2}\end{aligned}$$
Because of (\[R4\]) we obtain from (\[polV2beta\]) for the simplest non-vanishing $R$-functions $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(1,1,2,0,1)}_{m_1n_1;m_2n_2}[\Lambda]&=
R^{(1,1,2,0,1)}_{m_1n_1;m_2n_2}[\Lambda_0]\;, &
R^{(2,2,1,0,0)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_6n_6}[\Lambda]&=
R^{(2,2,1,0,0)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_6n_6}[\Lambda_0]\;,
\label{R6}\end{aligned}$$ which due to (\[VNnorm2\]) are in agreement with (\[VNnorm1\]). Since (\[polV2beta\]) is a linear differential equation, the factor $\frac{\Lambda^2}{\Lambda_0^2}$ first appearing in (\[R6\]) survives to more complicated graphs. Indeed, the only difference between (\[VNnorm1\]) and (\[ANnorm1\]) is the factor $\frac{\Lambda^2}{\Lambda_0^2}$, and the structure of the rhs of the differential equation (\[polV2beta\]) and is the same as for (\[polL2\]). We can thus repeat the evaluation of the Polchinski equation (\[polL2\]) performed in [@Grosse:2003aj] for the similar differential equation (\[polV2beta\]). We find immediately by induction that the rhs of (\[polV2beta\]) is bounded by (\[VNnorm1\]) with the degree of the polynomial in $\ln\frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}$ reduced by $1$. This leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&
\sum_{\mathcal{E}^{s}} \big|R^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0] \big|
\nonumber
\\*
& \quad \leq
\sum_{\mathcal{E}^{s}} \big|R^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{
m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda_0,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0] \big|
\nonumber
\\*
& \quad + \int_{\Lambda}^{\Lambda_0} \frac{d\Lambda'}{\Lambda'}
\frac{\Lambda^{\prime 2}}{\Lambda_0^2}
\Big(\frac{\Lambda^{\prime 2}}{\mu^2}\Big)^{2-V-B-2\tilde{g}}
\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1{-}\omega}}\Big)^{3V-\frac{N}{2}-1
+B+2\tilde{g}-V^e-\iota+s}
\,P^{2V-\frac{N}{2}-1}\Big[\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big]\;.\end{aligned}$$ Since $V+B>2$ the integral is bounded by (\[VNnorm1\]). $\square$
We have convinced ourselves that it is crucial to keep $\omega<1$. We are, however, interested in the standard $\phi^4$-model given by $\Omega=0$ and thus $\omega=(\frac{1-\Omega^2}{1+\Omega^2})^2=1$. *This model can be achieved in the limit.* For this purpose we have to find a dependence $\omega[\Lambda_0]$ with $\lim_{\Lambda_0\to\infty} \omega[\Lambda_0]=1$ which additionally leads to convergence of (\[Vlim\]). One choice which meets the criteria is $$\begin{aligned}
\omega[\Lambda_0] &=1 - \Big(1+\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big)^{-2}\;, &
\Lambda_0 \frac{d \omega[\Lambda_0]}{d\Lambda_0} &=
2\Big(1+\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big)^{-3} \equiv
2\big(1{-}\omega[\Lambda_0]\big)^{\frac{3}{2}} \;.
\label{bL0}\end{aligned}$$
The $\phi^4$-model on $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ is (order by order in the coupling constant) renormalisable in the matrix base by adjusting the coefficients $\rho^0_{[m]}[\Lambda_0]$ of the initial interaction to give $A^{(1;1;1;0;0)}_{m_1n_1;m_2n_2}[\Lambda_R] = 0$ and by performing the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$ along the path of regulated models characterised by $\omega[\Lambda_0] = 1 - (1+\ln
\frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R})^{-2}$. The limit $A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda_R,\infty]
:=\lim_{\Lambda_0 \to \infty}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega[\Lambda_0],\rho^0[\Lambda_0]]$ of the expansion coefficients of the effective action $L[\phi,\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega[\Lambda_0],\rho^0[\Lambda_0]]$, see (\[Lg\]), exists and satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& \Big| \lambda \big(\lambda \mathcal{V}_2\big)^{V-1}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}[\Lambda_R,\infty] -
\big(\lambda \mathcal{V}_2\big)^{V-1}
A^{(V,V^e,B,\tilde{g},\iota)}_{m_1n_1;\dots;m_Nn_N}
[\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega,\rho^0]
\Big|_{\omega = 1 - (1+\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R})^{-2}} \nonumber
\\
&\qquad \leq \frac{\Lambda_R^4}{\Lambda_0^2}
\Big(\frac{\lambda}{\Lambda_R^2}\Big)^V \Big(\frac{\mu^2 (1+\ln
\frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R})}{\Lambda_R^2} \Big)^{B+2\tilde{g}-1}
\,P^{5V-N-V^e-\iota}\Big[\ln \frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}\Big]\;.
\label{limA}\end{aligned}$$
*Proof.* The question is whether $L[\phi,\Lambda_R,\Lambda_0,\omega[\Lambda_0],\rho^0[\Lambda_0]]$ converges to a finite limit when $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$. The existence of the limit and its property (\[limA\]) follow from inserting (\[VNnorm1\]) and (\[bL0\]) into (\[Vlim\]) and Cauchy’s criterion. Note that $\int \frac{dx}{x^3}\,P^q[\ln x] = \frac{1}{x^2}
P^{\prime q}[\ln x]$. $\square$
It seems that we can additionally achieve a commutative theory $\theta_1 = \frac{2}{\mu^2} \to 0$ in the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$ by choosing e.g. $\mu^2 = \Lambda_R^2 \sqrt{1+\ln
\frac{\Lambda_0}{\Lambda_R}}$. (We need $4\Omega/\theta_1=\mu^2\sqrt{1-\omega} \to 0$.) However, this limit is degenerate because due to (\[Qc\]) all indices are frozen to zero. A different reference scale than $\mu$ would help, but we need precisely the choice (\[Qc\]) in order to get the correct momentum cut-off from (\[pmax\]). There is additional work necessary to get the commutative limit from (\[limA\]).
Conclusion
==========
Using the adapted Wilson-Polchinski approach developed in [@Grosse:2003aj] we have proven that the real $\phi^4$-model on $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ is perturbatively renormalisable when formulated in the matrix base. It was crucial to define the model at the initial scale $\Lambda_0$ by the $\phi^4$-action supplemented by a harmonic oscillator potential. The renormalisation is achieved by a suitable $\Lambda_0$-dependence of the bare mass and the oscillator frequency. This shows that the limit $\Lambda_0 \to \infty$ of our model is different from the subtraction of divergences arising in the naïve Feynman graph approach in momentum space. Whereas the treatment of the oscillator potential is easy in the matrix base, a similar procedure in momentum space will face enormous difficulties. In contrast to the Feynman graph approach, our renormalised Green’s functions are bounded.
First calculations of the asymptotic behaviour of the propagator in the four-dimensional case suggest that by the same regulator method it will be possible to renormalise the $\phi^4$-model on $\mathbb{R}^4_\theta$ [@gw3].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank the Erwin Schrödinger Institute in Vienna and the Max-Planck-Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences in Leipzig for hospitality during several mutual visits as well as for the financing of these invitations.
The matrix basis of $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ {#appA}
=========================================
The following is copied from [@Gracia-Bondia:1987kw], adapted to our notation. The Gaussian $$\begin{aligned}
f_0(x) &= 2 \mathrm{e}^{-\frac{1}{\theta_1}(x_1^2+x_2^2)}\;,\end{aligned}$$ with $\theta_1\equiv \theta^{12}=-\theta^{21}>0$, is an idempotent, $$\begin{aligned}
(f_0 \star f_0)(x) &= 4 \int d^2y\int \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi)^2} \,
\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{1}{\theta_1}(2 x^2 +y^2+ 2x\cdot y + x \cdot \theta
\cdot k + \frac{1}{4} \theta_1^2 k^2) + \mathrm{i} k\cdot y}
= f_0(x)\;.
\label{ff}\end{aligned}$$ We consider creation and annihilation operators $$\begin{aligned}
a &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_1+\mathrm{i} x_2)\;, & \bar{a} &=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x_1-\mathrm{i} x_2)\;, \nonumber
\\*
\frac{\partial}{\partial a} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\partial_1 -
\mathrm{i} \partial_2 )\;, & \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{a}} &=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\partial_1 + \mathrm{i} \partial_2 )\;.\end{aligned}$$ For any $f \in \mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
(a \star f)(x) &= a(x) f(x) + \frac{\theta_1}{2} \frac{\partial
f}{\partial \bar{a}}(x)\;, & (f \star a)(x) &= a(x) f(x) -
\frac{\theta_1}{2} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{a}}(x)\;, \nonumber
\\*
(\bar{a} \star f)(x) &= \bar{a}(x) f(x) - \frac{\theta_1}{2}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial a}(x)\;, & (f \star \bar{a})(x) &=
\bar{a}(x) f(x) + \frac{\theta_1}{2} \frac{\partial f}{\partial
a}(x)\;.\end{aligned}$$ This implies $\bar{a}^{\star m} \star f_0=2^m \bar{a}^m f_0$, $f_0
\star a^{\star n} =2^n a^n f_0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
a \star \bar{a}^{\star m} \star f_0 &= \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
m\theta_1 (\bar{a}^{\star (m-1)} \star f_0) & \text{ for } m\geq 1
\\
0 & \text{ for } m =0
\end{array}\right.
\nonumber
\\*
f_0 \star a^{\star n} \star \bar{a} &= \left\{\begin{array}{cl} n
\theta_1 (f_0 \star a^{\star (n-1)})\;\, & \text{ for } n\geq 1
\\
0 & \text{ for } n =0
\end{array}\right.
\label{faa}\end{aligned}$$ where $a^{\star n} = a \star a \star \dots \star a$ ($n$ factors) and similarly for $\bar{a}^{\star m}$. Now, defining $$\begin{aligned}
f_{mn} &:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n! m! \,\theta_1^{m+n}}} \, \bar{a}^{\star m}
\star f_0 \star a^{\star n}
\label{fmn}
\\*
& = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n! m! \,\theta_1^{m+n}}} \sum_{k=0}^{\min(m,n)}
(-1)^k \binom{m}{k} \binom{n}{k} \,k! \,2^{m+n-2k}\, \theta_1^k
\,\bar{a}^{m-k} \,a^{n-k} f_0\;, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ (the second line is proved by induction) it follows from (\[faa\]) and (\[ff\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
(f_{mn} \star f_{kl})(x) = \delta_{nk} f_{ml}(x)\;.
\label{fprod}\end{aligned}$$ The multiplication rule (\[fprod\]) identifies the $\star$-product with the ordinary matrix product: $$\begin{aligned}
a(x) &= \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty a_{mn} f_{mn}(x)\;,& b(x) &=
\sum_{m,n=0}^\infty b_{mn} f_{mn}(x) \nonumber
\\*
\Rightarrow\quad (a\star b)(x) &= \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty (ab)_{mn}
f_{mn}(x)\;, & (ab)_{mn} &= \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_{mk} b_{kn}\;.
\label{fprodmat}\end{aligned}$$ In order to describe elements of $\mathbb{R}^2_\theta$ the sequences $\{a_{mn}\}$ must be of rapid decay [@Gracia-Bondia:1987kw]: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m,n=0}^\infty a_{mn} f_{mn} \in \mathbb{R}^2_\theta \qquad
\text{iff} \quad \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty \big((2m{+}1)^{2k}(2n{+}1)^{2k}
|a_{mn}|^2\big)^{\frac{1}{2}} < \infty \quad \text{for all } k\;.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, using (\[ff\]), the trace property of the integral and (\[faa\]) we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\int d^2 x \, f_{mn}(x) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{m! n!\, \theta_1^{m+n}}}
\int d^2x\, \big( \bar{a}^{\star m} \star f_0 \star f_0 \star
a^{\star n} \big)(x)
= \delta_{mn} \int d^2x f_0(x)
\nonumber
\\*
&= 2 \pi \theta_1 \delta_{mn}\;.
\label{intfmn}\end{aligned}$$
The functions $f_{mn}$ with $m,n <\mathcal{N}$ provide a cut-off both in position and momentum space. Passing to radial coordinates $x_1=\rho \cos \varphi$, $x_2=\rho \sin \varphi$ we can compare (\[fmn\]) with the expansion of Laguerre polynomials [@GR §8.970.1]: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{mn}(\rho,\varphi) &= 2(-1)^m \sqrt{\tfrac{m!}{n!}}
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi(n-m)} \Big(\sqrt{\tfrac{2}{\theta_1}}
\rho\Big)^{n-m} L^{n-m}_m(\tfrac{2}{\theta_1}\rho^2)
\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\rho^2}{\theta_1}} \;.
\label{frho}\end{aligned}$$ The function $L^\alpha_m(z) z^{\alpha/2} \mathrm{e}^{-z/2}$ is rapidly decreasing beyond the last maximum $(z^\alpha_m)_{\text{max}}$. One finds numerically $(z^\alpha_m)_{\text{max}} < 2\alpha + 4 m$ and thus the radial cut-off $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\text{max}} \approx \sqrt{2 \theta_1 \mathcal{N}}
\qquad \text{for $m,n < \mathcal{N}$}\;.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, for $p_1=-p\sin\psi$, $p_2=p\cos\psi$ we compute with (\[frho\]), [@GR §8.411.1] and [@GR §7.421.5] $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}(p,\psi)
&:= \int_0^\infty \!\!\!\rho\, d\rho \int_{0}^{2\pi} \!\!d\varphi \;
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} p\rho \sin(\varphi-\psi)} f_{mn}(\rho,\varphi)
\nonumber
\\*
&= 4\pi(-1)^n \sqrt{\tfrac{m!}{n!}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\psi(n-m)}
\int_0^\infty \!\!\!\rho d\rho \,
\Big(\sqrt{\tfrac{2}{\theta_1}}
\rho\Big)^{n-m} L^{n-m}_m(\tfrac{2}{\theta_1}\rho^2)
J_{n-m}(\rho p)\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\rho^2}{\theta_1}}
\nonumber
\\*
&= 2\pi\theta_1 \sqrt{\tfrac{m!}{n!}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}(\psi+\pi)(n-m)}
\Big(\sqrt{\tfrac{\theta_1}{2}}\,p \Big)^{n-m}
L^{n-m}_m(\tfrac{\theta_1}{2}p^2)
\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{\theta_1}{4}p^2}\;. \end{aligned}$$ We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\text{max}} \approx \sqrt{\frac{8 \mathcal{N}}{\theta_1}}
\qquad \text{for $m,n < \mathcal{N}$}\;.
\label{pmax}\end{aligned}$$
Asymptotic behaviour of the propagator {#appB}
======================================
The crucial question for renormalisation is how fast the propagator $\Delta^K_{nm;lk}(\mu^2,\mu_0^2)$ and a certain summation over its indices decay if the indices $m,n,k,l$ become large. We need two asymptotic formulae which we deduce from the numerical evaluation of the propagator for a representative class of parameters. These formulae involve the cut-off propagator $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}} := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\Delta_{nm;lk} \qquad & \text{for } \mathcal{C} \leq
\max(m,n,k,l) \leq 2\mathcal{C}\;,
\\
0 & \text{otherwise\;,}
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ which is the restriction of $\Delta_{nm;lk}$ to the support of the cut-off propagator $\Delta_{nm;lk}^K(\Lambda)$ appearing in the Polchinski equation, with $\mathcal{C}=\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}$.\
[**Formula 1:**]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{m,n,k,l}\Big( \Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}}(\mu^2,\mu_0^2)
\Big) \approx \sqrt{\frac{3-2\omega}{\mu^4_0
+ 4 \mu_0^2\mu^2 \mathcal{C} + 4 \mu^4 (1{-}\omega)
\mathcal{C}^2}}\,\delta_{m+k,n+l}\;.
\label{Form1}\end{aligned}$$ We demonstrate in Figure \[fig-Form1\]
(160,135) (-20,-32) (35,-32) (90,-32) (22,106) (76,106) (130,106) (-20,-66) (35,-66) (90,-66) (22,72) (76,72) (130,72) (-20,-100) (35,-100) (90,-100) (22,38) (76,38) (130,38) (-20,-134) (35,-134) (90,-134) (22,4) (76,4) (130,4)
that $(\max
\Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}})^{-1}$ is asymptotically reproduced by $((\mu^4_0 + 4 \mu_0^2\mu^2 \mathcal{C} + 4 \mu^4 (1{-}\omega)
\mathcal{C}^2)/(3-2\omega))^{\frac{1}{2}}$. We have evaluated the formula (\[DeltaN\]) for the propagator with $\mathcal{N}=55$. An exception is $\Delta_{nm;lk}$ for $\omega=1$ and $\mu^2\gg \mu_0^2$. Here the choice $\mathcal{N}=55$ in (\[DeltaN\]) is too small, and we have used the numerical evaluation of (\[Deltaexact\]) instead. We compare the outcome of (\[DeltaN\]) for $\omega=1$ and (\[Deltaexact\]) for various values of $\mu_0^2$ in Figure \[fig-Form1-lag\].
(160,35) (-20,-134) (35,-134) (90,-134) (22,4) (76,4) (130,4)
(160,140) (-20,-32) (35,-32) (90,-32) (22,106) (76,126) (130,126) (-20,-66) (35,-66) (90,-66) (22,72) (76,72) (130,72) (-20,-100) (35,-100) (90,-100) (22,38) (76,38) (130,38) (-20,-134) (35,-134) (90,-134) (22,4) (76,4) (130,4)
[**Formula 2:**]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{n} \sum_{k} \max_{m,l}
\Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}}(\mu^2,\mu_0^2) \approx
\frac{1}{\mu_0^2 + \mu^2 (1{-}\omega) \mathcal{C}}\;.
\label{Form2}\end{aligned}$$ We demonstrate in Figure \[fig-Form2\] that $( \max_{n} \sum_{k}
\max_{m,l} \Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}})^{-1}$ is asymptotically given by $\mu^2_0 + \mu^2 (1{-}\omega) \mathcal{C}$. We have evaluated the formula (\[DeltaN\]) for the propagator with $\mathcal{N}=55$, except for $\omega=1$ and $\mu^2\gg \mu_0^2$, where (\[Deltaexact\]) is used. The crucial observation is that for $\omega=1$ the function $\max_{n} \sum_{k} \max_{m,l} \Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}}$ is *increasing* with $\mathcal{C}$ so that $\lim_{\mathcal{C}\to
\infty} \max_{n} \sum_{k} \max_{m,l}\Delta_{nm;lk}^{\mathcal{C}} =
\mu_0^{-2}>0$.
(160,140) (-20,-32) (35,-32) (90,-32) (22,106) (66,123) (120,123) (-20,-66) (35,-66) (90,-66) (22,72) (66,89) (120,89) (-20,-100) (35,-100) (90,-100) (22,38) (66,55) (120,55) (-20,-134) (35,-134) (90,-134) (22,4) (76,4) (130,4)
Finally, for the verification of (\[consistency\]) we need $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mu^2(n-\frac{9\omega-5}{4}m+5)} <
\Delta_{nm;mn}(\mu^2,\mu_0^2) < \frac{1}{\mu^2(n-\frac{9\omega-5}{4}m+5)-2}
\qquad \text{for } m \ll n \;,
\label{asDelta} \end{aligned}$$ independent of $\mu_0$. We compare in Figure \[fig3\] the inverse of the matrix element $\mu^2 \Delta_{nm;mn}(\mu^2,\mu_0^2)$ of the propagator with the asymptotics $n-\frac{9\omega-5}{4}m\big\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{1}{+5}{-2}$.
[99]{}
S. Minwalla, M. Van Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, “Noncommutative perturbative dynamics,” JHEP [**0002**]{} (2000) 020 \[arXiv:hep-th/9912072\]. I. Chepelev and R. Roiban, “Renormalization of quantum field theories on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^d$. I: Scalars,” JHEP [**0005**]{} (2000) 037 \[arXiv:hep-th/9911098\]. I. Chepelev and R. Roiban, “Convergence theorem for non-commutative Feynman graphs and renormalization,” JHEP [**0103**]{} (2001) 001 \[arXiv:hep-th/0008090\]. H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, “Power-counting theorem for non-local matrix models and renormalisation,” arXiv:hep-th/0305066. K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, “The Renormalization Group And The Epsilon Expansion,” Phys. Rept. [**12**]{} (1974) 75. J. Polchinski, “Renormalization And Effective Lagrangians,” Nucl. Phys. B [**231**]{} (1984) 269. J. M. Gracia-Bondía and J. C. Várilly, “Algebras Of Distributions Suitable For Phase Space Quantum Mechanics. 1,” J. Math. Phys. [**29**]{} (1988) 869. H. Grosse and R. Wulkenhaar, “Renormalisation of $\phi^4$-theory on noncommutative $\mathbb{R}^4$ in the matrix base,” in preparation.
I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, “Tables of Series, Produces, and Integrals. Sixth Edition,” Academic Press, San Diego (2000).
C. Becchi, S. Giusto and C. Imbimbo, “The renormalization of non-commutative field theories in the limit of large non-commutativity,” arXiv:hep-th/0304159. W. Zimmermann, “Reduction In The Number Of Coupling Parameters,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**97**]{} (1985) 211.
[^1]: Our function $R$ (for ‘renormalised’) generalises a function called $V$ in [@Polchinski:1983gv]. We use the symbol $R$ in order to avoid confusion with the number $V$ of vertices. Below we shall denote the function $B$ of [@Polchinski:1983gv] by $H$ (for having ‘holes’), avoiding confusion with the number $B$ of boundary components.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the extension of structure group of principal bundles with a reductive algebraic group as structure group on smooth projective varieties defined over algebraically closed field of positive characteristic. Our main result is to show that given a representation $\rho$ of a reductive algebraic group $G$, there exists an integer $t$ such that any semistable $G$-bundle whose first $t$ frobenius pullbacks are semistable induces a semistable vector bundle on extension of structure group via $\rho$. Moreover we quantify the number of such frobenius pullbacks required.'
---
**Rationality of the instability parabolic and related results**
**Sudarshan Gurjar, Vikram Mehta**
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety defined over an algebraically closed field $k$. Fix a very ample line bundle $H$. Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group defined over $k$. All representations considered in this paper are rational finite-dimensional representations. Recall that a $G$-bundle is semistable with respect to the polarisation $H$ if for any reduction of structure group to a parabolic subgroup $P$ and any dominant character of P, the induced line bundle on $X$ has non-positive degree.\
$~$ Now let $\rho: G \rightarrow Gl(V)$ be a rational representation of $G$ sending the connected component of the centre of $G$ to that of $Gl(V)$. If the characteristic $k$ is zero and $E$ is a semistable $G$-bundle on $X$ then the induced $Gl(V)$-bundle is also semistable. From this it follows easily that if the characteristic of the field is sufficiently large , then again a semistable $G$-bundle induces a semistable $Gl(V)$-bundle. This is quantified in \[IMP\] where in it is shown that if char $k >$ ht $(\rho)$, then a semistable $G$-bundle induce a semistable $Gl(V)$-bundle on extension of structure group. In positive characteristic however, it is in not in general true that a semistable $G$ bundle will induce a semistable $Gl(V)$-bundle. A principal $G$-bundle on $X$ is said to be strongly semistable if all its frobenius pullbacks are semistable. In char 0, the frobenius map is just identity and hence the notion of semistability and strong semistability coincide. In Ramanan-Ramanathan \[RR\], it is shown that a strongly semistable $G$-bundle induces a strongly semistable $Gl(V)$-bundle. This result is sharpened in the paper of Coiai-Holla \[CH\] where the authors show that given a representation $\rho$ as before, there exists a non-negative integer $t$ such that if $E$ is any $G$-bundle on $X$ which along with its first $t$ frobenius pullbacks is semistable, then the induced $Gl(V)$-bundle is again semistable. This fact is crutial in their proof of boundedness of semistable $G$-bundles with fixed Chern classes. In this paper we give bounds for this $t$, in terms of certain numerical data attached to $G$ and $\rho$. The main ingedient of the proof is the use of the instability parabolic (also known sometimes as the Kempf’s parabolic) associated to points of the representing space (see \[Section 3\] for definition). The basic idea is as follows: Let $E$ be a principal $G$-bundle on $X$. Let $k(X)$ denote the function field of $X$. Let $E(G)$ be the group scheme associated to $E$ (see section 2 for definition). Let $E_{Gl(V)}$ denote the induced $Gl(V)$ bundle. Let $E(G)_\circ$ denote the generic fiber of $E(G)$. It is a group scheme defined over the function field of $X$. Let $P$ be any maximal parabolic in $Gl(V)$. Let $E(Gl(V)/P)$ be the associated $Gl(V)/P$ fiber-space. Again let $E(Gl(V)/P)_\circ$ denote the generic fiber of $E(Gl(V)/P)$. Then $E(G)_\circ$ acts on $E(Gl(V)/P)_\circ$ which is linearized by a suitable very ample line bundle. If $E_{Gl(V)}$ admits a reduction of structure group to this maximal parabolic $P$, then we get a section (canonically) $\sigma$ of $E(Gl(V)/P)$. Restricting to the generic fiber gives a $k(X)$-valued point $\sigma_\circ$ of $E(Gl(V)/P)_\circ$. In \[RR\], it is shown that if either $\sigma_\circ$ is a semistable point for action described above or its instability parabolic (see \[Section 3\] for definition), which is in general defined over $\bar{k(X)}$, is actually defined over $k(X)$, then this section (or equivalently this reduction) does not contradict semistability. In char 0, using uniqueness of the instability parabolic and Galois descent, this proves the semistability of the induced bundles. In \[CH\] it is shown that that there exists a non-negative integer $t$ such that for all possible reductions to all the maximal parabolics the instability parabolics of points corresponding to these reductions is actually defined over $k(X)^{p^{-t}}$. This can be shown to imply that if $E$ is a semistable principal $G$-bundle with first $t$ frobenius pullbacks semistable, the induced $Gl(V)$-bundle is also semistable. The main aim of this paper is to give bounds for this $t$ in terms of certain numerical data attached to $G$ and $\rho$.\
Basic definitions and preliminary notions
=========================================
[\[Basic definition\]]{}
In this section we set up some notations and recall some of basic definitions and facts which will be used later.\
$X$ will always denote a smooth projective variety over a field $k$. Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group defined over $k$ and let $\g$ denote its lie algebra. Fix a maximal torus $T
\subset G$ and a Borel $B$ containg $T$. Let $X_*(T)$ denote the set of 1-parameter subgroups of $T$ and let $X^*(T)$ be the character group of $T$. There exists a nondegenerate pairing, denoted $(\cdot , \cdot)$ : $X_{*}(T) \times
X^*(T)
\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$. Let $\Phi \subset X^*(T)$ be the set of roots of $G$. Let $\Phi^+$ denote the set of positive roots corresponding to the choice of $B$ in $G$ and $\Delta $ = {$\alpha_1, \cdots ,\alpha_n \}$ a set of simple roots of $G$. Corresponding to this choice of simple roots, there exists a set of elements $\omega_i \in
X_*(T) \otimes {\mathbb Q}$ known as the fundamental weights with the property that $\langle
\omega_i,\alpha_j \rangle=\delta_{ij}$.\
For any root $\alpha$, there exists an isomorphism of $x_\alpha$ of $G_a$ with a closed subgroup $X_\alpha$ of $G$ with the property that $t \cdot x_\alpha(a) \cdot t^{-1} = x_\alpha(\alpha(t)a)$. $X_\alpha$ is known as the root group associated to $\alpha$.\
By a parabolic in $G$, we mean a closed subgroup of $G$ containing $B$. There exists a natural bijection of the set of subsets of $\Delta$ with the set of parabolic subgroups of $G$ containing $B$ under which for a subset $I \subseteq \Delta$, we assign the parabolic $P_I$ to be the closed subgroup of $G$ generated by $B$ and $X_{^+_- \alpha}$ for all roots $\alpha \in \Delta \backslash I$. Let $W=N(T)/T$ be the Weyl group. Fix a $W$-invariant inner product $\langle$ , $\rangle$ on $X_*(T)
\otimes
\mathbb {Q}$. Using this inner product we can define norm of any 1-PS $\lambda(t) \in T$ as $\mid \mid \lambda(t) \mid \mid = \langle \lambda, \lambda \rangle$. For a arbitrary 1-PS in $G$ we can conjugate it into the fixed maximal torus and then define its norm.\
We begin by recalling the definitions of semistability of vector and principal bundles with respect to the fixed polarisation $H$.
For a vector bundle $E$ on $X$, define its slope to be the rational number: $$\mu(E)= deg(E)/rk(E).$$ $~$A vector bundle $E$ on $X$ is said to be [**$\mu$-semistable**]{} (w.r.t. the polarization $H$) if for any proper subbundle $F \subset E$, we have the inequality $\mu(F) \leq \mu(E) $, where $\mu$ denotes the slope of the bundles.
For any vector bundle $E$, there exists a canonical filtration of $E$ by $\OO_X$-coherent subsheaves known as its Harder-Narasimhan filtration (denoted HN$(E)$). $$0 \subset E_1 \subset \cdots \subset E_l = E$$ with the property that successive quotients $E_i/E_{i-1}$ are $\mu$-semistable and $\mu (E_i/E_{i-1}) > \mu
(E_{i+1}/E_i)$ for all $1 \leq i \leq l$.
Define $\mu_{max}(E) = \mu (E_1)$ and by $\mu_{min}(E)=\mu(E_l/E_{l-1})$
The quantity $\mu_{max}(E)-\mu_{min}(E)$ known as the [**instability degree**]{} is a measure of the instability of the vector bundle.
A principal $G$-bundle $E$ over $X$ is said to be semistable if for any reduction of structure group to a parabolic $P$ of $G$ and any dominant character on $P$, the induced line bundle has degree $\leq$ 0.\
$~$ Equivalently, a principal bundle $E$ on $X$ is said to be semistable is for any reduction of structure group to a parabolic $P$ of $G$, the pullback of the relative tangent bundle of $E(G/P)$ over $X$, via the section $\sigma: X \rightarrow E(G/P)$ corresponding to this reduction is a vector bundle on $X$ of degree $\geq$ 0.
\[H-N filtration\] Let $E$ be a principal $G$ bundle on $X$. Let $E_P$ be a reduction of structure group af $E$ to a parabolic $P \subset G$. The reduction is said to be [**canonical**]{} (or the [**Behrand reduction** ]{}) if the following conditions are satisfied:
1\) deg $E_P(P) > 0$\
2) For any parabolic subgroup scheme $Q \subset E(G)$, deg $Q \leq$ deg $E_P(P)$.\
3) For any subgroup scheme $Q \supset E_P(P)$, deg $Q <$ deg $P$.\
4)The unipotent radical bundle $E_P(P)/R_u(P)$ is semistable.\
With these conditions our definition of canonical reduction coincides with that of Behrend. $P$ is known as the [**Behrend’s parabolic**]{}. The degree of $E_P(P)$ is denoted by $deg_{HN}(E)$.
$~~$ The canonical reduction can be shown to be equivalent to the following: For any nontrivial character on $P$ which is a non-negative combination of simple roots with respect to the choice of $B$, the induced line bundle on $X$ obtained by extension of structure group has non-negative degree.
Frobenius morphism
==================
[\[Frobenius morphism\]]{} Let $X$ be a scheme over a algebraically closed field of char $p>0$. The $p$-th power map $\OO_X \rightarrow
\OO_X$ given by $f
\rightarrow f^p$ gives rise to a morphism of schemes $F_X: X \rightarrow X$ called the absolute frobenius. If $k$ is a perfect field, this morphism is an isomorphism (although not a $k$-morphism in general). Let $F^m$ denote the iterated frobenius map. If $E$ is a $G$-bundle on $X$ we an take its pullback $F^{m^{*}}(E)$ which will be a $F^{m^*}(G)$ bundle. We call this the $m$-th frobenius pullback. By twisting Spec $k$ by the frobenius map (which will be an isomorphism), we can define a $k$-structure on $F^{m^*}(X)$, $F^{m^*}(G)$ as well as $F^{m^*}(E)$. The $G$ bundle $F^{m^*}(E)$ on $X$ is the same as the one obtained by extension of structure group under the homomorphism $G \rightarrow G$ given by the $m$-th frobenius map.\
Clearly if the frobenius pullback of a $G$-bundle is semistable with respect to the pulled back polarization, then so is the original bundle. A semistable $G$ bundle may not however pullback to a semistable $G$-bundle. A $G$-bundle $E$ is said to be [**strongly semistable**]{} if all its frobenius pullbacks are also semistable.
The instability parabolic
=========================
[\[The instability parabolic\]]{}
$~$ In this section we discuss the role of the instability parabolic which plays an important role in studying extension of structure groups in positive characteristic. We first begin by recalling some elementary notions and facts from Geometric Invariant Theory.\
Let $K$ be an algebraically closed field. Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group defined over $K$. Let $\rho: G \rightarrow Gl(V)$ be a representation of $G$ defined over $K$. A vector $v
\in V$ is said to be semistable for the $G$-action if $0 \notin \bar{Gv}$. Equivalently there exists a G-invariant $\phi \in
S^n(V)$ for some $n>0$ such that $\phi(v) \neq 0$.\
For a 1-PS $\lambda(t)$ of $G$ we get a decomposition of $V = \oplus~
V_i$, where $V_i=\{v \in V \mid \lambda(t)(v)=t^i(v) \} $.\
Define $m(v,\lambda)$ = min {i $\mid v$ has a nonzero component in $V_i$}.\
Define slope of the 1-PS $\lambda(t)$ by $$\nu(\lambda,v)= m(v,\lambda) / \mid \mid \lambda \mid \mid$$
Note that for any vector $v \in V(\bar K)$ and any 1-PS $\lambda$, we have $\nu(\lambda,v)=\nu(g \lambda
g^{-1},gv)$
(See \[RR\]) There exists a constant $C$ such that for all $v \in V$ and all 1-PS $\lambda$, $\nu(\lambda,v) \leq C$.
For a non-semistable vector $v \in V$ define its [**instability 1-PS**]{} (denoted $\lambda_v$) to be one for which $\nu(v,\lambda)$ attains the maximum value among all the 1-PS of $G$. Intuitively, this is the 1-PS in $G$ which takes the vector $v$ to $0$ fastest after proper scaling.
For a 1-PS $\lambda$ define a parabolic $P( \lambda)$ whose valued points consist of elements $g \in
G$ such that $\underset{t \to 0}{\lim}~ \lambda(t)g\lambda(t)^{-1}$ exists. This is known as the [**instability parabolic**]{} associated to $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is an instability 1-PS of $v$, then $P(\lambda)$ will also be known as the instability parabolic of $v$, denoted $P(v)$.
Now if $G$ acts on a projective variety $M$ defined over $K$ which is linearized by some very ample line bundle $\mathcal L$, then we get a $G$-equivariant embedding $i: M \hookrightarrow {\mathbb {P}}(H^\circ(M,{\mathcal L}))={\mathbb
{P}}(V)$. We then say that a point $m \in M$ is semistable for the $G$-action if the corresponding point in $V$ is semistable.
We recall some basic facts concerning instability 1-PS (See \[RR\] )
Suppose $G$ acts on a projective variety $M$ as above. Let $m \in M$ be a nonsemistable point for the action of $G$.\
(a) The function which sends every 1-PS $\lambda$ of $G$ to $\nu(\lambda,m)$ attains its maximum on the set of all 1-PS subgroups of G. Following \[RR\], we denote this value by $B$.\
(b) There exists a parabolic subgroup $P(m)$ of $G$, called the instability parabolic associated to the point $m$, such that for any instability 1-PS $\lambda$ associated to $m$, we have $P(m)=P(\lambda)$.\
(c) The instability parabolic $P$ is generated by $T$ together with the root groups $U_\alpha$ correponding to roots $\alpha$ for which $\alpha(\lambda) \geq 0$.\
(d) A maximal torus $T$ in $G$ contains a instability 1-PS $\lambda$ for $m$ if and only if $T \subset
P(\lambda)$. Such a 1-PS is neccessarily unique.\
(e) For a non-semistable $m \in M$, if $\lambda(t)$ is an instability 1-PS of $m$, then $g\lambda(t)g^{-1}$ is the instability 1-PS of $gm$ and $\nu(\lambda,m)= \nu(g\lambda g^{-1},gm)$\
(f) For a 1-PS $\lambda$ of $G$ and any element $g \in P(\lambda)$ we have $\nu(m,\lambda)=\nu(gm,\lambda)$.\
(g) For any $g \in G$, we have $P(gm)=gP(m)g^{-1}$.\
(h) If $m \in M$ is an unstable point for the action of $G$ having an instability 1-PS defined over an extension field $[L:K]$, then the instability parabolic $P(m)$ is also defined over $L$.\
Now let $K$ be an arbitrary field (not neccessarily algebraically closed). Let $K_s$ denote its seperable closure. Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group defined over $K$. Let $T$ be a fixed maximal torus of $G$ (which will always be split over $K_s$, in fact over a finite extension of K). Let $M$ be a projective variety defined over $K$ on which $G$ acts, linearized by a very ample line bundle $\mathcal L$ giving a $G$-equivariant embedding $i:M \hookrightarrow {\mathbb{P}}(V)$. Fix a inner product on $X_*(T \otimes K_s)$ to be one which is invariant under the action of the Weyl group as well as the Galois group Gal$(K_s \mid K)$ (See \[Kempf\]).\
A point $m \in M$ is said to be semistable if it semistable after base change to its algebraic closure, i.e thought of as an element in $V (\bar{K})$.
Let $m \in M$ be a $K$-rational point of $M$. Let $P(m)$ be the instability parabolic of $m$ defined over $\bar{K}$. By invariance of the inner product under the Galois action and uniqueness of $P(m)$ we see that if $P(m)$ is defined over $K_s$, then it is already defined over $K$. \[See RR\].\
[**Rationality of the instability parabolic and its consequences**]{}\
Let $X$, $G$ and $\mathcal L$ be as before. Suppoe $\rho: G \rightarrow Gl(V)$ be a representation of $G$ which takes the connected component of the centre of $G$ to the centre of $Gl(V)$. Let $P$ be a maximal parabolic of $Gl(V)$. Choose the very ample generator $\mathcal L$ of $Gl(V)/P$. This is a linearized very ample line bundle giving an embedding of $Gl(V)/P$ inside a projective space $\mathbb {P}(W)$.\
Now let $\pi:E \rightarrow X$ a principal $G$ -bundle on $X$. Let $E(G)$ be the associated group scheme over $X$. Let $E(Gl(V)/P)$ be the associated fiber space. Let $T_\pi$ denote the relative tangent bundle on $E(Gl(V)/P)$. Let $E(\mathcal L)$ be the associated line bundle on $E(Gl(V)/P$ corresponding the line bundle $\mathcal L$ on $Sl(V)/P$. The group scheme $E(G)$ acts on $E(G/P)$. Let $E(G)_\circ$ be the generic fiber of $E(G)$. It is a group scheme defined over the function field of $X$. $E(G)_\circ$ acts on $E(Gl(V)/P)_\circ$ which is linearized by $E(\mathcal L)_\circ$. Let suppose $\sigma$ be a reduction of the induced $Gl(V)$-bundle to $P$. Then corresponding to this reduction we get a section of (called $\sigma$ again) of $E(Gl(V)/P)$ over $X$. Let $\sigma_\circ$ be the associated $k(X)$-valued point of $E(Gl(V)/P_\circ)$. Suppose $\sigma_\circ$ is a non-semistable point for the action of $E(G)_\circ$ on $E(Gl(V)/P)$. Let $P(\sigma_\circ)$ denote the instability parabolic associated to the point $\sigma_\circ$. We call $P(\sigma_\circ)$ the instability parabolic corresponding to this reduction. Let $T_\sigma$ denote the pullback of $T_\pi$ via the section $\sigma$.
(See \[RR, Proposition 3.10, (1)\]) Let $\sigma_\circ$ be a semistable point for the action of $E(G)_\circ$ on $E(G/P)_\circ$ with respect to the polarization $E(\mathcal L)_\circ$. Then $T_\sigma$ has degree $\geq 0$.\
$~$ In other words this reduction of structure group does not contradict semistability of $E(Gl(V)$.
[\[HC\]]{} (See \[RR\]) Let $E$ be a semistable $G$-bundle. Suppose for every reduction to a parabolic $P$ in $Gl(V)$, the instability parabolic associated to this reduction is rational (defined over $k(X)$), then the induced $Gl(V)$ bundle is semistable.
[\[field of definition\]]{} (See \[HC\], Proposition 4.5) Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group defined over an arbitrary field $K$ (not neccessary algebraically closed) acting on a projective variety $M$ defined over $K$. Then there exists an integer $t$ such that given any $K$-valued point $m \in M$ which is not semistable its instability parabolic $P(m)$ is defined over $K^{p^{-t}}$.
[**The method of Holla-Coiai**]{}
In this section we briefly explain the method of Holla-Coiai for proving the existence of the integer $t$ in proposition \[field of definition\]. We will be brief and sketchy in this exposition. Let $G$ and $M$ be as in above proposition \[field of definition\]. Let $\mathcal L$ be a linearized very ample line bundle on $M$ giving a $G$-equivariant embedding $i: M \hookrightarrow {\mathbb {P}}(H^\circ(M,{\mathcal L}))={\mathbb
{P}}(V)$\
For an affine algebra $A$ over $K$, we define its radical index to be the smallest integer $n$, such that $f^n= 0$ for all $f \in$ Rad$({\bar A}) \overset{\text{by~defn}}{=}$ Rad $(A \otimes_{K} {\bar K})$. Now let $m \in M$ be a $K$-rational point of $M$ which is not semistable for the $G$-action.\
Recall that the the action of $G$ is said to be strongly seperable at a point $m \in M$ if the isotropy subgroup scheme at every ${\bar K}$-valued point in the closure of $O(m)$ is reduced, where $O(m)$ denotes the orbit of $m$. Let $P(m)$ be the instability parabolic of $m$. There exists $g \in G$ such that the parabolic $P = gP(m)g^{-1}$ is defined over $K_s$. By uniqueness of the instability parabolic and Galois descent, it is already defined over $K$. Let $x_m=gm$. Then the instability parabolic of $x_m$ is $P$. Since $P(x_m)$ is defined over $K$, it contains a maximal torus over $K$ (which is split over $K_s$). Hence there is a unique instability 1-PS of $x_m$ contained in this maximal torus which is defined over $K_s$ and hence by uniqueness defined over $K$.\
Consider the decomposition of $V = \oplus V_i$ into simultaneous eigenspaces for the action of $\lambda$, where $V_i=\{v \in V \mid \lambda(t)(v)=t^i(v)\}$. Let $j=m(x_m,\lambda)$ and $V^j=\oplus V_i, i\geq j$. Define the $K_s$-scheme $M(P)_{x_m}$ to be the scheme theoretic intersection of the $K_s$-subscheme ${\mathbb P}(V^j)$ and $O(m)$ of ${\mathbb P}(V)$. The following proposition summarizes the basic properties of the scheme $M(P)_{x_m}$.
[\[strongly seperable\]]{} The $\bar K$-valued points of $M(P)_{x_m}$ are precisely those points in the $K$-scheme $O(m)$ for which the instability parabolic is $P(x_m)$. Also, when the action of $G$ on $m$ is strongly seperable, then $M(P)_{x_m}$ is absolutely reduced.
Suppose one can find a $K_s$ rational point $m'$ in $M(P)_{x_m}$, then by proposition [ \[strongly seperable\]]{}, its instability parabolic being $P(x_m)$ is hence defined over $K_s$. Since $m$ and $m'$ are both $K_s$ rational points, they are translates of each other by a $G(K_s)$-valued point $g$ and hence their instability parabolic are conjugates by $g$. This will prove that the instability parabolic for $m$ is defined over $K_s$ and hence by uniqueness and Galois descent it is defined over $K$.\
Thus the problem of showing the existence of the integer $t$ in proposition [\[field of definition\]]{} boils down to finding a finite purely inseperable extension $L$ of $K_s$ (independent of the point $m$) over which the scheme $M(P)_{x_m}$ will have a $L$-valued point. This bound is obtained using the following lemma’s:
Let $f: Y\rightarrow X$ be a morphism of finite-type scheme over $\bar K$. Then there exists an integer $n$ such that the radical index of the schematic fiber of $x$ is less than or equal to $n$ for all closed points $x \in X$.
Let $A$ be an affine $K_s$-algebra with radical index $\leq p^n$. Then $A$ admits a $K_s^{p^{-n}}$-rational point.
Bounds for the field of definition of the instability parabolic and its consequences
====================================================================================
[\[Bounds for the instability parabolic\]]{} In this section we give explicit bounds for the field of definition of the instability parabolic associated to non-semistable points for the action of a reductive algebraic group $G$ acting on a vector space $V$ defined over an arbitrary field $K$. We do this by giving explicit bounds for the field of definition for the instability 1-PS associated to these points. We first do this $G=Sl(2)$, where we can get much better bounds than for a general $G$, then for the tensor power representation of $Sl(n)$, then for an arbitrary representation of $Sl(n)$ and then for an arbitrary representation of any arbitrary reductive algebraic group $G$.\
$~$ We now begin with giving bounds for the field of definition of the instability parabolic for various $Sl(2)$-modules.
[\[Sl(2)\]]{} Let $K$ be any field (not neccessarily algebraically closed) if char $p>0$. Let $G=Sl(2,K)$. Let $\rho:Sl(2,K) \rightarrow
S^N(V)$ be the standard symmetric power representation. Let $N=N_0 + N_1p + N_2p^2 + \cdots + N_tp^t$ be the p-adic expansion of $N$. Then for any non-semistable $K$-rational vector $v \in S^N(V)$, the instability parabolic $P(v)$ of $v$ is defined over $K^{1/p^t}$.
By uniquenes of instability parabolic and Galois descent explained before, we can assume that $K$ is seperably closed. Let $X,Y$ denote the basis for $V$ over $K$. Thus $S^N(V)$ can be identified with the vector space of all degree $N$ homogeneous polynomials in $X$ and $Y$. Let $f=\underset {i+j=N}{\sum} a_{ij}X^iY^j, a_{ij} \in K$ be an unstable vector in $S^n(V)$ for the action of $G$.\
Claim 1: $f$ has a zero of multiplicity greater than $N/2$ on $\mathbb{P}^1_{\bar K}$.\
Proof of claim: Let $\lambda(t)$ be the instability 1-PS of $f$ defined over $\bar K$. Every 1-PS of $Sl(2)$ is conjugate over $\bar K$ to the 1-PS $$\mu(t)= \begin{pmatrix}
t & 0 \\
0 & t^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}$$ Choose $g \in Sl(2, \bar K)$ such that $g\lambda(t)g^{-1}$ is of the form $\mu(t)$. Then $\mu(t)$ is the instability 1-PS of $g \cdot f$. Let suppose $g \cdot f$ have the form: $$g\cdot f=X^Tg$$ for some nonnegative integer $T$ and some polynomial $g \in S^N(V)$ which is not divisible by $X$. Since $\mu(t)$ drives $g \cdot f$ to $0$, $T$ neccessarily satisfies $N/2 < T \leq N$. i.e. $f$ has a zero of multiplicity greater than $N/2$ on $\mathbb{P}^1_{\bar K}$ and hence a unique such zero.\
$~$Now, by using the fact that $K$ is seperably closed, by a suitable change of basis made over $K$, we can assume that $f$ can be factorized in the form: $$f= F_1 \cdot F_2 \cdots F_r$$ for some $0 \leq r \leq N$, with deg $F_1 \geq$ deg $F_2 \geq \cdots \geq$ deg $F_r$ and each $F_i$ of the form $(X^{p^{t_i}}- \alpha_i Y^{p^{t_i}})$ for some non-negative integer $t_i$.\
Note that ${t_1 \geq t_2 \geq ... \geq t_r \geq 0}$. Factorizing $f$ into product of linear polynomials over the field $K^{1/p^{t_1}}$, we get : $$f= (X - \alpha_1^{1/p^{t_1}}Y)^{p^{t_1}} \cdots (X - \alpha_r^{1/p^{t_r}}Y)^ {p^{t_r}}$$ Note that by Claim 1, $p^{t_1} = T$. By once again making a change of basis over the field $K^{1/p^{t_1}}$, sending $$(X - \alpha_1^{1/p^{t_1}}Y) \rightarrow X'$$ $$Y \rightarrow Y'$$
and calling the resulting polynomial $f'$ (which is a translate of $f$ by an element in $Sl(2,K^{1/p^{t_1}})$), we see that $f'$ has the form $$f'= X'^{p^{t_1}}(X'-\beta_1 Y')^{p^{t_2}} \cdots (X'-\beta_r Y')^{p^{t_r}}$$ with all the $\beta_i$’s distinct. Note that $\beta_1,...,\beta_r$ belong to $K^{1/p^{t_1}}$. Since $f$ has a unique root of multiplicity $> N/2$, we see that the factor occuring in the above factorization with the highest power is neccessarily unique. i.e. $t_1$ is unique.\
$~$ Claim 2: The 1-PS $\mu(t)$ is an instability 1-PS of $f'$.\
Proof of claim 2 : The proof of the claim is quite obvious. We only sketch it briefly. Note that $\nu(f',\mu)$ = $t_1/(\mid\mid \mu \mid\mid)$. Suppose there exists another 1-PS $\mu'(t)$ such that $\nu(f',\mu') >
\nu(f',\mu)$. Since all 1-PS’s of $G$ are conjugates over ${\bar K}$, there exists an element $h \in G(\bar
{K})$ which conjugates $\mu$ into $\mu'$. Then $\mu(t)$ will be the instability 1-PS of $hf'$. It is easy to see that the highest power of $X'$ occuring in $f'$ is greater than or equal to the highest power of $X'$ occuring in $hf'$. Hence we see that $m(f',\mu) \geq m(hf',\mu) = m(f',\mu')$. Since $\mu$ and $\mu'$ are conjugates over ${\bar K}$, we see that this implies that $\nu(f',\mu) \geq \nu(f',\mu')$. This proves that $\mu$ is an instability 1-PS of $f'$ and hence completes the proof of Claim 2.
Now since $f$ and $f'$ are translates of each other by an element in $K^{1/p^{t_1}}$ and an instability 1-PS of $f'$ is defined over $K$, we see that an instability 1-PS and hence the instability parabolic of $f$ is defined over $K^{1/p^{t_1}}$.
Let $\rho : G \rightarrow S^N(V)$ be the representation as in lemma [\[Sl(2)\]]{}. If $N > p$, the instability parabolic of any non-semistable vector in $S^N(V)$ is rational.
Obvious.
In general, for an arbitrary representation of $Sl(V)$, the method does not seem to work. This is because it is in general impossible to determine all the non-semistable points in the representing space. Hence we have adopt a more indirect way of bounding the field of definition of the instability 1-PS which does not use the knowledge of all the non-semistable vectors. We begin with a lemma which will be a crutial step in the bounding of the field of definition of the instability 1-PS :
[\[Noether normalization\]]{} Let $K$ be an infinite field. Let $A=K[Y_1,...Y_n]/(f_1,...,f_r)$ be a finitely generated $K$-algebra. Let $g \in K[Y_1,...Y_n]$. Let suppose deg $f_i=d_i$. Let $d= \prod
d_i$. Let suppose $X$= Spec $A$ thought of as a closed subscheme of $\mathbb {A}^n_K$ has a $\bar K$-valued point at which $g$ is non-vanishing (thought of as a regular function on $X$). Then there exists an extension field $L$ of $K$ with deg $[L:K] \leq d$ such that $X$ has a $L$-valued point at which $g$ is non-vanishing.
Let $V(g)\subset X$ be the closed subscheme of $X$ defined by the intersection of the vanishing locus of $g$ with $X$. Let $X'=X \backslash V(g)$ be an open affine subscheme of $X$. Now by hypothesis $X$ has a $\bar K$-valued point. By restricting to a irreducible component of Spec $A$ containing the $\bar K$ valued point, we can assume that $X$ is irreducible. Let dim $X=m$. By a linear change of coordinates, we can perform a Noether normalisation such there exists $m$ elements $t_1,...,t_m$ in $A$ such that $A$ is integral over $B=K[t_1,...,t_m]$ and the induced map $f$: Spec $A \rightarrow$ Spec $B$ on affine schemes corresponding to the inclusion of $B$ in $A$ has degree atmost $d$. Let $p\in B$ be a $K$ valued point of $B$ which is not in the image of $V(g)$. This is possible to choose since $f$ is a finite map. By going-up lemma, there exists a point $q\in X'$ lying over $p$. Let the residue field extension $[K(q):K(p)]$ be $s$. Then $s\leq$ deg $f \leq d$. Taking $L$ to be $K(q)$, we get the lemma.
[\[quantification\]]{} Let $V$ be a vector space of dimension $n$ defined over a field $K$ of char $p>0$. Let $G=SL(V)$. Let $K$ be an arbitrary field of char $p>0$. Let $\rho: Sl(V) \rightarrow Sl(V^{\otimes m})$ be the tensor power representation of $SL(n)$. Then for any non-semistable $K$-rational point $v \in
V^{\otimes m}$, the instability parabolic $P(v)$ is defined over an extension field of $[L:K]$ of degree $\leq
mn^m$. Equivalently if $t$ is such that $p^t > mn^m$, then the instability parabolic for unstable $K$-rational point is defined over $K^{1/{p^t}}$.
Let $X_1,...,X_n$ be a basis of $V$ over $K$. By uniqueness of instability parabolic and Galois descent, we may assume that all the objects are defined over the seperable closure $K_s$ of $K$. Hence without loss of generality we may assume $K=K_s$. Let $R=K\langle X_1,..,X_n \rangle$ denote the non-commutative polynomial ring in the variables $X_1,...,X_n$. Let $R^m$ denote the vector subspace of $R$ consisting of non-commutative monomials in $X_1,...,X_n$ of degree $m$. Let $w_1,...,w_M$ denote an ordered basis of $R^m$ consisting of non-commutative monomials of degree m (words). Note that $M=n^m$. Then $V^{\otimes m}$ can be identified with $R^m$, the identification compatible with the action of $Sl(V)$. For any extension field $[L:K]$ we will think of elements $g \in G(L)$ as $n \times n$ matrices $g_{ij}$ with coefficients in $L$.\
Consider the commutative polynomial ring $B=K[G_{ij}]$. Any $g=g_{ij} \in G(L)$ can thus be thought of as a $L$-valued point of Spec $B$. Let $v=\sum a_iw_i$ be any element in $R^{\otimes m}$ . We define the elementary polynomials associated to $v$ as follows:\
Denote by $K[G_{ij}]
\langle
X_1,...,X_n \rangle$ the noncommutative ring in the variables $X_i$, with coefficients in the commutative polynomial ring $K[G_{ij}]$. Consider the set mapping $\theta: K\langle X_1,...,X_n \rangle
\rightarrow K[G_{ij}] \langle
X_1,...,X_n \rangle$ defined as follows:\
$\theta$ sends a variable $X_i$ in $K\langle X_1,...,X_n \rangle$ to $\sum G_{ij} \cdot X_j$ and extends the action in the obvious way to $K\langle X_1,...,X_n \rangle$. The ordered set of coefficients of the various noncommutative monomials in the $X_i$’s that occur in $\theta v$ (which are polynomials in the commutative ring $K[G_{ij}]$) will be called the elementary polynomials corresponding to $v$, denoted $EP_v$ (some of which may be the zero polynomial for a given $v$). More precisely, if $\theta (v) = \sum f_{i_v} w_i$, with $f_{i_v} \in K[G_{ij}]$, then the set ordered set ${f_{1_v},f_{2_v},...,f_{M_v}}$ will be defined to be the elementary polynomials associated to $v$. Just for the sake of clarity we explain this definition (of elementary polynomials) by taking a simple example.\
$~$ In the two-variable case, consider the action of $Sl(2,K)$ on $V^{\otimes 2}$ as above. If $\{X_1^2, X_1X_2, X_2X_1 , X_2^2\}$ denote the ordered basis for $V^{\otimes 2}$, then the elementary polynomials associated to the vector $v=X_{1}^2 + X_1 \cdot X_2$ will be computed as follows: Consider the image of $v$ under $\theta$: $$X_1 \rightarrow G_{11}X_1 + G_{12} X_2$$ $$X_2 \rightarrow G_{21}X_1 + G_{22} X_2$$ Hence the image of $v=X_{1}^2 + X_1 X_2 $ will be:\
$(G_{11}X_1 + G_{12}X_2)^2 +
(G_{11}X_1 + G_{12} X_2) (G_{21}X_1 + G_{22}X_2) \\
= (G_{11}^2X_1^2 +
G_{11}G_{12}X_1 X_2 + G_{12}G_{11}X_2 X_1 + G_{12}^2 X_2^2) + (G_{11}G_{21}X_1^2 + G_{11}G_{22}X_1X_2 +
G_{12}G_{21}X_2X_1 + G_{12}G_{22}X_2^2)\\
= (G_{11}^2 + G_{11}G_{21})X_{11}^2 + (G_{11}G_{12} + G_{11}G_{22})X_1X_2 + (G_{12}G_{11} +
G_{12}G_{21})X_2X_1 + (G_{12}^2 + G_{12}G_{22})X_2^2$.\
$~$ Thus the elementary polynomials corresponding to $X_{1}^2 + X_1 X_2$ are:\
[ $f_{1_v}=(G_{11}^2 + G_{11}G_{21}),
f_{2_v}=(G_{11}G_{12} + G_{11}G_{22}), f_{3_v}=(G_{12}G_{11} + G_{12}G_{21}), f_{4_v}=(G_{12}^2 +
G_{12}G_{22})$. ]{}\
Note that for any $v \in V^{\otimes m}$, the elementary polynomials $f_{i_v}$ all have degree $m$. If $f_v
\in EP_v$ is an elementary polynomial and $g=g_{ij} \in G(\bar K)$ is any element, then by $f_v(g)$, we mean the element of $\bar K$ obtained by substituting $G_{ij}=g_{ij}$ in $f_v$.
Let $v \in V^{\otimes m}$ (or equivalently in $R^m$) be a non-semistable vector for the action of $SL(V)$. Let $v=\sum a_i \cdot w_i$ be the expansion of $v$ in terms of the basis vectors. Let $\lambda(t)=\lambda_{ij}(t)$ be a 1-PS subgroup of $G({\bar K})$ which is an instability 1-PS for $v$. Then there exists an element $g=(g_{ij}) \in G({\bar K})$ such that $g \cdot \lambda(t) \cdot g^{-1}$ is of the form
$$\begin{pmatrix}
t^{a_1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & t^{a_2} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & t^{a_n}
\end{pmatrix}$$
for some $a_1,...,a_n$ such that $a_1 \geq a_2 \geq ... \geq a_n$.\
Then $g \lambda(t) g^{-1} = \lambda'(t)$ is a instability 1-PS for $g \cdot v$ with $\nu(\lambda,v)=\nu(\lambda',gv)$. Let $g.v=\sum b_iw_i$. Clearly $b_i=f_{i_\nu}(g_{ij})$. Let $f_{{i_1}_{v}},...,f_{i_{r_v}}$ (resp. $f_{i_{{r+1}_{v}}},...,f_{{i_M}_{v}}$) denote the set of elementary polynomials in $EP_v$ which vanish at $g$ (resp. are nonzero at $g$). By lemma [\[Noether normalization\]]{}, there exists an extension field $L$ of $K$ with $[L:K] \leq rm$ and an $L$-valued point $g' \in G(L)$ such that $f_{{i_1}_{v}},...,f_{i_{r_v}}$ all vanish at $g'$ and $f_{i_{{r+1}_{v}}},...,f_{{i_M}_{v}}$ are all non-vanishing at $g'$. Thus $gv$ and $g'v$ have the same set of monomials with non-zero coefficients. Note that since $\lambda'(t)$ is of the form $$\begin{pmatrix}
t^{a_1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & t^{a_2} & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & t^{a_n}
\end{pmatrix}$$ an simple observation shows that $m(\lambda',gv)=m(\lambda',g'v)$ and hence $\nu(\lambda',gv)=\nu(\lambda',g'v)$. Also $\lambda'(t)$ is an instability 1-PS for $g'v$. This is seen as follows: $g' \lambda g'^{-1}$ is an instability 1-PS of $g'v$ and $\nu(\lambda, v)=\nu(g' \lambda g'^{-1}, g'v)$. But $\nu(\lambda,v) = \nu(\lambda',gv) = \nu(\lambda',g'v)$. Thus $\nu(g' \lambda g'^{-1},g'v)=\nu(\lambda',g'v)$ and hence $\lambda'(t)$ is also an instability 1-PS for $g'v$. This implies that $g'^{-1} \lambda' g'$ is an instability 1-PS of $v$. But $g'^{-1} \lambda' g'$ is defined over $L$. This shows that an instability 1-PS and hence the instability parabolic of $v$ is defined over $L$. Since $r \leq n^m$, we see that deg $[L:k] \leq mn^m$. Since $K$ can be assumed to be seperably closed , the only algebraic extensions possible are those obtained by taking $p^l$-th roots of generators of $K$ for various non-negative integers $l$. Since $p^t > mn^m$, it is clear that the instability parabolic for $v$ is defined over $K^{1/{p^t}}$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Notation: For any integers $n$ and $r$, with $r < n$, set the symbol $nC_r$ ($n$ choose $r$) to be equal to $n!/(r! (n-r)!)$.\
We use the above lemma to prove the following theorem:
\[Main theorem\] Let $G=SL(n)$. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over an algebraically closed field $k$. Let $K(X)$ denote its function field. Let $V$, $m$ and $\rho$ be as in lemma [\[quantification\]]{}. Let $E$ be any principal $G$-bundle on $X$. Let $N= \underset{0 \leq r \leq n^m-1}{\text {max}} n^mC_r \cdot (rm)$. Let $t$ be any integer such that $p^t > N$. Let suppose $E$ together together with its first $t$ frobenius pullbacks is semistable. Then the induced $Sl(V)$ bundle is also semistable.
Let $W=V^{\otimes m}$. Let $E_{Sl(W)}$ denote the induced $Sl(W)$ bundle. We want to show that $E_{Sl(W)}$ is also semistable. By lemma [\[HC\]]{}, this is equivalent to showing that for any maximal parabolic $P$ in $Sl(W)$ and any reduction of structure group to $P$, the instability parabolic for the point $\sigma_\circ$ in $E(Sl(W)/P)_\circ$ corresponding to this reduction is rational. Let $E(G)_\circ$ be as before. $E(G)$ acts on $E(Sl(W)/P)$ which is linearized by the very ample line bundle $E(\mathcal L)$ explained before. Since $E_\circ$ gets trivialized after a finite seperable extension, we get isomorphisms $E_\circ \otimes_{k(X)} k(X)_s \simeq G \otimes_{k(X)} k(X)_s$ and $E(Sl(W)/P)_\circ
\otimes_{k(X)} k(X)_s \simeq (SL(W)/P) \otimes_{k(X)} k(X)_s$, the isomorphisms being compatible with the action. Since $P$ is a maximal parabolic, $Sl(W)/P$ is isomorphic to the grassmannian of $r$ dimensional subspaces of $W$ for some $r < $ dim $W$. Using $E(\mathcal L)_\circ \otimes_{k(X)} k(X)_s$, we get an $G(k(X)_s)$-equivariant embedding of $E(Sl(W)/P)_\circ
\otimes_{k(X)} k(X)_s$ inside $\mathbb{P}(\wedge^r(W))$. We need to show that for this action of $G(k(X)_s)$ on $\mathbb{P}(\wedge^r(W))$, the instability parabolic for the point $\sigma_\circ$ corresponding to this reduction is rational. By lifting this point to a point in $\wedge^r(W)$ (call it $\sigma_\circ$ again), it boils down to proving the same fact for the action of $G(k(X)_s)$ on $\wedge^r(W)$. This representation of $G$ on $\wedge^{r}(W)$ is the standard representation of $G$ on $\wedge^r(W)$, induced from the tensor power representation of $G$ on $V^{\otimes m}$.
Corresponding to the basic $X_1,...,X_n$ of $V$, we get a standard basis of $\wedge^r(W)$ consisting of vectors of the form $w_{i_1} \wedge..\wedge
w_{i,r}, {(i_1,...,i_r) \in {1,...,M}}~\text{with}~i_1 < ... < i_r$, where each $w_i$ is a noncommutative monomial in the $X_i$’s of degree $m$ as in lemma [\[quantification\]]{}. Choose an ordering of this basis. Let $\{
W_1,\cdots, W_S \}$ denote the ordered basis. Note that $S=n^mC_r$. For any non-semistable vector $v \in \wedge^r(V^{\otimes m})$, let $v = \sum b_iW_i$ be its expansion in terms of the basis vector $W_i$. Define the elementary polynomials $EP_v$ similar to lemma [\[quantification\]]{} to be the polynomials in $K(X)[G_{ij}]$ occuring in the coefficients of the image of $W_i$ when acted upon by a $n \times n$ matrix of indeterminates $G_{ij}$.\
Note that the degree of the elementary polynomials in now $mr$. Now by using the same argument as in lemma [\[quantification\]]{} by considering $W_i$’s instead of the noncommutative monomials $w_i$’s in lemma [\[quantification\]]{}, we see that the instability parabolic for the vector $\sigma_\circ$ is defined over an extension field $[L:k(X)]$, where deg $[L:k(X)] \leq n^mC_r(rm) < p^t$. Hence by lemma \[quantification\], for any reduction of structure group to any maximal parabolic $P$ in $Sl(W)$ the instability 1-PS and hence the instability parabolic corresponding to $\sigma_\circ$ is defined over $k(X)^{1/p^t}$. Now consider the action of $F^{t^*}(E(G))_\circ$ on $F^{t^*}(E(Sl(W)/P))_\circ$. For this action $F^{t^*}(\sigma_\circ)$ has its instability 1-PS and hence its instability parabolic defined over $k(X)$ via the isomorphism in the commutative diagram shown below:
$$\xymatrix{
\Spec K \ar[r] \ar[d] & \Spec K \\
\Spec K^{p^{-t}} \ar[ur]_{\simeq} & }$$
Let $F^{t^*}(\pi):F^{t^*}(E(Sl(W)/P) \rightarrow X$, denote the pullback of $\pi$ under $F^{t}$. Similarly let $F^{t^*}(T_\pi)$ denote the pullback of the relative tangent bundle of $E(Sl(W)/P)$ under $F^t$ which is the same as the relative tangent bundle of the pullback of $E(Sl(W)/P)$ under $F^t$. Since $F^{t^*}(E)$ is semistable and the instability 1-PS corresponding to every reduction to every maximal parabolic is rational, deg $F^{t^*}(\sigma)^* F^{t^*}(T_\pi)> 0$. But deg $F^{t^*}(\sigma)^*(F^{t^*}(\pi))=$ deg $F^{t^*}(T_\sigma)= p^t \cdot$deg $T_\sigma$. This follows from the fact that for any line bundle $L$ on $X$, $F^{t^*}(L)$ is isomorphic to $L^{p^t}$. Hence deg $T_\sigma > 0$ for every reduction of $E_{Sl(W)}$ to every maximal parabolic $P$ in $Sl(W)$ and hence by lemma [\[HC\]]{}, $E_{Sl(W)}$ is also semistable.
Now let $\rho'$ be an arbitrary representation of $Sl(V)$. We use the above lemma to get bounds for the number of semistable frobenius pullbacks required for an $SL(V)$-bundle $E$, so that the induced bundle on extension of structure group via $\rho'$ is again semistable.
Let $\rho':Sl(V) \rightarrow Sl(W)$ be an arbitrary representation of $Sl(V)$. Let $0=W_0 \subset W_1 \subset
\cdots \subset W_l = W$ be the Jordan-Holder filtration of $W$. Then $W_i/W_{i-1}$ are simple $Sl(V)$-modules. Any simple $Sl(V)$-module $L(\lambda)$ corresponding to a highest weight vector $\lambda=\sum a_i\omega_i$ is an $Sl(V)$-submodule of $V^{\otimes \mid \lambda \mid}$, where $\mid \lambda \mid = \sum ia_i$ is called the degree of $\lambda$. Following Langer (see \[L\]), we call the maximum of the degrees of the dominant weights whose modules occur as the successive quotients in the Jordan-Holder filtration as the Jordan-Holder degree of $W$, denoted JH($W$).
\[Arb rep of Sl(V)\] Let $\rho': Sl(V) \rightarrow Sl(W)$ be an arbitrary representation of $W$. Let JH($W$)= $d$. Let $E$ be a $Sl(V)$-bundle on $X$ such that $F^{t^*}(E)$ is semistable for some $t$ such that $p^t > \underset{0 < r \leq
n^d-1}{\text
{max}} n^dC_r(rd)$. Then the induced $Sl(W)$-bundle is also semistable.
Let $0=W_0 \subset W_1 \subset \cdots \subset W_l = W$ be the Jordan-Holder filtration of $W$ as before. Then each successive quotient is a $Sl(V)$-submodule of the $Sl(V)$-module $V^{\otimes i}$, for some $i \leq
d$. Since $F^{t^*}(E)$ is semistable, by lemma \[Main theorem\] each of the induced vector bundles obtained by extension of structure group of $E$ using these tensor power representations are also semistable and of degree zero. Since a degree zero subbundle of a semistable bundle of degree zero is also semistable , we see that the induced vector bundle $E_{Sl(W)}$ is filtered by semistable bundles of degree zero and hence $E_{Sl(W)}$ is also semistable of degree zero. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Let $V$ be a vector space defined over $K$. Let $0 \rightarrow W'
\rightarrow W \rightarrow W'' \rightarrow 0$ be a short-exact sequence of $Sl(V)$-modules defined over $K$. If the instability parabolic for each of the unstable $K$-rational points in $W$ is defined over $K^{1/p^t}$ then so is the case for all the unstable $K$-rational points in $W'$. However it does not seem easy to bound the field of definition of the instability parabolics for unstable $K$-rational points in $W$ in terms of similar bounds for $W'$ and $W''$. Similarly it does not seem possible to determine the field of definition of the instability parabolic for all the unstable $K$-rational points in $W''$ knowing the same for $W$. This is because unstable $K$-rational points in $W$ may not surject onto the unstable $K$-rational points in $W''$. However if an integer $t$ satisfies the property that any $Sl(V)$-bundle with first $t$-frobenius pullbacks semistable induces semistable $Sl(W')$ and $Sl(W'')$-bundles on extensions of structure group, then clearly the induced $Sl(W)$-bundle is also semistable. Similarly, if integer $s$ satisfies the property that any $Sl(V)$-bundle with first $s$-frobenius pullbacks semistable induces a semistable $Sl(W)$ on extension of structure group, then clearly the induced $Sl(W'')$-bundle is also semistable. This is because any degree zero quotient of a semistable bundle of degree zero is also semistable of degree zero. Hence for computing the number of semistable frobenius pullbacks required for a $Sl(V)$-bundle to induce a semistable bundle on extension of structure group, it suffices to compute the same for the tensor power representation. Then using the fact that an arbitrary representation $W$ of $SL(V)$ can be filtered by $Sl(V)$-modules which are submodules of a suitable tensor-power representation, we get bounds for the number of semistable frobenius pullbacks required so that the induced $Sl(W)$-bundle is semistable.
Note that one of the major differences between the methods for estimating the field of definition of the instability parabolic described here and the methods of \[RR\] and \[CH\] is that unlike their methods we do not use the orbit map $E(G)_\circ \times E(G/P)_\circ \rightarrow
E(G/P)_\circ$ and try and bound its non-seperability. We directly estimate the field of definition of the instability parabolic which is probably weaker than trying to bound the non-reducedness of the stabilizers of the various unstable $K$-rational points which does not seen quantifiable. Indeed it is an open problem as to whether it is possible to have a representation of a semisimple group $G$ such that the stabilizers of some of the unstable $K$-rational points in the representing space are non-reduced but their instability parabolics are rational. We do not know the answer to this yet.
Case of an arbitrary reductive group {#Case of a arbitrary reductive group}
====================================
In this section we get bounds for the field of definition of the instability parabolic for an arbitrary representation of an arbitrary reductive algebraic group.\
$~$ Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group defined over $k$. Fix an embedding $i: G \hookrightarrow Gl(V)$, where $V$ is a $n$-dimensional vector space. Fix a maximal torus $T$ in $G$.
\[quantification in general\]
Let $[F:k]$ be an extension of fields. Let $\rho: G \rightarrow Gl(W)$ be a finite dimensional representation of $G$ defined over $F$. Then there exists an integer $t$, such that for any unstable $F$-rational point in $W$, its instability parabolic is defined over $F^{1/p^t}$.
The proof of the lemma is similar to the proof of lemma \[quantification\]. The main difference now is that we also have to consider the defining equations of $G$ in $Gl(V)$ along with the elementary polynomials of the unstable $F$-rational points. As before we may assume that $F$ is seperably closed. Let dim $W=
m$ and dim $V$= $n$. Fix a basis of $V$ via which $Gl(V)$ will be identified with $Gl(n,F)$. $Gl(n,F)$ will be thought of as an open subscheme of $M_n(F)$ which will identified with $\mathbb{A}^{n^2}_F$. Let the affine coordinate ring of $G$ for the embedding $\tilde i: G \hookrightarrow M_n(F)$ given by the composite of $G \hookrightarrow Gl(V) \underset {\text {open subscheme}}{\subset} M_n(F) \simeq
\mathbb{A}^{n^2}_F$ = Spec $F[G_{ij}]_{1\leq i,j \leq n}$ be isomorphic to $F[G_{ij}, (\text{det}~G_{ij})^{-1}]/(h_1,...,h_s)_{1\leq i,j \leq n}$, for some $h_1,...,h_s
\in F[G_{ij}, (\text{det}~G_{ij})^{-1}]$. The valued points of $Gl(V)$ will be thought of as $n \times n$ invertible matrices. The affine coordinte ring of $Gl(V,F)$ is isomorphic to $A=
F[G_{11}, \cdots ,G_{nn},$ (det $G)^{-1}]$, where det$(G)$ is the determinant polynomials in the $G_{ij}$’s and a matrix element $g=g_{ij} \in Gl(V,L)$, for any extension field $[L:F]$, will be thought of as an $L$-valued point of Spec $A$ in the obvious way. Choose an ordered simultaneous eigen basis $\{w_1, \cdots ,w_m\}$ of $W$ for all the 1-PS of $G$ which lie in $T$. With respect to this basis, the matrix of $\rho$ will be an $m \times m$ matrix whoses entries are regular functions on $G$, which are by definition the restrictions of the regular functions on $
\mathbb{A}^{n^2}_F$ via the embedding ${\tilde i}$.
$$\begin{pmatrix}
\bar{f_{11}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det} (G_{ij}))^{a_{11}} & \bar {f_{12}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det}
(G_{ij}))^{a_{12}} & \cdots & (\bar{
f_{1m}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det} (G_{ij}))^{a_{1m}} \\
\bar {f_{21}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det} (G_{ij}))^{a_{21}} & (\bar {f_{22}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det}
({G_{ij}))^{a_{22}}} & \cdots & (\bar
{f_{2n}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det} ({G_{ij}}))^{a_{2n}} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
(\bar {f_{n1}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det} ({G_{ij}}))^{a_{n1}} & \bar {f_{n2}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det}
G_{ij})^{a_{n2}} & \cdots & (\bar
{f_{nn}}(G_{ij})/ (\overline{\det} ({G_{ij}}))^{a_{nn}}
\end{pmatrix}$$
where $\bar {f_{ij}}$ and $ (\overline{\det} ({G_{ij}}))$ are regular functions on $G$ which are by definition the restrictions of the regular functions $f_{ij}(G_{ij})$ and det($G_{ij}$) resp. from $M_n(F)$ to $G$. By multiplying the numerator and denominator of each matrix entry by a suitable power of det $G$, we can assume that all the $a_{ij}$’s occuring in the matrix are all equal to some non-negative integer , say $a$. Let $w \in W$ be a non-semistable $F$-rational point of $W$. Let $\lambda(t)$ be an instability 1-PS of $w$. Then there exists an element $g\
\in G$ such that $g\lambda(t)g^{-1} = \mu(t) \subset T$. Clearly $\mu(t)$ is an instability 1-PS of $gw$.
Now as in lemma \[quantification\], we will define the elementary polynomials associated to $w$ to be certain modifiedcoefficients that occur in the expansion of $\rho(G) \cdot w$ in terms of the basis vectors $\{w_1, \cdots w_m\}$ . These will be certain polynomials in the $F[G_{ij}]_{(1\leq i,j\leq n)}$.\
More precisely, if $w = \underset{i=1}{\overset{m} \sum} b_iw_i$, then $$\rho(G)(w) = \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum} \dfrac{\bar f_{1i}(G_{ij})b_i} {(\overline{\det} ~{
(G_{ij})})^a}w_1 +
\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum} \dfrac{\bar f_{2i}(G_{ij})b_i} {(\overline{\det}~{ (G_{ij})})^a}w_2 + \cdots
+ \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum} \dfrac{\bar f_{mi}(G_{ij})b_i} {(\overline{\det}~{ (G_{ij})})^a}w_m.$$
Define the elementary polynomials of associated to $w$, denoted EP$_w$, to be the polynomials $\{F_{1_w}= \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum}
f_{1i}(G_{ij})b_i~;~\cdots~;~
F_{m_w}= \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum} f_{mi}(G_{ij})b_i\}$.
Then clearly, $$gw= \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum} \dfrac{\bar f_{1i}(g_{ij})b_i} {(\overline{\det} ~{ (g_{ij})})^a}w_1 +
\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum} \dfrac{\bar f_{2i}(g_{ij})b_i} {(\overline{\det}~{ (g_{ij})})^a}w_2 + \cdots
\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}\sum} \dfrac{\bar f_{mi}(g_{ij})b_i} {(\overline{\det}~{ (g_{ij})})^a}w_m.$$ $$= \dfrac{F_{1_w}(g_{ij})w_1 + \cdots + F_{m_w}(g_{ij})w_m}{ (\det~(g_{ij}))^a}$$
Thus we see that the vanishing or non-vanishing of a particular coefficient of $gw$ depends on whether or not the corresponding elementary polynomial vanishes at $g$ or not.
Let $F_{{i_1}_w} , \cdots ,F_{i_{r_w}}$ be exactly the set of elementary polynomials which are vanishing at $g$. Now as in lemma \[quantification\], we would like to find a quantifiable extension $[L:F]$ and a element $g' \in G(L)$ such that $g'w$ has the same set of coefficients as $gw$ which are zero. Consider the affine $F$-algebra $B = F[G_{ij}]/(h_1, \cdots , h_s, F_{{i_1}_w},\cdots,F_{i_{r_w}})$. Let $G_w$ be the product of all the elementary polynomials $F_{i_w}$ which are non-vanishing at $g$. Note that $g=(g_{ij})$ is a $\bar F$-valued point of Spec $A$ at which $G_w$ in non-vanishing. Hence by lemma \[Noether normalization\], there exists an extension field $[L:F]$ with deg $[L:F] \leq {\text {deg}}
(\underset{j=1}{\overset{r} \prod}F_{{i_j}_w} \cdot \underset{j=1}{\overset{s} \prod}h_j) = d~({\text {say}})$ and an $L$-valued point $g'$ of Spec $A$ at which $G_w$ is non-vanishing. Since the polynomials $h_1,..,h_s$ vanish at $g'$, it follows that $g' \in G(L)$. Now $gw$ and $g'w$ have the same set of coefficients of the $w_i$’s which are non-zero. Hence as in the proof of lemma \[quantification\], $\mu(t)$ is also an instability 1-PS of $g'w$ and hence $g'^{-1} \mu(t) g'$ is an instability 1-PS of $w$, which is clearly defined over $L$. From this it follows easily that if $t$ is any integer such that $p^t > d$, then for any unstable $F$-rational point $w \in W$ it has an instability 1-PS and hence its instability parabolic defined over $F^{1/p^t}$.
Let $G$ be a reductive algebraic group defined over $K$. Let $W$ be a vector space defined over $K$. Let $\rho: G \rightarrow Gl(W)$ be a representation of $G$ defined over $K$. We say that the [**instability parabolic for subspaces is defined over L**]{} if for the induced action of $G$ on $\wedge^i(W)$, the instability parabolic for any unstable $K$-rational point in $\wedge^i(W)$ is defined over $L$ for all $i$ with $0 < i \leq m$. Similarly we will say that the [**instability parabolic for subspaces is rational**]{} if $L$ can be choosen to be $K$.
\[Corollary to quantification in general\] Let $G$ and $\rho$ be as in the above definition. Then there exists an integer $t'$ such that the instability parabolic for subspaces is defined over $K^{1/p^{t'}}$. Consequently, if $E$ is any principal $G$-bundle on $X$ such that $F^{t'^*}(E)$ is semistable then the induced vector bundle $E_W$ is also semistable.
Proof follows immediately from theorem \[quantification in general\] and the proof of theorem \[Main theorem\].
[1111]{} Fabrizio Coiai; Yogish, Holla. Extension of structute group of principal bundles in positive characteristic. J. reini. agnew. Math. 595 (2006), 1-24
S. Ramanan and A. Ramanathan, Some remarks on the instability flag, Tohoku Math. J. 36 (1984), 269-291
G. Kempf, Instability in invariant theory, Ann. of Math. 108 (1978), 299-316.
Langer, Adrian, Semistable principal $G$-bundles in positive characteristic. Duke Math. J. 128 (2005), no. 3, 511-540.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate spin and charge dynamics of a quantum dot of phosphorus atoms coupled to a radio-frequency single-electron transistor (rf-SET) using full counting statistics. We show how the magnetic field plays a role in determining the bunching or anti-bunching tunnelling statistics of the donor dot and SET system. Using the counting statistics we show how to determine the lowest magnetic field where spin-readout is possible. We then show how such a measurement can be used to investigate and optimise single electron spin-readout fidelity.'
author:
- 'S. K. Gorman, Y. He, M. G. House, J. G. Keizer, D. Keith, L. Fricke, S. J. Hile, M. A. Broome, M. Y. Simmons'
title: Tunnelling statistics for analysis of spin readout fidelity
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Single shot electron spin-readout is crucial for scalable quantum computation in silicon [@Hille1500707; @ogorman2016]. The single electron transistor (SET) has proven to be a highly sensitive electron charge detector in recent years [@Knobel2003; @1347-4065-52-4S-04CJ01; @RevModPhys.85.961] and is routinely used to perform high fidelity electron spin-readout when operated in DC mode [@PhysRevB.81.161308; @A.2016; @PhysRevLett.115.166806; @morello2010]. The SET can also be operated in AC mode using rf-reflectometry, which has been shown to increase detection bandwidths and give larger signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) [@Schoelkopf1238; @:/content/aip/journal/apl/74/26/10.1063/1.123258; @:/content/aip/journal/apl/86/14/10.1063/1.1897423; @:/content/aip/journal/apl/107/9/10.1063/1.4929827]. However, it is not known how a rf-driving field will affect the fidelity of electron spin-readout or if electron spin-readout is even possible in devices where the electron is tunnel coupled to a rf-SET. To investigate the combined rf-SET and electron system for single shot spin-readout, we examine the statistical properties of electrons tunnelling between a single donor dot (DD) comprised of $\sim$5 P atoms and a rf-SET.
Electron spin-readout is governed by spin-selective tunnelling processes of an electron from a DD to an electron reservoir [@elzerman2004]. In particular, the tunnel out rates of the electron spin-up and spin-down states from the DD to the reservoir need to be vastly different to ensure high-fidelity spin-to-charge conversion [@PhysRevLett.115.166806]. If the tunnel rates are too similar they cannot be attributed to the correct qubit state. Importantly, in such a system the tunnelling statistics of electrons to and from a reservoir can provide a vast amount of information about the underlying physical processes for the coupled DD-SET system [@Lu2003; @hanson2007; @PhysRevB.91.235413; @PhysRevB.94.054314]. This information can in turn be used to optimise the spin-readout fidelity using full counting statistics (FCS) [@PhysRevB.67.085316; @Nazarov2003; @1367-2630-16-11-113061]. In addition, FCS can be used to investigate shot noise [@gustavsson2006; @0953-8984-20-45-454204], non-Markovian effects [@PhysRevLett.100.150601; @Flindt23062009; @flindt2010] and electron-electron interactions [@PhysRevLett.96.026805; @doi:10.1063/1.3430000] that are difficult to obtain from transport measurements alone.
Full counting statistics involves counting the number of tunnel events, $n$ of an electron typically between a reservoir and electronic state such as a quantum dot within a time window, $\tau$ [@Wang20159]. By repeatedly counting the tunnel events over many multiples of $\tau$ a number distribution of tunnel events, $p(n)$ can be obtained [@gustavsson2006]. The resulting distribution can be completely described by a set of cumulants, $\kappa_i$ derived from the natural logarithm of the moment-generating function of $p(n)$. The cumulants represent different statistical properties about the number distribution, in which, $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, and $\kappa_3$ are the mean, variance, and skewness, respectively [@bruderer2014; @PhysRevB.91.235413]. Knowledge of the tunnelling statistics can then be used to optimise the time and energy detuning for electron spin-readout since they rely on the tunnelling of electrons from the DD to the reservoir.
In this work, we show by analysing the random telegraph signal (RTS) produced from the DD electron tunnel events, how the system varies under different magnetic field and rf-power conditions. The paper is laid out in the following sections. In Sec. \[sec:exp\] we describe the operation of the device and outline the measurement of RTS traces. We then derive the first few cumulants in terms of the electronic tunnel rates in the system in Sec. \[sec:rts\]. We investigate the dependence of FCS on magnetic field and rf-power in Sec. \[sec:Bfield\], and in more detail, the low, high and intermediate magnetic field regimes in Sec. \[sec:Blow\]-\[sec:Binter\]. In Sec. \[sec:readout\] we present a short overview of fidelity analysis of spin-readout and discuss how to optimise the readout time in Sec. \[sec:Optimtime\], as well as the rf-power of the rf-SET in Sec. \[sec:Optimpower\]. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:disc\] we summarise the results and describe potential future extensions to this work.
Device characterisation {#sec:exp}
=======================
The device was patterned using scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) - hydrogen lithography to selectively remove a hydrogen mask and subsequently dosed with phosphine to incorporate phosphorus donors [@simmons2008], see Fig. \[fig:intro\]a. The device was mounted on a printed circuit board with a rf-tank circuit that had a resonant frequency of 228.6 MHz ($L{=}1200$ nH and parasitic capacitance, $C_p{\sim}0.4$ pF), a matching capacitor of $C_m{=}39$ pF and Q-factor $\sim$150 attached to the source contact, while the drain contact was grounded [@PhysRevApplied.6.044016]. The amplitude of the reflected signal was monitored throughout the experiment and a variable attenuator was used to adjust the input rf-power driving the SET. Whilst two ${\sim}5$ P DDs were patterned in the device, we concentrate on the right DD in this paper since we are only interested in the single electron dynamics between the DD and rf-SET. Figure \[fig:intro\]b shows a charge transition between the DD and rf-SET with the detuning, $\epsilon$ between the DD and SET along the white arrow.
To acquire the RTS traces we position the chemical potential of the DD such that an electron can tunnel to the rf-SET. We then monitor the rf-SET for $100$ s before shifting the chemical potential along the detuning direction shown by the white arrow in Fig. \[fig:intro\]b (see Appendix A for details of the FCS analysis). The reflected rf-amplitude RTS traces are digitised with a 500 kHz sample rate with an example trace shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\]c. The low level (blue) of the RTS trace corresponds to the DD having an extra electron, whereas the high level (yellow) indicates when an electron has tunnelled off the DD to the SET reservoir. We set a threshold level, shown as a red dashed line in Fig. \[fig:intro\]c that distinguishes between the DD charge states, ‘0’ (yellow) and ‘1’ (blue). The number of electrons on the SET and DD is given by ($N_{\textnormal{SET}}$,$N_{\textnormal{DD}}$) in the figure and do not represent absolute numbers since we have not depleted the DD for this experiment.
Random telegraph signal analysis {#sec:rts}
--------------------------------
To encapsulate the complete dynamics of the system, we consider the system evolving under the Liouville equation, assuming the Born-Markov approximation, $$\frac{d \rho}{d t} = \mathcal{L} \rho,$$ where $\rho$ is the density operator and $\mathcal{L}$ is the generator of the system, which includes both coherent and incoherent tunnelling processes. The cumulants for a given generator $\mathcal{L}$ can be found by using FCS to analyse the RTS. Here, we use the recently proposed characteristic polynomial approach [@bruderer2014] which links the generator to the cumulants of the number distribution of tunnel events, $p(n)$, see Fig \[fig:intro\]d where the tunnel out events are used to generate the distribution. In addition, we extract the distribution of waiting times of the ‘0’ and ‘1’ states from which we can determine the tunnel rates as a function of detuning as shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\]e at $B{=}0$ T.
![[**Full counting statistics of a few donor quantum dot coupled to an in-plane rf-SET.**]{} (a) A STM-micrograph of the device investigated. Two DDs were patterned in the device; however, in the paper we only study the right DD (red circle). There are three control gates for the DDs $\{G_L,G_M,G_R\}$ and one for the rf-SET, $G_S$. The rf-tank circuit is attached to the source contact and the drain is grounded. The tank circuit is characterised by $L{=}1200$ nH, a parasitic capacitance, $C_p{\sim}0.4$ pF, and a matching capacitor, $C_m{=}39$ pF. A variable attenuator is used to tune the rf-power reaching the device. (b) An anti-crossing between the DD and rf-SET at $B{=}0$ T in the reflected amplitude of the rf-signal showing relative electron numbers on SET and DD ($n_{\textnormal{SET}}$,$n_{\textnormal{DD}}$). The detuning axis, $\epsilon$ is shown by the white arrow. (c) An illustrative RTS trace taken by measuring the reflected amplitude of the rf-SET near $\epsilon{=}0$ in (b). (d) The resulting distribution, $p(n)$ after using FCS to analysis the RTS trace in (c) at $B{=}0$ T. The histogram shows a mean of a ${\sim}40$ with a variance of ${\sim}20$. The distribution is positively skewed, that is $SF{>}0$. (e) The measured tunnel rates as a function of detuning at $B{=}0$ T showing the Fermi distribution about the Fermi level of the rf-SET.[]{data-label="fig:intro"}](fig1-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
For degenerate spin states ($B{=}0$ T, see Fig. \[fig:waittimes\]a), the system has only two distinguishable states, ${{|0 \rangle}}$ when there is no electron on the DD and ${|1 \rangle}$ when there is one electron on the DD. The generator, $\mathcal{L}$ in the basis $\{{{|0 \rangle}},{{|1 \rangle}}\}$, contains the tunnel rates of the electron between the DD and reservoir, $$\mathcal{L}_{0} = \begin{pmatrix}
-\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} & \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}\\
\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} & -\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}\\
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eqn:Lodef}$$ where $\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}$ ($\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}$) is the tunnel rate from the SET to DD (DD to SET) shown in the distribution of waiting times in Fig. \[fig:waittimes\]b. To perform FCS, we introduce a counting field, $\xi$ over the transition that is measured by examining the RTS traces, see Fig. \[fig:intro\]c. This transforms $\mathcal{L}_0 \rightarrow \mathcal{L}^{\xi}_0$, which is given by $$\mathcal{L}^{\xi}_0 = \begin{pmatrix}
-\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} & e^{\xi}\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}\\
\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} & -\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}\\
\end{pmatrix},$$ where the counting is performed over the tunnel out events of the DD to the rf-SET (${|1 \rangle}{\rightarrow}{|0 \rangle}$). The choice of tunnel in or out events does not affect the FCS analysis and the same $p(n)$ can be obtained by counting over the tunnel in events from the rf-SET to the DD.
To calculate the cumulants of $\mathcal{L}^{\xi}_0$ we use the recently proposed characteristic polynomial approach to counting statistics [@bruderer2014]. This method uses the characteristic polynomial, $P^{\xi}(z){=}\det{[z\mathcal{I} - \mathcal{L}^{\xi}]}$ of the generator (where $z$ is a placeholder variable and $\mathcal{I}$ is the identity matrix) to find the cumulants rather than finding the smallest eigenvalue of the generator [@PhysRevB.67.085316]. The notable benefit of the characteristic polynomial approach is that analytical expressions for the cumulants can always be obtained since it is not necessary to find the eigenvalues of the generator (the roots of $P^{\xi}(z)$) [@bruderer2014]. In addition, statistical tests of the system dimension can be derived and the measured cumulants can be inverted to determine an unknown generator [@bruderer2014]. Therefore, the characteristic polynomial allows for more information to be gained from the counting statistics compared to the standard approach [@PhysRevB.67.085316].
In general, the characteristic polynomial, $P^{\xi}(z)$ is related to the cumulants of the generator through the total derivative of $P^{\xi}[\lambda(\xi)]$ with respect to the counting field, $\xi$ [@bruderer2014], $$\frac{d^l P^{\xi}[\lambda(\xi)]}{d \xi^l}\Bigg|_{\xi = 0} = 0 \hspace{10pt} l \geq 1,
\label{eq:dp}$$ where $\lambda(\xi)$ is the smallest eigenvalue of the generator. Evaluating Eq. \[eq:dp\] for $l{=}\{1,2,3\}$ and taking into account the relations, $\kappa_i{=}\partial_{\xi}^i\lambda(\xi)|_{\xi{=}0}$ and $\lambda(\xi)|_{\xi{=}0}{=}0$, we can solve for the cumulants, $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, and $\kappa_3$ [@bruderer2014], $$\kappa_1 = -\frac{a_0'}{a_1},
\label{eq:k1}$$ $$\kappa_2 = -\frac{1}{a_1}(a_0' + 2a_1'\kappa_1 + 2a_2\kappa^2_1),
\label{eq:k2}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\kappa_3 = -\frac{1}{a_1}(a_0' + 3a_1'\kappa_1 + 6a_2\kappa^2_1 + 6a_3\kappa^3_1 \\+ 3a_1'\kappa_2 + 6a_2\kappa_1\kappa_2),
\label{eq:k3}\end{gathered}$$ where $a_n$ is the $n^{\textnormal{th}}$ coefficient of $z$ in the characteristic polynomial. Similarly, $a_n'$ is the derivative of the $n^{th}$ coefficient of $z$ with respect to $\xi$ in the limit that $\xi{\rightarrow}0$. Using Eq. \[eq:k1\], \[eq:k2\], and \[eq:k3\] we can readily find the analytical expressions for the first three cumulants from the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial.
The characteristic polynomial of the $\mathcal{L}^{\xi}_0$ in the case of degenerate spin states has the form, $$P^{\xi}_0(z) = z^2 + (\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} + \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}})z + \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}(1 - e^{\xi}),$$ Substituting in the coefficients of $P^{\xi}_0(z)$ gives, $$\kappa_1 = \frac{\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}}{\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} + \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}},$$ $$\kappa_2 = \kappa_1\frac{\Gamma^2_{\textnormal{IN}} + \Gamma^2_{\textnormal{OUT}}}{(\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} + \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}})^2},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\kappa_3 = \kappa_1 \times \\
\frac{\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}^4-2\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}^3\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}+6\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}^2\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}^2-2\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}^3+\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}^4}{(\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}} + \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}})^4}.\end{gathered}$$
![[**The effect of an applied magnetic field to the distribution of waiting times.**]{} A schematic of the detuning and spin states, ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ at (a) $B{=}0$ T and (b) $B{>}0$ T showing the individual tunnel rates between the DD and SET with thermal broadening. (c) At $B{=}0$ T the spin states are degenerate and only a single exponential decay in the distribution of waiting times is observed. (d) At $B{>}0$ T the spin states are split by the Zeeman energy causing two distinct tunnel out rates of the DD to the rf-SET. As a result, the distribution of waiting times shows a double exponential decay for $\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ and $\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$.[]{data-label="fig:waittimes"}](fig2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
For energy selective electron spin-readout, the electron Zeeman split energy levels, ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ must have an energy separation, $g \mu_B B{>}k_B T$, where $g \mu_B B$ is the Zeeman energy for magnetic field strength $B$ and $k_B T$ is the thermal energy at temperature, $T$. The spin split levels are then positioned with the Fermi level of a reservoir between them, such that only ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ can tunnel out and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ can tunnel in. However, due to temperature broadening, there is a finite probability that the electrons can tunnel back and forth between the reservoir and DD indefinitely.
When a magnetic field is applied, the spin states become non-degenerate and we must now consider a three state system, see Fig. \[fig:waittimes\]c. In this case, each spin state has distinct dynamics due to their different chemical potential with respect to the Fermi level of the SET, resulting in different tunnel rates, $\{\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}}, \Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}, \Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{IN}}, \Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}} \}$ as well as inter-spin relaxation rates, $W_{\uparrow \downarrow}$ and $W_{\downarrow \uparrow}$. This added complexity significantly changes the cumulants of the system and hence six tunnel rates are now required to describe the DD-SET tunnelling. This is clearly demonstrated by examining the distribution of waiting times in Fig. \[fig:waittimes\]d where two exponential decays are observed corresponding to the individual spin tunnel rates. In the limit that the inter-spin relaxation rates are much smaller than the DD-SET tunnel rates, $\kappa_1$ is given by, $$\kappa_1 = \frac{\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}}\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}(\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{IN}} + \Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}})}{\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}}\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}} + \Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}(\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{IN}} + \Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}})}.$$ This is the case for most donor systems with long spin relaxation times, $T_1{>}1$ s at $B{=}2.5$ T. The higher order cumulants can be calculated in an equivalent manner to the $B{=}0$ T case; however, their general analytical form is too large to quote [@PhysRevB.71.161301].
The normalised second cumulant, known as the the Fano factor (*FF*) defined as $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{=}\kappa_2/\kappa_1$ is a useful quantity when investigating the system dynamics since it gives information about the temporal distribution of the tunnel events. That is, for tunnel events that are evenly separated in time (anti-bunching), $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{<}1$ and for tunnel events that are clustered with long periods of no tunnelling (bunching), $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{>}1$. We also make use of the normalised skewness, $SF{=}\kappa_3/\kappa_1$. While $FF$ must be positive, $SF$ can range from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. For $SF{<}0$, $p(n)$ extends further in $n$ values less than $\kappa_1$, that is the distribution is negatively skewed. Conversely, for $SF{>}0$, $p(n)$ has more values larger than $\kappa_1$ meaning the distribution is now positively skewed. In particular, a Gaussian distribution is described by $SF{=}0$ or more precisely, $\kappa_{i>2}{=}0$. We make use of $SF$ in Sec. \[sec:Binter\] to determine the lowest magnetic field where the spin states are distinguishable.
{width="100.00000%"}
Magnetic field dependence {#sec:Bfield}
=========================
To fully understand the tunnelling dynamics of the DD-SET system, we consider three distinct magnetic field regimes—low ($g \mu_B B{<}k_B T$) and high ($g \mu_B B{>}k_B T$) magnetic field—where the system can be described by a two-state ($\{{{|0 \rangle}}, {{|1 \rangle}}\}$) and three-state ($\{{{|0 \rangle}}, {{|\downarrow \rangle}},{{|\uparrow \rangle}}\}$) system, respectively and the intermediate magnetic field ($g \mu_B B{\sim}k_B T$) case. We then use a statistical test to determine the magnetic field for which the system can no longer be described by a two-state model.
Low Magnetic field {#sec:Blow}
------------------
First, we consider the system at $B{=}0$ T for which the spin states are degenerate. The tunnelling of the electrons produces a RTS trace such as shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\]c corresponding to the two charge states of the DD, ${|0 \rangle}$ (high level) and ${|1 \rangle}$ (low level).
The shaded bands in Fig. \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]a shows the *FF* of the tunnel events of the DD to the SET ($\hat{\kappa}_i$ are cumulants determined from the experimental data, see Appendix \[app:calc\]) as a function of detuning, $\epsilon$ between the DD and rf-SET (see arrow in Fig.1 b). There is a single dip near $\epsilon{=}0$ (position ) that has a minimum of $\sim$0.55. This is an indication of electron anti-bunching [@gustavsson2006], in which the electron tunnel out events are evenly spaced out in time. This is due to the Fermionic nature of the electron such that only one can occupy a specific DD energy level at a time. It is worth noting that the *FF* does not reach 0.5 since the tunnel rates are extremely sensitive at $\epsilon{=}0$ and small electrical noise fluctuations can change them significantly. As a result, on average the tunnel rates are not exactly equal at $\epsilon{=}0$ and there is some additional variance in the counting statistics introduced from the noise in the system. The *FF* then approaches 1 for $\epsilon{\ll}0$ (position ) and $\epsilon{\gg}0$ (position ) where the electron becomes Coulomb blockaded and cannot tunnel between the DD and SET. The *FF* agrees very well with theoretical calculations (solid lines) where only an effective temperature is assumed, as is standard practice for a DC SET. For example, at -100 dBm, the effective power-broadened temperature is ${\sim}1.4$ K (see Appendix \[app:temp\] for details on the temperature calculation). Since the tunnelling statistics can be described by a simple effective temperature broadening, in the same manner as a DC SET, we conclude that the rf-SET is suitable for single shot electron spin-readout. Note that below we perform the same experiment with much lower rf-driving powers, and hence a lower power broadened temperature.
Although the *FF* can distinguish between the overall behaviour of the tunnelling dynamics, to examine the temporal correlations of tunnel events we make use of the second-order correlation function, $g^{(2)}(t)$ [@PhysRevB.85.165417], $$g^{(2)}(t) = \frac{\langle\langle\mathcal{J} e^{\mathcal{L}t} \mathcal{J}\rangle\rangle}{\langle\langle\mathcal{J}\rangle\rangle^2},
\label{eq:g2calc}$$ where $\mathcal{J}{=}\frac{d}{d\xi}\mathcal{L}(\xi)|_{\xi{=}0}$ is the jump operator for the counting field, $\xi$ and $\langle\langle \dots \rangle\rangle$ indicates the steady state average. The $g^{(2)}(t)$ can be used to distinguish between anti-bunching ($g^{(2)}(t){<}1$) and bunching ($g^{(2)}(t){>}1$) tunnel events. Experimentally, $g^{(2)}(t)$ is calculated by building a histogram of the times, $t$ between every pair of tunnel out events in the RTS trace. We note by definition, $g^{(2)}(0){=}0$ since electrons are Fermions, that is, we cannot detect individual tunnel events that are not separated in time [@PhysRevB.85.165417].
The second-order correlation function is shown in Fig. \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]b at the 3 different detuning positions, marked {,,} in Fig.2a. At $\epsilon{\approx}0$ (point ) $g^{(2)}(t){<}1$ for $t{<}0.1$ ms indicating that electron anti-bunching is observed at these short timescales. For large detuning ( and ) where the DD is in Coulomb blockade, $g^{(2)}(t){=}1$ since the tunnel events are not correlated in time. This confirms the observation of the $FF$ dip in Fig. \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]a.
Finally, in this low field regime we investigate the counting statistics as a function of the applied rf-power to examine the effect of any artificial broadening due to rf-driving of the SET. Any broadening due to excessive rf-power is relevant when considering electron spin-readout fidelities, which are strongly reduced at high electron temperatures. Figure \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]c shows the *FF* as a function of detuning for three rf-powers. We observe that increased rf-power broadens the *FF* dip, indicating that the higher power causes a higher effective temperature of the SET. However, it does not significantly effect the counting statistics since the tunnelling dynamics can still be explained by the simple DC reservoir model (solid lines). Therefore, although the rf-driving of the SET does not change the tunnelling dynamics, the rf-power needs to be chosen carefully as not to power broaden the SET which will ultimately decrease the electron spin-readout fidelity, in particular as $k_B T{\rightarrow}g \mu_B B$.
High magnetic field {#sec:Bhigh}
-------------------
We now examine the high magnetic field case where the electron spin state can be read out since the spin split levels are sufficiently distinct to allow spin-to-charge conversion [@buch2013]. Therefore, it is important to characterise the dynamics of the non-degenerate spin states using the rf-SET to determine any detrimental effects that may affect single shot spin-readout.
At large magnetic fields $g \mu_B B{>}k_B T$ the dynamics can no longer be explained by a two level system. The Zeeman split levels now have their own dynamics and the generator must describe a three-state system. The generator, $\mathcal{L}_B$ in the basis $\{{{|0 \rangle}},{{|{\downarrow} \rangle}},{{|{\uparrow} \rangle}}\}$ of the DD electron is given by, $$\mathcal{L}_B = \begin{pmatrix}
-\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{IN}} -\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}} & \Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}} & \Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}\\
\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}} & -\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}} - W_{\downarrow\uparrow} & W_{\uparrow\downarrow}\\
\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{IN}} & W_{\downarrow\uparrow} & -\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}} - W_{\uparrow\downarrow}\\
\end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:threestate}$$ where $\Gamma^i_n$ are the tunnel rates for the individual spin states in and out of the DD and $W_{\uparrow \downarrow}$ ($W_{\downarrow \uparrow}$) is the relaxation rate from ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}{\rightarrow}{|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ (${|{\downarrow} \rangle}{\rightarrow}{|{\uparrow} \rangle}$).
The measured *FF* as a function of detuning at $B{=}2$ T is shown in Fig. \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]d. There is a dip near $\epsilon{=}0$ (position ) as seen in the low magnetic field case, indicative of anti-bunching. The *FF* then rises above 1 ($\epsilon{>}0$) for a length of detuning before returning to 1. This arises due to the bunching of the electron tunnel events due to the different tunnel rates of the Zeeman split states. The width in detuning for which $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{>}1$, shown by the dashed lines, is related to the temperature of the system and Zeeman splitting of the spin states. The discrepancy between the theoretical curve and data at far positive detuning is due to the finite window size, $\tau$ in our analysis. If $\tau{\sim}1/\Gamma^i_n$ then FCS breaks down and the number distribution cannot be described accurately. As a result, the distribution becomes Poissonian, $\kappa_{i>1}{=}\kappa_1$ and hence *FF*${\rightarrow}1$.
The detuning for which the *FF* rises above 1 shows where bunching of the ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ tunnelling to the SET occurs. Here, the electron can tunnel back and forth to the SET; however, if ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ is loaded onto the DD then the tunnel out rate to the SET is much slower (this is schematically shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\]c). This results in periods of fast tunnelling (${{|{\uparrow} \rangle}} {\leftrightarrow} {{|0 \rangle}}$) interspersed with periods of slow tunnelling (${{|{\downarrow} \rangle}} {\leftrightarrow} {{|0 \rangle}}$). This extra spin state gives rise to the observed super-Poissonian ($\textrm{\textit{FF}}{>}1$) statistics in the counting statistics as it acts as a blocking state [@PhysRevB.91.235413]. We can confirm the presence of a blocking state by looking at the second-order correlation function of the RTS trace, shown in Fig. \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]e for three different detuning positions. Near position where $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{\approx}0.6$, two-state dynamics and anti-bunching of tunnel events are observed, confirmed by $g^{(2)}(t){<}1$. At the peak of the $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{\approx}1.5$ (position ), there is clear evidence of the bunching of the electrons for $t{<}0.2$ ms since $g^{(2)}(t){>}1$.
![[**Transition from two- to three-state system.**]{} (a) The magnetic field, $B$ dependence of the measured Fano factor, $FF{=}\hat{\kappa}_2/\hat{\kappa}_1$. The peak can be seen to emerge at low magnetic fields and increase in height as $B$ increases. The data is aligned such that the minima in the Fano factors for different $B$ values are at the same detuning value. (b) The detuning dependence of the calculated and measured normalised skewnes, $SF$; $\kappa_3/\kappa_1$ and $\hat{\kappa}_3/\hat{\kappa}_1$ at $B{=}1.5$ T (blue dashed line in (a)). The calculated and measured cumulants only differ around the peak in the Fano factor, indicating that the two-state model must be rejected in this detuning regime. (c) $\kappa_3/\kappa_1$ and $\hat{\kappa}_3/\hat{\kappa}_1$ as a function of $B$ along the detuning position indicated in (a) at $\epsilon{=}1.5$ mV (red dashed line). The cumulants become significantly different above $B{=}0.4$ T, showing that the three state model is required above this magnetic field strength. (d) Selected $g^{(2)}(t)$ traces for different $B$ fields from 0 to 1.5 T at $\epsilon{=}1.5$ mV (offset by 2). As the magnetic field is increased, the bunching of electrons, $g^{(2)}(t){>}1$ becomes more prominent since the ratio of the spin state tunnel rates difference becomes larger. The extent in time of the $g^{(2)}(t){>}1$ region also increases, again, indicative that the ratio between the two spin state tunnel rates becomes larger as the magnetic field is increased. The solid lines are fits to the data using Eq. \[eq:g2calc\].[]{data-label="fig:bfield"}](fig4-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
We again examine the rf-power dependence on the FCS at high magnetic field in Fig. \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]f. The region where $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{>}1$ widens in detuning and decreases in amplitude at larger powers since the effective temperature of the system increases, causing the tunnel rates of the two spin states to become more similar. As before, the dynamics of the system can be described by considering only an effective temperature broadening, indicating that the rf-driving does not give rise to any new dynamics in the system. This is most likely due to the much slower tunnel rates ($\sim 50$ kHz) compared to the rf-driving frequency ($228.6$ MHz).
Intermediate magnetic fields {#sec:Binter}
----------------------------
The condition $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{>}1$ gives an indication of where the two-state (degenerate spin) model cannot be used to describe the system [@bruderer2014]. This is where the effective temperature of the system is too low to resolve the Zeeman split spin states. In Fig. \[fig:bfield\]a we plot the *FF* as a function of magnetic field and detuning. The *FF* peak increases in magnitude and width as the magnetic field is increased showing that the magnetic field has a direct effect on the system dynamics. To investigate the transition from a two-state to a three-state system, we measure the normalised skewness, $SF{=}\kappa_3/\kappa_1$ at magnetic field values in the intermediate regime, $g \mu_B B{\sim}k_B T$ or $0{<}B{<}1$ T.
The two-state system has only two independent cumulants, $\kappa_{1}$ and $\kappa_{2}$, that is, any cumulant $\kappa_{i>2}$ can be written as a function of the preceding cumulants which allows us to determine a statistical test of the system dimension [@bruderer2014]. In this section we test the hypothesis that the DD and rf-SET electron system is classical (in the sense that the Hamiltonian only contains non-zero diagonal elements) and of dimension, $M{=}2$. To this end, we have to measure the first three cumulants, $\{\hat{\kappa}_1,\hat{\kappa}_2,\hat{\kappa}_3\}$. Using the measured first two cumulants, $\hat{\kappa}_1,\hat{\kappa}_2$ we calculate what the third cumulant *would* be for a two-state system, $$\kappa_3 = \hat{\kappa}_1 + 3 \hat{\kappa}_2 \Big(\frac{\hat{\kappa}_2}{\hat{\kappa}_1} - 1\Big).$$ If $\kappa_3{\neq}\hat{\kappa}_3$ then the hypothesis that the system has a dimension $M{=}2$ must be rejected and hence cannot be described by a two dimensional generator, which in our case is $\mathcal{L}_0$.
To investigate the two-state hypothesis we first examine the detuning dependence of $\hat{\kappa}_3$ and $\kappa_3$ at $B{=}1.5$ T, in Fig. \[fig:bfield\]b. Importantly, the detuning dependence on $\hat{\kappa}_3$ and $\kappa_3$ shows that the experiment and calculated cumulant only disagree where $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{>}1$ between $\epsilon{\approx}0$ mV and $\epsilon{\approx}4$ mV. This is because the peak in *FF* corresponds to when ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ is above the Fermi level of SET and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ is below the Fermi level giving different tunnel rates to the SET. Therefore, the three-state model must be used.
![[**Individual spin tunnel rates for spin-readout.**]{} (a) Individual tunnel rates as a function of detuning, $\epsilon$ at $B{=}2$ T. Two tunnel rates can be observed in the regime where $\textrm{\textit{FF}}{>}1$, which we assign as $\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ (red squares) and $\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ (blue circles). A single tunnel in rate is measured since it is the sum of both the individual spin tunnel rates (green triangles). The solid lines are fits to the data using a Fermi-Dirac distribution. Using the data of the tunnel times as well as measuring the signal-to-noise ratio at different powers, we can perform a spin-readout fidelity analysis. (b) The spin-to-charge conversion visibility (red) as well as fidelities, $\alpha$ (blue) and $\beta$ (green) as a function of readout time. (c) The electrical fidelities $\gamma$ (green) and $\delta$ (blue) as well as the electrical visibility (red) as a function of readout threshold. The maximum of these two plots are used to the obtain the optimum readout time and threshold value ($t_{optimum}$ and $v_{optimum}$).[]{data-label="fig:readout"}](fig5-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
To examine the magnetic field dependence, we take a cut through the *SF* at $\epsilon{=}1.5$ mV shown in Fig. \[fig:bfield\]c. The transition from the two-state to three-state system, that is, where $\kappa_3{\neq}\hat{\kappa}_3$ occurs around $B_{\textnormal{tran}}{=}0.4{\pm}0.1$ T. This magnetic field strength, $B_{\textnormal{tran}}$ represents the point where the thermal/power broadening of the rf-SET causes the individual spin state, ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ tunnel rates to become indistinguishable [@PhysRevLett.111.126803].
Finally, we plot $g^{(2)}(t)$ in Fig. \[fig:bfield\]d for various magnetic field strengths along the same detuning as in Fig. \[fig:bfield\]c. As the magnetic field is increased the bunching of tunnelling out events ($g^{(2)}(t){>}1$) becomes more prominent as the difference in energy between the spin-up and spin-down states increases. This is because the blocking spin-down state causes larger periods of no tunnelling. Below $B_{\textnormal{tran}}$ the signature of bunching, that is $g^{(2)}(t){>}1$ disappears and only anti-bunching of electrons can be observed, $g^{(2)}(t){<}1$.
Determining optimal single spin-readout {#sec:readout}
=======================================
For optimal spin-readout, the electron temperature should be as low as possible to maximise spin-to-charge conversion, which relies on sufficiently different $\Gamma^i_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ for spin-up and -down. The next step is to examine what effect the rf-driving field has on the fidelity of single shot electron spin-readout.
Electron spin-readout fidelities are separated into two processes: electrical visibility and spin-to-charge conversion visibility. Electrical visibility represents the probability of registering a tunnel event (a blip in the detector response) and is governed predominately by the SNR, readout time, and measurement bandwidth of the detector. The spin-to-charge conversion visibility indicates how well the detector is able to distinguish between a tunnel event that is ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ or ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ and depends on the relative tunnel out times of the individual spin states [@buch2013]. We want the tunnel rate of ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}{\rightarrow}{|0 \rangle}$ to be much greater than ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}{\rightarrow}{|0 \rangle}$. Therefore, the spin states are positioned such that the ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ chemical potential is above the Fermi level of the SET and that ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ is below the Fermi level. Since we measure the tunnel rates as a function of detuning, we can optimise the readout fidelity over the detuning range and rf-power for a given magnetic field value. An explanation of the various parameters involved in the spin readout fidelity calculation is given in Appendix \[app:readout\].
Optimisation of readout time {#sec:Optimtime}
----------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:readout\]a we plot the measured tunnel rates obtained from the waiting time distribution of the RTS trace by fitting a double exponential function which gives distinct tunnel out rates (Appendix \[app:temp\]) for ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ (higher tunnel rate, red squares) and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ (lower tunnel rate, blue circles). The tunnel in time corresponds to $\Gamma_{\textnormal{IN}}{=}\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}}{+}\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{IN}}$ and shows only the sum of the two times and therefore only a single exponential can be fit to the data (green triangles). The solid lines are fits to the data using a Fermi-Dirac distribution [@morello2010; @buch2013]. The optimum point for spin-to-charge conversion is where the ratio, $\Gamma_{\textnormal{ratio}}{=}\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}/\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ is maximised. From Fig. \[fig:readout\]a we can see that $\Gamma_{\textnormal{ratio}}$ does not vary over the detuning range, $\epsilon{>}2$ mV, implying that any point in this region will give the optimal spin-to-charge conversion fidelity. However, the optimum readout time will be faster as $\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ becomes faster (moving towards negative detuning), meaning that the readout time can be tuned over many orders of magnitude depending on the position in detuning, while maintaining the same spin-to-charge conversion fidelity. Interestingly, the detuning point that gives the fastest readout whilst maintaining the highest spin-to-charge conversion occurs at the peak of the *FF*, denoted by the black arrow in Fig. \[fig:ff\_g2\_c3\]d, which at $B{=}2$ T corresponds to ${\sim}2$ mV. What this means is that by measuring the *FF* as a function of detuning the optimal readout position can be easily found from $\max[FF]$.
Optimisation of rf-power {#sec:Optimpower}
------------------------
Using the data from Fig. \[fig:readout\]a we calculate the spin-to-charge conversion visibility ($V_{STC}{=}\alpha{+}\beta{-}1$) and the electrical visibility ($V_{E}{=}\gamma{+}\delta{-}1$) in Fig. \[fig:readout\]b and c which are used to obtain the electron spin-readout fidelity. This type of analysis has been reported before [@buch2013] and can used to directly obtain the optimum readout time (Fig. \[fig:readout\]b) and the optimal threshold for the tunnel event (Fig. \[fig:readout\]c). We now use the same methods to find the optimum spin-readout fidelity for different rf-powers.
At higher rf-powers the effective temperature of the system increases. This is confirmed in Fig. \[fig:fidelity\]a, where we show the structure of the rf-SET response across the charge transition with the DD. The higher effective tempearture reduces the spin-to-charge conversion fidelity since the ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ tunnel events become less distinguishable. In Fig. \[fig:fidelity\]b we show that as the applied rf-power increases the SNR also increases which gives better electrical fidelity. However, there is a trade off since the tunnel out times of spin-up and -down become more similar as the effective temperature increases. The electrical visibility has three distinct regimes. For small rf-power the SNR becomes too small to accurately register any tunnel event (red region). In the intermediate regime (green), the visibility reaches a maximum and slowly decreases as more rf-power is applied to the rf-SET. The decrease is due to the tunnel out rates becoming too similar. This means the optimum readout time (calculated from spin-to-charge conversion) becomes much shorter and a large number of ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ tunnel events are missed [@buch2013]. When the ratio of the tunnel rates become 1 (large rf-power) then spin-readout becomes impossible since the tunnel events are indistinguishable between ${|{\uparrow} \rangle}$ and ${|{\downarrow} \rangle}$ (white region). Therefore, there is an optimum power for spin-readout, which for the device measured here is -110 dBm (effective temperature of $\sim 0.8$ K), which gives a predicted measurement fidelity of $F_M{=}(\alpha\gamma + \beta\delta)/2{=}91.0\%$ [@buch2013].
![[**The effect of rf-power on spin-readout fidelity.**]{} (a) The edge of the SET rf-amplitude response across the DD anti-crossing line. As the rf-power is increased the density of states in the SET broadens in detuning. (b) The calculated electrical visibility (blue) and tunnel rate ratio, $\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}/\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ (red) as a function of rf-power to the SET. The data points show the measured values in the experiment and the solid lines are theoretical calculations using parameters obtained from the experiment. There is an optimum rf-power for electron spin-readout, which we calculate here to be $V_E{=}84.2$%, which, when combined with the spin-to-charge conversion analysis, gives a predicted measurement fidelity, $F_M{=}91.0$% at -110 dBm.[]{data-label="fig:fidelity"}](fig6-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="1\columnwidth"}
The electrical fidelity in this device is limited by the fast $\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{IN}}{\approx}250$ kHz which approaches the measurement bandwidth of our data acquisition device. This means some current blips go undetected by the charge sensor. In this work the SNR is large enough to clearly distinguish between the two states (${\sim}40$ at -90 dBm) and in the future the tunnel rates can be easily decreased by having the DD slightly further away from the rf-SET.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
We have investigated the full counting statistics of a single DD coupled to a rf-SET for single shot electron spin-readout. FCS can be used as a tool for probing the system dynamics and elucidating the optimal conditions to maximise electron spin-readout fidelities. We have shown by studying the tunnelling statistics of electrons that the rf-SET can be used to perform single shot spin readout of electrons.
We examined the spin-readout fidelities by varying the rf-power of the SET and show that there is a clear optimal power that is a compromise between power broadening and SNR. We show that by simply measuring the *FF* as a function of the detuning between the DD and SET the optimal readout position can be easily found from its maximum value. For this device, we calculate a readout fidelity of $91.0$% and predict that the rf-SET can be used as a charge sensor with fault-tolerant single shot spin-readout fidelities if the tunnel times of the DD to the rf-SET are increased. In summary, we have shown that by directly coupling a DD to a rf-SET and measuring the tunnelling statistics we can optimise the readout fidelities to allow for fault-tolerant single shot spin-readout.
acknowledgements
================
We thank M. Bruderer for enlightening discussions. This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (project no. CE110001027) and the US National Security Agency and US Army Research Office (contract no. W911NF-08-1-0527). M.Y.S. acknowledges an ARC Laureate Fellowship.
Calculation of cumulants from RTS traces {#app:calc}
========================================
In this section, we describe how the RTS traces can be analysed to obtain the cumulants of the distribution, $p(n)$ using FCS. We position the voltage levels on the gates such that the electron can tunnel between the rf-SET and DD. We then wait at this position for $\tau_M{=}100$ s while monitoring the reflected amplitude of the SET. The RTS traces are then sectioned into consecutive windows of a length, $\tau{=}10$ ms for a total of $10,000$ windows. The number of tunnel outs, that is the number of times the RTS traces goes from a low value to a high value (see Fig. \[fig:intro\](c)) per window is then binned into a histogram over the whole RTS trace. An example of the resulting histogram of $p(n)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\]d.
The cumulants of the $p(n)$ can be calculated by first calculating the moments of the distribution. The moments, $\mu_i$ of $p(n)$ are found using, $$\mu_i = E[p(n)^i],$$ where $E[\cdot]$ represents the expectation value (mean) of the distribution. The cumulants can then be found from the recursion formula, $$\kappa_i = \mu_i - \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \frac{(i - 1)!}{(j - 1)!(i - j)!} \kappa_j \mu_{i-j}.$$ The next RTS trace was then taken by shifting the voltages on the gates along the detuning line, shown by the white line in Fig. \[fig:intro\]b and performing the same analysis as above. The distribution of waiting times was calculated from each measured $t_{\textnormal{IN}}$ and $t_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ in Fig. \[fig:intro\]c and then binned into a histogram.
Temperature estimations {#app:temp}
=======================
The temperature estimations in the main text were found by fitting both the individual cumulants from the FCS analysis and the relative magnitude of the spin tunnel out rates as a function of detuning. The temperature can be found by using the relative magnitude of the tunnel rates if the Zeeman energy, $E_z{=}g \mu_B B$ of the electron spin states are known. The tunnel out rates, $\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ and $\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ follow Fermi distributions about the Fermi level of the reservoir, $$\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}} = [1 - f(\epsilon - E_z/2)] \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}},$$ $$\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}} = [1 - f(\epsilon + E_z/2)] \Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}},$$ where $\Gamma_{\textnormal{OUT}}$ is the maximum tunnel rate. Therefore, the the relative magnitude between the two tunnel out rates is, $$\frac{\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}}{\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}} = \frac{1 - f(\epsilon + E_z/2)}{1 - f(\epsilon - E_z/2)}.
\label{eq:tun_rate}$$ At far positive detuning when $f(\epsilon + E_z/2){<}1$, Eq. \[eq:tun\_rate\] is approximately independent of detuning and is given by the ratio $E_z$ to $k_B T$. That is, $$\lim_{\epsilon\to\infty} \frac{\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}}{\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}} = \exp{\Bigg(\frac{E_z}{k_B T}\Bigg)},$$ such that, after inverting, $$T = \frac{E_z}{k_B (\ln{\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}} - \ln{\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}})}.$$ The temperature obtained using this method showed good agreement to the cumulants obtained using FCS and as such was used to estimate the temperature of the system. At far positive detuning, $\Gamma^{\uparrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}/\Gamma^{\downarrow}_{\textnormal{OUT}}{\approx}7$, which gives $T{=}1.4{\pm}0.2$ K for -100 dBm (-95 dBm is $T{=}2.3{\pm}0.3$ K and -90 dBm is $T{=}3.1{\pm}0.4$ K).
Single spin readout parameters {#app:readout}
==============================
The electrical visibility is how well the blip in the detector response can be resolved. It is parameterised by two fidelities, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ that correspond to the distributions of the spin-down, $N_{\downarrow}$ and spin-up state, $N_{\uparrow}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma &= 1 - \int_{-\infty}^{v} N_{\downarrow} dV,\\
\delta &= 1 - \int_{v}^{\infty} N_{\uparrow} dV.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $N_{\downarrow}$ is the distribution of the readout trace when there was no blip and $N_{\uparrow}$ when there is a blip present and $V$ is the reflected rf-amplitude. The optimal threshold voltage, $v_{optimum}$ is the value that maximises the separation between the two distributions [@buch2013]. This can be conveniently calculated by maximising the electrical visibility, $$V_{E} = \gamma + \delta - 1.$$
The state-to-charge conversion visibility is calculated by considering a rate equation model of the single electron tunneling to the SET. The two parameters that are used to maximise the probability that the electron tunneling to the SET is a spin-up are $\alpha$ and $\beta$, $$\alpha = e^{-\frac{t}{t^0_{\textnormal{OUT}}}},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\beta = \frac{1}{T_{\textnormal{OUT}}}\Big[(1 - e^{-\frac{t}{t^0_{\textnormal{OUT}}}}) t^0_{\textnormal{OUT}} t^1_{\textnormal{OUT}}\\ + (e^{-\frac{T_1 + t^1_{\textnormal{OUT}}}{t^1_{\textnormal{OUT}} T_1} t} - 1) T_1 (t^1_{\textnormal{OUT}} - t^0_{\textnormal{OUT}})\Big],\end{gathered}$$ where $T_{\textnormal{OUT}}{=}T_1 (t^0_{\textnormal{OUT}}{-}t^1_{\textnormal{OUT}}){+}t^0_{\textnormal{OUT}} t^1_{\textnormal{OUT}}$. The fidelity $\alpha$ is the probability that the spin-down electron has not tunneled to the SET and $\beta$ is the probability that the spin-up electron has tunneled to the SET [@buch2013]. The optimal readout time, $t_{optimum}$ is that the time that maximises these two fidelities. This can be found by maximising the state-to-charge conversion visibility, $$V_{STC} = \alpha + \beta - 1.$$
Finally, we define the measurement fidelity as the average probability of correctly identifying the spin-down and spin-up states. This is given by, $$F_{M} = \frac{F_{\downarrow} + F_{\uparrow}}{2} = \frac{\alpha \gamma + \beta \delta}{2},$$ to take into account the effect of the state-to-charge conversion and electrical visibility.
[10]{}
C. D. Hill, E. Peretz, S. J. Hile, M. G. House, M. Fuechsle, S. Rogge, M. Y. Simmons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, A surface code quantum computer in silicon, Science Advances [**1**]{} (2015).
J. O’Gorman, N. H. Nickerson, P. Ross, J. J. L. Morton, and S. C. Benjamin, A silicon-based surface code quantum computer, npj Quant. Infor. [**2**]{}, 15019 (2016).
R. G. Knobel and A. N. Cleland, Nanometre-scale displacement sensing using a single electron transistor, Nature [**424**]{}, 291 (2003).
T. Kambara, T. Kodera, Y. Arakawa, and S. Oda, Dual function of single electron transistor coupled with double quantum dot: Gating and charge sensing, Jap. J. Appl. Phys. [**52**]{}, 04CJ01 (2013).
F. A. Zwanenburg, A. .S. Dzurak, A. Morello, M. Y. Simmons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, Silicon quantum electronics, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**85**]{}, 961 (2013).
C. Barthel, M. Kjærgaard, J. Medford, M. Stopa, C. .M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, A. C. Gossard, Fast sensing of double-dot charge arrangement and spin state with a radio-frequency sensor quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 161308 (2010).
T. A. Baart, M. Shafiei, T. Fujita, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, L. M. K. Vandersypen, Single-spin CCD, Nat. Nanotechnol. [**11**]{}, 330 (2016).
T. F. Watson, B. Weber, M. G. House, H. Büch, and M. Y. Simmons, High-fiedlity rapid initialisation and readout of an electron spin via the single donor $D^-$ charge state, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 166806 (2015).
A. Morello, J. J. Pla, F. A. Zwanenburg, K. W. Chan, K. Y. Tan, H. Huebl, M. Mottonen, C. D. Nugroho, J. A. van Donkelaar, A. D. C. Alves, D. N. Jamieson, C. C. Escott, L. C. L. Hollenberg, R. G. Clark, A. S. Dzurak, Single-shot readout of an electron spin in silicon, Nature [**467**]{}, 687 (2010).
R. J. Schoelkopf, P. Wahlgren, A. A. Kozhevnikov, P. Delsing, and D. E. Prober, The radio-frequency single-electron transistor (RF-SET): A fast and ultrasensitive electrometer Science [**280**]{}, 1238 (1998).
A. N. Korotkov and M. A. Paalanen, Charge sensitivity of radio frequency single-electron transistor, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**74**]{}, 4052 (1999).
T. M. Buehler, D. J. Reilly, R. P. Starrett, A. D. Greentree, A. R. Hamilton, A. S. Dzurak, R. G. Clark, Single-shot readout with the radio-frequency single-electron transistor in the presence of charge noise, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**86**]{}, 143117 (2005).
S. J. Hile, M. G. House, E. Peretz, J. Vanduijn, D. Widmann, T. Kobayashi, S. Rogge, M. Y. Simmons, Radio frequency reflectometry and charge sensing of a precision placed donor in silicon, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**107**]{}, 093504 (2015).
J. M. Elzermaen, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L. M. K. Vandersypen, L. P. Kouwenhoven, Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature [**430**]{}, 431 (2004).
W. Lu, Z. Ji, L. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and A. J. Rimberg, Real-time detection of electron tunnelling in a quantum dot, Nature [**423**]{}, 422 (2003).
R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Spins in few-electron quantum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**79**]{}, 1217 (2007).
K. Kaasbjerg and W. Belzig, Full counting statistics and shot noise of cotunneling in quantum dots and single-molecule transistors, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 235413 (2015).
M. A. Broome, S. K. Gorman, J. G. Keizer, T. F. Watson, S. J. Hile, W. J. Baker, M. Y. Simmons, Mapping the chemical potential landscape of a triple quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B [**94**]{}, 054314 (2016).
D. A. Bagrets and Y. V. Nazarov, Full counting statistics of charge transfer in Coulomb blockade systems, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 085316 (2003).
Y. V. Nazarov and M. Kindermann, Full counting statistics of a general quantum mechanical variable, Euro. Phys. J. B [**35**]{}, 413 (2003).
L. D. Contreras-Pulido, M. Bruderer, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Dephasing-assisted transport in linear triple quantum dots, New J. Phys. [**16**]{}, 113061 (2014).
S. Gustavsson, R. Leturcq, B. Simovic, R. Schieser, T. Ihn, P. Studerus, K. Ensslin, D. C. Driscoll, A. C. Gossard, Counting statistics of single electron transport in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 076605 (2006).
F. Hohls, N. Maire, C. Fricke, M. C. Rogge, and R. J. Haug, Shot noise and electron counting measurements on coupled quantum dot systems, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter [**20**]{}, 454204 (2008).
C. Flindt, T. c. v. Novotný, A. Braggio, M. Sassetti, and A.-P. Jauho, Counting statistics of non-Markovian quantum stochastic processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 150601 (2008).
C. Flindt, C. Fricke, F. Hohls, T. Novotny, K. Netocny, T. Brandes, R. J. Haug, Universal oscillations in counting statistics, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**106**]{}, 10116 (2009).
C. Flindt, T. Novotny, A. Braggio, and A.-P. Jauho, Counting statistics of transport through Coulomb blockade nanostructures: High-order cumulants and non-Markovian effects, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 155407 (2010).
A. Braggio, J. König, and R. Fazio, Full counting statistics in strongly interacting systems: Non-Markovian effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 026805 (2006).
C. Fricke, F. Hohls, N. Sethubalasubramanian, L. Fricke, and R. J. Haug, High-order cumulants in the counting statistics of asymmetric quantum dots, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**96**]{}, 202103 (2010).
Z. Wang, H. Xue, N. Xue, and J.-Q. Liang, Full counting statistics of transport electrons through a two-level quantum dot with spin–orbit coupling, Annals of Physics [**353**]{}, 9 (2015).
M. Bruderer, L. D. Contreras-Pulido, M. Thaller, L. Sironi, D. Obreschkow, M. B. Plenio, Inverse counting statistics for stochastic and open quantum systems: The characteristic polynomial approach, New J. Phys. [**16**]{}, 033030 (2014).
M. Y. Simmons, F. J. Ruess, K. E. J. Roh, W. Pok, T. Hallam, M. J. Butcher, T. C. G. Reusch, G. Scappucci, A. R. Hamilton, L. Oberbeck, Atomic-scale silicon device fabrcation, Int. J. Nanotech. [**5**]{}, 352 (2008).
M. G. House, I. Bartlett, P. Pakkiam, M. Koch, E. Peretz, J. van der Heijden, T. Kobayashi, S. Rogge, M. Y. Simmons, High-sensitivity charge detection with a single-lead quantum dot for scalable quantum computation Phys. Rev. Applied [**6**]{}, 044016 (2016).
W. Belzig, Full counting statistics of super-Poissonian shot noise in multilevel quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 161301 (2005).
C. Emary, C. Pöltl, A. Carmele, J. Kabuss, A. Knorr, T. Brandes, Bunching and antibunching in electronic transport, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 165417 (2012).
H. Büch, S. Mahapatra, R. Rahman, A. Morello, and M. Y. Simmons, Spin readout and addressability of phosphorous-donor clusters in silicon, Nature Commun. [**4**]{}, 2017 (2013).
M. G. House, M. Xiao, G. Guo, H. Li, G. Cao, M. M. Rosenthal, H. Jiang, Detection and measurement of spin-dependent dynamics in random telegraph signals Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 126803 (2013).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The quantum evolution equation of Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) – the quantum Hamiltonian constraint – is a difference equation. We relate the LQC constraint equation in vacuum Bianchi I separable (locally rotationally symmetric) models with an integrable differential-difference nonlinear Schrödinger type equation, which in turn is known to be associated with integrable, discrete Heisenberg spin chain models in condensed matter physics. We illustrate the similarity between both systems with a simple constraint in the linear regime.'
author:
- 'Christine C. Dantas'
date: 'Submitted: '
title: An Approach to Loop Quantum Cosmology Through Integrable Discrete Heisenberg Spin Chains
---
Introduction
============
Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) [@LQG] aims to describe the physics of spacetime at Planck-length scales. In the last few years, research in this area has progressed towards predictions that area and volume observables are fundamentally quantized. In addition, LQG has been explored in symmetry reduced models, which take in consideration simple cosmological spacetimes, a research area known as Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) [@LQC].
The quantum evolution equation of LQG – the quantum Hamiltonian constraint – is a difference equation for the wavefunction (i.e., a discrete recursion relation), instead of a differential equation like the Wheeler-de Witt equation (see, e.g., Ref. [@Ash09]). A series of consistency studies indicates that solutions to the quantum evolution equation, under certain conditions, do not lead to singularities: a minimum observable volume leads to a “bounce" near classical singularities and quantum states evolve deterministically through those singularities (e.g., [@Ash08], [@Ash09]). Recently, the nature of the bounce and its robustness have been addressed under several approaches: numerically; by use of approximation methods (“effective equation" techniques); or by the analysis of simplified exact analytical solutions (for reviews, see, e.g., [@Sin12], [@Ash11] and [@Boj12] and references therein).
However, as symmetry-reduced versions of LQG, LQC models assume certain results directly from full LQG. For instance, the smallest nonzero area eigenvalue of LQG is the assumed step size (the so called “area gap") of the LQC difference equation. It has been shown that the Wheeler-de Witt equation can be made to agree with LQC (in the case of a $k=0$, $\Lambda=0$ FRW cosmological model, coupled to a massless scalar field), as the area gap diminishes. However, the approximation is not uniform in the chosen interval of “internal time", and in fact if the area gap is set to zero, LQC does not admit any limit, being an intrinsically discrete theory [@Ash08]. An elucidation on the nature of the solutions of the discrete Hamiltonian constraint in more general cases is necessary.
Here, we propose a technique which may be able to address these questions more generally, by observing that solutions to the fundamental equation of micromagnetism in condensed matter have been explored in the context of similar difference equations.
LQC and Nonlinear Schrödinger equations
=======================================
Generally, the understanding of the magnetization vector field dynamics of a submicron magnetic particle is made at at the continuum approximation, according to the Landau-Lifshitz equation (LL; also known as the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with the inclusion of damping) [@LL]. It describes the local precessional motion of the magnetization vector under an effective magnetic field which represents several distinct interactions amongst the spins. Being a highly nonlinear vector partial differential equation, the LL equation is generally solved by using numerical techniques (analytical solutions can only be obtained in very few cases; see, e.g., [@LLAS]). In particular, the dynamics of classical Heisenberg ferromagnetic spin chain models is governed by the LL equation. Such models are interesting nonlinear systems, displaying a rich diversity of dynamical properties, including soliton spin excitations [@SCM].
It has been realized, however, an interesting relation between such models and a family of completely integrable nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equations [@Lak]. For instance, it can be shown that, given the one-dimensional isotropic ferromagnetic spin chain classical Hamiltonian $H = - \sum_n \vec{S}_n \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1}$ (wherein the resulting LL equation of motion is $\partial \vec{S}/\partial t = \vec{S} \times \partial^2\vec{S}/\partial x^2$), there is an associated cubic NLS equation, which is completely integrable, given by $i(\partial q /\partial t) + (\partial^2 q/\partial x^2) + 2 |q|^2 q = 0$. These results were obtained by the use of integrability methods such as the gauge equivalence and the geometric equivalence (space curve) formalisms ([@Dol94] and references therein). However, a more realistic description of ferromagnetic systems is a formulation of the dynamics at the lattice level, instead of the continuum limit. The integrability of such discrete systems has also been addressed under the methods above, suitably adapted for discretization [@Dol95], [@Dan98].
In the present paper, we present a simple example which makes use of the above mentioned results of discrete Heisenberg ferromagnetic spin chain models in the context of difference equations of LQC models. We will focus on a simple LQC evolution equation in vacuum Bianchi I separable, LRS (locally rotationally symmetric) models, which are the simplest anisotropic model (with only two degrees of freedom), particularly we shall focus only on the resulting one-parameter, discrete recursion relation that arises from this model [@HC]:
$$\lambda f(m) q_{\lambda}(m) = q_{\lambda}(m+1) - q_{\lambda}(m-1),$$
where $q(m)$ ($m$, real numbers) is related to the coefficients of the wavefunction $t_{m,n}$, which in turn are rescaled versions of the original wavefunction, normalized by a factor of the world volume of each basis state [@HC]. $\lambda$ is a separation parameter that arises in the scheme, and the function $f(m)$ ($f(m)\equiv 1/m$ for $m \geq 1$ and $f(m) = 0$ form $m = 0$) is a simplification of the function $d(m)$ in the last Ref. of [@HC].
In parallel, we introduce the following completely integrable differential-difference nonlinear Schrödinger (NLS) equation (see, e.g., [@Dan98]):
$$i {dq(n) \over dt} = \left ( 1 + |q(n)|^2 \right )
\left [ q(n+1)+ q(n-1) \right ] - 2 q(n),$$
where $n$ represents an integer sequence of points. We parametrize the factor $(1 + |q(n)|^2)$ in that equation by the operator $\hat{\alpha}$, and write the NLS equation as: $$\hat{\mathcal{G}} q(n)= q(n+1)+ q(n-1), \label{G}$$ where the operator $\hat{\mathcal{G}}$ is given by: $$\hat{\mathcal{G}} \equiv {1 \over \hat{\alpha}} \left [ i {d \over dt} + 2 \right ]$$ We also rewrite the LQC equation, Eq. (1), as: $$\hat{\mathcal{F}} q_{\lambda}(m) = q_{\lambda}(m+1) - q_{\lambda}(m-1), \label{F}$$ with $\hat{\mathcal{F}} \equiv \lambda f(m)$. Whether the LQC and NLS discrete equations (Eqs. \[G\] and \[F\]) can be made mathematically equivalent in form is a relatively straightforward question, as far as one assumes some restrictions, whose validity on physical grounds is, nevertheless, unclear at this point. We shall address possible implications as we proceed. Eqs. \[G\] and \[F\] formally differ from each other in the following points: (i) the nature of operators $\hat{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{F}}$, (ii) the nature of indexes $m$ and $n$ (iii) the existence of a family of equivalent equations parametrized further by the $\lambda$ in the LQC equation, and (iv) the existence of a plus sign instead of minus sign in the right hand sides of these equations. Let us analyse each of these items separately.
Linear sector
=============
First, equivalence between operators $\hat{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{F}}$ impose the restriction that the wavefunctions $q_{\lambda}(m)$ should be of the form $$q_{\lambda}(m) = e^{i [k_{\lambda}X(m)- \Phi_0]}, \label{Res1}$$ where $k_{\lambda} \sim \hat{\alpha} \lambda $ defines a fiducial wavenumber; $X(m) \sim f(m)$, a fiducial sequence “length", and $\Phi_0 \equiv 2$, a fixed phase. We notice here a similarity between that restriction and the choice of basis elements in Ref. [@Con06], $$b_k(m) = e^{ik \exp{(-{2m \over M})}}, \label{basis}$$ where $M$ a fiducial length. Such basis is adopted in that work in order to find pre-classical solutions to the separable LQC equation (Eq. \[F\]). Pre-classicality is a concept introduced in order to discard unphysical solutions to the Hamiltonian constraint equations. These are solutions with highly oscillatory behavior arising far away from the corresponding classical singularity; in other words, pre-classical solutions are those which the coefficients of the wave function at large volume should not oscillate when small changes to the volume (e.g., by amounts of Planck size) are made (for a critical review on pre-classicality, see Section 5.18 of the first Ref. of [@LQC]). The idea in Ref. [@Con06] is to write a generic solution to Eq. \[F\] as an expansion of the basis (\[basis\]), which enables oscillatory behavior for small values of the index parameters, but at the same time singles out only smoother behavior for larger values of the parameters. We note that a choice of $X(m)$ in Eq. \[Res1\] can be made to agree with the exponential factor in Eq. \[basis\], generally, as: $$X(m) \sim f(m) \sim {1 \over m} \Leftrightarrow \exp{(-{2m \over M})} \simeq 1 - {2m \over M},$$ which implies that $M$ is now a function of $m$, $$M(m) \simeq - {2m^2 \over 1-m}, ~~~~~~~~ m > 1,$$ in order that our restricted wavefunctions (\[Res1\]) allow pre-classical solutions in the form considered in Ref. [@Con06]. It means that each $m$ in the sequence is associated with a given fiducial $M$. Other arbitrary forms can evidently be assumed for $X(m)$, which are completely independent on our assumptions concerning the equivalence between the LQC and NLS discrete equations (Eqs. \[G\] and \[F\]), since for the moment such equivalence in terms of the operators $\hat{\mathcal{G}}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{F}}$ only restricts the form of the wavefunctions $q_{\lambda}(m)$ in accordance with Eq. \[Res1\].
Second, concerning the nature of the indexes, we only point out that pre-classical solutions to Eq. \[F\] are known for both when $m$ is an integer or not, through the method of generating functions (c.f. [@HC]). For definiteness, we analyse only integer index parameters, in accordance with the integer index parameters of the NLS equation formulation (Eq. \[G\]). Third, concerning the parametrization of solutions according to $\lambda$, we assume they enter our formulation through the restriction \[Res1\], which can be freely varied for each family of solutions dictated by $\lambda$. Hence, we will assume that $\lambda$ is fixed [*a priori*]{} in order to proceed with the equivalence between Eqs. \[G\] and \[F\].
Finally, we address freedom of signs (plus, minus) involved in the right hand sides of Eqs. \[G\] and \[F\]. For that, we briefly outline the method of space curve formalism (mentioned in the previous section), which allows one to map continuum Heisenberg spin-chain models onto the NLS family of equations. Our analysis was based on the results obtained by the discrete mapping procedure of Daniel and Manivannan [@Dan98], motivated by the extension of the space curve formalism for discrete cases by Doliwa and Santini [@Dol95]. The reader is referred to these papers (and references therein) for details.
The idea arises from well-known developments in mathematical physics, connecting the differential geometry of submanifolds and nonlinear partial differential equations. In essence, one looks for a fundamental geometric characterization of the motions of a curve in a submanifold which selects, among all possible dynamics, integrable dynamics [@Dol94]. The particular method for the problem at hand begins by considering a discrete curve on a sphere, represented by a sequence of points and a set of three orthonormal basis vectors associated with each point (defined by a position vector with respect to a reference point at the center of the sphere). One also specifies adequate transition matrices from on basis to the next basis, in this case, these matrices can be combined into a rotation matrix depending only on two angles ($\theta_n, \phi_n$), namely, involving two of the basis vectors at subsequent points of the curve. The evolution of the basis is described by a matrix equation, and by defining a shift operator along the curve, as well as a compatibility condition for this operator, one reaches at a set of coupled evolution equation for the angles $\theta_n, \phi_n$. One then maps the Hamiltonian of the discrete chain model to be studied and its discrete equation of motion onto the discrete curve by a direct identification of the spin vector to one of the unit basis vectors (the radial vector). Such association leads to a completely equivalent set of coupled differential-difference equations for the evolution of the two angles $\theta_n, \phi_n$. The question at this point is to verify whether such coupled equations are integrable by finding a suitable transformation to a known integrable differential-difference equation.
By the method outline above, Daniel and Manivannan show that the completely integrable differential-difference NLS equation (Eq. \[G\]) is associated with a classical equation of motion for the discrete Heisenberg spin chain, the Ishimori’s model (based on Ishimori’s partial differential equation, c.f. Ref. [@Ish82]), which is a classical discrete equation of motion, given by:
$${d \over dt} \vec{S}_n(t) = 2 \vec{S}_n \times
\left [
{\vec{S}_{n+1}\over 1 + \vec{S}_n \cdot \vec{S}_{n+1} }
+
{\vec{S}_{n-1}\over 1 + \vec{S}_n \cdot \vec{S}_{n-1}}
\right ],$$
where $\vec{S}_n = (S_x,S_y,S_z)$ are classical 3D spin vectors, with the constraint that $|\vec{S}_n|^2 = $ should be kept as a constant.
Now returning to the question of the freedom of signs involved in the right hand sides of Eqs. \[G\] and \[F\], by a detailed inspection of the equations of the mapping procedure outlined above, the LQC difference equation can also be mapped to Ishimori’s model, inasmuch the coordinates are simply counter-rotated by a substitition $\sin \phi_n \rightarrow - \sin \phi_n$ in the matrix given by Eq. (6b) in that paper, in order to account now for the minus sign in the difference equation (\[F\]). [*Therefore, the LQC difference equation presents a completely equivalent discrete spin chain equation counterpart, mathematically equivalent to the Ishimori’s model, and therefore, under the conditions previously stated, it is integrable.*]{}
Conclusions
===========
It is interesting to note that the equivalent counterpart of the complete Ishimori’s equation [@Ish82] (spin-one field model [*in the plane*]{}) is given formally the Davey-Stewartson equation [@Dav74], which describes modulated nonlinear surface gravity waves, propagating over a horizontal sea bed (3D packets of mechanical surface waves)[^1]. We speculate to what extent these models are somehow able to mimmic other classes of reduced LQC models, and if so, what they are telling us about the propagation through classical singularities.
In summary, we have raised the possibility of relating the LQC constraint equation in vacuum Bianchi I separable models with an integrable differential-difference nonlinear Schrödinger type equation, which in turn is known to be associated with integrable, discrete Heisenberg spin chain models. If this association proves to be correct at some level, then it is encouraging to have integrable equations at our disposal as LQC toy models, specially in the nonlinear regime. Here we have only pointed out an illustration in the linear regime. This proposal also opens the possibility of studying the propagation of quantum gravity reduced wavefunctions models using spin chain representation models, which are amenable for computer simulations. Several already available numerical integrators of micromagnetism can be adapted to study these models. However, a deeper understanding of the physical meaning of “Ishimori-like quantum gravity models", specially the meaning of the vector spin, are still unclear at this point, and research in this area is under way.
The author acknowledges M. Bojowald for useful discussions, and the referees for recommending some improvements in the exposition.
[0]{}
Rovelli, C., “Quantum Gravity" (Cambridge University Press; 1st. edition), 2004. Thiemann, T., “Introduction to Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity" (Cambridge University Press; 1st. edition), 2008. Kiefer, C., “Quantum Gravity" (Oxford University Press; 2nd. edition), 2007. Ashtekar, A. and Lewandowski, J. “Background Independent Quantum Gravity: A Status Report", Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53, 2004.
Bojowald, M., “Loop Quantum Cosmology", Living Rev. Relativity, 11, 4, 2008; online article: cited June, 4th, 2009, [http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2008-4]{}. Ashtekar, A., “An Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity Through Cosmology", Nuovo Cim. 122B, 1 -155, 2007.
Ashtekar, A., “Loop Quantum Cosmology: An Overview", Gen Relativ Gravit 41, 707-741, 2009.
Ashtekar, A., Corichi, A. and Singh, P., “Robustness of Key Features of Loop Quantum Cosmology", Phys. Rev. D 77, 024046, 2008.
Ashtekar, A. and Singh, P., “Loop quantum cosmology: a status report ", Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 213001, 2011.
Singh, P., “Numerical loop quantum cosmology: an overview", preprint arXiv:1208.5456.
Bojowald, M., “Quantum Cosmology: Effective Theory", Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 213001, 2012
Bojowald, M., Phys. Rev. D 75, 081301, 2007.
Landau, L. and Lifshitz, “On the Theory of the Dispersion of Magnetic Permeability in Ferromagnetic Bodies", reprinted from Phys. Zeitsch. der Sow. 8, pp. 153-169, 1935; online article: cited June, 3th, 2009, [http://www.ujp.bitp.kiev.ua/]{}. Aharoni, A., “Introduction to the Theory of Ferromagnetism" (Oxford Science Publications; 2nd. edition), 2007.
Bertotti, B., Serpico, C., Mayergoyz, I.D., “Nonlinear magnetization dynamics under circularly polarized field", Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 724, 2001. Serpico, C., Mayergoyz, I.D., Bertotti, G., “Analytical solutions of Landau-Lifshitz equation for precessional switching", J. Appl. Phys. 93, 6909, 2003.
Bishop, A. R. and Schneider, T. (Eds.), “Solitons in Condensed Matter" (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), 1978. Wigen, P. E., “Nonlinear Phenomena and Chaos in Magnetic Materials" (World Scientific Publishing), 1994.
Lakshmanan, M., “Continuum spin system as an exactly solvable dynamical system", Physics Letters A, 61, 53-54, 1977. Lakshmanan, M. and Porsezian, K., “Planar radially symmetric Heisenberg spin system and generalized nonlinear Schrödinger equation: Gauge equivalence, Bäcklund transformations and explicit solutions", Physics Letters A, 146, 329-334, 1990. Porsezian, K. and Lakshmanan, M., “On the dynamics of the radially symmetric Heisenberg ferromagnetic spin system", J. Math. Phys. 32, 2923, 1991.
Doliwa, A. and Santini, P. M., “An elementary geometric characterization of the integrable motions of a curve", Physics Letters A, 185, 373–384, 1994.
Daniel, M., and Manivannan, K., “Geometric Equivalence of an Integrable Discrete Heisenberg Spin Chain", Phys. Rev. B, 57, 60-63, 1998.
Cartin, D. and Khanna, G., “Absence of pre-classical solutions in Bianchi I loop quantum cosmology", Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 111302, 2005. D. Cartin, D., Khanna, G. and Bojowald, M., “Generating function techniques for loop quantum cosmology", Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 4495, 2004. Bojowald, M., “Homogeneous Loop Quantum Cosmology", Class. Quant. Grav. 20 2595-2615, 2003.
Connors, S. and Khanna, G., “Approximate pre-classical solutions in loop quantum cosmology", Class. Quant. Grav. 23 2919-2926, 2006.
Bojowald, M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 121301, 2001. Bojowald, M., Gen. Rel. Grav. 35, 1877, 2003.
Ishimori, Y., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 51, 3417, 1982.
Doliwa, A. and Santini, P. M., “Integrable dynamics of a discrete curve and the Ablowitz–Ladik hierarchy", Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36, 1259-1273, 1995.
A. Davey, A. and Stewartson, K., “On Three-Dimensional Packets of Surface Waves", Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 338, no. 1613, 101-110, 1974.
[^1]: In 1+1 dimensions, this equation reduces to a simple nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Eq. \[G\] of the present paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By combining the postulates of macrorealism with Bell locality, we derive a qualitatively different hybrid inequality that avoids two loopholes that commonly appear in Leggett-Garg and Bell inequalities. First, locally invasive measurements can be used, which avoids the “clumsiness” Leggett-Garg inequality loophole. Second, a single experimental ensemble with fixed analyzer settings is sampled, which avoids the “disjoint sampling” Bell inequality loophole. The derived hybrid inequality has the same form as the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt Bell inequality; however, its quantum violation intriguingly requires weak measurements. A realistic explanation of an observed violation requires either the failure of Bell locality, or a preparation conspiracy of finely tuned and nonlocally correlated noise. Modern superconducting and optical systems are poised to implement this test.'
author:
- Justin Dressel
- 'Alexander N. Korotkov'
title: 'Avoiding Loopholes with Hybrid Bell-Leggett-Garg Inequalities'
---
To formally describe the behavior that we expect from the macroscopic world, Leggett and Garg introduced a set of postulates that any theory of macroscopic objects would reasonably obey [@Leggett1985; @*Leggett2002]. They dubbed these postulates *macrorealism* (MR) and used them to derive a set of inequalities—now called Leggett-Garg inequalities (LGIs)—that one would expect sequences of measurements on macroscopic objects to satisfy. These inequalities are formally similar to the Bell inequalities that test the postulates of local realism [@Bell1965; @Clauser1969], but involve making multiple measurements on the same object at different points in time. Quantum theory manifestly violates such LGIs, making them a practical test for the “quantumness” of a particular physical system [@Lambert2010; @*Li2012].
Though the original inequalities involved noiseless (i.e., projective) detectors, the derivations have been recently generalized to include noisy (i.e., weak) detectors [@Ruskov2006; @*Jordan2006a; @*Williams2008; @*Barbieri2009; @Wilde2012]. This generalization has enabled the experimental test of LGIs in superconducting [@Palacios-Laloy2010; @Groen2013], optical [@Goggin2011; @Dressel2011; @Xu2011; @Waldherr2011; @Suzuki2012], and nuclear magnetic resonance systems [@Athalye2011; @Souza2011; @Knee2012; @Katiyar2013], as well as nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond [@George2013]. See Ref. [@Emary2013] for a thorough review of the derivations of generalized LGIs and recent experiments.
A generic shortcoming of these LGIs is that they assume *noninvasive* noisy measurements. Faced with an LGI violation, a skeptical macrorealist may appeal to hidden invasiveness to explain the violations. This caveat has been called the “clumsiness loophole” [@Wilde2012]. So far, only “null-result” measurements have been argued to avoid this loophole [@Leggett1985; @*Leggett2002; @Wilde2012; @Knee2012], since a detector which does not report a result could not classically interact with the system; however, there is still controversy regarding the effectiveness of this strategy [@Emary2013]. As such, this loophole still presents a fundamental obstacle to the interpretation of LGI violations as intrinsic failures of MR.
In a similar vein, a skeptical local realist may discount violations of a typical Bell inequality, such as the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality [@Clauser1969], as an artifact of the “disjoint sampling loophole” [@Larsson1998]. This loophole states that since a Bell inequality combines multiple correlators using different analyzer settings of an apparatus, then it is possible that it combines data from distinct and incompatible setting-dependent ensembles. Thus, a skeptic may argue that a violation merely indicates the incompatibility of the sampled ensembles (e.g., due to setting-dependent coupling efficiencies), rather than the failure of the local realism postulates themselves.
This paper points out the possibility of combining the postulates of MR and Bell locality to avoid both of these common loopholes, leveraging techniques established in Ref. [@Dressel2011]. Indeed, appending the postulate of Bell locality to MR leads directly to a hybrid Bell-LGI (BLGI) of joint sequential measurements that formally resembles the CHSH Bell inequality. This hybrid inequality permits locally invasive measurements, so avoids the clumsiness loophole. It also samples a single experimental ensemble, which avoids the disjoint sampling loophole.
As also shown by Marcovitch and Reznik [@Marcovitch2010], implementing such a CHSH-like correlator using quantum weak measurements on correlated qubits will reproduce the behavior of the standard CHSH correlator. Thus, the hybrid BLGI derived here can be violated using the same analyzer settings as the CHSH inequality. Such a violation implies either the failure of Bell locality or a preparation conspiracy that produces nonlocal detector-noise correlations. We suggest possible implementations of this test that are suitable for current superconducting and optical systems.
*Macrorealism*.—The concept of MR as defined by Leggett and Garg [@Leggett1985; @*Leggett2002] consists of three key postulates used to derive traditional LGIs:
(i) If an object has several distinguishable states, then at any given time it is in only one of them.
(ii) Measuring an object does not disturb its state or its subsequent dynamics.
(iii) Measured results are determined causally by prior events.
Generalized LGIs [@Ruskov2006; @*Jordan2006a; @*Williams2008; @*Barbieri2009; @Wilde2012] that use noisy detectors require an additional postulate:
(i) Noisy detectors produce results that are correlated with the object state on average.
This postulate implies the following: if an object has a (potentially hidden) physical state, $\zeta$, that determines a property, $A(\zeta)$, and if a detector (including its local environment) has a fluctuating physical state, $\xi$, then that detector will output a noisy signal, $\alpha(\xi)$, with a probability, $P_A(\xi | \zeta)$, such that the following sum rule is satisfied for every $\zeta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:noiseaverage}
\textstyle{\sum_\xi}\, \alpha(\xi)\, P_A(\xi | \zeta) = A(\zeta).\end{aligned}$$ The $\zeta$-dependent distribution $P_A(\xi | \zeta)$ arises from the coupling of the detector to the object and ensures that the correct property value $A(\zeta)$ is properly recovered on average.
*Bell locality*.—To improve upon existing generalized LGIs, it is desirable to remove the postulate (ii) of measurement noninvasiveness. To accomplish this goal, this postulate can be substituted with the weaker assumption of Bell-locality [@Bell1965; @Clauser1969]:
1. A measurement performed on one object of a spacelike-separated pair cannot disturb measurements made on the second object.
Remote correlations between two separated objects can still exist due to a common joint state $\zeta$ prepared according to some distribution $P(\zeta)$ in the past lightcones of both objects. However, the detector states $\xi$ are local, and so can become correlated only by coupling to $\zeta$.
![Schematic for the hybrid Bell-LGI using two pairs of sequential measurements for bounded properties. The measurements of $A_1$ and $A_2$ have noisy signals $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ that average to the range $[-1,1]$, while the remaining measurements of $B_1$ and $B_2$ have signals $b_1$ and $b_2$ constrained to the range $[-1,1]$. The correlator $C$ is averaged over realizations $\zeta$ of the joint preparation $P(\zeta)$. Postulating Bell locality and MR bounds this correlation to $|{\langle C \rangle}| \leq 2$.[]{data-label="fig:leggett4"}](leggett4.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
*Hybrid Inequality*.—Consider the schematic illustrated in Fig. \[fig:leggett4\]. At time $t_0$ a correlated pair of objects with the joint state $\zeta$ is sampled from an ensemble with the distribution $P(\zeta)$. (We will later consider two qubits, though this derivation is general.) At time $t_1 > t_0$ each object ($k=1,2$) is coupled to a detector with a noisy signal $\alpha_k$ that is calibrated to measure the bounded property $A_k(\zeta)\in[-1,1]$ on average. The noisy signal $\alpha_k$ generally has an expanded range of values that can lie outside the range $[-1,1]$; however, for each $\zeta$ the realizations of the output signal average to the correct bounded value by assumption (iv).
At time $t_2 > t_1$ each object is then coupled to a second detector with a signal $b_k$ that correlates to a similarly bounded property $B_k(\zeta)\in[-1,1]$. In contrast to the detectors for $A_k$, each signal $b_k$ is not assumed to be precisely calibrated on average, but is assumed to have the same range as $B_k$. The reason for this restriction will become clear momentarily.
To obtain an inequality from the four measured signals, we consider the following correlator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:corr}
C = \alpha_1 \alpha_2 + \alpha_1 b_2 + b_1 \alpha_2 - b_1 b_2,\end{aligned}$$ which formally resembles the CHSH correlator [@Clauser1969]. However, the experimenter averages the entire correlator $C$ with every realization of a *single* experimental configuration, in contrast to the Bell case that independently averages each term in $C$ using distinct configurations. By considering only a single configuration, this BLGI correlator avoids the disjoint sampling loophole [@Larsson1998].
The expanded ranges of the noisy signals $\alpha_k$ generally produce a similarly expanded range for the correlator $C$ for each object pair. Nevertheless, averaging $C$ over $\xi_{A_k}$ and $\xi_{B_k}$ still produces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:corrav}
{\langle C \rangle} &= \textstyle{\sum_\zeta \sum_{\substack{\xi_{A_1},\xi_{B_1} \\ \xi_{A_2},\xi_{B_2}}}}\, C\, P(\xi_{A_1},\xi_{B_1} | \zeta)P(\xi_{A_2},\xi_{B_2}|\zeta)P(\zeta), \nonumber \\
&= \textstyle{\sum_\zeta} \, \big[A_1(\zeta) A_2(\zeta) + A_1(\zeta) \tilde{B}_2(\zeta) \nonumber \\
&\qquad + \tilde{B}_1(\zeta) A_2(\zeta) - \tilde{B}_1(\zeta) \tilde{B}_2(\zeta)\big]\, P(\zeta),\end{aligned}$$ with $A_k(\zeta) = \sum_{\xi_{A_k},\xi_{B_k}} \alpha_k(\xi_{A_k})\, P(\xi_{A_k},\xi_{B_k}|\zeta)$ and $\tilde{B}_k(\zeta) = \sum_{\xi_{A_k},\xi_{B_k}} b_k(\xi_{B_k})\, P(\xi_{A_k},\xi_{B_k}|\zeta)$, since postulate (ii’) causes the joint distribution of the detector states to factor: $P(\xi_{A_1},\xi_{B_1},\xi_{A_2},\xi_{B_2}|\zeta) = P(\xi_{A_1},\xi_{B_1}|\zeta)P(\xi_{A_2},\xi_{B_2}|\zeta)$.
From the postulates (i), (iii), and (iv), the averages $A_k(\zeta)$ are bounded to the range $[-1,1]$. Similarly, the averages $\tilde{B}_k(\zeta)$ lie in the range $[-1,1]$ since the signals $b_k(\xi_{B_k})$ are themselves bounded. Therefore, for each $\zeta$ the sum of the bounded averages in Eq. must itself be bounded by $[-2,2]$. Averaging this bounded result with $P(\zeta)$ produces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chsh}
-2 \leq {\langle C \rangle} \leq 2,\end{aligned}$$ in complete analogy to the traditional CHSH inequality.
Importantly, the joint probability $P(\xi_{A_k},\xi_{B_k}|\zeta) = P(\xi_{A_k}|\zeta)P(\xi_{B_k}|\zeta,\xi_{A_k})$ for each arm $k$ admits the dependence of the $B_k$ measurement on an invasive $A_k$ measurement. Despite any randomization of $b_k(\xi_{B_k})$ from this local invasiveness, however, the perturbed averages $\tilde{B}_k(\zeta)$ must still lie in the range $[-1,1]$. This allowance for locally invasive measurements in the BLGI avoids the clumsiness loophole. Note that if $b_k(\xi_{B_k})$ also had an expanded range, as assumed in Ref. [@Marcovitch2010], then Eq. would be guaranteed only for noninvasive $A_k$, so the clumsiness loophole would remain.
There are two notable ways that our derivation of the BLGI in Eq. could fail. First, the assumption (ii’) of Bell locality could fail, either by itself or as a consequence of the realism assumption (i) failing [@Norsen2006]. Second, the noisy detector assumption (iv) could fail due to hidden preparation noise $\xi_P$ (i.e., not included in the object state $\zeta$) that systematically affects the detector output in both arms. In this case, the detector distributions become noise-dependent $P_A(\xi|\zeta) \to P_A(\xi|\zeta,\xi_P)$ such that Eq. is satisfied only after additionally averaging over $\xi_P$. Such joint noise-dependence would prevent the detector distributions from factoring for each $\zeta$ in Eq. , which spoils the inequality. However, such a systematic bias due to shared preparation noise can be checked during detector calibration by deliberately preparing a variety of uncorrelated distributions $P(\zeta)$ and looking for spurious cross-correlations caused by such hidden preparation noise. Hence, the failure of assumption (iv) additionally requires a preparation-conspiracy where every implementable calibration check is apparently free from anomalous noise-correlations.
For an implementation with low pair-collection efficiency (e.g., using optical photodetectors) a related detection loophole also arises. Specifically, if the ensemble of pairs is unfairly sampled, then the averaging property of Eq. may not be satisfied, which also causes the failure of assumption (iv). Hence, the fair sampling assumption will still be needed unless the collection is efficient (e.g., with superconducting qubits).
*Quantum violations*.—The quantum mechanical equivalent of a noisy MR measurement is a weak measurement [@Dressel2010; @*Dressel2012b; @*Dressel2013b; @*Dressel2013], as emphasized in Ref. [@Dressel2011]. An implementation of Fig. \[fig:leggett4\] that uses a particular class of weak measurements was considered in Marcovitch and Reznik [@Marcovitch2010]. Their analysis shows that a correlation ${\langle C \rangle}$ of the CHSH form as in Eq. can saturate the standard quantum bound of $2\sqrt{2}$ in the limit of ideally weak measurements, violating the BLGI just derived in Eq. . (This CHSH-like bound of $2$ for the BLGI is assumed without derivation in Ref. [@Marcovitch2010].)
More generally, any implementation of Fig. \[fig:leggett4\] using sufficiently weak qubit measurements can saturate the standard quantum CHSH bound of $|{\langle C \rangle}| \leq 2\sqrt{2}$. This fact can be understood in a simple way: a weak measurement leaves the initial state nearly unperturbed, so all four measurements of $A_k$,$B_k$ probe approximately the same quantum state. Thus, they will exhibit the same correlations that occur in the standard CHSH inequality [@Clauser1969]. For quantum nondemolition (QND) measurements [@Braginski1992], the difference between the weakly measured BLGI correlator and the traditional CHSH correlator will depend only on the effective *ensemble-dephasing* (i.e., decoherence) that is induced by the $A_k$ measurements.
To see this, note that the maximum CHSH value of ${\langle C \rangle} = 2\sqrt{2}$ can be obtained from an entangled Bell state preparation ${\lvert \Psi\rangle} = ({\lvert 0,0\rangle} + {\lvert 1,1\rangle})/\sqrt{2}$. The standard bases producing this violation are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
{\lvert 0\rangle}_{D} &= \cos(\phi_D/2){\lvert 0\rangle} + \sin(\phi_D/2){\lvert 1\rangle}, \\
{\lvert 1\rangle}_{D} &= -\sin(\phi_D/2){\lvert 0\rangle} + \cos(\phi_D/2){\lvert 1\rangle},\end{aligned}$$
with index $D=A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2$ and associated angles $\phi_{B_1} = 0$, $\phi_{B_2} = 3\pi/4$, $\phi_{A_1} = \pi/2$, and $\phi_{A_2} = \pi/4$. If the $A_k$ measurements are QND and induce dephasing factors $\Xi_k \in [0,1]$ (i.e., the reduced-state coherences update as $\rho_{01} \to \Xi_k\, \rho_{01}$), then averaging the correlator in Eq. with these basis choices produces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:blgicorr}
{\langle C \rangle} = (1 + \Xi_1)(1 + \Xi_2)/\sqrt{2}.\end{aligned}$$ For projective measurements, $\Xi_k \to 0$, so ${\langle C \rangle} \to
1/\sqrt{2}$, while for ideally weak measurements, $\Xi_k \to 1$, so ${\langle C \rangle} \to 2\sqrt{2}$. The specific form of the dephasing does not matter for this general result. Moreover, if the $B_k$ measurements have lower visibility $v \in [0,1]$ (e.g., due to misidentification errors), then the effective dephasing is simply enhanced $\Xi_k \to v\, \Xi_k$. A violation of Eq. will occur whenever $v\, \Xi_k > -1 + 2^{3/4} \approx 0.68$, which provides a practical lower bound for the visibility $v$.
An explanation of these quantum-predicted BLGI violations as a failure of assumption (iv) due to noise correlations requires not only preparation conspiracy, but also carefully tuned noise. That is, the noise produces results that can also be measured from the same preparation using the standard CHSH protocol (e.g., by using the $B_k$ measurements alone and varying the analyzer settings). Such fine-tuning cannot be easily attributed to random environmental fluctuations during the preparation.
*Gaussian meter*.—For specificity, consider a Gaussian measurement of $A_k$ with variance $\sigma_k^2$. Implementations of such a Gaussian measurement have been discussed for optical [@Aharonov1988; @*Ritchie1991; @Wiseman2009], quantum dot [@Ruskov2006; @*Jordan2006a; @*Williams2008; @Korotkov2001; @*Korotkov2011], and superconducting [@Korotkov2001; @*Korotkov2011; @Wiseman2009; @Palacios-Laloy2010; @Vijay2012; @Hatridge2013] systems. For Gaussians that do not appreciably overlap, $\sigma_k \ll 1$, the measurement is ideal (strong), and the measured detector output perfectly correlates with $A_k$. Conversely, for overlapping Gaussians, $\sigma_k \gg 1$, the measurement is noisy (weak), and the output poorly correlates with $A_k$. In the limit that $\sigma_k \to \infty$ the measurement becomes ideally weak.
A quantum-limited Gaussian qubit measurement corresponds to the following partial projection operator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gaussmeas}
{\hat{M}}_{\alpha_k} &= \frac{e^{-(\alpha_k - 1)/4\sigma_k^2}{{\lvert 0\rangle}{\langle 0 \rvert}} + e^{-(\alpha_k + 1)/4\sigma_k^2}{{\lvert 1\rangle}{\langle 1 \rvert}}}{\left(2\pi\sigma_k^2\right)^{1/4}},\end{aligned}$$ where the output signal $\alpha_k$ has a mean centered on each qubit eigenvalue of $\pm 1$ corresponding to eigenstates ${\lvert 0\rangle}_{A_k}$ and ${\lvert 1\rangle}_{A_k}$ in the basis of $A_k$ (as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:gaussc\]). This partial projection leads to dephasing $\Xi_k = e^{-1/2\sigma_k^2}$. For a detector with efficiency $\eta \in [0,1]$, there are additional imperfections that result in a faster dephasing of $\Xi_k = e^{-1/2\sigma_k^2\eta}$ [@Korotkov2001; @Wiseman2009].
In the ideal case with $\eta = 1$, the joint probability of the four measurements indicated in Fig. \[fig:leggett4\] is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gaussp}
P(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,b_1,b_2 | \Psi) &= {\left\lvert {\langle b_1,b_2 \rvert}{\hat{M}}_{\alpha_1}\!\otimes\!{\hat{M}}_{\alpha_2}{\lvert \Psi\rangle} \right\rvert}^2\end{aligned}$$ with the joint state ${\lvert \Psi\rangle}$ corresponding to the Bell-state preparation and ${\lvert b_1,b_2\rangle} =
{\lvert b_1\rangle}_{B_1}\otimes{\lvert b_2\rangle}_{B_2}$ corresponding to projective measurements in the basis for $B_k$ with eigenvalues $b_k = \pm 1$. Note that misidentification errors in $B_k$ lower the measurement fidelity by decreasing the signal visibility: $b_k = \pm v$, with $v\in[0,1]$.
Averaging the correlator of Eq. with the distribution of Eq. produces Eq. with $\Xi_k = e^{-1/2\sigma_k}$. Including inefficiency and visibility factors $\eta,v\in[0,1]$ for $A_k$ and $B_k$ further enhances the dephasing to $\Xi_k = v\,
e^{-1/2\eta\sigma_k}$. These predictions are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gaussc\]. Note that only $v$ alters the obtainable upper bound.
![(color online) Bell-LGI correlator ${\langle C \rangle}$, where the $A_k$ eigenvalues $\pm 1$ are measured with signals $\alpha_k$ having Gaussian probability distributions (inset) with standard deviations $\sigma_k$. In the projective limit $\sigma_k \to 0$ the correlator converges to ${\langle C \rangle} \to 1/\sqrt{2}$, while in the weak limit $\sigma_k \to \infty$ it violates the local-macrorealistic (LMR) bound of $2$ and converges to the quantum bound of $2\sqrt{2}$. The LMR bound is still violated for moderate $B_k$ visibility $v\in[0,1]$, while the efficiency $\eta\in[0,1]$ simply scales the $\sigma_k$ required to see the violations.[]{data-label="fig:gaussc"}](leggettbell.pdf){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
*Ancilla qubit*.—As an alternative to a Gaussian meter, one can perform an indirect measurement via an ancilla qubit. With such a scheme, the ancilla is entangled with the main qubit and then measured. After the entangling operation the state has the form $({\hat{M}}_+ {\lvert \psi\rangle}){\lvert +\rangle} + ({\hat{M}}_- {\lvert \psi\rangle}){\lvert -\rangle}$, where ${\lvert \psi\rangle}$ is the initial state of the main qubit and ${\lvert \pm\rangle}$ is the measurement basis for the ancilla. The operators ${\hat{M}}_\pm$ describe the back-action on the main qubit from the measurement. Such indirect ancilla measurements have been implemented in optical [@Pryde2004; @*Pryde2005; @Goggin2011; @Dressel2011] and superconducting [@Groen2013] systems.
An ideal ancilla measurement is diagonal in the basis ${\lvert 0\rangle}_{A_k},{\lvert 1\rangle}_{A_k}$ for $A_k$. If its backaction is symmetric, then it can be parametrized by a single (deliberately reduced) visibility parameter $V_k\in[0,1]$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qubitmeas}
{\hat{M}}_{k,\pm} &= \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \pm \frac{V_k}{2}}\,{{\lvert 0\rangle}{\langle 0 \rvert}} +
\sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \mp \frac{V_k}{2}}\,{{\lvert 1\rangle}{\langle 1 \rvert}}.\end{aligned}$$ The rescaled signal satisfying Eq. is then $\alpha_{k,\pm} = \pm 1/V_k$ [@Dressel2010; @*Dressel2012b; @*Dressel2013b; @*Dressel2013]. The second moment of this signal is $V_k^{-2}$, so the signal variance for each definite qubit state is $\sigma_k^2 = V_k^{-2} - 1$, which vanishes for projective measurements with $V_k=1$. The ensemble-dephasing due to the ancilla measurement is $\Xi_k =
(1-V_k^{2})^{1/2} = \sigma_k(1 + \sigma_k^2)^{-1/2}$, which is not exponential (in contrast to the Gaussian case).
![(color online) Bell-LGI correlator ${\langle C \rangle}$, where each $A_k$ is measured with an ancilla qubit, yielding the signal $\alpha_k =
\pm 1/V_k$ with a discrete probability distribution (inset as a histogram for comparison with the Gaussian case inset in Fig. \[fig:gaussc\]). The weak limit as the visibilities $V_k$ approach zero violates the LMR bound of $2$ and converges to the quantum bound of $2\sqrt{2}$. The visibility $v\in[0,1]$ for $B_k$ decreases ${\langle C \rangle}$ similarly to Fig. \[fig:gaussc\], while the visibility $u\in[0,1]$ for the ancilla measurement scales the horizontal axis, $V_k \leq u$.[]{data-label="fig:qubitc"}](leggettbellq.pdf){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Replacing the operators ${\hat{M}}_{\alpha_k}$ in Eq. with ${\hat{M}}_{k,\pm}$ from Eq. produces the joint probability. Averaging the correlator in Eq. with the signal $\alpha_{k,\pm}=\pm 1/V_k$ also produces Eq. with dephasing $\Xi_k = (1-V_k^{2})^{1/2}$, violating the BLGI in Eq. . Introducing misidentification errors for ancilla measurements and $B_k$ produces the corresponding visibilities $u,v\in[0,1]$, which further enhance the effective dephasing in Eq. to $\Xi_k =
v\,[1-(V_k/u)^{2}]^{1/2}$ (here $V_k\leq u$ is the total visibility). These predictions are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:qubitc\]. As with the Gaussian case, only $v$ reduces the obtainable upper bound.
*Conclusion*.—The hybrid Bell-LGI derived in this paper formally resembles the CHSH Bell inequality, but combines the postulates of macrorealism and Bell locality. The derivation avoids both the disjoint sampling loophole of the standard CHSH inequality and the clumsiness loophole of generalized LGIs. The quantum violation of the Bell-LGI requires weak measurements. A realistic explanation of these quantum predictions requires the failure of Bell locality or the presence of finely tuned noise-correlations. Modern superconducting and optical systems are primed to test for these violations.
*Acknowledgments*.—JD thanks Curtis J. Broadbent, David J. Starling, Eyob A. Sete, and Andrew N. Jordan for stimulating discussions. The research was funded by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), through Army Research Office (ARO) Grant No. W911NF-10-1-0334. All statements of fact, opinion, or conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the official views or policies of IARPA, the ODNI, or the U.S. Government. We also acknowledge support from ARO MURI Grant No. W911NF-11-1-0268.
[41]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop (), @noop [****, ()]{} @noop (), @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{}, () @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop (), @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study active Brownian particles as a paradigm for genuine non-equilibrium phase transitions. Access to the critical point in computer simulations is obstructed by the fact that the density is conserved. We propose a modification of sampling finite-size fluctuations and successfully test this method for the 2D Ising model. Using this model allows us to determine accurately the critical point of two dimensional active Brownian particles at ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}=40(2)$, $\phi{_\text{cr}}=0.597(3)$. Based on this estimate, we study the corresponding critical exponents $\beta$, $\gamma/\nu$, and $\nu$. Our results are incompatible with the 2D-Ising exponents, thus raising the question whether there exists a corresponding non-equilibrium universality class.'
author:
- 'Jonathan Tammo Siebert, Florian Dittrich, Friederike Schmid, Kurt Binder, Thomas Speck, and Peter Virnau'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Critical behavior of active Brownian particles
---
The notion “active matter” encompasses a wide range of systems and phenomena at the border of physics, chemistry, and biology that share a common trait: they are out of thermal equilibrium due to *local* dissipation stemming from the *directed motion* of its constituents. Examples range from actomyosin [@Koenderink:2009; @Schaller:2010; @Sanchez:2012] (actin filaments driven by molecular motors) to swimming bacteria [@Zhang:2010; @Wensink:2012a] to colloidal particles propelled by a multitude of mechanisms [@Paxton:2006; @Hong:2007; @Palacci:2010; @Jiang:2010; @Buttinoni:2013; @Dreyfus:2005; @Peddireddy:2012; @Herminghaus:2014; @Wang:2012]. The interplay of interactions with this persistent motion leads to a variety of collective dynamic behaviors such as swarming [@Wensink:2012], turbulent motion [@Dombrowski:2004], giant number fluctuations [@Ramaswamy:2003; @Narayan:2007], and clustering [@Bialke:2012; @Das:2014; @Trefz:2016; @Siebert:2017]. In the language of statistical physics, this behavior often can be characterized as “phases” with abrupt changes depending on external parameters such as temperature and density.
Such phase transitions have been investigated intensively, and much has been learned from the study of minimal model systems. The arguably simplest model that shows an order-disorder phase transition ending in a critical point is the Ising model of a lattice of spins interacting with their nearest neighbors. In particular the understanding of critical points has sparked intensive research that has cumulated in the development of tools such as the renormalization group and finite-size scaling in computer simulations that have found application in a wide range of problems. Specifically the system-size dependence of order parameter fluctuations and the crossing of cumulants has proven to be very successful [@Luijten:1999; @Luijten:2002; @Campostrini:2001; @Watanabe:2012]. Denoting the order parameter as $m$, the ratio $$\label{eq:Q}
Q_\ell = {\langle m^2\rangle}^2/{\langle m^4\rangle}$$ becomes independent of system size $\ell$ exactly at the critical point. Hence, plotting this quantity for several values of $\ell$ allows to locate the critical point from the intersection with high accuracy.
Universal behavior and scaling invariance are not restricted to passive systems but are also observed in systems driven away from thermal equilibrium. A well-studied paradigm constitutes the KPZ equation, originally proposed for the evolution of interfaces [@Kardar:1986]. Regarding phase transitions, previous studies have focused on non-equilibrium effects on the critical point and the critical exponents of an underlying *equilibrium* phase transition. Examples include two dimensional and three dimensional Ising models under shear [@Winter:2010; @Hucht:2009; @Angst:2012; @Hucht:2012] and active versions of the Ising model [@Solon:2015a; @Attanasi:2014a]. In the context of active particles, the influence of self-propulsion on the gas-liquid transition in the continuous Asakura-Oosawa model [@Trefz:2017] (with alignment interactions) and in a Lennard-Jones fluid [@Prymidis:2016] (without alignment interactions) have been determined.
While driving a system featuring a passive transition influences its critical behavior, genuine non-equilibrium transitions without a passive counterpart are much less studied. Active Brownian particles (ABPs) have emerged as a minimal model showing such a transition: the coexistence of dilute and dense regions in the absence of cohesive forces [@Bialke:2015a; @Fily:2012; @Redner:2013; @Solon:2015; @Stenhammar:2014; @Wysocki:2014; @Siebert:2017]. While the binodal lines away from the critical point have already been determined [@Bialke:2015a; @Siebert:2017] with good accuracy, the precise position of the critical point remains unknown. The close resemblance with passive phase separation suggests that density fluctuations of ABPs become scale invariant in the vicinity of the critical point. In the following, we employ extensive computer simulations to shed first light on the critical behavior of ABPs and the intriguing possibility of a novel non-equilibrium universality class.
To be specific, we simulate $N$ particles moving in $d=2$ dimensions in a box with periodic boundaries. The coupled equations of motion read $$\label{eq:dyn}
\dot{\mathbf r}_k = -\nabla_kU + \frac{{\mathrm{Pe}}}{d_{\mathrm{BH}}/\sigma}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos{\varphi}_k \\ \sin{\varphi}_k
\end{array}\right) + \sqrt{2}\mathbf R_k$$ with normal distributed Gaussian noise $\mathbf R_k$ and potential energy $U$ modeling short-range repulsion with effective hard disk diameter $d_\text{BH}$ and Lennard Jones length $\sigma$. Every particle has an orientation, the evolution of which is described by the angle ${\varphi}_k$ undergoing free rotational diffusion with diffusion coefficient ${D_\text{r}}$. Particles are propelled along this orientation with constant speed. Throughout, we employ dimensionless quantities with the speed given by the Peclét number ${\mathrm{Pe}}$. Further details can be found in the Supplementary Information [@sm].
To determine critical points in passive fluids and suspensions, best practice is to conduct numerical simulations in the grand canonical ensemble with the total number of particles fluctuating [@Bruce:1992; @Wilding:1995; @Wilding:1997]. In driven systems, this option is not (yet) available due to the lack of a rigorous free energy. An alternative strategy to sample density fluctuations are block-density-distribution methods [@Binder:1981; @Binder:1987; @Rovere:1988; @Rovere:1990; @Rovere:1993]. By subdividing a simulation box into smaller subboxes, we allow every subbox to have a fluctuating particle number while the remaining system effectively acts as a particle reservoir. Especially in three dimensional off-lattice systems this approach has proven to be very successful [@Watanabe:2012]. Even though it only works for a rather small range of intermediate subbox sizes it provides accurate results in equilibrium [@Watanabe:2012] as well as non-equilibrium systems [@Trefz:2017]. Nonetheless, there are severe draw-backs especially in two dimensions. For off-lattice systems, *e.g.* a Lennard-Jones fluid in two dimensions, the method seems to work to some extent, but for the 2D Ising model, it completely fails if the underlying simulation takes place in the canonical ensemble [@Rovere:1993]. This failure is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:isingQL\]a). The plot shows the cumulant ratio $Q_\ell$ \[Eq. (\[eq:Q\])\] for the subbox magnetization $m$ as a function of temperature $T$ averaged over independent runs for different subbox lengths $\ell$ using the original block-magnetization-distribution method [@Binder:1981; @Luijten:1999; @Luijten:2002]. The curves do not cross over a large temperature range around the critical temperature.
![Critical temperature of the 2D Ising model. a) Cumulant ratio $Q_\ell(T)$ as a function of temperature $T$ for different subbox sizes $\ell=5,6,10,12,15$ (top to bottom) do not cross applying the original block-magnetization distribution method on an underlying canonical simulation. As discussed in Ref. [@Rovere:1993], the cumulants do not intersect due to the presence of interfaces. b) Using the modified block-magnetization method, $Q_\ell(T)$-curves for different $\ell=8,10,12,15$ (same color scale as in a)) now cross very close to the critical temperature $T_\text{c}\approx2.269185$ (indicated by the dashed vertical line) even if the underlying simulation is canonical. c) Schematic representation of the simulation box used for the cumulant analysis. Simulations are done at medium packing fractions in an elongated box with an edge length ratio of 1:3. This results in a slab geometry where the slab is always aligned with the short axis. Two subboxes are then placed at the center of mass. The other two subboxes are shifted by $3\ell$ in $x$ direction.[]{data-label="fig:isingQL"}](isingQL.pdf "fig:")\
![Critical temperature of the 2D Ising model. a) Cumulant ratio $Q_\ell(T)$ as a function of temperature $T$ for different subbox sizes $\ell=5,6,10,12,15$ (top to bottom) do not cross applying the original block-magnetization distribution method on an underlying canonical simulation. As discussed in Ref. [@Rovere:1993], the cumulants do not intersect due to the presence of interfaces. b) Using the modified block-magnetization method, $Q_\ell(T)$-curves for different $\ell=8,10,12,15$ (same color scale as in a)) now cross very close to the critical temperature $T_\text{c}\approx2.269185$ (indicated by the dashed vertical line) even if the underlying simulation is canonical. c) Schematic representation of the simulation box used for the cumulant analysis. Simulations are done at medium packing fractions in an elongated box with an edge length ratio of 1:3. This results in a slab geometry where the slab is always aligned with the short axis. Two subboxes are then placed at the center of mass. The other two subboxes are shifted by $3\ell$ in $x$ direction.[]{data-label="fig:isingQL"}](box.pdf "fig:")\
This failure can be traced to the biased measurement of the order parameter distribution in the subboxes, which does not reproduce the grand canonical distribution due to the over-expression of interfaces [@Rovere:1993]. To solve this problem, we propose an improved block-distribution method [@sm]. In a nutshell, we exploit the stability of interfaces in a finite system (even in the vicinity of a critical point) to sample subboxes away from the interface. By simulating an elongated box with aspect ratio $1:3$, we force the system into a slab geometry, see Fig. \[fig:isingQL\]c). Although, close to the critical point, fluctuations increase such that bubbles or even rifts can appear. Going further into the homogeneous region, the slab eventually dissolves. Four subboxes of size $\ell\times\ell$ are placed in the box, two at the center of mass and two shifted by $3\ell$ in $x$ direction. Aside from avoiding the interfaces, the necessary simulations of systems with different sizes then allow to also eliminate the second length scale that is introduced by the size of the surrounding simulation box in the original method. Including only the indicated boxes into the calculation of the magnetization, the new method is indeed able to predict the critical point of the 2D Ising model with remarkable accuracy. Below the critical point, *i.e.*, in the phase-separated region, the $Q_\ell(T)$-curves are ordered going from large values for large subboxes to small values for small subboxes. At the critical temperature the curves now cross and at even higher temperatures, *i.e.*, in the homogeneous region, they invert their order. This shows that our new method indeed allows to circumvent the main problems of the original block-magnetization-distribution method.
Encouraged by these results, we now return to the active Brownian particles. Analogously to the Ising system, we study simulation boxes with aspect ratio of $1:3$ and then evaluate subboxes in the center of the dense and the dilute slab (cf. Fig. \[fig:isingQL\]c). In place of the magnetization we employ the subbox density fluctuations $m=\rho_\ell-{\langle \rho_\ell\rangle}$ away from the average density and vary the propulsion speed ${\mathrm{Pe}}$. Here $\rho_\ell=N_\ell/\ell^2$ with $N_\ell$ the fluctuating number of particles in a subbox with edge length $\ell$. The resulting curves for $Q_\ell({\mathrm{Pe}})$ with values of $\ell$ between $10$ and $17.5$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:newCrossing\]b). To make contact to the physics of hard spheres and previous estimates of the phase diagram [@Stenhammar:2014; @Bialke:2015a; @Siebert:2017], we use the packing fraction $\phi=\rho\pi d_\text{BH}^2/4$ instead of the density. Similarly to the Ising system, the curves show the correct ordering above (${\mathrm{Pe}}\ge42.1$) and below (${\mathrm{Pe}}\le37.6$) a putative critical point. Between ${\mathrm{Pe}}=37.6$ and ${\mathrm{Pe}}=42.1$ the curves cross. This is already a very remarkable result as it supports that scaling laws as known from equilibrium finite size scaling are valid also in this non-equilibrium system. Outside this interval, the points corresponding to different edge lengths are clearly separated, whereas within this intermediate interval the points’ uncertainties do not allow to distinguish between them, which in turn indicates that ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}$ lies within this interval. Note that even after eliminating the additional scaling variable of box length over subbox length there are still successive intersections over this region. Also, even though every point corresponds to between 58-174 independent runs that are used to determine the average of $Q_\ell({\mathrm{Pe}})$, the resulting uncertainties in $Q_\ell$ are still notable. Nonetheless, this analysis allows to estimate the critical point to be at ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}=40(2)$. To estimate the critical density, we average the mean packing fractions ${\langle \phi_\ell\rangle}$ over all subbox sizes, all independent runs, and over all Peclet numbers between $37.6$ and $42.1$. This results in an estimate of $\phi{_\text{cr}}=0.597(3)$. As this is an average over different subbox sizes and Peclet numbers, the uncertainty is given as the standard deviation of the density for all subbox sizes and Peclet numbers each averaged over all respective runs.
![Critical point of active Brownian particles. a) Coexisting packing fractions $\phi$ [@Bialke:2015a; @Siebert:2017] showing our estimate for the critical point as a red diamond. The rectilinear diameter is shown as red circles. For all points without errorbars, the statistical uncertainty is smaller than the symbol size. Points far from the critical point (${\mathrm{Pe}}>120$) are connected by a dashed line as a guide for the eye. For points close to critical point, the gas and liquid branch are both fitted with a power law, where the exponent $\beta=0.45$ is the best estimate arising from our analysis of the critical exponents. b) Cumulant intersection analysis for ABPs. A crossing of $Q_\ell({\mathrm{Pe}})$ \[Eq. \] for all system sizes $\ell$ can be seen between ${\mathrm{Pe}}\simeq38$ and ${\mathrm{Pe}}\simeq42$, giving an estimate of the critical point of ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}=40(2)$. Error bars are estimated from independent runs. The dashed lines are again only included as guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:newCrossing"}](abp.pdf)
Even though our new method gives a much more accurate and reliable result, we also checked its consistency with the original block-density-distribution method, which, regardless of its shortcomings, still gives an estimate of the critical point [@sm]. This estimate is compatible with the results of the modified method excluding interfaces (albeit of course less precise). Furthermore, it is possible to determine a lower bound for the critical speed based on the divergence of the static structure factor, as well as an upper bound by analyzing the cluster size distribution. Both bounds agree well with our current estimate. Altogether, we can conclude that the critical point in ABPs is located at ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}= 40(2)$ and $\phi{_\text{cr}}= 0.597(3)$. This point is shown as a red diamond in the phase diagram in Fig. \[fig:newCrossing\]a). Interestingly, the critical point in ABPs does not lie on the linear extension of the rectilinear diameter, which is shown as red circles. While this is rather uncommon in equilibrium systems, a similar behavior has been found for other non-equilibrium transitions as well [@Prymidis:2016; @Trefz:2017].
We now extract numerical estimates for the critical exponents allowing insight into the critical behavior and the universality class of ABPs. For this purpose, we define the dimensionless distance $$\label{eq:tau}
\tau = \frac{{\mathrm{Pe}}^{-1}-{\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}^{-1}}{{\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}^{-1}}$$ to the critical point, generalizing the usual expression by treating the propulsion speed as an inverse temperature. First, we turn to the order parameter exponent $\beta$. In the phase separated region, but still close to the critical point, one expects a power-law increase of the mean order parameter ${\langle m\rangle}\propto\tau^\beta$, see Fig. \[fig:exponents\]a). To account for the uncertainty in the determination of ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}$, we show three curves corresponding to our best estimate of ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}\simeq40$ as well as (generous) lower and upper bounds of $37.6$ and $42.1$, respectively. All three curves show a reasonably linear behavior within the uncertainties of the order parameter. Instead of a fit, as guides we show the slopes corresponding to 2D Ising ($\beta=1/8$), 3D Ising ($\beta\approx0.326$), and MF ($\beta=1/2$). For all reasonable estimates of ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}$, the slope of the resulting curve is significantly lower than that of the 2D Ising universality behavior.
Both the finite-size behavior of $Q_\ell$ and the behavior of the order parameter approaching the critical point indicate that usual scaling arguments are applicable, with scale-free density fluctuations at the critical point. This implies the existence of a correlation length $\xi$ that diverges as $\xi\sim\tau^{-\nu}$ with exponent $\nu$. Assuming that the susceptibility $$\label{eq:chi}
\chi_{\ell} = \frac{{\langle (N_\ell-{\langle N_\ell\rangle})^2\rangle}}{{\langle N_\ell\rangle}}$$ diverges as $\chi_{\infty}\sim\tau^{-{\gamma}}$ in the infinite size limit, one derives the relation $\chi_{\ell}=\chi_0(\ell/\xi)\xi^{{\gamma}/\nu}=\ell^{{\gamma}/\nu} \tilde\chi(x)$ with scaling function $\tilde\chi(x)$ replacing $\tau$ by $\xi$ and assuming a prefactor $\chi_0$ that depends on system size only through the ratio $x=\ell/\xi$. Since $\xi$ is bound by the dimension of the full box $2\ell$ and the quotient of that length and the subbox height is fixed, close to the critical point the scaling function saturates to a constant value and we can extract the ratio of $\gamma/\nu$ from the slope of the calculated $\chi_{\ell}$ plotted against $\ell$ in Fig. \[fig:exponents\]b). We see that the resulting slope is again smaller than that expected for 2D Ising ($\gamma/\nu=1.75$), and even farther from 3D Ising ($\gamma/\nu\approx1.96$) or MF ($\gamma/\nu=2$).
Finally, we turn to the dependence of $Q_{\ell}$’s derivative with respect to the distance from the critical point around criticality: $\mathrm{d}Q_{\ell}/\mathrm{d}\tau\big|_{\tau\simeq0}$. It is expected to have a power law dependence on the system size $\ell$ with exponent $1/\nu$ [@sm]. To estimate the derivative, we fit $Q_{\ell}(\tau)$ in the region were we estimated the critical point \[${\mathrm{Pe}}=40(2)$\] with a linear function. Its dependence on the system size is shown in Fig. \[fig:exponents\]c). The slope of this curve is significantly lower than that expected for 2D Ising ($1/\nu=1$), indicating that $\nu>1$. Using rough estimates for the critical exponents ($\beta\simeq0.45$, $\nu\simeq1.4$, and $\gamma\simeq2.1$) a tentative check of the scaling relation $\gamma+2\beta=2\nu$ shows that it is approximately satisfied, which, given the numerical uncertainties, serves as a provisional check of consistency.
Within a mean-field treatment of the equations , the qualitative phase behavior of ABPs is indeed recovered with a critical point characterized by the expected mean-field exponents [@Speck:2015]. The relevant non-linearity $\sim\rho^4$ is that of the Ising class for short-range interactions. Hence, in the presence of additive noise one would expect that the critical point also falls into the Ising universality class. Somewhat surprisingly (given the strong resemblance with ordinary phase separation), our numerical results indicate that this might not be the case. Extracting critical exponents from numerical data crucially depends on the precise determination of the critical point. An exact determination, which would allow a definite answer to the question of the existence of an “active matter” universality class, is still precluded by the statistical uncertainties in the determination of the critical point. Nevertheless, our best estimate ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}\simeq 40(2)$ for the critical speed implies that all exponents do not agree with the corresponding 2D Ising values, cf. Fig. \[fig:exponents\].
To conclude, employing a novel method we were able to determine the critical point of ABPs to be at ${\mathrm{Pe}}{_\text{cr}}=40(2)$ and $\phi{_\text{cr}}=0.597(3)$. Moreover, we have provided numerical evidence that the universality class might not agree with Ising 2D universality despite the strong qualitative agreement with passive liquid-gas phase separation. This is somewhat unexpected and we hope that these results will stimulate further research into the theoretical underpinning of scale invariance in active matter and genuine non-equilibrium phase transitions.
JTS, TS, and PV gratefully acknowledge financial support by the DFG within priority program SPP 1726 (Grants No. SP1382/3-2 and VI 237/5-2). ZDV Mainz is acknowledged for computing time on the MOGON supercomputers.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'I. Minchev, B. Famaey, A. C. Quillen, W. Dehnen, M. Martig, A. Siebert'
date: Accepted 15 October 2012
title: Radial migration does little for Galactic disc thickening
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Most local galaxies are observed to host a thick disc component (e.g., @comeron11), including our Milky Way (MW), as first proposed by [@gilmore83]. Compared the thin disc, the thick disc is composed of older, metal-poor, alpha enriched stars. An important question of modern galactic astronomy is how thick discs came into existence.
One possibility is that they were born thick at high redshift from the internal gravitational instabilities in gas-rich, turbulent, clumpy discs [@bournaud09] or in the turbulent phase associated with numerous gas-rich mergers [@brook04; @brook05]. They could also have been created through accretion of galaxy satellites [@meza05; @abadi03], where thick disc stars then have an extragalactic origin.
Another possibility is that thick discs are created through the heating of preexisting thin discs. This can either happen fast, on a Gyr timescale, in an early violent epoch, or as a continuous process throughout the galaxy lifetime. In the first case, the thick disc would appear as a clear distinct component in chemistry and phase-space, while in the latter case it would rather be seen as a gradual, continuous transition. Observationally, whether the MW thick disc is consistent with the former or the latter is heavily debated (e.g, @schonrich09 [@bovy12a]).
Preexisting thin discs can be heated fast through the effect of multiple minor mergers [@quinn93; @villalobos08; @dimatteo11], the rate of which decreases with decreasing redshift. Evidence for merger encounters can be seen in structure in phase-space of MW disc stars (e.g., @minchev09 [@gomez12a; @purcell11]), which could last for as long as 4 Gyr [@gomez12b]. The recent work by [@minchev12b] presented numerical results indicating that the velocity dispersion of the oldest MW-disc stars cannot be obtained without substantial merger activity at high redshift.
The fact that galactic discs heat with time has now been known for over 60 years, established from both observational and theoretical work. To explain the observed correlation between the ages and velocity dispersions of solar neighborhood stars, [@spitzer51; @spitzer53] suggested that massive gas clouds (then undetected) scattered stars from initially circular, into more eccentric and inclined, orbits. Giant molecular clouds were thought to be the sole scattering agents (e.g., @mihalas81) until @lacey84 showed that the observed ratio of the dispersion in the direction perpendicular to the Galactic plane and that toward the Galactic center, ${\sigma_z / \sigma_R}$, was too low to be consistent with the predictions from this scattering process. This resulted in the development of models that incorporated the heating of the stellar disc from transient spiral structure [@barbanis67; @carlberg84] in addition to scattering from molecular clouds [@jenkins90; @jenkins92]. Other proposed models for the heating of stars include scattering by halo black holes [@lacey85] or dark clusters [@carr87], scattering by giant molecular clouds and halo black holes [@hann02; @hann04], and vertical disc heating through “popping" star clusters [@kroupa02; @kroupa05] or through “levitation" caused by the 2:2 resonance between the horizontal and vertical oscillations of stars in an inside-out forming disc, converting their radial actions into vertical actions [@sridhar96a; @sridhar96b]. An investigation of the origin of the age-velocity relation in the MW was presented recently by [@hause11], by comparing with cosmological simulations. Interestingly, a recent work has shown that the age-velocity relation could arise not because of external perturbers or the gradual heating of a thin disc, but because the velocity dispersion of newly born stars decreases with redshift [@forbes11]. Finally, a viable internal mechanism for disc heating is the interaction of multiple spiral density waves, as proposed by [@mq06] or bar and spirals [@mf10]. Multiple waves are now known to exist in both observation [@elmegreen92; @rix95; @meidt09] and simulations (e.g., @masset97 [@quillen11; @minchev12a; @grand12; @roskar11]), therefore this heating process may be ubiquitous in disc galaxies.
Interestingly, non-axisymmetric patterns also give rise to another important process regarding the secular evolution of galaxy discs: radial migration. This process is related to the redistribution of angular momentum of stars within the disc, generally resulting in an increase in disc scale-length. Several radial migration mechanisms have been described in the literature: (i) the effect of the corotation resonance of transient spiral density waves [@sellwood02; @roskar11], (ii) the effect of the non-linear coupling between multiple spiral waves [@mq06] or bar and spirals [@mf10; @minchev11a; @brunetti11], and (iii) perturbations due to minor mergers [@quillen09; @bird12]. Note that in case (ii) above, spirals do not need to be short-lived transients for efficient migration; relatively long-lived waves are expected to exist in barred discs [@bt08; @quillen11; @minchev12a], but are also found in non-barred simulations (e.g. @donghia12). Recently, [@comparetta12] showed that, even if patterns are long-lived, radial migration can result from short-lived density peaks arising from interference among density waves overlapping in radius. This “disc mixing" can give rise to a number of phenomena, such as flattening in radial metallicity gradients (e.g., [@minchev11a; @pilkington12]) and extended stellar density profiles (e.g., [@roskar08b; @sanchez09; @minchev12a]).
Recently there has been a growing conviction that radial migration can result in a thick disc formation by bringing out high-velocity-dispersion stellar populations from the inner disc and the bulge. Such a scenario was used, for example, in the analytical model of [@schonrich09], where the authors managed to explain the Milky Way thick- and thin-disc characteristics (both chemical and kinematical) without the need of mergers or any discrete heating processes. Similarly, the increase of disc thickness with time found in the simulation by [@roskar08a] has been attributed to migration in the works by [@sales09] and [@loebman11]. We have to point out, however, that how exactly radial migration affects disc thickening in dynamical models has never been demonstrated.
In this paper we would like to examine in detail the effect of radial migration on the increase of radial and vertical velocity dispersion and, thus, on its possible relation to the formation of thick discs. For this purpose we study three isolated galaxy simulations and three simulations in the cosmological context. We must note that, while the simulations we examine address some of the most widely used initial conditions for simulating galactic discs: preassembled N-body discs and discs growing in the cosmological context, in this paper we are not testing the validity of other models of formation, such as the one used by [@sales09] and [@loebman11].
{width="18cm"}
Description of the simulations {#sec:sims}
==============================
Tree-SPH N-body simulations {#sec:nbody}
---------------------------
For the majority of this paper we study three main runs of isolated disc galaxies from the GalMer database [@dimatteo07]: the giant S0, Sa, and Sbc runs (hereafter gS0, gSa, and gSb). In GalMer, for each galaxy type, the initial halo and the optional bulge are modeled as Plummer spheres, with characteristic masses $M_H$ and $M_B$, and characteristic radii $r_H$ and $r_B$, respectively. Their densities are given by $$\label{halo}
\rho_{H,B}(r)=\left(\frac{3M_{H,B}}{4\pi r^3_{H,B}}\right)\left(1+\frac{r^2}{r^2_{H,B}}\right)^{-5/2}.$$
On the other hand, the initial gaseous and stellar discs follow Miyamoto-Nagai density profiles with masses $M_{g}$ and $M_s$, and vertical and radial scale-lengths given by $b_{g}$ and $a_{g}$, and $b_s$ and $a_s$, respectively: $$\begin{array}{l}
\rho_{g,s}(R,z)=\left(\frac{b^2_{g,s} M_{g,s}}{4 \pi}\right) \times \nonumber\\
\frac{a_{g,s} R^2+\left(a_{g,s}+3\sqrt{z^2+b^2_{g,s}}\right)\left(a_{g,s}+\sqrt{z^2+b^2_{g,s}}\right)^2 }
{ \left[a_{g,s}^2+\left(a_{g,s}+\sqrt{z^2+b^2_{g,s}}\right)^2\right]^{5/2}\left(z^2+b^2_{g,s} \right)^{3/2} }.
\end{array}$$
The parameters for the initial conditions of the three runs, including the number of particles used for the gaseous disc, $N_g$, the stellar disc and bulge, $N_s$, and the dark matter halo, $N_{DM}$, are given in Table \[parameters\]. The initial Toomre parameter of both stars and gas is taken to be $Q=1.2$ as the initial condition of the Tree-SPH simulations and particle velocities are initialized with the method described in [@hern93]. Full details of the simulations are given in [@dimatteo07] and [@chilingarian10].
gS0 gSa gSb
-------------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
$M_{B}\ [2.3\times 10^9 M_{\odot}]$ 10 10 5
$M_{H}\ [2.3\times 10^9 M_{\odot}]$ 50 50 75
$M_{s}\ [2.3\times 10^9 M_{\odot}]$ 40 40 20
$M_{g}/M_{s}$ – 0.1 0.2
$r_{B}\ [\mathrm{kpc}]$ 2 2 1
$r_{H}\ [\mathrm{kpc}]$ 10 10 12
$a_{s }\ [\mathrm{kpc}]$ 4 4 5
$b_{s }\ [\mathrm{kpc}]$ 0.5 0.5 0.5
$a_{g }\ [\mathrm{kpc}]$ – 5 6
$b_{g }\ [\mathrm{kpc}]$ – 0.2 0.2
$N_g$ – 80000 160000
$N_{s}$ 320000 240000 160000
$N_{DM}$ 160000 160000 160000
: Galaxy modeling parameters[]{data-label="parameters"}
These galaxies have been studied extensively in [@minchev11a; @minchev12a]. In these Tree-SPH N-body simulations the gSb model develops a bar similar to the one seen in the Milky Way (MW) [@mnq07; @minchev10], while both the gS0 and gSa bars are substantially larger than that (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). We have shown [@minchev11a] that this has strong effects on the migration efficiency found in these discs, with larger bars giving rise to stronger mixing (also consistent with studies of diffusion coefficients, e.g., @brunetti11 [@shevchenko11]). Most recently, we [@minchev12a] demonstrated that, in these same models, the strongest changes of angular momentum occur near the bar’s corotation (CR) region, in contradiction to the expectation that patterns need to be transient for efficient migration [@sellwood02].
{width="15cm"}
Cosmological re-simulations
---------------------------
We concentrate on the controlled models just described for most of the analyses we are about to do, since these discs are easier to analyze given their constrained nature, lack of gas accretion and mergers. However, we also will use much more realistic simulations, following the self-consistent assembly of galactic discs in the cosmological context, in order to test the validity of our results. These numerical experiments were first presented by [@martig12], where the authors studied the evolution of 33 simulated galaxies from $z=5$ to $z=0$ using the zoom-in technique described in [@martig09]. This technique consists of extracting merger and accretion histories (and geometry) for a given halo in a $\Lambda$-CDM cosmological simulation, and then re-simulating these histories at much higher resolution (150 pc spatial, and 10$^{4-5}$ M$_{\odot}$ mass resolution), replacing each halo by a realistic galaxy containing gas, stars and dark matter. We have chosen to examine three simulations, which we refer to as the C1, C2, and C3 models, with approximately flat rotation curves and circular velocities $V_c\sim200$, 180, and 200 km/s, respectively. The bulge/bar/disc decomposition and disc mass growth for the three galaxies are presented in the third row of Fig. 25 (C1), the first row of Fig. 29 (C2), and the bottom row of Fig. 27 (C3) by [@martig12].
These simulations differ in several ways from the gSb, gSa, and gS0 models described above: (i) the discs grow self-consistently as the result of cosmological gas accretion from filaments and gas-rich mergers, as well as merger debris, (ii) the simulation techniques are different both in the way gravitational forces are computed (Particle Mesh vs hierarchical tree) and in the way gas dynamics is treated (sticky-particles vs SPH), and (iii) the spiral and bar instabilities are present for a cosmological time, thus the effects we see are not the result of recent bar formation, for example.
{width="18cm"}
Disc thickening and velocity dispersions {#sec:multiple}
========================================
Up until Section \[sec:cosmo\] we only analyze our constrained, Tree-SPH N-body simulations described in Section \[sec:nbody\]. As we have shown in [@minchev12a], all of these models exhibit multiple patterns, giving rise to strong radial migration. To show the strength of the discs’ asymmetric components, in the first column of Fig. \[fig:1\] we plot the $m=2$ Fourier amplitudes, $A_2/A_0$, as a function of radius for each galaxy, where $A_0$ is the axisymmetric component and $m$ is the multiplicity of the pattern. Different color curves show the time evolution during the first Gyr. $A_2$ indicate the bi-symmetric structure in the disc. For example, for the gS0 model the bar is identifiable by the smooth curve in the inner disc, which at later times has a maximum at $\sim3$ kpc and drops almost to zero at $\sim8$ kpc. Deviations from zero seen beyond that radius are due to the spiral structure. Note that the spirals are strongest for the gSa model, related to the initial 10% gas fraction in its disc. The gSb model is the one with parameters closest to the MW: bar size $\sim3-4$ kpc, $v_c\sim220$ km/s, and a small bulge. The circular velocities and bar pattern speeds for all three models can be found in Fig. 2 by [@minchev12a].
To see how much discs thicken, in columns 2-3 of Fig. \[fig:1\] we plot the edge-on view for each disc and bulge (separately) for earlier (0.25 Gyr) and later (4 Gyr for gSb and gS0, and 3 Gyr for gSa) times of their evolution, as indicated in each panel. Significant thickening is seen for all models, especially for gSa and gS0 due to their larger bars. The bulges are also found to expand, not significantly so for the gSb. Although from these plots it is evident that the discs thicken, it is important to see how this is reflected in their scale-heights. These are shown in columns 4-5 at a radius 12 kpc ($\sim2.5$ disc scale-lengths), which, when scaled, is comparable to the solar distance from the Galactic center. The dotted red line shows single exponential fits.
Surprisingly, we find that, despite the strong radial migration, the initial scale-heights, $h\approx0.3$ kpc, hardly double in the 3-4 Gyr of evolution for gSa and gS0, respectively, and increase by only $\sim$ 50% in 4 Gyr for gSb.
The disc thickening we see in Fig. \[fig:1\] must be related to an increase in the vertical velocity dispersion. To see how our discs heat, in the first two rows of Fig. \[fig:gSall\_sig\] we show the time evolution of the vertical, $\sigma_z(r)$, and radial, $\sigma_r(r)$, velocity dispersion profiles for the stellar populations of the gSb, gSa, and gS0 models in the first, second and third columns, respectively. Initial bulge components are not considered. In each panel the different color curves show different times, as indicated in the top left panel. The dotted and solid vertical lines indicate the radial positions of the bar’s corotation (CR) and 2:1 outer Lindblad resonance (OLR) with colors matching the different times.
An interesting observation is that the $\sigma_r$ profiles flatten at later times, especially for the gS0 and gSa models, i.e., the galaxies with the larger bars and stronger migration histories. This is reflected in the ratio $\sigma_z/\sigma_r$, shown in the bottom row, where the later curves (blue and black) develop a negative slope. Moreover, $\sigma_r$ increases more in the outer parts of the disc, compared to the region near the bar’s CR. In fact, we observe radial cooling near the CR for both the gS0 and gSa models: the solid-black curve falls below the dashed-green and dash-dotted blue ones. The reason for this is revealed in the next Sections.
Cooling/heating of stellar samples migrating outwards/inwards {#sec:cooling}
=============================================================
Stellar samples in the inner galactic discs possess high velocity dispersions in all three components. It has been expected that by migrating radially outwards, stars retain their random energies and thus thicken the disc. If this were true, then how do we explain the lack of sufficient disc thickening even for the strong large-scale disc mixing seen in Fig. \[fig:1\]? To answer this question, we consider the samples of stars used to estimate the scale-heights in Fig. \[fig:1\]. In the first row of Fig. \[fig:all\_sig\] we plot the initial (dashed black), final (solid blue), and net (dot-dashed red) vertical velocity dispersions, $\sigma_{z,i}$, $\sigma_{z,f}$, and $\Delta \sigma_z$, respectively, as functions of the [*initial*]{} radius, $r_0$, for particles ending up in the green bin ($11<r<13$ kpc) at the end of the given time interval. This is done for each galaxy in the time intervals $0.5<t<1.5$ and $0.5<t<3$ Gyr ($0.5<t<4$ Gyr for gS0 and gSb), as indicated in the figure. The second row shows similar plots but for the radial velocity dispersion. The distribution of initial radii of stars ending up in the green bins at the corresponding times are shown in the third row.
From the first two rows it is immediately apparent that stellar samples arriving from the inner discs decrease their velocity dispersions by as much as 50% when coming from the smallest radii, with the effect diminishing the smaller the radial distance traveled. Conversely, stars coming from radii exterior to the green bin increase their velocity dispersion. Therefore, on the average, newcomers change their random energies in such a way as to approximately match the non-migrating population at the radius at which they arrive. Thus, even though at later times (second, fourth and sixth columns) a larger fraction of migrators enters the annulus under consideration (as seen in the bottom row), this has no effect on the velocity dispersion increase.
{width="16cm"}
The effect we just described is more dramatic for the radial velocity dispersion: for the gS0 (dissipationless) model the non-migrating stars (blue line portion inside the green bin) are hotter at the final time than the migrators, as evident by the positive slope of the solid-blue curve. Since the majority of stars arrive from the inner disc, the final annulus is being cooled, rather than heated by the migrators! We can see that, for all three models, stars arriving from inside the bar’s CR are radially cooler than the non-migrators: note the positive slope in the blue curve inside the CR region (i.e., to the left of the dotted vertical line). Because for gS0 the radial bin considered happens to be between the CR and the OLR, we see the most cooling for this model. We find similar results when the bin is placed at a similar location with respect to the bar’s resonances in the case of the gSa and gSb models (see Fig. \[fig:frac\]).
The velocity distribution of migrating stars before and after they have migrated are smooth and appear approximately gaussian, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:vel\_hist\] in the Appendix.
Separating migrators from non-migrators {#sec:separating}
=======================================
To assess the contribution of migrating stars to the intrinsic velocity dispersion of the disc we devise a simple procedure for separating migrators and non-migrators. (1) We consider a disc annulus of a certain width at some initial and then final time. (2) We separate all stars into “non-migrators" (those that are found in the selected radial bin at both the initial and final times) and “migrators" (those that were not present in the bin initially but are there at the final time). (3) We do this for radial bins over the entire extent of the disc, overlapping every 0.3 kpc, for example, in order to get information at every radius.
In step (1) above we need to adopt a certain width for each annulus considered. We chose this as follows. Epicycle sizes are on the order of $a\sim\sigma_r/\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is the epicyclic frequency. In order to contain non-migrating stars, we allow for particles to oscillate around their guiding radii by $\pm a$, therefore, we select our bin size to be $2a$. Since both $\sigma_r$ and $\kappa$ are functions of radius, so is the value of $a$. In Fig. \[fig:bins\] we plot all three functions versus galactic radius. Note that the bin sizes increase with radius, where the effect is stronger for the hotter gSa and gS0.
We apply the above procedure to our gSb and gSa models and display the results in Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\]. The first row shows contour density plots of the final versus initial radii for all particles in different time spans for the gSb or gSa models, as indicated. We exclude a small portion of the inner disc (white rectangle in the lower left corner) in order to display better the outer contours. The orange dashed line shows the locus of non-migrating, cold particles. Nonuniform deviations from this line indicate that there exist preferential radii where migration efficiency is stronger, however, these are not clearly seen. We note that the particle distributions presented here are not the true density, but a combination from all migrators and non-migrators resulting from the overlap of the radial bins we consider. However, deviation from the true density are small, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ap1\] and discussed in the Appendix.
The second row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\] presents the non-migrating stars extracted from the distributions shown in the first row as outlined in (1), (2), and (3) above. Deviation from the orange line are about 1-2 kpc, increasing outwards, in agreement with the bins-size variation shown in Fig. \[fig:bins\].
The third row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\] shows the migrators only, obtained by subtracting the distributions shown in the second row from those in the first row. The dotted-red and solid-blue vertical and horizontal lines indicate the location of the bar’s CR and OLR at the initial (horizontal) and final (vertical) times. We can now see clearly overdensities on each side of the orange dashed line. We show how our results change by considering different bin size values in the Appendix (see Fig. \[fig:ap2\]).
In the fourth row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\] we plot number density contours of the changes in the specific angular momentum, $\Delta L$, versus the initial specific angular momentum, $L$, estimated during each time periods. Both axes are divided by the rotational velocity at each radius, therefore $L$ is approximately equal to the initial radius and $\Delta L$ gives the distance by which guiding radii change. The broken-red and solid-blue vertical strips indicate the location of the bar’s CR and OLR, where their widths corresponding to the change during each time period related to the bar’s slowing down. For all time periods considered we find a nice correlation with structure across the bar’s CR, where stars inside the CR migrate outward and those outside it migrate inward. The pink lines connect some corresponding groups of migrated stars in the $r_{final}-r_{initial}$ and the $L-\Delta L$ planes. At the earlier times shown ($0.5<t<1.5$ Gyr, left column) the changes in angular momentum are the strongest due to the potent spirals and their interaction with the bar. At the intermediate times, as the spirals weaken, the typical feature of negative slope across the bar’s CR is much better seen, in addition to some outer structure related to the spirals. Finally, at the later times ($3<t<4$ Gyr, third column) the bar’s CR is clearly dominating. In general, although here we only show the entire simulation time for the gSb model and only the beginning of gSa, clumps across the bars’ CR are invariably seen for all time periods and all three models. This continuous bar activity was shown also by [@minchev12a] (see their Fig. 7).
Contours are denser above the orange line in the $r_{final}-r_{initial}$ plane. This is most extreme during the early time period shown for the gSa model (rightmost column of Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\]). The reason for this behavior is that, in the outer disc, stars are preferentially shifted outwards due to the decreasing stellar density. The effect is much stronger for gSa because the outward transfer of angular momentum for this simulation is much stronger than for the gSb disc, which [@minchev12a] related to the very efficient non-linear coupling among the bar and spiral waves of different multiplicity. Note that, since the total angular momentum of the disc must be conserved (with a small contribution to the halo and bulge), the outward transfer of angular moment needs to be balanced. This balance is achieved by transferring large amounts of mass inward of the bar’s CR (with small negative changes in stellar guiding radii), in contrast to the exponentially decreasing density in the outer disc (but much larger increase in guiding radii). An indication of this process may be found in the strong clump of inward migrators just outside the bars’ CR, seen in all plots but the latest time period for gSb; the reason for the latter is due to the saturation of migration efficiency in the outer disc in the absence of gas accretion (and thus spiral strength).
![ Migrators’ contribution to the disc heating. [**First row:**]{} radial profiles of the vertical velocity dispersion, $\sigma_z(r)$, for non-migrators (dashed black curve), outward going migrators (solid brown curve), and inward migrators (dash-dotted green curve) for the gSb model, estimated in the time periods indicated in the top row of each column. [**Second row:**]{} $\sigma_z(r)$ estimated for non-migrators (dashed black curve), all migrators (i.e., inward and outward going, solid green curve), and the total population (dashed-dotted blue curve). [**Third and Fourth rows:**]{} same as the first and second rows, respectively, but for the radial velocity dispersion profile $\sigma_r(r)$. An unexpected result is that outward migrators cool the disc inside the bar’s OLR (and inward ones heat it), unlike in the case of $\sigma_z$. Some increase in $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_r$ from migrators is seen beyond the OLR, while the inner disc is [*cooled*]{} both radially and vertically. Fig. \[fig:frac\] quantifies better the migrators’ contribution to $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_r$. []{data-label="fig:sig_mig"}](sig_map3.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Migrators’ contribution to the disc velocity dispersion {#sec:contr}
=======================================================
By separating stars in the entire disc into “migrators" and “non-migrators", we are now in a position to investigate their individual effects on the disc velocity dispersion increase. We consider the time intervals $0.5<t<1.5$ and $1.5<t<3$ Gyr, corresponding to the first two columns in Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\]. Because the heating in both radial and vertical directions mostly saturates around 1-2 Gyr (see Fig. \[fig:gSall\_sig\]), the effect at later times is similar to what we find during the period $1.5<t<3$ Gyr.
In the first row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\] we show the radial profile of the vertical velocity dispersion, $\sigma_z(r)$ for non-migrators (dashed black curve), outward going migrators (solid brown curve), and inward migrators (dash-dotted green curve) for the gSb model. The dotted-red and solid-blue vertical lines denote the bar’s CR and OLR, respectively, at the final time of the time period considered.
We find that inward migrators cool the disc and the outward ones heat it. This is consistent with the information contained in Fig. \[fig:all\_sig\], where we found that particles migrating to a final annulus at $r=12$ kpc arrive with $\sigma_z$ values slightly lower/higher than the non-migrating population (evident by the blue line’s slightly negative slope in Fig. \[fig:all\_sig\]).
![ Fractional changes in $\sigma_z(r)$ and $\sigma_r(r)$ resulting from the migrated stars. The dashed black curve plots the quantity $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}=(\sigma_{\rm z,all}-\sigma_{\rm z,non\_mig})/\sigma_{\rm z,all}$, where $\sigma_{\rm z,all}$ and $\sigma_{\rm z,non\_mig}$ are the vertical velocity dispersions obtained from the total population and the non-migrators, respectively. A similar expression estimates $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}$, shown by the solid orange curve. The dotted-red and solid-blue vertical lines denote the bar’s CR and OLR, corresponding to the final time shown in each time period. Note the inverse correlation between $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}$ and $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}$, indicating coupling between the radial and vertical motions of stars. []{data-label="fig:frac"}](frac.eps){width="8.5cm"}
{width="15cm"}
From the plots we just described (first row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\]) it is not clear how inward and outward migrators contribute to the velocity dispersion profile of the total population since we did not normalize to the number of particles in each group. How much $\sigma_z(r)$ of the total population is affected depends on the fraction of each kind of migrators at each radial bin. To demonstrate the true contribution of migrators, in the second row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\] we plot the vertical velocity dispersion for non-migrators (dashed black curve), all migrators (i.e., inward and outward going, solid green curve), and the total population (dashed-dotted blue curve). Interestingly, we find that the velocity dispersion from both types of migrators is very similar to that of the non-migrating particles, except for the inner parts of the disc for the earlier times shown. It is surprising that not only do migrators not heat most of the disc, but they even cool it inside the CR. Some increase in $\sigma_z$ can be seen outside the OLR.
We now examine the effect of migrators on the radial velocity dispersion profile, $\sigma_r(r)$. The third and fourth rows of Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\] are similar to the first two, except the plotted quantity is $\sigma_r(r)$. A distinct difference compared to the vertical velocity dispersion is the oscillatory behavior of $\sigma_r(r)$ found in all three curves in the third row. Comparing the third and fourth rows for the earlier time period, it becomes clear that the dominant effect inside the bar’s OLR comes from the outward migrators, which here [*cool, rather than heat the disc*]{} as in the case of $\sigma_z(r)$. Just inside and outside the OLR, the effect of migrators is to reduce the wiggles seen in the non-migrators’ $\sigma_r$, consequently resulting in a smooth radial velocity dispersion profile.
To better quantify the contribution of migrators, we now calculate the fractional changes in $\sigma_z(r)$ and $\sigma_r(r)$ resulting from the migrated stars for the same time periods shown in Figs. \[fig:sig\_mig\]. For the vertical velocity dispersion, we estimate these as $$\label{eq:1}
\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}=(\sigma_{\rm z,all}-\sigma_{\rm z,non\_mig})/\sigma_{\rm z,all},$$ where $\sigma_{\rm z,all}$ and $\sigma_{\rm z,non\_mig}$ are the vertical velocity dispersions for the total population and the non-migrators, respectively. An equivalent expression estimates the contribution to the radial velocity dispersion. We plot the results in Fig. \[fig:frac\]. The dotted-red and solid-blue vertical lines denote the bar’s CR and OLR, corresponding to the final time considered in each panel. It now becomes much clearer how exactly migrators affect the discs.
For all models shown $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}$ (dashed black curve) shows oscillatory behavior, changing abruptly from negative inside the CR, to positive outside it. The maximum deviations from zero for gSb, for example, are $\sim7\%$ cooling in the inner disc and $\sim4\%$ heating at larger radii, and appear consistent with Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\]. Clearly, such contribution to the vertical velocity dispersion would results in disc flaring, as we show in the next Section.
Now we look at the migrators’ contribution to the radial velocity dispersion, $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}$ (solid orange curve). Remarkably, there appears to be an inverse correlation between $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}(r)$ and $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}(r)$, where the two functions cross near the bars’ CR and OLR. This oscillatory behavior with zeros near the CR and the OLR is present for all three models during the first time period shown, which is when the discs heat the most. Note that the crossing point near the OLR occurs above zero as the OLR is shifted more outward in the disc (top to bottom), due to the decreasing number of non-migrators and prevailing influence of outward migrators. Outside the OLR both $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}$ and $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}$ are positive, with a contribution of less then 5% (gSb) or less than 10% (gSa). At the later times the general trend of an inverse correlation for the radial and vertical velocity dispersions is still seen, although the contribution to the $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}$ is larger.
The inverse functional behavior just described indicates that the vertical and horizontal motions of migrators are coupled, as expected for a system governed by non-linear dynamics.
The effect on the discs’ scale-height
=====================================
We showed in Fig. \[fig:frac\] that the migrators’ contribution to the vertical velocity dispersion increase is small and mostly in the outer disc. This suggests that our discs flare. To find out if this is really the case, we now measure the scale-height at different radial bins in the gS0, gSa and gSb discs.
In Fig. \[fig:height\] we show radial profiles of the discs’ scale-height for migrators, non-migrators and all stars in the time intervals $0.5<t<1.5$ Gyr (top) and $1.5<t<3$ Gyr (bottom). As in the figures so far, we take the initial time at 0.5 Gyr (or after the bars have formed) in order to avoid the effect of the initial formation of asymmetric structure. The green solid curves indicate the fraction of migrators as functions of radius during each time period. Note that during the later time period ($1.5<t<3$ Gyr) the stars we refer to as “non-migrators" may have experienced some migration previously. This is also true for the earlier times, i.e., some migration takes place before 0.5 Gyr, but the strongest effect occurs in the range $0.5<t<1.5$ Gyr. All our procedure ensures is that they stayed at the same radii during the later time interval.
Fig. \[fig:height\] shows that the scale-height for the non-migrating stars is approximately constant with radius for all models (blue dashed curves, top) during the earlier time period. In fact, for gS0 the scale-height for non-migrators shows a decrease with radius. However, due to the inner disc cooling and outer disc heating in the vertical direction from migrators (dotted-red curve, see also Fig. \[fig:frac\]), all discs flare (solid black curve). This is entirely consistent with Fig. \[fig:frac\], where we found that the contribution of migrators to the vertical velocity dispersion is negative inside the bar’s CR and positive in the outer disc.
By comparing the variation of the migration fraction with radius (green solid curve) to the scale-height of the total population (black solid curve) we note an inverse correlation inside the bars’ CR: the more migrators present at a given radius, the smaller the scale-height. This is especially obvious at the earlier time period and for the more efficient gSa and gS0. At larger radii, where all stars are in fact migrators (although fraction is smaller that 100%, these stars have migrated out before t=0.5 Gyr), scale-height increases with migration fraction, which is expected.
{width="12.cm"}
Application to cosmological re-simulations {#sec:cosmo}
==========================================
We now apply our newly developed technique for separating migrators and non-migrators to our three, much more realistic simulations in the cosmological context, described in Section \[sec:sims\]. To assess the effect of the internal perturbers and be able to compare to our previous results, here we only consider the last Gyr of evolution before $z=0$, thus, avoiding strong merger activity. We defer a more detailed study of these models to a future work.
During the $\sim1$ Gyr of evolution we study here, disc penetration by satellites occurs only at $(r,t)\approx(18$ kpc, 13.15 Gyr) for C1 and $(r,t)\approx($10 kpc, 13.4 Gyr$)$ for C3. There are no disc encounters within $r<30$ kpc for the C2 model. All of the aforementioned companions have mass ratios less than 1:100. Face-on and edge-on stellar density contours are plotted in the first and second rows of Fig. \[fig:cosmo\], respectively, depicting the time $t=13.4$ Gyr. This is roughly in the middle of the timespan considered for the rest of the plots in the figure. Some small satellites are still seen in all three simulations. For C1 and C2 these are orbiting outside 20 kpc radius, but for C3 there is a small companion at $r\sim10$ kpc, located close to the plane at this time.
First results for migration in the cosmological context
-------------------------------------------------------
To see how much migration has taken place in the last Gyr of evolution, in the third row of Fig. \[fig:cosmo\], for each model, we plot the changes in the specific angular momentum of stellar particles in the range $4<r<23$ kpc and $|z|\lesssim4$ kpc. The horizontal axis plots the initial angular momentum, $L_i$ (estimated at $t=12.73$ Gyr); this is divided by the circular velocity and, thus, approximately equals galactic radius. The vertical axis plots $\Delta L=L_f-L_i$, where, $L_f$ is the angular momentum estimated as $t=13.7$ Gyr. Stars at $\Delta L\sim4$, for example, gain angular momentum which brings them $\sim4$ kpc outward in the disc and conversely for negative $\Delta L$. The dotted-red and solid-blue vertical lines show the radial location of each bar’s CR and OLR. The high peak near the OLR for the C3 model is caused by the satellite closest to the galactic center seen in the disc face-on view above.
We note that this is the first time such plots are presented for simulations in the cosmological context. It is interesting that the strongest changes in angular momentum happen near the bar’s CR, just as noted recently by [@minchev12a] (using the gSb, gSa, and gS0 models), despite the fact that here the bars have been formed for a long time (more than 6 Gyr) and are not transient. The strength of the bar correlates with the effect on the $r-\Delta L$ plane; the bar length is related to the pattern speed, as expected, with longer bars rotating slower, since bars exist within their CR radii.
Contribution of migrators to the increase in velocity dispersion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we have established that migration is efficient in these runs (in fact, very similar to our controlled simulations, see @minchev12a, Fig. 7 and Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\] in this paper), we can look for the effect of the migrating and non-migrating stars (during the time period considered) on the vertical and radial velocity dispersion profiles, just as we did in Figs. \[fig:sig\_mig\] and \[fig:frac\]. In the fourth row of Fig. \[fig:cosmo\] we plot the vertical velocity dispersion of inward (moving in) and outward (moving out) migrators, and the non-migrators, similarly to Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\]. Cooling from inward migrators and heating from outward ones is seen, mostly inside the bar’s CR (dotted-red vertical). This is in agreement with what we found for our preassembled models, with the difference that the effect here is weaker in the outer disc, except for the C3 model, where a significant peak is seen between the CR and the OLR; the latter is most likely due to the small satellite mentioned earlier, taking place in the same radial range.
The fifth row of Fig. \[fig:cosmo\] is the equivalent of the top one, but for the radial velocity dispersion. As in our controlled models, cooling from outward migrators and heating from inward ones (the reverse of what happens for $\sigma_z$) occurs between the bar’s CR and its OLR. Even in the case of C3, which is perturbed by the satellite at that radius, we see the same behavior.
Finally, the bottom row of Fig. \[fig:cosmo\] plots the fractional contribution to the vertical and radial velocity dispersions from all migrators estimated from Eq. \[eq:1\]. Similarly to Fig. \[fig:frac\], migrators contribute to $\Delta\sigma_z(r)$ by $\sim5\%$, cooling the disc inside the CR for C1, just as we found for the controlled models. For C2 and C3, the radial variation of $\Delta\sigma_z$ is more erratic, yet contribution is mostly less than $3\%$. The C1 model’s dynamics is dominated by the presence of its large bar, which could explain its closer similarity to the controlled simulations.
While outward migrators for all three models are radially cooler than the non-migrators in the region between the CR and the OLR (fifth row of Fig. \[fig:cosmo\]) just as the case of our constrained simulations, $\Delta\sigma_r(r)$ is only slightly below zero for C1 and C2 and slightly positive for C3. These differences are most likely due to tidal effects associated with the orbiting satellites seen in the face-on plots in the first row. An inverse relation between $\Delta\sigma_z(r)$ and $\Delta\sigma_r(r)$ for our cosmological simulations can still be seen.
It is remarkable that both our isolated discs and the just described much more sophisticated simulations (which also use a completely different simulation technique) exhibit very similar behavior. This makes our result, that migrators do not contribute significantly to the increase of the velocity dispersion of the disc, much stronger. We, therefore, suggest that our finding is a fundamental property of the secular evolution of galactic discs. It is possible that when stronger satellite perturbations are included, as is the case at the early stages of galaxy formation, the situation may be different.
Conservation of vertical and radial actions?
============================================
Our findings so far suggest the existence of a conserved dynamical quantity for stars moving around the galactic disc, resulting in the conspiracy to approximately match (on the average) the kinematics expected at their destination. Since from Figs. \[fig:all\_sig\],\[fig:sig\_mig\], and \[fig:frac\] it is clear that this is not the energy, the obvious candidates are the radial and vertical actions.
The vertical action {#sec:actions}
-------------------
[@binney11] have shown that, to approximate how the vertical motion of disc stars is affected by their radial motion in an axisymmetric potential, the adiabatic approximation is valid, i.e. that the vertical action is adiabatically conserved in the epicyclic sense[^1]. As first proposed by [@minchev11b] and recently confirmed by [@solway12], the vertical actions of migrating stars are closely conserved, as well.
Note that while in an axisymmetric disc the energy and angular momentum are conserved quantities (thus, conservation of actions is expected), since stars migrate due to resonant perturbation associated with disc asymmetries (such as the bar and spirals waves), the above mentioned classical integrals of motion are not necessarily applicable here. Nevertheless, following [@minchev11b], we now show that even in the case of a simple galactic disc model, assuming conservation of vertical action is in good agreement with our results.
We assume that for stars at a given radius, the vertical action is given by $J_z= E_z/\nu$, where $E_z$ and $\nu$ are the vertical energy and frequency, respectively. We also assume that this quantity is conceived (on average) as stellar samples shift guiding radii (i.e., migrate). This is a good approximation in the limit that (i) the vertical motion decouples from the planar motion (a good assumption when $z_{\max}\ll r$, which holds for most disc stars, but note that we did find evidence to the opposite in Sec. \[sec:contr\]), and (ii) the stars move outwards much more slowly than their vertical oscillations (not really the case). From Gauss’ law and Poisson’s equations, $\nu\sim\sqrt{2 \pi G \Sigma}$, therefore, as stars migrate radially, their vertical frequency changes as $\nu_{\rm mig}(r)\sim\exp(-r/2r_d)$, given that the stellar density varies as $\Sigma\sim\exp(-r/r_d)$. To conserve the mean vertical action of a set of stars migrating outwards, we then require that their mean vertical energy, $\langle E_{\rm z,mig}\rangle\sim\sigma_{\rm z,mig}^2$, decreases as $\nu$. Therefore, the vertical velocity dispersion of a stellar sample migrating radially outwards will decrease as $\sigma_{\rm z,mig}(r)\sim\exp(-r/4r_d)$, where $r$ is the radius at witch it ends up.
On the other hand, the vertical velocity dispersion in the ambient (non-migrating) disc component changes with radius as $\sigma_{\rm z}(r)\sim\sqrt{\Sigma(r) h}$ (e.g., eq. 7 by @vanderkruit11). Assuming the scale-height, $h$, remains constant, we find that $\sigma_z(r)\sim\exp(-r/2r_d)$. Thus, while a star’s vertical energy does decay as it migrates outwards, it does not decay as fast as the underlying typical vertical energy of disc stars and, therefore, still increases the vertical temperature of the disc where it arrives. Similarly, stars migrating inwards would cool the disc. This is exactly what we see in Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\] at radii outside the bars’ CR: the disc is heated/cooled by outward/inward migrators. We found that inside the CR the discs are, in fact, cooled vertically, since contribution is made only by inward migrators (see Figs. \[fig:sig\_mig\] and \[fig:frac\]). Similarly, in the disc outskirts outward migrators dominate, thus the vertical temperature is increased.
The radial action
-----------------
For the simple galaxy disc model considered above, the same argument which lead us to conclude that the vertical action is conserved can also be applied in the plane. We assume a conservation of radial epicyclic action $J_p = E_p / \kappa$ where $E_p$ is the radial epicyclic energy and and $\kappa \sim 1/r$ is the radial epicyclic frequency, valid for a flat rotation curve. We, therefore, expect that orbits conserving $J_p$ lose energy $E_p$ at the rate of $1/r$.
There are some differences when compared to the vertical motion analysis. We found that $E_z$ of migrators needs to change as $\nu_{\rm mig}(r)\sim\exp(-r/2r_d)$, which is the same as the expected drop in velocity dispersion. The radial epicyclic frequency, on the other hand, decreases as $1/r$. We may, therefore, expect that the changes in $E_z$ and $E_p$ for the same migrating sample are different, with migrators contributing more to the radial disc heating.
At this point a deficiency in the simple model we consider is found. As revealed by Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\], third row, in our simulations outward migrators radially cool the disc inside the bar’s OLR instead of heating it, i.e., the opposite to the behavior of their vertical velocity dispersion. This effect is most prominent in the region between the CR and the OLR for all the models we study, while at $r\gtrsim r_{OLR}$ $\sigma_r(r)$ and $\sigma_z(r)$ behave similarly.
The need for a more complex conserved quantity:\
a function of both $J_z$ and $J_p$?
------------------------------------------------
We found that the conservation of epicyclic vertical action for migrators is consistent with our numerical results. In the case of the horizontal motion, this simple model is less accurate, as we just discussed. This result is not really surprising, as (i) the adiabatic approximation is less adequate for horizontal motions than vertical ones even in the axisymmetric case [^2], and (ii) it is also well known that the classical epicycle theory greatly underestimates the radial action even in the case of pure planar motion (see @dehnen99 for a better approximations of $J_p$).
Additionally, the adiabatic invariance of $J_p$ is not necessarily a good approximation for a time evolving system perturbed by multiple asymmetric patterns with stars migrating faster than their epicyclic oscillations. We note that the inverse correlation between $\Delta\sigma_z( r)$ and $\Delta\sigma_r( r)$ we found in Section \[sec:contr\] is suggestive of an exchange between the vertical and radial motions. An exchange between $J_z$ and $J_p$ can be achieved when vertical and horizontal resonances coincide in radius. Such locations may be found in the region inside the bar’s CR and between the CR and the OLR, i.e., where we see the largest differences between $\Delta\sigma_z$ and $\Delta\sigma_r$. For example, [@combes90] have shown that the approximate coincidence in radius of the bar’s vertical and horizontal 2:1 ILRs (inside CR) are responsible for the bar’s peanut shape. We, therefore, speculate that a conserved quantity for migrating stars could be a function of both $J_z$ and $J_p$, perhaps in a similar fashion to the conservation of the sum $J_z + J_p$ proposed by [@sridhar96a; @sridhar96b] in the context of an adiabatically growing galactic disc, which involves a time dependent perturbation as is the case of our discs perturbed by multiple patterns[^3]. More work is needed to find a possibly similar invariant for the more complicated case of migrating stars due to disc asymmetries.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
In this work we have used Tree-SPH N-body (controlled) simulations and unconstrained, cosmological re-simulations, to study the effect of internal disc evolution on disc thickening. All analyzed models have been previously found, or here shown, to develop strong multiple patterns, resulting in efficient radial disc mixing.
We devised a procedure for separating migrating from non-migrating stars in simulations. We found an excellent correspondence between the changes in angular momentum of stars as a function of initial radius and structure in the $r_{initial}-r_{final}$ space, thus, verifying that our separating technique is correct (see Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\]). Using this simple procedure, we were able, for the first time, to study and contrast the kinematics and spatial distribution of migrators and non-migrators in galactic discs.
A number of recent works have assumed that stars migrating from the inner disc retain their high energies, thus populating a thick disc component. To test this expectation, we first compared the disc velocity dispersion profiles in the vertical and radial directions, $\sigma_z(r)$ and $\sigma_r(r)$, respectively, for the migrating and non-migrating populations. Surprisingly, we found that the migrators’ contribution to the vertical velocity dispersion, $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}$, is negative inside the bar’s corotation (CR) radius, $r_{\rm cr}$, and less than 5% in the range $r_{\rm cr}<r<3h_d$, where $h_d$ is the disc’s scale-length (see Fig. \[fig:frac\]). This is related to the fact that migrating samples [*change*]{} their energy in such a was as to match closely the kinematical properties of the non-migrating population at the radius of arrival. We thus have shown that, not only do migrators not heat significantly, but they [*cool*]{} a large portion of the disc.
Given the migrators’ contribution to vertical heating in the outer discs and cooling at small radii, disc flaring could be expected. We showed that this is indeed the case, by plotting the disc scale-height as a function of radius for migrators and non-migrators for each simulation. As anticipated, non-migrators exhibit an approximately constant scale-height in contrast to the flared disc composed of migrators (see Fig. \[fig:height\]). We have to note that this flaring is more significant outside the disc’s initial radial distribution ($\sim12$ kpc), i.e., where all particles are migrators.
Using a simple galactic disc model, where both the radial, $J_p=E_p/\kappa$, and vertical, $J_z=E_z/\nu$, actions, are conserved, we explained the decrease of velocity dispersion of outward migrators as disc cooling. In order to conserve the actions of a migrating sample of stars, their energies, and thus the velocity dispersions, need to change with radius similarly to $\kappa$ and $\nu$. While stellar samples migrating outwards lose vertical energy, $\langle E_z\rangle\sim\sigma_z^2$, their reduced $\sigma_z$ is still higher than what is expected from extrapolating $\sigma_z\sim\Sigma(r)$. This is consistent with Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\], where we found that the outward migrators slightly heat the disc vertically and inward ones cool it. However, instead of a larger contribution from migrators to the radial velocity dispersion, as predicted by this simple model, we found that outward migrators [*cool*]{} the disc instead of heating it inside about three scale-lengths. This means that, in the approximation we considered, the radial energy decreases with radius faster than the epicyclic frequency, i.e., the cooling is even more drastic than predicted by the simple model from Section \[sec:actions\]. We suggested that a better conserved quantity is a function of both the vertical and radial actions.
We estimated that for the gSa and gS0 models, bulge contribution to the thick disc beyond $\sim$ 2.5 disc scale-lengths is only about 1%. For a MW-like bulge (the gSb model) no stars reach this radius. This is related to the bar’s CR lying mostly outside such a small bulge (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). It should be kept in mind that here the initial distributions of the bulges were prescribed as Plummer spheres. As evident form the third row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\], a strong contribution comes from disc stars inside the bars’ CR.
Our controlled simulations did not consider gas accretion. In a more realistic case, the mass increase due to a continuous thin-disc formation would contract the thickened discs and further decrease the scale-heights [@bournaud09], particularly in the outer discs, where for the gSb, gSa, and gS0 models all stars are migrators. To check this, we applied our technique to much more realistic, high-resolution, unconstrained simulations in the cosmological context, where discs build up self-consistently. Interestingly, we found very similar results to those obtained with our simpler models, where the migrators’ contribution to the total increase in random motions is typically less then 3%.
We do not expect insufficient resolution to be affecting our conclusions for the reason that low resolution should result in more heating, not less, as we find here. Hence, increasing the (intermediate) resolution of our controlled simulations would give rise to even less disc thickening[^4]. Moreover, the recent work by [@roskar11] has shown that increasing the softening length from 50 to 500 pc does not result in any significant change in the disc dynamics, therefore, we expect that the migration efficiency is not affected. Finally, our results do not change significantly when we use the higher resolution cosmological re-simulations studied in Sec. \[sec:cosmo\]. In any case, we are not interested here so much in the overall heating, but in the difference between the increase of velocity dispersion of migrators and non-migrators.
It is remarkable that both our isolated discs and the much more sophisticated simulations in the cosmological context (which also use a completely different simulation technique) exhibit very similar behavior. We believe the inability of migration to thicken discs is a fundamental property of secular disc evolution, irrespective of the migration mechanism at work. We note, however, that when mergers are involved (i.e., when the evolution becomes non-secular), the approximate conservation of the vertical and radial actions we find here, may not be valid anymore. We defer a study of this important topic to a future work.
Expected signatures of migration in galactic discs
--------------------------------------------------
Considering the results of this work, we now outline three possible observables for the effects of radial migration.
\(i) [*Old disc flaring:*]{} The effect of migration, driven by internal disc evolution, on the disc heating is mostly seen in the outer discs. The reason for this is the following. As we found in Sec. \[sec:cooling\], as stars migrate outwards their velocity dispersion decreases as to approximately match the energy of stars at the final radius (which did not migrate). However, a small amount of energy may be retained, with the effect being stronger, the farther the stars come from. In other words, while stars do arrive with slightly larger energy at an outer radius, the effect is negligible, unless the change in guiding radius is very large. It thus appears that migration would always work as to increase/decrease the scale-height in the outer/inner discs, giving rise to flaring. We showed in Section \[sec:cosmo\] that the situation may be different when self-consistently growing discs are considered (see Fig. \[fig:cosmo\]). In any case, we do expect that older stellar populations, being exposed to migration mechanisms the longest, would exhibit flared vertical profiles, even if the total mass in the disc would not flare. Since this effect is related to the conservation of the average vertical action of stars, in the case of an active merger history, this signature may have been erased.
\(ii) [*Flattening of the average vertical action radial profile:*]{} As pointed out by [@minchev11b], an important consequence of the conservation of actions for migrating stars is that radial migration also mixes the radial distributions of the actions $\langle J_p\rangle$ and $\langle J_z\rangle$: the more the disc mixes, the weaker their variation with radius. This may offer a way to constrain the migration history in the Milky Way. Estimates of the average (better conserved) vertical action in observations for different populations of stars should reveal different variation with radius (flattening) for older groups of stars.
\(iii) [*Structure in vertical chemical gradients:*]{} While we here showed that a [*kinematically*]{} thick disc is not expected to result from radial migration, signatures of migration may be found in the current chemical distribution of stars, since outward migrators are preferentially deposited at high altitudes, the reverse being true for inward ones (see Fig. \[fig:sig\_mig\]). Thus, for a given chemical evolution model for the Galaxy, predictions can be made for vertical chemical gradients as a function of radius as observed today.
We would like to thank P. Di Matteo, F. Combes, D. Pfenniger, L. Athanassoula, C. Chiappini, R. de Jong, and M. Steinmetz for helpful discussions. We also thank the anonymous referee for valuable suggestions which have greatly improved the manuscript.
, M. G., [Navarro]{}, J. F., [Steinmetz]{}, M., and [Eke]{}, V. R.: 2003, , 21
, B. and [Woltjer]{}, L.: 1967, , 461
, J. and [McMillan]{}, P.: 2011, , 1889
, J. and [Tremaine]{}, S.: 2008, , Princeton University Press
, J. C., [Kazantzidis]{}, S., and [Weinberg]{}, D. H.: 2012, , 913
, F., [Elmegreen]{}, B. G., and [Martig]{}, M.: 2009, , L1
, J., [Rix]{}, H.-W., and [Hogg]{}, D. W.: 2012, , 131
, C. B., [Gibson]{}, B. K., [Martel]{}, H., and [Kawata]{}, D.: 2005, , 298
, C. B., [Kawata]{}, D., [Gibson]{}, B. K., and [Freeman]{}, K. C.: 2004, , 894
, M., [Chiappini]{}, C., and [Pfenniger]{}, D.: 2011, , A75
, B. J. and [Lacey]{}, C. G.: 1987, , 23
, I., [Di Matteo]{}, P., [Combes]{}, F., [Melchior]{}, A., and [Semelin]{}, B.: 2010, , 61
, F., [Debbasch]{}, F., [Friedli]{}, D., and [Pfenniger]{}, D.: 1990, , 82
, S., [Elmegreen]{}, B. G., [Knapen]{}, J. H., [Salo]{}, H., [Laurikainen]{}, E., [Laine]{}, J., [Athanassoula]{}, E., [Bosma]{}, A., [Sheth]{}, K., [Regan]{}, M. W., [Hinz]{}, J. L., [Gil de Paz]{}, A., [Men[é]{}ndez-Delmestre]{}, K., [Mizusawa]{}, T., [Mu[ñ]{}oz-Mateos]{}, J.-C., [Seibert]{}, M., [Kim]{}, T., [Elmegreen]{}, D. M., [Gadotti]{}, D. A., [Ho]{}, L. C., [Holwerda]{}, B. W., [Lappalainen]{}, J., [Schinnerer]{}, E., and [Skibba]{}, R.: 2011, , 28
, J. and [Quillen]{}, A. C.: 2012,
, W.: 1999, , L35
, P., [Combes]{}, F., [Melchior]{}, A.-L., and [Semelin]{}, B.: 2007, , 61
, P., [Lehnert]{}, M. D., [Qu]{}, Y., and [van Driel]{}, W.: 2011, , L3
, E., [Vogelsberger]{}, M., and [Hernquist]{}, L.: 2012,
, B. G., [Elmegreen]{}, D. M., and [Montenegro]{}, L.: 1992, , 37
, J., [Krumholz]{}, M. R., and [Burkert]{}, A.: 2011,
, G. and [Reid]{}, N.: 1983, , 1025
, F. A., [Minchev]{}, I., [O’Shea]{}, B. W., [Lee]{}, Y. S., [Beers]{}, T. C., [An]{}, D., [Bullock]{}, J. S., [Purcell]{}, C. W., and [Villalobos]{}, [Á]{}.: 2012a,
, F. A., [Minchev]{}, I., [Villalobos]{}, [Á]{}., [O’Shea]{}, B. W., and [Williams]{}, M. E. K.: 2012b, , 2163
, R. J. J., [Kawata]{}, D., and [Cropper]{}, M.: 2012, , 1529
, J. and [Flynn]{}, C.: 2002, , 731
, J. and [Flynn]{}, C.: 2004, , 1001
, L.: 1993, , 389
, E. L., [Brook]{}, C. B., [Gibson]{}, B. K., [S[á]{}nchez-Bl[á]{}zquez]{}, P., [Courty]{}, S., [Few]{}, C. G., [Governato]{}, F., [Kawata]{}, D., [Ro[š]{}kar]{}, R., [Steinmetz]{}, M., [Stinson]{}, G. S., and [Teyssier]{}, R.: 2011, , 2652
, A.: 1992, , 620
, A. and [Binney]{}, J.: 1990, , 305
, P.: 2002, , 707
, P.: 2005, in C. [Turon]{}, K. S. [O’Flaherty]{}, and M. A. C. [Perryman]{} (eds.), [*The Three-Dimensional Universe with Gaia*]{}, Vol. 576 of [*ESA Special Publication*]{}, p. 629
, C. G.: 1984, , 687
, C. G. and [Ostriker]{}, J. P.: 1985, , 633
, S. R., [Ro[š]{}kar]{}, R., [Debattista]{}, V. P., [Ivezi[ć]{}]{}, [v Z]{}., [Quinn]{}, T. R., and [Wadsley]{}, J.: 2011, , 8
, M., [Bournaud]{}, F., [Croton]{}, D. J., [Dekel]{}, A., and [Teyssier]{}, R.: 2012,
, M., [Bournaud]{}, F., [Teyssier]{}, R., and [Dekel]{}, A.: 2009, , 250
, F. and [Tagger]{}, M.: 1997, , 442
, S. E., [Rand]{}, R. J., and [Merrifield]{}, M. R.: 2009, , 277
, A., [Navarro]{}, J. F., [Abadi]{}, M. G., and [Steinmetz]{}, M.: 2005, , 93
, D. and [Binney]{}, J.: 1981,
, I., [Boily]{}, C., [Siebert]{}, A., and [Bienayme]{}, O.: 2010, , 2122
, I. and [Famaey]{}, B.: 2010, , 112
, I., [Famaey]{}, B., [Combes]{}, F., [Di Matteo]{}, P., [Mouhcine]{}, M., and [Wozniak]{}, H.: 2011a, , 147
, I., [Famaey]{}, B., [Quillen]{}, A. C., and [Dehnen]{}, W.: 2011b,
, I., [Famaey]{}, B., [Quillen]{}, A. C., [Di Matteo]{}, P., [Combes]{}, F., [Vlajic]{}, M., [Erwin]{}, P., and [Bland-Hawthorn]{}, J.: 2012a, Accepted in A&A,
, I., [Chiappini]{}, C., and [Martig]{}, M.: 2012b,
, I., [Nordhaus]{}, J., and [Quillen]{}, A. C.: 2007, , L31
, I. and [Quillen]{}, A. C.: 2006, , 623
, I., [Quillen]{}, A. C., [Williams]{}, M., [Freeman]{}, K. C., [Nordhaus]{}, J., [Siebert]{}, A., and [Bienaym[é]{}]{}, O.: 2009, , L56
, K., [Few]{}, C. G., [Gibson]{}, B. K., [Calura]{}, F., [Michel-Dansac]{}, L., [Thacker]{}, R. J., [Moll[á]{}]{}, M., [Matteucci]{}, F., [Rahimi]{}, A., [Kawata]{}, D., [Kobayashi]{}, C., [Brook]{}, C. B., [Stinson]{}, G. S., [Couchman]{}, H. M. P., [Bailin]{}, J., and [Wadsley]{}, J.: 2012, , A56
, C. W., [Bullock]{}, J. S., [Tollerud]{}, E. J., [Rocha]{}, M., and [Chakrabarti]{}, S.: 2011, , 301
, A. C., [Dougherty]{}, J., [Bagley]{}, M. B., [Minchev]{}, I., and [Comparetta]{}, J.: 2011, , 762
, A. C., [Minchev]{}, I., [Bland-Hawthorn]{}, J., and [Haywood]{}, M.: 2009, , 1599
, P. J., [Hernquist]{}, L., and [Fullagar]{}, D. P.: 1993, , 74
, H. and [Zaritsky]{}, D.: 1995, , 82
, R., [Debattista]{}, V. P., [Quinn]{}, T. R., [Stinson]{}, G. S., and [Wadsley]{}, J.: 2008a, , L79
, R., [Debattista]{}, V. P., [Quinn]{}, T. R., and [Wadsley]{}, J.: 2011,
, R., [Debattista]{}, V. P., [Stinson]{}, G. S., [Quinn]{}, T. R., [Kaufmann]{}, T., and [Wadsley]{}, J.: 2008b, , L65
, L. V., [Helmi]{}, A., [Abadi]{}, M. G., [Brook]{}, C. B., [G[ó]{}mez]{}, F. A., [Ro[š]{}kar]{}, R., [Debattista]{}, V. P., [House]{}, E., [Steinmetz]{}, M., and [Villalobos]{}, [Á]{}.: 2009, , L61
, P., [Courty]{}, S., [Gibson]{}, B. K., and [Brook]{}, C. B.: 2009, , 591
, R. and [Binney]{}, J.: 2009, , 203
, J. A. and [Binney]{}, J. J.: 2002, , 785
, J. A. and [Carlberg]{}, R. G.: 1984, , 61
, I. I.: 2011, , 39
, M., [Sellwood]{}, J. A., and [Sch[ö]{}nrich]{}, R.: 2012, , 1363
, Jr., L. and [Schwarzschild]{}, M.: 1951, , 385
, Jr., L. and [Schwarzschild]{}, M.: 1953, , 106
, S. and [Touma]{}, J.: 1996a, , 1263
, S. and [Touma]{}, J.: 1996b, , 973
, P. C. and [Freeman]{}, K. C.: 2011, , 301
, [Á]{}. and [Helmi]{}, A.: 2008, , 1806
Appendix
========
Velocity distributions of migrators and non-migrators
-----------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:all\_sig\] we showed that as stellar samples migrate, they decrease/increase their velocity dispersions both in the radial and vertical directions when coming from the inner/outer disc, respectively, so as to approximately match the kinematics of non-migrating stars in the final radial bin. Fig. \[fig:vel\_hist\] offers a different view of this process. We consider the gSa model in the time interval $0.5<t<1.5$ Gyr (same as the third column of Fig. \[fig:all\_sig\]). The first row of Fig. \[fig:vel\_hist\] shows the radial (left) and vertical (right) velocity distributions for stars which stay in the radial bin during the entire time. An increase of velocity dispersion is seen with time. The second row shows stars which came from $r<6$ kpc. Note that their velocity dispersions drop by about 40%. The third row plots stars originating from $r>13$ kpc. These are found to heat up upon arriving at the final radius. In all cases, final distributions (orange histogram) roughly match for each velocity component.
Particle density from selection procedure
-----------------------------------------
Here we discuss in more detail our procedure for separating migrators and non-migrators. Fig. \[fig:ap1\] contrasts the true density (panels 1-3), estimated directly from the initial and final radii of stars in the disc for the times shown, and the density obtained in the method described in Section \[sec:separating\] (panels 4-6, same as top row of Fig. \[fig:sig\_map\]). Note that the overall shape of contours remains the same despite the overlap of particles resulting from our selection method. Considering that the contour levels are the same, we see that the true density drops faster with radius. This is due to the fact that the overlap of stars involves more stars coming from the inner disc, due to the asymmetric drift. It is clear that this overlap will not affect velocity measurements since contribution from multiple stars would cancel out. In any case, we remove multiples prior to estimating the velocity dispersions and disc scale-height.
Radial bin overlapping
----------------------
To achieve smooth variation with radius when estimating velocity dispersion profiles, etc., for all figures presented in the paper we overlapped bins every 0.3 kpc. Note that a typical radial bin width is about 2-3 kpc, increasing with radius (see Fig. \[fig:bins\]). In Fig. \[fig:ap2\] we examine the effect of changing the distance between the radial bins. The top, right pair of panels is the same as the top row of Fig. \[fig:frac\] (bin overlap of 0.3 kpc), showing the fractional changes in the vertical and radial velocity dispersions due to migrators, $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}(r)$ and $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}(r)$, respectively. We contrast four possibilities: bin overlap of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 1 kpc. The overall shapes of the functions plotted remain the same, while, naturally, structure is lost with an increase in the distance between overlapping bins, i.e., for 0.1 to 1 kpc.
The effect of different bin sizes
---------------------------------
To construct the figures in this paper we have estimated the bin size as $2a$, where $a\sim\sigma_r/\kappa$ is the approximate epicyclic amplitude at a given radius, with $\sigma_r$ and $\kappa$ the radial velocity dispersion and epicyclic frequency, respectively. In order to contain non-migrating stars, we allow for particles to oscillate around their guiding radii by $\pm a$, therefore, we select our bin size to be $2a$. Since both $\sigma_r$ and $\kappa$ are functions of radius, so is the value of $a$.
In Fig. \[fig:ap2\] we show how the migrators’ contribution to the disc velocity dispersion (as shown in Fig. \[fig:frac\]) changes with bin size. In addition to the choice of $2a$ used in Fig. \[fig:frac\] (middle two columns here), in the first two rows we also consider a bin size of $a$ (columns 1-2) and $3a$ (columns 5-6) for the gSb and gSa models and earlier and later times, as indicated. The bottom row shows the effect of a constant bin size of 1, 2, and 3 kpc for the gSb model.
In all cases, the innermost disc appears to be affected the most by the change in bin size. Concentrating on the earlier times (when most of the velocity dispersion increase takes place), we note that the oscillatory inverse functional behavior of $\Delta\sigma_{\rm z}(r)$ and $\Delta\sigma_{\rm r}(r)$ is seen for all bin sizes.
![ Distributions of migrators and non-migrators ending up in a radial bin in the range $10<r<13$ kpc, estimated in the time period $0.5<t<1.5$ Gyr for the gSa model. [**First row:**]{} The radial (left) and vertical (right) velocity distributions for stars which stay in the radial bin during the entire time. An increase of velocity dispersion is seen with time. [**Second row:**]{} Stars which came from $r<6$ kpc. Note that their velocity dispersions drop by about 40%. [**Third row:**]{} Stars originting from $r>13$ kpc. These are found to heat up upon arriving at the final radius. In all cases, final distributions (orange histogram) roughly match for each velocity component. []{data-label="fig:vel_hist"}](vel_hist.eps){width="8.5cm"}
{width="15cm"}
{width="18cm"}
{width="16cm"}
{width="18cm"}
[^1]: This means that the vertical action calculated from the vertical potential $\Psi(z,t) = \Phi(R(t),z) - \Phi(R(t),z=0)$ is very nearly conserved if $R(t)$ is the horizontal motion calculated from the planar effective potential $\Phi(R,0)+L_z^2/R^2$.
[^2]: To improve this, [@binney11] changed the effective potential involved in defining the radial epicyclic energy to $\Phi(R,0)+(L_z+J_z)^2/R^2$.
[^3]: Dubbed, “levitation”, this mechanism is at work when the 2:2 resonance between the vertical and radial epicyclic frequencies moves through phase space, capturing along its path stars with large $J_p$ and small $J_z$ and releasing them into orbits with smaller $J_p$ and larger $J_z$ (and conversely).
[^4]: Note that if the resolution is too high, then the simulations will have unrealistic dynamics – real galaxies have sources of noise, such as molecular clouds, star clusters, mergers.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES) experiments have indicated that the electronic dispersion in some of the cuprates possesses an extended saddle point near the Fermi level which gives rise to a density of states that diverges like a power law instead of the weaker logarithmic divergence usually considered. We investigate whether this strong singularity can give rise to high transition temperatures by computing the critical temperature $T_c$ and isotope effect coefficient $\alpha$ within a strong-coupling Eliashberg theory which accounts for the full energy variation of the density of states. Using band structures extracted from ARPES measurements, we demonstrate that, while the weak-coupling solutions suggest a strong influence of the strength of the Van Hove singularity on $T_c$ and $\alpha$, strong-coupling solutions show less sensitivity to the singularity strength and do not support the hypothesis that band structure effects alone can account for either the large $T_c$’s or the different $T_c$’s within the copper oxide family. This conclusion is supported when our results are plotted as a function of the physically relevant self-consistent coupling constant, which show universal behavior at very strong coupling.'
address:
- |
Department of Physics and the James Franck Institute,\
The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
- 'Materials Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439'
author:
- 'R. J. Radtke'
- 'M. R. Norman'
title: |
Relation of Extended Van Hove Singularities\
to High-Temperature Superconductivity\
within Strong-Coupling Theory
---
On general grounds, we know that low-dimensional features in the electronic dispersion lead to singularities in the density of states, and we also expect that the superconducting critical temperature $T_c$ will be enhanced when the Fermi level lies near one of these singularities. Early work along these lines focused on the A15 superconductors, where the low-dimensional features are one-dimensional chains, and calculations in both BCS [@FriedelA15; @CarbotteWC] and Eliashberg [@Horsch; @CarbotteSC; @Pickett] formalisms demonstrated a small but significant enhancement of $T_c$. Current interest is in the family of high-temperature cuprate superconductors, where the low-dimensional structures are the $CuO_2$ planes. Energy dispersions from photoemission measurements and LDA band structure calculations led a number of workers to suggest that the density of states in these compounds was logarithmically divergent and that this divergence, in addition to a fairly typical pairing boson, could account for the large critical temperatures, the anomalous isotope effect, and the specific heat. [@Hirsch; @FriedelHTSC; @Tsuei; @Mark] This picture of the origin of high-temperature superconductivity has become known as the “Van Hove scenario.” While a logarithmic singularity is appropriate for $La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ (LSCO), recent photoemission measurements on $YBa_2Cu_3O_{6.9}$ (YBCO), $YBa_2Cu_4O_8$, and $Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_8$ (BSCCO) suggest that the density of states in these materials has a much stronger power law divergence. [@Campuzano; @Abrikosov; @Shen] Weak-coupling calculations suggest that the enhancement of $T_c$ due to these power law singularities would be much larger than that for the logarithmic singularity and may account for the larger $T_c$’s observed in these compounds. [@Abrikosov]
In this paper, we examine this scenario by using tight-binding fits to photoemission data as input to a strong-coupling Eliashberg $T_c$ calculation in order to determine whether power law Van Hove singularities significantly enhance $T_c$’s over those given by logarithmic ones. We also quantify the $T_c$ enhancement as a function of singularity strength relative to a flat density of states. We find that the dramatic increase in $T_c$ due to the Van Hove singularity in weak coupling theory is moderated considerably by strong-coupling effects and that the enhancement of $T_c$ by a power law singularity over a logarithmic one is also reduced somewhat by strong-coupling effects. We suggest several possible extensions of this work, though, which should be investigated before drawing a negative conclusion concerning the Van Hove scenario for the cuprates.
For computing the critical temperatures, we use the standard mean field formalism [@AM] in which the electron self-energy is solved self-consistently from the single-exchange graph generalized to include the energy dependence of the density of states. [@CarbotteSC; @Pickett; @Radtke] For simplicity, we take the pairing interaction to be an Einstein phonon with frequency $\Omega_0$ = 500 K (43 meV), and we assume that the electron-phonon matrix element $g$ is independent of wave vector. The equations for the electron self-energy in Matsubara space $\Sigma (i \omega_n)$ can then be written in the Nambu matrix notation [@AM] as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma (i \omega_n)
& = & -T \sum_{m} g^2 D (i\omega_n - i\omega_m)
\int dE \, N(E)
\, \tau_3 G (E, i\omega_m) \tau_3
\label{eq:El}\end{aligned}$$ where $G (E, i \omega_n)$ is the electron Green’s function which satisfies the Dyson equation $$\begin{aligned}
G^{-1} (E, i \omega_n)
= G_0^{-1} (E, i \omega_n) - \Sigma (i \omega_n)
\label{eq:GF}\end{aligned}$$ with $G_0 (E, i \omega_n)$ being the bare propagator. In these expressions, $T$ is the temperature, $g^2$ is the electron-phonon coupling constant, $D$ is the phonon propagator, $N(E)$ is the single-spin density of states per unit cell, $\tau_3$ is the third Pauli matrix, and $\omega_n = (2n + 1)\pi T$ are Fermionic Matsubara frequencies. Throughout this paper, we set $\hbar = k_B = 1$. We solve these self-energy equations for all components of the Nambu self-energy ($\tau_0$, $\tau_1$, and $\tau_3$) [@AM] and at fixed band filling $n$ determined by $$n = 1 + \sum_{n} \, e^{-i\omega_n 0+} \, \int dE \, N(E) \,
{\rm Tr} \left[ \tau_3 G(E, i\omega_n) \right] . \label{eq:bf}$$ We fix $n$ in order to properly account for the loss of particle-hole symmetry in the interacting system, but we note that, due to the uncertainties in the parameterization of the band structures from ARPES data described below, the absolute values of $n$ should not be taken too seriously. Note that this approach includes the effects of inelastic pair-breaking, which is important for obtaining reasonable $T_c$ estimates. We linearize these equations in the gap function and solve the resulting eigenvalue problem for $T_c$. We also extract isotope effect coefficients $\alpha$ from the relation $$\alpha = \left. \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{d \ln T_c}{d \ln \Omega_0} \right|_\lambda$$ by changing the Einstein phonon frequency $\Omega_0$ a small amount and adjusting $g^2$ so that $\lambda = 2 g^2 / \Omega_0 W$, $W$ the band width, is constant.
In order to complete the specification of the problem, we must discuss the band structures used to determine $N(E)$ and the choice of coupling constants. We obtain the electronic dispersion $E_{\bf k}$ by fitting to a two-dimensional, tight-binding form $E_{\bf k} = \sum_{i = 0}^{5} t_i \eta_i ({\bf k})$ with the basis functions $\eta_i ({\bf k})$ listed in Tab. 1 and the parameters $t_i$ in Tab. 2. Representative dispersions for LSCO and BSCCO are shown in Fig. 1.
Our fitted band structures are obtained from different procedures, which we will now describe. For the LSCO case, a simple two-parameter fit was done to an LDA band structure calculation with a 2 eV band width. For the YBCO case, we perform three fits to the data. The first fit was done by assuming a 2 eV band width as in LSCO and adding a third tight-binding term to force a $k^4$ dependence along the $k_x$ direction around the $(\pi,0)$ point. This procedure gives an extended saddle point and so approximates the photoemission data.[@Campuzano; @Abrikosov] A second fit was done by relaxing the third parameter to best fit all the data along $(0,0)$ to $(\pi,0)$. This method splits the extended singularity at $(\pi,0)$ into two nearby logarithmic singularities (bifurcated saddle points) as seen in LDA calculations, which are related to the displacement of the planar oxygens along the c axis of the crystal. [@Andersen] (The data are more consistent with an extended saddle point about $(\pi,0)$ than bifurcated saddle points. The flatness of the experimental bands is almost certainly a correlation effect, which can only be approximately simulated by the tight-binding fit.) The third fit assumed a 1 eV band width and gives a better fit to the data along the $(\pi,0)$ to $(\pi,\pi)$ direction, which are consistent with a quadratic dispersion about $(\pi,0)$; however, as this point is only 20 meV below the Fermi energy, little information is available before the band disperses through the Fermi energy. For BSCCO, the tight-binding fit was done to the proposed band structure presented by Dessau [*et al.*]{} based on their photoemission data and yields a band width of 1.4 eV. [@Shen] The dispersion was fit so as to go like $k^4$ along both orthogonal directions about the $(\pi,0)$ point. For comparison, we also include calculations for a flat density of states with a 2 eV band width.
In computing the density of states from these energy dispersions, we employ a two-dimensional “tetrahedron” code that produces data on an energy grid of spacing 0.1 meV near the singularity. We have checked that our results are insensitive to this mesh density and have reproduced our earlier calculations on a logarithmically divergent density of states where the singularity is treated exactly. [@Radtke] We find that, for the LSCO and bifurcated YBCO cases, the density of states has a logarithmic singularity. For the extended YBCO case, on the other hand, the divergence goes like the inverse fourth root of the energy difference from the singularity, and the divergence in BSCCO goes as the inverse square root. We remark that the densities of states are similar in both YBCO cases, even though the divergences are different. We see that, by studying these different materials, we are actually studying different Van Hove singularity strengths.
The choice of coupling constant in our calculations is complicated due to the sharp structure in the density of states. In a material with a structureless density of states, the coupling strength is $\lambda = 2 g^2 / W \Omega_0$. However, the magnitude of the coupling extracted from transport measurements will be renormalized by singularities in the density of states, and so a more physical choice of coupling is to use the self-consistently calculated self-energy at the lowest Matsubara frequency $\omega_0 = \pi T_c$: $\lambda_Z = - {\rm Im} \, \Sigma (i\omega_0) / \omega_0$. In what follows, we will show calculations with either $\lambda$ or $\lambda_Z$ fixed and examine the differences.
For completeness, we will discuss some caveats regarding our approach. First, our calculations employ a mean-field theory where vertex corrections are ignored. Although justified by Migdal’s Theorem [@Migdal] in conventional phonon-mediated superconductors with flat densities of states, this approximation may fail when the density of states is singular. Recent work has indicated that, for a logarithmic Van Hove singularity, vertex corrections may not be large and may actually reduce the computed $T_c$, [@Kris] but the case of a power law singularity has not been examined. Second, it has been pointed out that, because the electronic density of states enters into the screening of the electron-phonon matrix element, ignoring the detailed wave vector dependence of this matrix element and the phonon propagator–as we do–could lead to erroneous results. [@Mahan; @AAA] Third, phase-space restrictions on electron-electron scattering imposed by the Van Hove singularity enhances the electronic response functions, possibly leading to an electronic pairing mechanism. [@Newns] Our calculations focus on a phonon-like pairing boson and so do not address this issue. Fourth, for YBCO, we consider only the plane band which contains the Van Hove singularity nearest the Fermi energy (for BSCCO, the splitting of the two CuO plane bands is ignored). We expect that this band will dominate the properties of the material, but full multiband calculations will be required to test this assertion. We therefore view the results of this paper as a first step in identifying the quantitative effect of a singular density of states on $T_c$ when strong-coupling effects are included and leave these other extensions for future work.
Having described our approach, we will now discuss our results, beginning with our weak-coupling calculations. For these computations, we drop the $\tau_0$ and $\tau_3$ components of the self energy from the Eliashberg equations, and we fix $\lambda$ to 0.211 in order to obtain a 95 K $T_c$ for the YBCO band structure with the extended Van Hove singularity and 2 eV band width. Note that this weak-coupling calculation is not equivalent to the standard BCS calculation with a square well potential, but does serve to illustrate the effect of neglecting inelastic pair-breaking.
The maximum $T_c$ occurs at a band filling near but not necessarily at the Van Hove singularity, and we tabulate these maximum critical temperatures and isotope effect coefficients as a function of material type in Tab. 3. We observe that the maximum weak-coupling $T_c$’s are enhanced by factors of 17 (LSCO) to 45 (BSCCO) over the flat density of states value and that this enhancement follows the strength of the singularity, increasing as the divergence goes from logarithmic for LSCO to fourth root for the extended YBCO to square root for BSCCO. In contrast, the isotope effect coefficient decreases systematically with singularity strength from the BCS result of 0.50 for the flat density of states to 0.20 for BSCCO. We also see that the extended and bifurcated densities of states for YBCO yield approximately equal $T_c$’s, despite the differences in singular behavior. Reducing the band width by one half, though, reduces $T_c$ by 40%, despite working at fixed $\lambda$. The isotope effect coefficient, however, is unaffected by this change. Finally, note that the critical temperature roughly doubles from the logarithmically divergent LSCO model to the fourth-root divergent extended YBCO model, similar to the $T_c$’s of the actual materials. This observation leads to the speculation that the pairing interaction is the same in LSCO and YBCO with the difference in critical temperatures accounted for solely by the band structure.
The strong-coupling calculations do not support this simple view, however. In Tab. 3, we show strong-coupling results for the maximum $T_c$ obtained from the solution of the Eliashberg equations including all components of the self-energy and with $\lambda$ = 0.627, chosen once again in order to fix the $T_c$ for the W = 2 eV extended YBCO band structure to 95 K. We see that the critical temperatures still show a systematic increase with the strength of the singularity, but the strong-coupling $T_c$’s show less sensitivity to the singularity strength than the weak-coupling $T_c$’s: the maximum strong-coupling $T_c$ is enhanced by factors of only 2.6 (LSCO) to 3.4 (BSCCO) relative to the flat density of states $T_c$. Similarly, the strong-coupling isotope effect coefficient still exhibits a systematic decrease with singularity strength, but the magnitude of this trend is severely reduced, leaving $\alpha$ roughly constant at 0.4. We also note that the finite band width and strong-coupling effects combine to increase the flat density of states $\alpha$ to 0.51 instead of 0.50. As with the weak-coupling calculations, the extended and bifurcated densities of states yield similar $T_c$’s, $\alpha$’s, and $\lambda_Z$’s; reducing the band width to 1 eV reduces $T_c$ and $\lambda_Z$ by approximately 20% but leaves $\alpha$ almost unchanged.
Drawing these results together, we can say that, in both weak- and strong-coupling calculations, $T_c$ and $\alpha$ show systematic trends with the strength of the divergence in the density of states, but the magnitude of this effect is reduced in the strong-coupling calculations. In particular, we find that the isotope effect coefficient in strong coupling is almost independent of the strength of the singularity and is around 0.4, which is much larger than the observed $\alpha$’s in the optimally doped cuprates. Also, the enhancement of $T_c$ relative to the flat density of states in strong-coupling is two to three for our choice of $\lambda$, as shown earlier for a logarithmically singular density of states. [@Radtke] Furthermore, we find that these results are robust against the parameterization of the YBCO data (extended vs. bifurcated), but $T_c$ and $\lambda_Z$ are found to be sensitive to band width (although $\alpha$ is not).
Additionally, the idea of a universal pairing interaction does not seem to be supported by the strong-coupling calculations. By fixing the coupling in the extended parameterization of YBCO to give a strong-coupling $T_c$ of 95 K, we find that the maximum $T_c$ for LSCO becomes 78 K, much larger than the observed maximum $T_c$ of 40 K. This result casts doubt on the idea that the differences in $T_c$ are simply due to band structure effects. We should also remark that the experimental $T_c$ for BSCCO is lower than YBCO, despite the more singular density of states inferred for the former. We show a plot of $T_c$ versus doping for this $\lambda$ in Fig. 2, which illustrates in greater detail both the reduced difference in $T_c$ and the enhancement of $T_c$ over that given by a flat density of states.
There are several other features of Fig. 2 which should be pointed out. First, we note that the critical temperature rises around the van Hove singularity, and the width of this maximum broadens as the strength of the singularity increases. Away from the singularity, the $T_c$ falls below the flat density of states value. This behavior is a reflection of the redistribution of electronic states caused by the Van Hove singularity; basically, spectral weight is transferred from the band edge to the singularity, and $T_c$ follows this shift. Second, at low values of $n$, the plotted data show somewhat more complicated behavior due to the effect of the band edge. Finally, we see that the extended and bifurcated YBCO give similar $T_c$ vs. doping curves despite the differing singular behavior. The density of states peak in the extended case is higher than the bifurcated case but is also narrower in energy. This result supports the idea that what determines $T_c$ is an effective density of states which is a particular average of the actual density of states over the scale of the phonon energy $\Omega_0$.[@CarbotteSC; @Pickett]
In looking at the self-consistent coupling strength $\lambda_Z$ in Tab. 3, we see that $\lambda_Z$ is larger than $\lambda$ for the singular densities of states by a factor of order two, implying that these calculations are in the strong-coupling regime. The systematic behavior of $\lambda_Z$ with $\lambda$ is shown in Fig. 3. For a flat density of states and an infinite band width, $\lambda_Z$ = $\lambda$. For the finite band widths used here, this relation is valid only in the limit of small $\lambda$. As seen in the inset to Fig. 3, at larger $\lambda$, the flat density of states $\lambda_Z$ is less than $\lambda$ by about a factor of two. On the other hand, when the density of states is singular, $\lambda_Z$ is enhanced at small $\lambda$, and the magnitude of the enhancement grows as $\lambda$ decreases and as the strength of the singularity increases. This behavior arises from the availability of more scattering states near the Van Hove singularity. At large $\lambda$, however, the structure in the interacting density of states is smeared out by the strong scattering, and $\lambda_Z$ for the singular density of states begins to behave more like that for a flat density of states; i.e., it is dominated by the finite band width. The curves come together at large $\lambda$ as shown in the inset to Fig. 3.
Since both $T_c$ and $\lambda_Z$ are enhanced by the Van Hove singularity, plotting the one quantity as a function of the other is instructive. To that end, we show in Fig. 4 the maximum transition temperature $T_c^{max}$ normalized by the Einstein phonon frequency $\Omega_0$ plotted against the self-consistent $\lambda_Z$ for all the materials studied and with the results for a flat density of states included for comparison. Our results for the flat density of states reproduce the standard curve at small $\lambda_Z$. [@AD] Also at small $\lambda_Z$, $T_c$ is still strongly and systematically enhanced by an increasingly singular density of states compared to the results for the structureless density of states. This enhancement is reduced at stronger coupling, becoming at most around 50% for $\lambda_Z \approx 1$. At still stronger coupling, as seen in the inset to Fig. 4, the effect of the singularity in the density of states is completely removed and the critical temperature follows the results for a structureless density of states. If $T_c^{max} / \Omega_0$ is plotted against the bare $\lambda$, the qualitative features of the curve are the same, but the $T_c$ enhancement is larger as one would expect from Tab. 3 and the results at very strong coupling do not scale as well as when the $T_c$’s are plotted against $\lambda_Z$.
We can understand these results in the following way. At small $\lambda$, $\lambda_Z$ is strongly enhanced by the presence of a singularity in the density of states, but it is approximately equal to $\lambda$ if there is no such structure. Comparison of critical temperatures at fixed $\lambda_Z$ therefore means that a much larger value of $\lambda$ is used in the flat density of states calculation and so the apparent effect of the singular density of states is reduced. At strong coupling, the enhanced scattering from the singular bare density of states acts to smear out the interacting density of states and so there is no $T_c$ enhancement. We note that the loss of the Van Hove singularity in the interacting density of states at strong coupling has been seen explicitly in recent calculations. [@Zhong]
It is clear from our results that strong-coupling calculations are required to make physical predictions of the critical temperature. The remaining question is: should one compare these strong-coupling critical temperatures at fixed $\lambda$ or fixed $\lambda_Z$? In our investigation of the possibility of a universal pairing interaction, it is the microscopic coupling $g$ and phonon energy $\Omega_0$ which would be fixed, yielding–for a given band width–a fixed $\lambda$. Our results in this case show little evidence for a universal pairing interaction due to the reduction of the effect of the Van Hove singularity on $T_c$. Alternatively, one can extract an effective coupling constant from transport measurements which would include the self-consistent effects of the density of states and so could be used to fix $\lambda_Z$. From earlier work,[@RULN; @Radtke] we found that the canonical values of $\lambda_{tr} \approx$ 0.2 to 0.4 extracted from optical conductivity in YBCO correspond to $\lambda_Z \approx$ 1, at least if spin fluctuations are the source of the resistivity. Similar estimates of $\lambda_Z$ have appeared in the literature regarding phonon coupling strengths. [@Allen] Based on this result and Fig. 4, we conclude that, while the Van Hove singularity does enhance $T_c$ systematically with the strength of the divergence in the density of states, the enhancement factor in this parameter region is at most around 50% and so by itself cannot account for the large $T_c$’s observed. In order to obtain a large $T_c$, either a large pairing interaction energy $\Omega_0$ or a modification of the pairing interaction due to the singularity is required, but it not known whether either effect is consistent with the observed linear resistivity of the cuprates.
In conclusion, we have performed Eliashberg computations of the critical temperature in superconductors with strongly singular densities of states chosen to model LSCO, YBCO, and BSCCO. We have demonstrated that, while the weak-coupling solutions do suggest a strong influence of the strength of the Van Hove singularity on $T_c$ and the existence of a universal pairing interaction in the cuprates, strong-coupling calculations show a reduced sensitivity to the singularity strength and do not support the notion that band structure effects alone can account for either the large $T_c$’s or the different $T_c$’s within the family of copper oxide superconductors. The reduced effect of the Van Hove singularities can be traced to the fact that the inelastic scattering included in strong-coupling calculations smears out the sharp structure in the density of states, producing a $T_c$ similar to that from a flat density of states. This effect is seen clearly when the results are plotted as a function of the physically relevant self-consistent coupling constant $\lambda_Z$ and leads to universal behavior at very strong coupling. If the Van Hove singularities in the electronic band structures of the cuprates are responsible for high-temperature superconductivity, then the effect must come in through vertex corrections, screening effects in the electron-pairing boson matrix elements, direct electronic interactions, or multi-band effects. Based on the results of this work, investigation into these effects now acquires additional importance.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (DMR 91-20000) through the Science and Technology Center for Superconductivity and DMR-MRL-8819860 (R.J.R.) and by the U. S. Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences, under Contract \#W-31-109-ENG-38 (M.R.N.).
J. Labbé, S. Barišić, and J. Friedel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}, 1039 (1967); S. Barišić, Phys. Rev. B [**5**]{}, 932 (1972).
S. G. Lie and J. P. Carbotte, Solid State Commun. [**34**]{}, 599 (1980).
P. Horsch and H. Rietschel, Z. Phys. B [**27**]{}, 153 (1977); S. J. Nettel and H. Thomas, Solid State Commun. [**21**]{}, 683 (1977).
B. Mitrović and J. P. Carbotte, Solid State Commun. [**40**]{}, 249 (1981); Can. J. Phys. [**61**]{}, 758 (1983); [*ibid.*]{} [**61**]{}, 784 (1983). See also S. G. Lie and J. P. Carbotte, Solid State Commun. [**26**]{}, 511 (1978); [*ibid.*]{} [**35**]{}, 127 (1980); E. Schachinger, B. Mitrović, and J. P. Carbotte, J. Phys. F [**12**]{}, 1771 (1982); and E. Schachinger, M. G. Greeson, and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 406 (1990).
W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B [**21**]{}, 3897 (1980); [*ibid.*]{} [**26**]{}, 1186 (1982); and W. E. Pickett and B. M. Klein, Solid State Commun. [**38**]{}, 95 (1981).
J. E. Hirsch and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 2732 (1986).
R. Combescot and J. Labbé, Physica C [**153-155**]{}, 204 (1988); J. Friedel, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**1**]{}, 7757 (1989).
D. M. Newns, C. C. Tsuei, P. C. Pattnaik, and C. L. Kane, Comments Conds. Mat. Phys. [**15**]{}, 273 (1992); C. C. Tsuei, D. M. Newns, C. C. Chi, and P. C. Pattnaik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2724 (1990); C. C. Tsuei, D. M. Newns, C. C. Chi, P. C. Pattnaik, and M. Däumling, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2134 (1992).
R. S. Markiewicz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**5**]{}, 2037 (1991).
K. Gofron [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**54**]{}, 1193 (1993) and unpublished.
A. A. Abrikosov, J. C. Campuzano, and K. Gofron, Physica C [**214**]{}, 73 (1993).
D. S. Dessau [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2781 (1993).
See, for example, P. B. Allen and B. Mitrović in [*Solid State Physics*]{}, Vol. 37, edited by H. Ehrenreich, F. Seitz, and D. Turnbull (Academic, New York, 1982).
R. J. Radtke, K. Levin, H.-B. Schüttler, and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 15957 (1993).
O. K. Andersen [*et al.*]{}, Physica C [**185-189**]{}, 147 (1991) and O. K. Andersen, O. Jepsen, A. I. Liechtenstein, and I. I. Mazin, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 4145 (1994).
A. B. Migdal, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**34**]{}, 1438 (1961) \[Sov. Phys.–JETP [**7**]{}, 996 (1958)\].
H. R. Krishnamurthy [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 3520 (1994).
G. D. Mahan, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 16557 (1993).
A. A. Abrikosov, Physica C [**222**]{}, 191 (1994).
D. M. Newns [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1264 (1992).
P. B. Allen and R. C. Dynes, Phys. Rev. B [**12**]{}, 905 (1975).
J. Zhong and H.-B. Schüttler (submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.).
R. J. Radtke, S. Ullah, K. Levin, and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 11975 (1992).
P. B. Allen, Comments Conds. Matt. Phys. [**15**]{}, 327 (1992).
----- ---------------------------------------------------------
$i$ $\eta_i ({\bf k})$
0 $1$
1 $\frac{1}{2} (\cos k_x + \cos k_y)$
2 $\cos k_x \cos k_y $
3 $\frac{1}{2} (\cos 2 k_x + \cos 2 k_y)$
4 $\frac{1}{2} (\cos 2k_x \cos k_y + \cos k_x \cos 2k_y)$
5 $\cos 2k_x \cos 2k_y $
----- ---------------------------------------------------------
: Two-dimensional, tight-binding basis functions used in the fits of the energy dispersion described in the text in units of the lattice spacing (a square unit cell is assumed).
------- ------- ------------- ------------- ------------ --------
LSCO YBCO(1,ext) YBCO(2,ext) YBCO(2,bf) BSCCO
$t_0$ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0607
$t_1$ -1.00 -0.50 -1.00 -1.00 -0.525
$t_2$ 0.20 0.15 0.38 0.38 0.100
$t_3$ 0.00 -0.05 -0.06 -0.09 0.0287
$t_4$ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.175
$t_5$ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0107
------- ------- ------------- ------------- ------------ --------
: Parameters $t_i$ in eV corresponding to the basis functions in Tab. 1 used to fit the LDA calculations and photoemission measurements of several cuprate superconductors. When $t_i$ is zero, this parameter was not included in the fit. For YBCO, in parenthesis are the band width (eV) and saddle point type (ext for extended, bf for bifurcated).
----------------- ------ ------ ------------- ------------- ------------ -------
Flat LSCO YBCO(1,ext) YBCO(2,ext) YBCO(2,bf) BSCCO
$n_{max}$ 1.00 0.82 0.55 0.48 0.45 0.92
Weak-coupling
$T_c^{max}$ (K) 3.1 54.2 59.4 95.0 97.5 139.
$\alpha$ 0.50 0.34 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.20
Strong-coupling
$T_c^{max}$ (K) 30.5 78.0 77.9 95.0 94.9 105.
$\alpha$ 0.51 0.43 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.40
$\lambda_Z$ 0.59 1.07 0.96 1.30 1.29 1.45
----------------- ------ ------ ------------- ------------- ------------ -------
: Band filling corresponding to maximum critical temperature, $n_{max}$, maximum critical temperature, $T_c^{max}$, isotope effect coefficient, $\alpha$, and self-consistent coupling constant, $\lambda_Z$, for the densities of states discussed in the text. Results are obtained from weak-coupling Eliashberg theory with $\lambda$ = 0.211 and strong-coupling Eliashberg theory with $\lambda$ = 0.627 in order to give a 95 K $T_c$ in the extended YBCO band structure with 2 eV band width. YBCO notation as in Tab. 2.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Annette A’Campo-Neuen, Mathematisches Institut, Universität Basel, Rheinsprung 2, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland'
- 'Norbert A’Campo, Mathematisches Institut, Universität Basel, Rheinsprung 2, CH-4051 Basel, Switzerland'
- 'Lizhen Ji, University of Michigan, Department of Mathematics, 2074 East Hall, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043, USA'
- 'Athanase Papadopoulos, Universit[é]{} de Strasbourg and CNRS, Institut de Recherche Mathématique Avancée, 7 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France'
author:
- 'A. A’Campo-Neuen'
- 'N. A’Campo'
- 'L. Ji'
- 'A. Papadopoulos'
title: |
A commentary on Teichmüller’s paper\
Veränderliche Riemannsche Flächen\
(Variable Riemann Surfaces)\
Deutsche Math. 7, 344-359 (1944)
---
This paper is the last one that Teichmüller wrote on the problem of moduli. At most places the paper contains ideas and no technical details. The author presents a completely new approach to Teichmüller space, compared to the approach he took in his first seminal paper “Extremale quasikonforme Abbildungen und quadratische Differentiale" [@T1939] (and its sequel [@T1943] in which he completed some of the the results stated in [@T1939]).
In the paper [@T1939], Teichmüller led the foundations of what we call today Teichmüller theory (but without the complex structure), defining its metric and introducing in that theory the techniques of quasiconformal mappings and of quadratic differentials as essential tools. In the present paper, the approach is more abstract, through complex analytic geometry. Teichmüller space, equipped with its complex-analytic structure, is characterized here by a certain universal property. A fibre bundle is constructed, an object which today bears the name “Teichmüller universal curve".
It seems that Teichmüller considered that the methods of his 1939 paper [@T1939] could not lead to the definition of a complex structure for Teichmüller space.[^1] The present paper is very different in spirit than the previous ones, and it did not attract much attention, compared to his previous papers on the subject, which were thoroughly analyzed and commented by Ahlfors, Bers and the schools they founded.[^2] The new approach to the moduli problem that Teichmüller presents in the paper that is the subject of this commentary is so different from the previous ones that is seems that Teichmüller himself was not sure that the space he obtains through the present techniques is the same as the space he introduced in his previous papers through the quasiconformal map approach. That the paper was not read carefully by other mathematicians is testified by the fact that the paper is very rarely cited in the mathematical literature, and that there are results and methods in this paper that were rediscovered later on without always referring to Teichmüller. Among these, we mention:
1. The existence and uniqueness of the universal Teichmüller curve, rediscovered later on by Ahlfors and by Bers. At the same time, this introduced the first fibre bundle over Teichmüller space.
2. The proof of the fact that the automorphisms group of the univeral Teichmüller curve is the extended mapping class group.
3. The idea of a fine moduli space.[^3]
4. The idea of using the period map to define a complex structure on Teichmüller space.
While commenting more on these facts, we shall give a quick review of the content of the paper.
Teichmüller starts by recalling that it was known before him, but only by heuristic arguments, that the number of complex parameters for the set of equivalence classes of Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ is
$$\tau=\begin{cases} 0 & \hbox{ if } g=0 \\
1 & \hbox{ if } g=1 \\
3(g-1) & \hbox{ if } g>1.
\end{cases}$$ He declares that several authors came up with these numbers using different methods, but that in reality these authors were not capable of saying precisely what they were counting. He considers that the fact that the various counts lead to the same value is a sort of a miracle, since the methods that were used were not rigorous. Teichmüller then says that these numbers, in order to be meaningful, should represent a dimension, and that in order to discuss the dimension of a set (in the present case, of moduli space), one has to turn this set into some “space with a notion of neighborhood".[^4] It appears here that Teichmüller was the first person who formulated in such precise terms the moduli problem for Riemann surfaces.
Teichmüller then emphasizes that one should not primarily ask for an explicit representation of points in the moduli space via numbers in a coordinate system (an approach which seems to have been suggested by Riemann’s work), but that one should rather study the inner structure of that space. He then goes on saying that not only one would like to have on the set of moduli $\mathfrak{R}$ the structure of a topological space or of an algebraic variety, but one would also like to have the structure of an analytic manifold, that is to say, of a nonsingular complex space. Teichmüller says that this is not possible because $\mathfrak{R}$ “contains certain singular manifolds". In modern language, this corresponds to the fact that moduli space is an orbifold and not a manifold. He therefore constructs a covering $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$ of $\mathfrak{R}$ that has no singularities. The space $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$ is the space that was called later on *Teichmüller space*.[^5]
Teichmüller then gives a short overview of his results and methods, and he notes that he will not be able to publish details “in the near future".[^6] He announces that his solution to the problem of moduli is based on three newly introduced notions:
1. *The “topological determination" of Riemann surfaces*: this is the notion that we call today a “marking" of a Riemann surface. Here, a Riemann surface is equipped with a fixed homotopy class of homeomorphisms from a fixed Riemann surface. We note that Teichmüller had already introduced markings in his 1939 paper [@T1939].
2. *The notion of an analytic family of Riemann surfaces*: this notion plays a central role in this paper as well as in the later developments of Teichmüller theory. It has been reintroduced later on by several authors working on moduli spaces, and below, we shall mention in particular Grothendieck.
3. *The notion of “turning piece coordinates"*: this is a operation of modifying the complex structure in the regular neighborhood of a simple closed curve in a Riemann surface. The complex automorphism group of the annulus is $S^1$ and the turning piece deformation can be considered in some sense as an ancestor of a complex analogue of the Fenchel-Nielsen deformation.
After this introduction, Teichmüller defines the moduli space $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$ and the action of the mapping class group on that space. He formulates the *problem of moduli* as, a priori, the “problem of asking for the properties of the space $\mathfrak{R}$". He says that however, it turns out that it is better to study, rather than the space $\mathfrak{R}$, its covering $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$. A formulation of the problem of moduli is again given in a more precise form.
Teichmüller then introduces the notion of an analytic $n$-dimensional manifold, defined by coordinate charts with holomorphic coordinate changes. It seems that this is one of the first appearances of such a definition in the mathematical literature. We can quote here Remmert ([@Remmert1998] p. 225):
> It seems difficult to locate the first paper where complex manifolds explicitly occur. In 1944 they appear in Teichmüller’s work on “Veränderliche Riemannsche Flächen" (*Collected Papers*, p. 714); here we find for the first time the German expression “komplex analytische Mannigfaltigkeit". The English “complex manifold" occurs in Chern’s work ([@Chern1946] p. 103); he recalls the definition (by an atlas) just in passing. And in 1947 we find “variété analytique complexe" in the title of Weil’s paper [@Weil1947]. Overnight complex manifolds blossomed everywhere.
In any case, it is an interesting fact that the first example of a complex manifold of higher dimension (other than the example of a domain of $\mathbb{C}^n$, $n\geq 2$) that appeared in the literature is precisely a space of (equivalence classes) of marked complex manifolds of dimension one.[^7]
Teichmüller then introduces the notion of an *analytic family of Riemann surfaces*. In modern language, this is a fiber bundle $\mathfrak{M}$ over an analytic base space $\mathfrak{B}$, the fibers being Riemann surfaces. The fiber bundle is locally trivial from the differentiable point of view (but not from the analytic point of view, since in a trivializing product neighborhood, two fibres are generally not isomorphic as Riemann surfaces).
A particularly interesting analytic family of Riemann surfaces is the one where the base space $\mathfrak{B}$ is Teichmüller space and where the fibre above each point is a marked Riemann surface representing the point itself. In this case the fiber bundle is called, in modern language, the *universal Teichmüller curve*, or the *Teichmüller curve*.
We note that Teichmüller curve has been re-introduced later on in the mathematical literature, in general with no reference to Teichmüller’s paper.
The fibre bundle approach to Teichmüller space was expanded and made precise by several authors, see e.g. Ahlfors [@Ahlfors-Some], Bers [@Bers1958], [@Grothendieck] and Earle and Eells [@EE]. In Ahlfors’ paper 1961 [@Ahlfors-Some] and in Bers’ 1961 paper [@Bers1958] this fiber bundle is used to define the complex structure on Teichmüller space.[^8] The Teichmüller curve turned out to be an extremely important object in Hodge theory.
Teichmüller’s aim was to show that the Teichmüller curve is a complex manifold of dimension $3g-2$.
In the general setting where the base $\mathfrak{B}$ is an analytic manifold with fibers being Riemann surfaces, Teichmüller introduces a notion he calls *permanent uniformizing local parameter*,[^9] which is a local analytic coordinate system that gives an analytic parameter on each of the fiber Riemann surfaces. Thus, Teichmüller gets a coordinate $t$ that works locally for a family of Riemann surfaces that are above points in $\mathfrak{B}$, which, together with the local $r$-dimensional parameters of $\mathfrak{B}$ produces a system of $(r+1)$-dimensional parameters of $\mathfrak{M}$ as an $(r+1)$-complex manifold. He states that such permanent uniformizing parameters exist.
The surfaces that are the fibers of the bundle over the space $\mathfrak{B}$ are *a priori* not marked. Teichmüller shows that from a marking on one fiber one can obtain a marking on nearby fibers. He then says that by well-known principles, from the space $\mathfrak{B}$ one can construct a “relatively unramified" covering $\underline{\mathfrak{B}}$ of $\mathfrak{B}$ and where the surfaces above points of $\underline{\mathfrak{B}}$ are marked surfaces.
Teichmüller then states an existence and uniqueness theorem for a globally analytic family of marked (Teichmüller says “topologically determined") surfaces $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{c}]$, where $\mathfrak{c}$ runs over a $\tau$-dimensional complex analytic manifold $\mathfrak{C}$ such that for any marked Riemann surface $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}$ of genus $g$ there is one and only one $\mathfrak{c}$ such that the Riemann surface $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}$ is conformally equivalent to an $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{c}]$ and such that the family $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{c}]$ satisfies the following universal property: If $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{p}]$ is any globally analytic family of Riemann surfaces with base $\mathfrak{B}$, there is a holomorphic map $f:\mathfrak{B}\to\mathfrak{C}$ such that the family $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{p}]$ is the pull-back by $f$ of the family $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{c}]$. Teichmüller states that such a family $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{c}]$ exists and that it is *essentially* unique. From the context, and stated in modern terms, essential uniqueness means that the family is unique up to the action of the mapping class group.
The complex analytic manifold $\mathfrak{C}$, which is the base space of the family $\underline{\mathfrak{H}}[\frak{c}]$, is the object that we call today Teichmüller space. This existence and uniqueness result was rediscovered by Grothendieck, who gave a complete proof of it in an algebro-geometric language that is different from Teichmüller’s. Grothendieck gave a series of talks on this subject at Cartan’s seminar (1960-1961), and written texts of these talks were circulated and published. Grothendieck’s statement is more general than that of Teichmüller; it is expressed in terms of a universal property, concerning (using Grothendieck’s wording) a “rigidifying functor" $\mathcal{P}$ relative to a discrete group $\gamma$, which can be taken in particular as the “Teichmüller rigidifying functor", and where $\gamma$ is the mapping class group. Grothendieck’s statement is the following (in this statement, $T$ is Teichmüller space.):
> Theorem 3.1.—There exists an analytic space $T$ and a $\mathcal{P}$-algebraic curve $V$ above $T$ which are universal in the following sense: For every $\mathcal{P}$-algebraic curve $X$ above an analytic space $S$, there exists a unique morphism $g$ from $S$ to $T$ such that $X$ (together with its $\mathcal{P}$-structure) is isomorphic to the pull-back of $V/T$ by $g$.[^10]
Grothendieck deduces the following corollary (in which $\gamma$ is, as before, the mapping class group):
> Proposition 3.3.— Let $X,X'$ be two $\mathcal{P}$-curves above $S$, defined respectively by morphisms $f,f'$ from $S$ in $T$. Assume that $S$ is connected and nonempty. Then the set of $S$-isomorphisms $X \stackrel{\sim}\to X'$ for the underlying curves (without the $\mathcal{P}$-structures), is in canonical one-to-one correspondence with the set of $u\in\gamma$ satisfying $f'=\overline{u}\circ f$.[^11]
This is a rigidity statement concerning the mapping class group. The mapping class group is canonically identified as the group of isomorphism classes of $\mathcal{P}$-curves.
This statement about the existence and uniqueness of the Teichmüller curve up to the mapping class group action can be considered as the first among a series of results that were obtained later on on the rigidity of mapping class group actions, the next (and probably the most famous) one being Royden’s result stating that the automorphism group of the complex structure of Teichmüller space is the extended mapping class group, cf. [@Royden1971]. The existence and uniqueness of the universal family was later on constructed independently by Ahlfors and Bers, see the historical remarks in [@EM].
Teichmüller considers that this theorem solves the *moduli problem*,[^12] and on this occasion he formulates more precisely this problem: The space $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$ of all classes of analytic marked surfaces of genus $g$ is made into a complex analytic manifold by identifying it to the base space $\mathfrak{C}$ of the universal analytic family. This endows Teichmüller space at the same time with a complex analytic structure and with a topology.[^13] Teichmüller’s proof of this theorem uses tools from algebraic geometry, as well as the algebro-geometric language of *divisors*, *principal parts* and *places*. He states a second theorem which is needed in the proof of the first one, result concerning the “determination of a function by generalized systems of principal parts". In this contex, Riemann surfaces are studied through function fields. A Riemann surface is viewed as a field with degree of transcendence 1 over $\mathbb{C}$. The places in the field give back the surface.
Teichmüller then introduces the notion of *turning piece* and the one of *turning piece coordinate* of a turning piece. This is a method of varying the complex structure of a surface which is given, in the tradition of Riemann, as a branched covering of the plane associated to an algebraic function. The analytic functions are determined by a “generalized system of principal parts". The analytic structure of Teichmüller space is defined by varying the coefficients of these functions.
Teichmüller states that his space $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$ “consists of at most countably many connected parts", and he “thinks that $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$ in fact is simply connected". Thus, he was not sure that the space $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$ he defines in this paper is the same as the Teichmüller space he defined in his 1939 paper [@T1939] using the quasiconformal theory. It is interesting to note here that Grothendieck solved this issue. Indeed, after introducing the definition of Teichmüller space using the universal property, as we recalled above, Grothendieck writes, in ([@Grothendieck] 7-08):
> It is also easy to check, using if needed a paper by Bers [@Bers-Tata], that the space we introduce axiomatically here (if this space exists, and we shall prove this fact) is isomorphic to the Teichmüller space of the analysts. It follows that Teichmüller space is homeomorphic to a ball, and therefore contractible, in particular connected and simply connected. A fortiori, the Jacobi spaces of all levels are connected, as is the moduli space $M$ introduced in Section 5 as a quotient space of Teichmüller space. It seems that at the time being there is no algebro-geometric proof even of the fact that moduli space is connected (which we can interpret in algebraic geometry by saying that two curves of the same genus $g$ are part of a family of algebraic curves parametrized by a connected algebraic variety).[^14]
Then Teichmüller goes on studying the moduli space, that is, the space obtained by forgetting the marking. The description is very brief. (He says: “At last I want to mention briefly what happens when releasing the topological determination".) He recalls the definition of the mapping class group together with its action on the space of equivalence classes of marked surfaces, he shows that this action is properly discontinuous, and he defines the moduli space to be the quotient of Teichmüller space by this action. He considers what he calls the *exceptional points* of $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$; they lie on a certain analytic submanifold of $\underline{\mathfrak{R}}$. These points are stabilized by nontrivial finite groups of the mapping class groups, and they are obstructions for the moduli space to be a complex manifold. He shows that some of these points are *substantial singularities*, that is, moduli space is not a manifold at these points.
In the last part of the paper, Teichmüller introduces the idea that the period matrices of differentials of the first kind can be used to study the complex structure of moduli space, and he states that hyperelliptic points may cause problems. This program on defining the complex structure via the period map was carried on later by several authors including Rauch, who defined a complex structure away from hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces and showed that moduli space has non-uniformizable singularities at the surfaces which admit non-trivial conformal automorphisms, see [@Rauch] and [@Rauch-Weierstrass]. Ahlfors [@Ahlfors-Some] also used the period map to define the complex structure of Teichmüller space, hence completing the program of Rauch.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The authors are grateful to Bill Abikoff, Cliff Earle and Bill Harvey for valuable comments during the preparation of this commentary.
[99]{}
W. Abikoff, Review of *The complex analytic theory of Teichmüller space* by S. Nag, *Bull. Amer. Math.* (N.S.) Volume 21, Number 1 (1989), 162-168.
L. V. Ahlfors, On quasiconformal mappings, *Jour. d’Analyse Math.* Volume 3, 1-58 (1954).
L. V. Ahlfors, The complex analytic structure of the space of closed Riemann surfaces. Princeton Math. Ser. 24, 45-66 (1960). *Collected papers*, Vol. II, pp. 123-145.
L. V. Ahlfors, Some remarks on Teichmüller’s space of Riemann surfaces.*Ann. Math.* (2) 74, 171-191 (1961). *Collected papers*, Vol. II, pp. 156-176.
Ahlfors, Lars V., Quasiconformal mappings and their applications. *Lect. on Modern Math.* 2: 151–164. *Collected papers* Vol. II, p. 301–314.
L. Bers, Spaces of Riemann surfaces. *Proc. Int. Congr. Math.* 1958, 349-361 (1960).
L. Bers, Uniformization and moduli, Contrib. Function Theory, Int. Colloqu. Bombay, Jan. 1960, 41-49 (1960).
S. S. Chern, Characteristic classes of Hermitian manifolds. *Ann. Math.* (2) 47, 85-121 (1946).
C. J. Earle and J. Eells, A fibre bundle description of Teichmüller theory, *J. Differ. Geom.* 3, 19–43 (1969).
C. J. Earle and A. Marden, Existence and uniqueness theorems for holomorphic families of Riemann surfaces, to appear in *Contemporary Mathematics*.
C. J. Earle, Teichmüller spaces as complex manifolds, in *Teichmüller Theory and Moduli Problem*, pp. 5-33. Lecture Notes Series, 10, Ramanujan Mathematical Society, Mysore, 2010.
A. Grothendieck, Techniques de construction en géométrie algébrique, *Séminaire Cartan*, Paris, 1960-61, Exposés 1–20.
L. Ji and A. Papadopoulos, Historical development of Teichmüller Theory, *Archive for History of Exact Sciences*, Springer Verlag, to appear (Online version, June 28, 2012, pp. 1-29)
K. Kodaira and D. C. Spencer, On deformations of complex analytic structures. I, II. *Ann. Math*. (2) 67, 328-401, 403–466 (1958).
H. E. Rauch, A transcendental view of the space of algebraic Riemann surfaces. *Bull. Am. Math. Soc.* 71, 1-39 (1965); errata ibid. 74, 767 (1968).
H. E. Rauch, Weierstrass points, branch points, and moduli of Riemann surfaces. *Commun. Pure Appl. Math.* 12, 543-560 (1959); addendum ibid. 13, 165 (1960).
B. Riemann, *Gesammelte mathematische Werke* (H. Weber and R. Dedekind, editors), Teubner, Leipzig, 1862.
B. Riemann, Theorie der Abel’schen Functionen (The theory of Abelian functions). Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 54, pp. 115–155 (1857). Reprinted in his *Gesammelte mathematische Werke* [@Riemann-Gesammelte], pp. 88–144.
R. Remmert, From Riemann surfaces to complex spaces. Material on the history of mathematics in the 20th century. Proceedings of the colloquium to the memory of Jean Dieudonné, Nice, France, January 1996. Marseille: Société Mathématique de France. Sémin. Congr. 3, 203-241 (1998).
H. L. Royden, Automorphisms and isometries of Teichmüller space. Adv. Theory Riemann Surfaces, Proc. 1969 Stony Brook Conf., 369-383 (1971).
O. Teichmüller, Extremale quasikonforme Abbildungen und quadratische Differentiale. *Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Math.-Naturw. Kl.* 22, pp. 1-197 (1940), Collected Works, Springer Verlag, 337-531.
O. Teichmüller, Bestimmung der extremalen quasikonformen Abbildungen bei geschlossenen orientierten Riemannschen Flächen. *Abh. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Math.-Naturw. Kl.* 1943, No.4, 42 p. (1943).
A. Weil, Sur la théorie des formes différentielles attachées à une variété analytique complexe. *Comment. Math. Helv. 20*. 110-116 (1947).
A. Weil, *Collected Papers*, Three volumes. Springer Verlag, 1979, 2nd printing, 2009.
[^1]: One can say *a posteriori* that Teichmüller was wrong in that, since we know now that the complex structure of Teichmüller space can be defined using quasiconformal mappings. Let us quote in this respect Ahlfors, who was the first to derive the complex structure of Teichmüller space from the quasiconformal theory. Ahlfors writes in [@Ahlfors1960]: “Teichmüller states explicitly, in 1944, that his metrization is of no use for the construction of an analytic structure. The present author disagrees and will show that the metrization and the corresponding parametrization are at least very convenient tools for setting up the desired structure." We also add by the way that we know today that conversely, the Teichmüller metric can be recovered from the complex structure, since Royden showed that the Teichmüller metric coincides with the Kobayashi metric. Today, the complex structure of Teichmüller space is usually presented using the variational theory of the Beltrami equation, which is part of the quasiconformal theory. In this theory, Teichmüller space is realized as a quotient space of the unit ball in a Banach space of measurable Beltrami differentials over a fixed Riemann surface. The origin of the idea is in Teichmüller’s 1939 paper [@T1939] although, as we said, Teichmüller was not aware of thie fact. For a concise survey on this point of view on the complex structure of Teichmüller space, we refer the reader to the paper [@E] by Earle.
[^2]: One reason why this paper did not attract much attention may be that Teichmüller’s papers were examined by analysts and not by geometers, and the approach in this paper is algebro-geometric. Another reason is that the paper appeared in *Deutsche Mathematik*, an ephemeral journal founded by Bieberbach to which very few libraries outside Germany subscribed. The journal contained, in the first two issues, articles presenting the Nazi viewpoint on the influence of race on mathematics. About the difficulty of reading Teichmüller’s papers, we can quote Ahlfors from his 1954 paper *On quasiconformal mappings* [@Ahlfors1954], referring to the results of Teichmüller’s 1939 paper [@T1939]: “For the sake of completeness we have not hesitated to reproduce some of Teichmüller’s reasonings almost without change. One good reason for this is that the Teichmüller papers are not easily available. Another reason is that it requires considerabe effort to extricate Teichmüller’s complete and incontestable proofs from the maze of conjectures in which they are hidden."
[^3]: A fine moduli space is a fiber space where the isomorphism type of the fibre determines the point below it.
[^4]: Teichmüller writes that “as long as $\mathfrak{R}$ is not a space with a notion of neighborhood, it does not have a dimension in the sense of analysis or set theory". In this context, the expression “set theory" means topology.
[^5]: It was probably André Weil who first proposed the name “Teichmüller space"; see Weil’s comments in his *Collected Papers* ([@Weil-Collected] Vol. II, p. 546), where Weil writes: “\[...\] this led me to the decision of writing up my observations on the moduli of curves and on what I called ‘Teichmüller space’ \[...\]"; see also the historical comments in [@JP].
[^6]: Teichmüller died the same year, at the age of 30.
[^7]: Of course, Teichmüller space was not known yet to be a complex domain. An embedding of that space in a $\mathbb{C}^N$ was discovered later on.
[^8]: Ahlfors, in his paper, says about his method (p. 171) that “this approach is essentially due to Bers", and Bers writes (p. 356) that “the existence of a ‘natural’ complex structure in $\mathcal{T}_g$ has been asserted by Teichmüller; the first proof was given by Ahlfors after Rauch showed how to introduce complex-analytic co-ordinates in the neighborhood of any point which is not a hyperelliptic surface. Other proofs are due to Kodaira-Spencer and to Weil". Bers writes, at the beginning of the section on the analytic structure: “The results of this and the following section confirm and extend some of Teichmüller’s assertions in the paper *Veränderliche Riemannsche Flächen*. They also show that the complex-analytic structure defined above is natural and coincides with that of Rauch-Ahlfors." We note by the way that the tangent bundle sequence of the bundle of Riemann surfaces is at the basis of the Kodaira-Spencer theory of infinitesimal deformations of Riemann surfaces [@KS], which also provides a description of the complex structure of Teichmüller space. Grothendieck’s work on Teichmüller space is based on the consideration of analytic fiber bundles over surfaces (Grothendieck calls them “algebraic curves of genus $g$), whose fibers are Riemann surfaces of genus $g$, cf. [@Grothendieck], Expoé 7 and ff. Finally, let us note that the fiber bundle approach was also used to define analytic vector bundles, the most natural one being obtained by taking above each point of the base space the tangent bundle of the surface in the fiber. The study of characteristic classes of fiber bundles over moduli space, led to several important developments. We mention on this subject the Mumford conjecture (solved by Madsen) and the Witten conjecture (solved by Kontsevich).
[^9]: This term, an English translation of the German “permanente Ortsuniformisierende" is also used by Bers in [@Bers1958].
[^10]: ([@Grothendieck] p. 7-08) \[Théorème 3.1.— Il existe un espace analytique $T$, et une $\mathcal{P}$-courbe algébrique $V$ au-dessus de $T$, qui soient universels au sens suivant : Pour toute $\mathcal{P}$-courbe algébrique $X$ au-dessus d’un espace analytique $S$, il existe un morphisme et un seul $g$ de $S$ dans $T$, tel que $X$ soit isomorphe (avec sa $\mathcal{P}$-structure) à l’image inverse par $g$ de $V/T$\]. It seems that Grothendieck have heard of Teichmüller’s papers, but like many others, he did not read them. Teichmüller’s work on the problem of moduli had nevertheless an enormous influence on Grotendieck, who declares, in the introduction to this paper (Exposé 7, whose title is: “An axiomatic description of Teichmüller space and its variants" \[Description axiomatique de l’espace de Teichmüller et de ses variantes\]: “In doing this, the necessity of rewriting the foundations of analytic geometry will become manifest". \[Chemin faisant, la nécessité deviendra manifeste de revoir les fondements de la Géométrie analytique\]. It seems that the analysts working on Teichmüller theory had heard about Grothendieck’s work, but did not understand it. We can quote here Abikoff, in a report he published in 1989 in the Bulletin of the AMS [@Abikoff], on an book by Nag: “First, algebraic geometers took us, the noble but isolated practitioners of this iconoclastic discipline, under their mighty wings. We learned the joys of providing lemmas solving partial differential and integral equations and various other nuts and bolts results. These served to render provable such theorems as: The ?%$\sharp$\$! is representable." Let us also quote Ahlfors, from his 1964 survey on quasiconformal mappings [@A1964] (p. 152), talking about Teichmüller’s 1944 paper: “In a final effort Teichmüller produced a solution of the structure problem, by an entirely different method, but it was so cumbersome that it is doubtful whether anybody else has checked all the details. \[...\] It is only fair to mention, at this point, that the algebraists have also solved the problem of moduli, in some sense even more completely than the analysts. Because of the different language, it is at present difficult to compare the algebraic and analytic methods, but it would seem that both have their own advantages.
[^11]: ([@Grothendieck] p. 7-10) \[Proposition 3.3.— Soient $X,X'$ deux $\mathcal{P}$-courbes au-dessus de $S$, définies respectivement par des morphismes $f,f'$ de $S$ dans $T$. Supposons $S$ connexe non vide. Alors l’ensemble des $S$-isomorphismes $X \stackrel{\sim}\to X'$ pour les courbes sous-jacentes (sans $\mathcal{P}$-structures), est en correspondance biunivoque canonique avec l’ensemble des $u\in\gamma$ tels que $f'=\overline{u}\circ f$\].
[^12]: It is interesting to note that Grothendieck, after stating his main theorem (Theorem 3.1, stated above), makes a remark similar to that of Teichmüller (p. 7-10 of [@Grothendieck]): “We shall see in the next sections that the analytic space $T$, equipped with the automorphism group $\gamma$, can be considered as a satisfying solution to the ‘moduli problem’ for curves of genus $g$" \[Nous verrons dans les paragraphes suivants que l’espace analytique $T$, muni du groupe d’automorphismes $\gamma$, peut être considéré comme une solution satisfaisant du “problème des modules" pour les courbes de genre $g$\].
[^13]: Let us note that it was indeed considered, although this was not clearly stated, that the problem of moduli consists in defining a complex structure on moduli space. We can quote here Ahlfors, from his 1960 paper [@Ahlfors1960], in which he writes the following: “The classical problem \[of moduli\] calls for a complex analytic structure rather than a metric \[...\] The problem is not a clear cut one, and several formulations seem equally reasonable".
[^14]: \[Il est d’ailleurs facile, de vérifier, utilisant au besoin un exposé de Bers [@Bers-Tata], que l’espace introduit axiomatiquement ici (s’il existe, ce que nous prouverons) est isomorphe à l’espace de Teichmüller des analystes. Il en résulte que l’espace de Teichmüller est homéomorphe à une boule, et par suite contractile, en particulier connexe et simplement connexe. A fortiori, les espaces de Jacobi de tout échelon sont connexes, ainsi que l’espace des modules $M$ introduit au paragraphe 5 comme un espace quotient de l’espace de Teichmüller. Il semble qu’il n’existe pas à l’heure actuelle de démonstration, par voie algébrico-géométrique, même du fait que l’espace des modules est connexe, (ce qui s’interprète en géométrie algébrique en disant que deux courbes algébriques de même genre $g$ font partie d’une famille de courbes algébriques paramétrée par une variété algébrique connexe)\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '*Albert Clop, Renjin Jiang, Joan Mateu & Joan Orobitg*'
title: |
**Flows for non-smooth vector fields\
with subexponentially integrable divergence**
---
In this paper, we study flows associated to Sobolev vector fields with subexponentially integrable divergence. Our approach is based on the transport equation following DiPerna-Lions [@dl89]. A key ingredient is to use a quantitative estimate of solutions to the Cauchy problem of transport equation to obtain the regularity of density functions.
Introduction
============
Since the fundamental work by DiPerna-Lions [@dl89], the study of flows associated to non-smooth vector fields has attracted intensive interest, and has been found many applications in PDEs. The problem can be formulated as follows. Given a Sobolev (or more generally BV) vector field $b:[0,T]\times \rn\to\rn$, does there exist a unique Borel map $X:[0,T]\times \rn\to\rn$, such that $$\label{ODE}
\dfrac{\partial }{\partial t}X(t,x)=b(t,X(t,x))$$ for a.e. $x\in\rn$? If this ODE is well-posed, then how about the regularity of the solution $X$?\
\
In the seminal work by DiPerna and Lions [@dl89], the existence of flows for Sobolev velocity fields with bounded divergence was established. Their main ingredient was a careful analysis of the well posedness of the initial value problem for the linear transport equation, $$\label{transportPDE}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}+b\cdot \nabla u=0 & (0,T)\times\,\rn,\\
u(0,\cdot)=u_0 & \rn.
\end{cases}$$ In their arguments, the notion of renormalized solution was shown to be essential. Later, Ambrosio [@a04] extended the renormalization property to the setting of bounded variation ($BV$) vector fields, and obtained the non-smooth flows by using some new tools from Probability and Calculus of Variations. Crippa and De Lellis [@cdl08] used a direct approach to recover DiPerna-Lions’ theory; see also Bouchut and Crippa [@bc13]. Recently, in [@acf14], Ambrosio, Colombo and Figalli developed a purely local theory on flows for non-smooth vector fields as a natural analogy of the Cauchy-Lipschitz approach.\
\
Continuing our previous work about the transport equation [@cjmo], in this paper we are concerned with the existence of flows for Sobolev vector fields having sub-exponentially integrable divergence. Let us review some developments in this spirit. In [@d96], Desjardins showed existence and uniqueness of non-smooth flows for velocity fields having exponentially integrable divergence. Later, Cipriano and Cruzeiro [@cc05] analyzed the flows for Sobolev vector fields with exponentially integrable divergence in the setting of Euclidean spaces equipped with Gaussian measures; see [@af09] for related progresses in Wiener spaces.\
\
As already noticed in [@cc05; @af09], when the divergence of the velocity field is not bounded, the solution $X(t,\cdot)$ of equation still induces a quasi-invariant measure. This motivates the following definition.
\[defi\] Let $b: [0,T]\times \rn\to\rn$ be a Borel vector field, and $X,\,\tilde X: [0,T ]\times [0,T]\times \rn\to\rn$ be Borel maps.
- We say that $X$ is a forward flow associated to $b$ if for each $s\in [0,T]$ and almost every $x\in\rn$ the map $t\mapsto\,|b(t, X(s, t, x))|$ belongs to $L^1(s,T )$ and $$X(s,t, x) = x +\int_s^t b(r,X(s,r,x))\,dr.$$ We say that $\tilde X$ is a backward flow associated to $b$ if for each $t\in [0,T]$ and almost every $x\in\rn$ the map [$s\mapsto\,|b(s, \tilde X(s, t, x))|$]{} belongs to [$L^1(0,t)$]{} and $$\tilde X(s,t, x) = x -\int_s^t b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))\,dr.$$
- We say that $X$ is a regular flow associated to $b$ if:
1. $X$ is either a forward or a backward flow associated to $b$;
2. for $0\le s\le t\le T$ the image measure $X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}\,dx$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure $\,dx$.
- We say that a forward flow $X$ associated with $b$ has the semigroup structure if for all $0\le r\le s\le t\le T$, it holds that $$X(s,t,X(r,s,x))=X(r,t,x), \ a.e.\ x\in\rn.$$ We say that a backward flow $\tilde X$ associated with $b$ has the semigroup structure if for all $0\le r\le s\le t\le T$, it holds that $$\tilde X(r,s,\tilde X(s,t,x))=\tilde X(r,t,x), \ a.e.\ x\in\rn.$$
In this paper, we study regular flows as defined above. As in [@cc05], in our arguments sometimes it will be convenient to replace the Lebesgue measure $dx$ by the Gaussian measure $\mu$ on $\rn$, i.e., $$\,d\mu(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\exp\left\{-\frac{|x|^2}{2}\right\}\,dx.$$ The distributional divergence of a vector field $b$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ is then defined via $$\mathrm{div}_\mu b(x)=\mathrm{div}\,b(x)-x\cdot b(x), \quad \forall\,x\in\rn,$$ that is, $\mathrm{div}_\mu$ is the adjoint of the gradient operator with respect to the measure $\mu$. This operator appears to be useful, among other reasons because it commutes with the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck smoothing semigroup [@cc05; @af09].\
\
Our main result deals with existence and uniqueness of a regular flow for non-smooth vector fields with subexponentially integrable divergence. Due to the scheme of the proof, we found it convenient to state it in two steps. First, [ for all $s\ge 0,$]{} we state the existence and uniqueness of a flow for which all $t$-advance maps [$X(s,t,\cdot)$]{} leave the Gaussian measure quasi-invariant, together with a quantitative estimate of this fact. Secondly, we state that the Lebesgue measure is also quasi-invariant, so that the flow we have found is indeed a regular flow. Moreover, we also state the semigroup structure of the flow. The precise statement is as follows.
Let $b\in L^1(0,T;W^{1,1}_{\mathrm{loc}})$ satisfying $$\label{hyp-b-1}
\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+(|x|)}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty),$$ and $$\label{hyp-b-2}
\div_\mu b\in L^1\left(0,T; \Exp_\mu\left(\frac{L}{\log L}\right)\right).$$ Then the following statements hold.
1. There exist a forward flow $X(s,t,x)$ and a backward flow $\tilde X(s,t,x)$, associated to $b$, which are unique in the sense that, for $0\le s\le t\le T$:
\(i) $X(s,t,\tilde X(s,t,x))=\tilde X(s,t,X(s,t,x))=x,\ a.e. \,x\in \rn;$
\(ii) the image measures $X(s, t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu $ and $\tilde
X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu$ are absolutely continuous with respect to $d\mu$, and $$\frac{d }{d\mu}\,(X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t -\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))\,dr\right\}
\in L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)\hspace{.3cm}\text{ for every
}0<\alpha<\alpha_0(s,t),$$ $$\frac{d }{d\mu}\,(\tilde X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t \mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(r,X(s,r,x))\,dr\right\}
\in L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)\hspace{.3cm}\text{ for every
}0<\alpha<\alpha_0(s,t),$$ where $\Phi_\alpha(r)=r\exp\{[\log^+(r)]^\alpha\}$ and $\alpha_0(s,t)=\exp\left\{-16e^2\int_s^t\|\mathrm{div}_\mu
b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}\,dr\right\}.$
2. The unique flows $X(s,t,x)$ and $\tilde X(s,t,x)$ given in (a) are regular and have semigroup structure.
It is worth mentioning here that, under condition , the assumption is equivalent to $$\div b\in L^1\left(0,T; \Exp_\mu\left(\frac{L}{\log L}\right)\right).$$ Concerning the optimality of , it was proven in [@cjmo Section 6] that for every $\gamma>1$ there exists a velocity field $b$ with $$\label{optimal}
\div b\in L^1\left(0,T; \Exp_\mu\left(\frac{L}{\log^\gamma L}\right)\right)$$ for which admits infinitely many solutions $X$ satisfying (i) and (iii) in Definition \[defi\]. However, we do not know if is sufficient or not to guarantee existence and uniqueness of solutions $X$ satisfying (i), (ii) and (iii) in Definition \[defi\].\
\
Towards the proof of the Main Theorem, the main ingredient is the following *a priori* quantitative estimate for the density function [$\frac{d }{d\mu}\,(X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu)$]{}.
\[subexp-cr\] Let $b(t,\cdot)\in C^2(\rn)$ for each $t\in [0,T]$ and satisfy and . Then for $0\le s\le t\le T$, there exists a unique flow $X(s,t,x)$ such that $$\dfrac{\partial X(s,t,x)}{\partial t}=b(t,X(s,t,x)), \qquad {X(s,s,x)=x.}$$ Moreover, for $0<\alpha<\exp\left\{-16e\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr\right\}$, $\beta(r)=\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log
L})}$, the density function [$K_{s,t}(x)=\frac{d}{d\mu}(X(s,t,x)_\#d\mu)$]{} belongs to $L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)$, and satisfies $$\label{est-jac}
\int_{\rn} {\Phi_\alpha}(K_{s,t}(x))\,d\mu(x)\le C(\alpha,s,t,
\div_\mu\,b).$$
Such estimate is established by means of a quantitative bound for solutions to a Cauchy problem for the transport equation; see Theorem \[quant\] below. The use of this quantitative bound gives a natural estimate of the density function. Moreover, as a byproduct, our proof improves the integrability of the image measure [$X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu$]{} when $\div_\mu b$ is assumed to be exponentially integrable; see Theorem \[exp-cr\] below and [@cc05; @af09].\
\
As it was for DiPerna and Lions scheme, well-posedness of the Cauchy problem is an essential tool in our arguments. For Sobolev vector fields $b$ satisfying the classical growth condition $\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|}\in L^1(0,T; L^1)+L^1(0,T; L^\infty)$ and $$\div b\in L^1(0,T; L^\infty) + L^1\bigg(0,T; \Exp\bigg(\frac{L}{\log L}\bigg)\bigg),$$ the well-posedness of in $L^\infty$ was established in [@cjmo Theorem 1]. Unfortunately, our Main Theorem does not cover the assumption $\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|}\in L^1(0,T; L^1)$, and indeed we do not know if a flow does exist in this case. However, the assumption on $\div\,b$ in the Main Theorem (also in Theorem \[tran-main\] below) is less restrictive than it was in [@cjmo Theorem 1]. In other words, our Theorem \[tran-main\] about the well-posedness of in $L^\infty$ slightly improves [@cjmo Theorem 1]. A similar situation is given in Theorem \[quant-exp\], see Section 2 for details.\
\
From the result by Ambrosio-Figalli [@af09], it looks like our requirements on the growth condition on $b$ are somehow natural. [ Since ]{}the image measure $X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu$ is only slightly beyond $L^1$ integrable, and to guarantee $b(t,X(s,t,x))\in L^1(s,T;L^1_\loc)$, we need to require that $b$ has at least exponential integrability.\
\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the quantitative estimate of solutions to the transport equation (Theorem \[quant\]), and in Section 3, we use such estimate to deduce a priori estimate of the density function (Theorem \[subexp-cr\]). In section 4, we give the proof of part (a) of the Main Theorem. In the final section, we prove part (b) of the Main Theorem and give a stability result concerning the flows. Throughout the paper, we denote by $C$ positive constants which are independent of the main parameters, but which may vary from line to line.
Well-posedness of the transport equation in the Gaussian setting
================================================================
We will need to use some Orlicz spaces and their duals. For the reader’s convenience, we recall here some definitions. See the monograph [@rr91] for the general theory of Orlicz spaces. Let $$P:[0,\infty)\mapsto [0,\infty),$$ be an increasing homeomorphism onto $[0,\infty)$, so that $P(0)=0$ and $\lim_{t\to\infty}P(t)=\infty$. The Orlicz space $L^P$ is the set of measurable functions $f$ for which the Luxembourg norm $$\|f\|_{L^P}=\inf\left\{\lambda>0:\int_{\rr^n}P\left(\frac{|f(x)|}{\lambda}\right)\,dx\leq 1\right\}$$ is finite. In this paper we will be mainly interested in two particular families of Orlicz spaces. Given $r,s\geq 0$, the first family corresponds to $$P(t)=t\left(\log^+t\right)^{r}\,\left({\log^+ \log^+}t\right)^{s},$$ where $\log^+t:=\max\{1,\log t\}.$ The obtained $L^{P}$ spaces are known as *Zygmund spaces*, and will be denoted from now on by $L\log^{r}L\,\log^{s}\log L $. The second family is at the upper borderline. For $\gamma\geq 0$ we set $$\label{psi-function}
P(t)=\exp\left\{\frac{t}{(\log^+t)^\gamma}\right\}-1, \hspace{1cm} \,t\geq 0.$$ Then we will denote the obtained $L^P$ by $\Exp(\frac{L}{\log^\gamma L} )$. If $\gamma=0$ or $\gamma=1$, we then simply write $\Exp L$ and $\Exp(\frac{L}{\log L})$, respectively. For each $\alpha>0$, throughout the paper, we denote by $\Phi_\alpha$ the Orlicz function $$\label{density-function}
\Phi_\alpha(t)=t\exp\left\{(\log^+t)^\alpha\right\}, \hspace{1cm} \,t\geq 0.$$ When changing the reference measure from Lebesgue measure to the Gaussian measure, we will simply add $\mu$ to the notions of the spaces, as $L\log L\log\log L(\mu)$, $\Exp_\mu\left(\frac{L}{\log L}\right)$, etc.\
\
The following lemma can be proved in the same way as [@cjmo Lemma 11]; see also [@rr91].
\[duality\] (i) If $f\in L\log L\log\log L(\mu) $ and $g\in
\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})$ then $fg\in L^1(\mu)$ and $$\int_{\rn}|f(x)g(x)|\,d\mu\le 2\|f\|_{L\log L\log\log L(\mu)}\,\|g\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}.$$
\(ii) If $f\in L\log L(\mu) $ and $g\in \Exp_\mu(L)$ then $fg\in
L^1(\mu)$ and $$\int_{\rn}|f(x)g(x)|\,d\mu\le 2\|f\|_{L\log L(\mu)}\,\|g\|_{\Exp_\mu(L)}.$$
In this section we present a well-posedness result for the initial value problem for the transport equation in $L^\infty$. This is a new result, which neither contains [@cjmo Theorem 1], nor is contained in it. In order to state it, we write the transport equation in the Lebesgue case as $$\label{tran-eq-le}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}+b\cdot \nabla u=0 & (0,T)\times\,dx,\\
u(0,\cdot)=u_0 & \rn.
\end{cases}$$ and in the Gaussian case as $$\label{tran-eq}
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}+b\cdot \nabla u=0 & (0,T)\times\,d\mu,\\
u(0,\cdot)=u_0 & \rn.
\end{cases}$$ A function $u\in L^1(0,T;L^1_{\loc})$ is called a *weak solution* to if for each $\varphi\in C^\infty([0,T)\times\rr^n)$ with compact support in $[0,T)\times \rr^n$ it holds that $$-\int_0^T\int_{\rr^n} u\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t}\,dx\,dt-\int_{\rr^n} u_0 \,\varphi(0,\cdot)\,dx-\int_0^T\int_{\rr^n} u\,\div
(b\,\varphi)\,dx\,dt=0.$$ We also say that the problem is *well-posed* in $L^\infty(0,T;L^\infty)$ if weak solutions exist and are unique, for any $u_0\in L^\infty$.\
\
Weak solutions of the transport equation can be defined in a similar way. A simple observation is that a function $u\in
L^\infty(0,T;L^\infty)$ is a weak solution of if and only if it is a weak solution of . Indeed, if $u\in
L^\infty(0,T;L^\infty)$ is a weak solution of , and $\varphi\in C^\infty_c([0,T)\times\rr^n)$ is a test function, then $ \frac{\varphi
(x)}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\exp(-|x|^2/2)\in C^\infty_c([0,T)\times\rr^n)$, and so we can conclude that $$-\int_0^T\int_{\rr^n} u\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t}\,d\mu\,dt-\int_{\rr^n} u_0 \,\varphi(0,\cdot)\,d\mu-\int_0^T\int_{\rr^n}
u\left(\varphi\,\div_\mu b +b\cdot\nabla \varphi\right)\,d\mu(x)\,dt=0.$$ For the converse, we only need to use $ \frac{\varphi (x)}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\exp(|x|^2/2)\in C^\infty_c([0,T)\times\rr^n)$ as a test function.\
We now present our well posedness result for the transport equation in the Gaussian setting.
\[tran-main\] Let $T>0$. Assume that $b\in L^1(0,T;W^{1,1}_{\loc})$ satisfying and . Then for each $u_0\in L^\infty$ there exists a unique weak solution $u\in L^\infty(0,T;L^\infty)$ of the Cauchy problem for the transport equation .
Existence of solution follows immediately from [@dl89 Proposition 2.1], while uniqueness will follow from the following stability estimate, Theorem \[quant\].
The proof of the following two theorems is similar to [@cjmo Theorem 5], so the proof will be omitted.
\[quant\] Let $T,M>0$ and $1\le p<\infty$. Suppose that $b\in L^1(0,T;W^{1,1}_{\loc})$ satisfies and . Let $\epsilon\in (0,\frac12\exp(-e^{e+M}))$ satisfying $$\exp\left\{-\exp\left\{\exp\left\{\log\log\log\frac 1{\epsilon}-32e\int_0^T\beta(s)\,ds\right\}\right\}\right\}<\frac12\exp(-e^{e+M}),$$ where $\beta(t)=\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b(t,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}$. Then for each $u_0\in L^\infty(\mu)$ with $\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(\mu)}\le M$ and $\|u_0\|^p_{L^p(\mu)}< \ez$, the transport problem has a unique solution $u\in L^\infty(0,T;L^\infty)$, moreover it holds that $$\left|\log\log\log\left( \frac{1}{\|u(T,\cdot)\|^p_{L^p(\mu)}}\right)-\log\log\log\left(\frac{1}{\|u_0\|^p_{L^p(\mu)}}\right)\right|\leq
16e\int_0^T\beta(s)\,ds.$$
\[quant-exp\] Let $T,M>0$ and $1\le p<\infty$. Suppose that $b\in L^1(0,T;W^{1,1}_{\loc})$ satisfies $$\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+(|x|)}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty)+L^1(0,T;L^1)$$ and $$\label{hyp-b-exp}
\mathrm{div}_\mu b\in L^1\left(0,T;\Exp_\mu\left(L\right)\right).$$ Let $\epsilon\in (0,1/e)$ such that $$\exp\left\{-\exp\left\{\log\log\frac 1{\epsilon}-8\int_0^T\beta(s)\,ds\right\}\right\}<\frac1{2({e+M})},$$ where $\beta(t)=\|\mathrm{div} b(t,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(L)}$. Then for each $u_0\in L^\infty(\mu)$ with $\|u_0\|_{L^\infty(\mu)}\le M$ and $\|u_0\|^p_{L^p(\mu)}< \ez$, the transport problem has a unique solution $u\in L^\infty(0,T;L^\infty)$, moreover it holds that $$\left|\log\log\left( \frac{1}{\|u(T,\cdot)\|^p_{L^p(\mu)}}\right)-
\log\log\left(\frac{1}{\|u_0\|^p_{L^p(\mu)}}\right)\right|\leq 4\int_0^T\beta(s)\,ds.$$
A priori estimates of the Jacobian
==================================
In this section, we give a priori estimates of the density functions when we assume that the vector field is smooth. Recall that ${\Phi_\alpha}(s)=s\exp\{[\log^+(s)]^\alpha\}$ is given in .
The existence and uniqueness of the flow is an immediate consequence of the assumption that $b(t,\cdot)\in C^2(\rn)$ for each $t\in
[0,T]$ and satisfies $$\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty).$$ Moreover, the [ forward flow associated to $b,$ ]{} $X(s,t,x)$, is locally Lipschitz for each $0\le s\le t\le T$. See Hale [@ha80] for instance.
Let us estimate the density function. Obviously, it holds that $$\int_\rn K_{s,t}(x)\,d\mu(x)=\int_\rn\,d\mu(x)=1,$$ i.e., $\|K_{s,t}\|_{L^1(\mu)}=1$ for each $t\in [s,T]$. As a consequence, $$\mu(\{x:\,K_{s,t}(x)>\lambda\})\le \frac{1}{\lambda}$$ for all $\lambda>0$ and $t\in [s,T]$.
Let $k_0\in\cn$ be large enough such that $$\exp\left\{-\exp\left\{\exp\left\{\log\log\log 2^{k_0}-32e\int_0^{T}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}\right\}\right\}
<\frac12\exp(-e^{2e}),$$ where $\beta(r)=\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}$. Obviously, $k_0$ only depends on $\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}$.
Fix $0\le s_0\le t_0\le T$. For each $k>k_0$, let $$E_k=\{x\in\rn:\,2^{k-1}<K_{s_0,t_0}(x)\le 2^k\},$$ and $u_k(x)=\chi_{E_k}(x)$, where $\chi_E$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $E$. Then $u_k\in L^1(\mu)\cap L^\infty(\mu)$ with $\|u_k\|_{L^\infty(\mu)}\le 1$ and $\|u_k\|_{L^1(\mu)}\le 2^{1-k}$.
[**Claim:**]{} $u(s,x):=u_k(X(s,t_0,x))$ is the unique solution in the Gaussian setting to the backward equation $$\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial {s}}+b\cdot \nabla u=0 & (0,t_0)\times\,\,d\mu,\\
u(t_0,\cdot)=u_k & \rn.
\end{cases}$$ [*Proof of the Claim:*]{} Let $\varphi\in C^\infty_c((0,t_0]\times\rr^n)$ be a test function. Since $b(t,\cdot)\in C^2(\rn)$ for each $t\in [0,T]$, we know that the density function $K_{s,t}$ satisfies $$\label{density-funct-smooth}
K_{s,t}(x)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t -\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))\,dr\right\},$$ where $$\tilde X(s,t,x)=x-\int_s^t b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))\,dr$$ is the inverse map of $X(s,t,x)$; see [@cc05 Theorem 2.1] or [@af09]. By using change of variables and integration by parts, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{t_0}\int_{\rr^n} u\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi}{\partial s}\,d\mu\,ds=\int_0^{t_0}\int_{\rr^n} u_k(X(s,t_0,x))\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi(s,x)}{\partial
s}\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_0^{t_0}\int_{\rr^n} u_k(y)\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi(s,z)}{\partial
s}\bigg|_{z=\tilde X(s,t_0,y)}K_{s,t_0}(y)\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_0^{t_0}\int_{\rr^n} u_k(y)\left[\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))}{\partial s}-\nabla \varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))\cdot
b(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))\right]K_{s,t_0}(y)\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_{\rr^n} u_k \,\varphi(t_0,\cdot)\,d\mu-\int_0^{t_0}\int_{\rr^n} u_k(y) \varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))K_{s,t_0}(y)\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))\,\,d\mu\,dt\\
&&\hs\hs -\int_0^{t_0}\int_{\rr^n} u_k(y)\nabla \varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))\cdot b(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))K_{s,t_0}(y)\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_{\rr^n} u_k
\,\varphi(t_0,\cdot)\,d\mu-\int_0^{t_0}\int_{\rr^n} u_k(X(s,t_0,x))
\left[\varphi(s,x)\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(s,x)+\nabla \varphi(s,x)\cdot
b(s,x)\right]\,\,d\mu\,ds,\end{aligned}$$ which verifies the Claim. Above, [ in the third equality, we have used that $\partial \tilde X(s,t,x)/\partial s=
b(s,\tilde X(s,t,x))$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))}{\partial s}=\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi(s,z)}{\partial
s}\bigg|_{z=\tilde X(s,t_0,y)}+\nabla \varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y))\cdot
b(s,\tilde X(s,t_0,y)).\end{aligned}$$]{}
By Theorem \[quant\] and the choose of $k_0$, we find that for each $s\in [0,t_0]$ it holds $$\left|\log\log\log\left( \frac{1}{\|u(s,\cdot)\|_{L^1(\mu)}}\right)
-\log\log\log\left(\frac{1}{\|u_k\|_{L^1(\mu)}}\right)\right|\leq 16e\int_s^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr,$$ which implies that $$\exp\left\{-16e\int_{s}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}\le \dfrac{\log\log\left(
\frac{1}{\|u(s,\cdot)\|_{L^1(\mu)}}\right)}{\log\log\left(\frac{1}{\|u_k\|_{L^1(\mu)}}\right)}
\leq \exp\left\{16e\int_s^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}.$$ Hence, we can conclude that $$\left(\log\frac{1}{\|u_k\|_{L^1(\mu)}}\right)^{\exp\left\{-16e\int_{s}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}\le
\log\frac{1}{\|u(s,\cdot)\|_{L^1(\mu)}}
\leq \left(\log\frac{1}{\|u_k\|_{L^1(\mu)}}\right)^{\exp\left\{16e\int_{s}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}.$$ The choose of $u$ implies that $$\|u(s_0,\cdot)\|_{L^1(\mu)}=\int_{E_k}K_{s_0,t_0}(x)\,d\mu(x),$$ and hence, $$\left(\log\frac{1}{\mu(E_k)}\right)^{\exp\left\{-16e\int_{s_0}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}\le
\log\frac{1}{2^{k-1}\mu(E_k)}=\log\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+\log\frac{1}{\mu(E_k)}.$$ A direct calculation gives $$\log\frac{1}{\mu(E_k)}\ge \log {2^{k-1}}+
\left[\log {2^{k-1}}\right]^{\exp\left\{-16e\int_{s_0}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}$$ Therefore, we can conclude that, $$\mu(E_k)\le \exp\left\{-\log {2^{k-1}}-
\left[\log {2^{k-1}}\right]^{\exp\left\{-16e\int_{{s_0}}^{t_0}\beta(s)\,ds\right\}}\right\}
\le \frac 1{2^{k-1}} \exp\left\{-\left(\log 2^{k-1}\right)^{\exp\left\{-16e\int_{s_0}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}\right\}.$$
For an arbitrary $\alpha\in
(0,\exp\left\{-16e\int_{s_0}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\})$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{\rn} K_{{s_0,t_0}}(x)\exp\{[\log^+ K_{{s_0,t_0}}(x) ]^\alpha\}\,d\mu(x)\\
&&
\le\int_{\rn} 2^{k_0}\exp\{[\log^+ 2^{k_0}]^\alpha\}\,d\mu(x)+\sum_{k>k_0}\int_{E_k} 2^k\exp\{[\log^+ (2^k) ]^\alpha\}\,d\mu(x)\\
&&\le 2^{k_0}\exp\{[\log^+ 2^{k_0}]^\alpha\}+\sum_{k>k_0}\mu({E_k})2^k
\exp\{[\log^+ (2^k) ]^\alpha\}\\
&&\le 2^{k_0}\exp\{[\log^+ 2^{k_0}]^\alpha\}+\sum_{k>k_0}2
\exp\left\{[\log^+ (2^k) ]^\alpha-\left(\log 2^{k-1}\right)^{\exp\left\{-16e\int_{s_0}^{t_0}\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}\right\}\\
&&\le C(\alpha,s_0,t_0,\mathrm{div}_\mu b).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
In the same way, using Theorem \[quant-exp\], we can prove the following quantitative estimate for vector fields with distributional divergence in $\Exp_\mu(L)$.
\[exp-cr\] Let $b(t,\cdot)\in C^2(\rn)$ for each $t\in [0,T]$ such that $$\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty),$$ and $\div_\mu b\in L^1(0,T;\Exp_\mu(L))$. Then for $0\le s\le t\le T$, there exists a unique flow $X(s,t,x)$ such that $$\dfrac{\partial X(s,t,x)}{\partial t}=b(t,X(s,t,x)).$$ Moreover, for $0\le s\le t\le T$ and each $p\in
[1,\frac{1}{1-\exp(-4\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr)}),$ $\beta(r)=\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(L)}$, the density function $K_{s,t}(x)=\frac{d}{d\mu}(X(s,t,{x})_\#d\mu)$ belongs to $L^p(\mu)$ and satisfies $$\int_{\rn} [K_{s,t}(x)]^p\,d\mu(x)\le C(p,s,t,
\div\,b).$$
Our method to prove the integrability of the density functions yields a sharper estimate than those from [@af09; @cr83; @cc05]. It is worth to note that our proof yields that integrability of the density functions has some semigroup property, which is natural.
Flow in the Gaussian setting
============================
In this section, we will prove part (a) of the Main Theorem. To do this, let us recall the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup $P_s$. For each $s>0$ and $f\in L^1(\mu)$, $P_sf(x)$ is defined by $$P_sf(x)=\int_\rn f(e^{-s}x+\sqrt{1-e^{-2s}}y)\,d\mu(y).$$ Among other properties of the semigroup $P_s$, we will need the following:
1. $\div_\mu\,(P_sb)=e^{s}P_s(\div_\mu\,b)$.
2. For each $p\in [1,\infty]$, it holds $$\|P_sf\|_{L^p(\mu)}\le \|f\|_{L^p(\mu)}.$$
3. For each convex function $\Phi$ on $[0,\infty)$, $\Phi(0)=0$, $\lim_{s\to\infty}\frac{\Phi(s)}{s}=\infty$, it holds that $$\|P_sf\|_{L^\Phi(\mu)}\le \|f\|_{L^\Phi(\mu)}.$$
The first two properties can be found from Bogachev [@bo98], and the third one is a consequence of (ii) and Jensen’s inequality. Indeed, Jensen’s inequality and the $L^1$-boundedness of $P_s$ imply $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\rn\Phi\left(\frac{P_sf}{\lambda}\right)\,d\mu&&\le
\int_\rn\int_\rn \,\Phi\left(\frac{f(e^{-s}x+\sqrt{1-e^{-2s}}y)}{\lambda}\right)\,d\mu(y)\,d\mu(x)
\le \int_\rn \Phi\left(\frac{f(x)}{\lambda}\right)\,d\mu(x).\end{aligned}$$
We will use the transport equation theory by DiPerna-Lions [@dl89] and follow some methods used by Cipriano-Cruzeiro [@cc05]. Due to the fact that the divergence of the vector is only sub-exponentially integrable, we need to overcome some technical difficulties.
In what follows, we will always let $b\in L^1(0,T;W^{1,1}_{\mathrm{loc}})$ that satisfies $$\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty),$$ and $\div\,b\in L^1(0,T;\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L}))$. It follows by an easy calculation that $$\div_\mu\,b=\div\,b-x\cdot b\in L^1\left(0,T;\Exp_\mu\left(\frac{L}{\log L}\right)\right).$$ For each $\ez>0$, let $b_\ez=P_\ez b$.
\[molifier\] For each $\ez>0$, $P_\ez b\in C^\infty(\rn)$ satisfies $$\frac{|P_\ez b(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty).$$
By making change of variables, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
P_\ez b(t,x)&&=\int_\rn b(t,e^{-\ez}x+\sqrt{1-e^{-2\ez}}y)\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\exp\left\{-\frac{|y|^2}{2}\right\}\,dy\\
&&=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}(1-e^{-2\ez})^{n/2}}\int_\rn b(t,z)\exp\left\{-\frac{|z-e^{-\ez}x|^2}{2(1-e^{-2\ez})}\right\}\,dz.\end{aligned}$$ Then it is obvious that $P_\ez b(t,x)\in C^\infty(\rn)$ for each $t>0$. To see that $$\frac{P_\ez b(t,x)}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty),$$ it suffices to show that for each $t>0$ $$\left\|\frac{P_\ez b(t,x)}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\right\|_{L^\infty}\le C \left\|\frac{b(t,x)}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\right\|_{L^\infty}.$$ By the fact $\log(a+b)\le \log a+\log b$ for $a,b\ge 2$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
|P_\ez b(t,x)|&&\le \int_\rn |b(t,e^{-\ez}x+\sqrt{1-e^{-2\ez}}y)|\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{n/2}}\exp\left\{-\frac{|y|^2}{2}\right\}\,dy\\
&&\le \left\|\frac{b(t,\cdot)}{1+|\cdot|\log^+|\cdot|}\right\|_{L^\infty}\int_\rn (1+|z|\log^+|z|)\bigg|_{ z=e^{-\ez}x+\sqrt{1-e^{-2\ez}}y}\,d\mu(y),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\rn (1+|z|\log^+|z|)\bigg|_{ z=e^{-\ez}x+\sqrt{1-e^{-2\ez}}y}\,d\mu(y)&&\le \int_\rn C(1+|x|\log^+|x|+|y|\log^{+}|y|)\,d\mu(y)\\
&&\le C(1+|x|\log^+|x|),\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ does not depend on $\ez$. The proof is completed.
Therefore, for each $\ez>0$, it follows from Lemma \[molifier\] that $b_\ez$ satisfies the requirements from Theorem \[subexp-cr\] uniformly in $\ez$. Denote by $X_\ez(s,t,x)$ the unique flow arising from the equation $$\dfrac{\partial X_\ez(s,t,x)}{\partial t}=b_\ez(t,X_\ez(s,t,x)).$$ Denote by $K_{s,t,\ez}(x)$ the density function of $X_\ez(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}\,d\mu$. The existence of the flow $X(s,t,x)$ will follow by establishing an accumulation point of $\{X_\ez(s,t,x)\}_{\ez}$ via the following several steps.
Given a sequence $X_k$ of functions defined on some measurable space $(\mathscr{M},\nu)$ with values in a Banach space $\mathscr{N}$ (endowed with the norm $\|\cdot\|$), we say that $X_k$ converges to $X$ in $L^0(\nu)$ if for each fixed $\gz > 0$ it holds $$\nu(\{x\in \mathscr{M}:\, \|X_k(x)-X(x)\|>\gz\})\to 0, \quad \ \mathrm{as}\ k\to\infty.$$
In what follows, let $\mathcal{L}^1$ be the one dimensional Lebesgue measure.
\[mc-flow\] Let $0\le s\le t\le T$. There exist a subsequence $\{\epsilon_k\}_{k\in\cn}$ and a Borel map $X(s,t,x)$ such that:
- $X_{\ez_k}(s,\cdot,\cdot) $ converges to $X(s,\cdot,\cdot)$ as $k\to\infty$, both in $L^0(\mathcal{L}^1\times\mu)$ and almost everywhere on $[s,T]\times \rn$.
- For each fixed $t\in [s,T]$, $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,\cdot)$ converges to $X(s,t,\cdot)$ as $k\to\infty$, both in $L^0(\mu)$ and almost everywhere on $\rn$.
Let $\beta$ be a continuous and bounded function on $\rr$. Denote $X^i_{\ez}(s,t,x)$ the $i$-th component of $X_{\ez}(s,t,x)$. Then $\beta(X^i_{\ez}(s,t,x))$ and $\beta(X^i_{\ez}(s,t,x))^2$ are bounded sequences in $L^\infty(s,T;L^\infty)$. By the weak-$\ast$ convergence of $L^\infty(s,T;L^\infty)$, we see that there exists a subsequence $\ez_k$ such that $\beta(X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))$ and $\beta(X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))^2$ converge in weak-$\ast$ topology of $L^\infty(s,T;L^\infty)$ to $v_\beta^i$ and $w_\beta^i$, respectively.
On the other hand, $\beta(X^i_{\ez}(s,t,x))$ and $\beta(X^i_{\ez}(s,t,x))^2$ are bounded solutions to the transport equation corresponding to the final values $\beta(x_i)$ and $\beta(x_i)^2$, respectively; see the proof of Theorem \[subexp-cr\].
By using the well-posedness of the transport equation, Theorem \[tran-main\], and the renormalization property of solutions in $L^\infty(s,T;L^\infty)$ (cf. [@dl89; @a04]), we can conclude that $v_\beta^i$ and $w_\beta^i$ are bounded solutions to the transport equation with vector fields $b$ corresponding to the initial values $\beta(x_i)$ and $\beta(x_i)^2$, respectively, and therefore $(v_\beta^i)^2=w_\beta^i$.
Then, by the fact $1\in L^1(\mu)$, we can conclude that for each $t\in [s,T]$ it holds $$\label{measure-beta}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn [\beta(X^i_{\ez}(s,t,x))-v_\beta^i]^2\,d\mu=0.$$
Now we prove that the arbitrariness of $\beta$ implies that $X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$ converges in measure to some function $X^i(s,t,x)$. Indeed, by Lemma \[molifier\] we have that $$\frac{|b_\ez(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty)$$ and hence, $b_\ez(t,x)\in L^1(0,T;\Exp_\mu(L))$, while by Theorem \[subexp-cr\] and $L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)\subset L\log L(\mu)$ for any $\alpha>0$, we see that $K_\ez\in L^\infty(0,T;L\log L(\mu))$. These together with Lemma \[duality\] imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\|X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,\cdot)\|_{L^1(\mu)}&&\le \int_\rn \left|x_i+\int_s^tb_\ez(r,X_\ez(s,r,x))\,dr\right|\,d\mu(x)\\
&&\le C+\int_\rn\int_s^T |b_\ez(r,x)|\,K_{s,r,\ez}(x)\,d\mu\,dr\\
&&\le C+2 \int_s^T\|b_\ez\|_{\Exp_\mu(L)}\|K_{s,r,\ez}\|_{L\log L(\mu)}\,dr\\
&&\le C,
\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $X_{\ez_k}(s,\cdot,\cdot)\in L^\infty(s,T;L^1(\mu))$, and $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mu)$ for each $t$, uniformly in $\ez$.
Denote by $\nu$ the product measure $\mathcal{L}^1\times\mu$ on $[s,T]\times \rn$. Given a fixed $\gamma>0$, for each $\delta>0$, there exists an $M>0$ such that for all $\ez_k$, $$\nu(\left\{(t,x):\,|X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)|>M\right\})<\delta.$$ On the other hand, let $\beta_M\in C^1(\rr,\rr)$ such that $\beta_M:\,\rr\mapsto [-2M,2M]$ and $\beta_M(t)=t$ for all $|t|\le M$. Then from we see that there exists $k_0\in \cn$, such that for all $k,j>k_0$, it holds that$$\aligned
\nu(\{(t,x): |X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)-X^i_{\ez_j}(s,t,x)|>\gamma\})
&\leq \nu(\{(t,x): |X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)|>M\})\\&+\nu(\{(t,x): |X^i_{\ez_j}(s,t,x)|>M\})\\
&+\nu(\{(t,x):\,|\beta_M(X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))-\beta_M(X^i_{\ez_j}(s,t,x))|>\gamma\})<3\delta
\endaligned$$ and so we can conclude that $\{X^i_{\ez_k}\}_k$ is a Cauchy sequence in measure. Therefore, $X^i_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$ converges in measure to some function $X^i(s,t,x)$.
Passing to a further subsequence if necessary, we can conclude that $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$ converges in $L^0(\mathcal{L}^1\times\mu)$ and almost everywhere to $X(s,t,x)$ on $[s,T]\times \rn$. Moreover, it follows that for each $t\in [s,T]$, $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$ converges in $L^0(\mu)$ and almost everywhere to $X(s,t,x)$.
\[density-est\] Let $X(s,t,x)$ be as in Lemma \[mc-flow\]. Under the assumptions of the Main Theorem, for each $0\le s\le t\le T$, the image measure $X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}d\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$. Moreover, the density function $K_{s,t}(x)=\frac{d}{d\mu}
(X(s,t,{x})_{\#}d\mu)$ belongs to the Orlicz space $L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)$ for each $0<\alpha<\exp\left\{-16e^2\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr\right\}$, where $\beta(r)=\|\mathrm{div}_\mu
b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}$.
Since $b_\ez=P_\ez b$, by the property of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck semigroup, we see that for each $\ez<1$ and each $t\in [s,T]$, it holds $$\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b_\ez(t,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}\le e\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b(t,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}.$$ For each $t\in [s,T]$ and each $0<\alpha<\exp\left\{-16e^2\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr\right\}$, by Theorem \[subexp-cr\], we see that the density function of $K_{s,t,\ez}(x)=\frac{d}{d\mu}(X_\ez(s,t,{x})_{\#}d\mu)$ is uniformly bounded in $L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)$. Therefore, there exists a subsequence $\{\ez_k\}$ and $K_{s,t}\in L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)$ such that [ $$K_{s,t,\ez_k}\rightharpoonup K_{s,t} \ \mathrm{ in } \ L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu),$$]{} i.e., [$K_{s,t,\ez_k}$]{} weakly converges to [$K_{s,t}$]{} in $L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)$.
Finally, for each compactly supported continuous function $\psi$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\rn \psi(X(s,t,x))\,d\mu(x)&&=\lim_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn \psi(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))\,d\mu(x)\\
&&=\lim_{k\to\infty} \int_\rn
\psi(x)K_{s,t,\ez_k}(x)\,d\mu(x)=\int_\rn \psi(x)K_{s,t}(x)\,d\mu(x),
\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
\[measure-control\] Let $X(s,t,x)$ be as in Lemma \[mc-flow\]. Under the assumptions of the Main Theorem, for each open set $E$ with sufficient small $\mu$-measure, it holds that for $0\le s\le t\le T$ $$\log\log\log\dfrac{1}{\int_\rn \chi_E(X(s,t,x))\,d\mu}\ge \log\log\log\dfrac{1}{\mu(E)}- 16e^2\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr.$$
Since $E$ is an open set, by the a.e. convergence of $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$, it is easy to see that $$\liminf_{k\to\infty}\chi_E(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))\ge \chi_E(X(s,t,x)),\quad a.e.\ x\in\rn.$$ Therefore it follows from Fatou Lemma that $$\int_\rn \chi_E(X(s,t,x))\,d\mu\le \int_\rn \liminf_{k\to\infty}\chi_E(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))\,d\mu\le
\liminf_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn\chi_E(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))\,d\mu .$$ Since $$\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b_\ez\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}\le
e\|\mathrm{div}_\mu b\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})},$$ by Theorem \[quant\] we know that for each $k$, it holds $$\left|\log\log\log\dfrac{1}{\int_\rn \chi_E(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))\,d\mu}- \log\log\log\dfrac{1}{\mu(E)}\right|\le 16e^2\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr,$$ which together with the last estimate completes the proof.
\[measure-convergence\] Let $X(s,t,x)$ be as in Lemma \[mc-flow\]. Under the assumptions of the Main Theorem, for each measurable vector field $F:\,[s,T]\times\rn\mapsto\rn$, it holds $$F(t,X_{{\ez_k}}(s,t,x))\to F(t,X(s,t,x)) \ \mbox{in}\ L^0(\mathcal{L}^1\times\mu);$$ and for measurable function $F:\,\rn\mapsto\rn$, it holds for each $t\in [s,T]$ that $$F(X_{{\ez_k}}(s,t,\cdot))\to F(X(s,t,\cdot)) \ \mbox{in}\ L^0(\mu).$$
We only prove the second statement, since the first one can be proved in the same way. By the Egorov Theorem, for each $\delta>0$, there exists a measurable set $E_\delta$ such that $\mu(\rn\setminus E_\delta)<\delta$ and $F$ is uniformly continuous on $E_\delta$.
On the other hand, by using the Egorov Theorem again and the fact $X_{{\ez_k}}(s,t,x)$ converges in measure to $X(s,t,x)$, we find that there exists $\widetilde E_\delta$ such that $\mu(\rn\setminus \widetilde E_\delta)<\delta$ and $X_{{\ez_k}}(s,t,x)$ converges uniformly to $X(s,t,x)$ on $\widetilde E_\delta$.
Therefore, for a fixed constant $c$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mu\left(\left\{x:\, |F(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))-F(X(s,t,x))|>c\right\}\right)\\
&&\quad\le
\mu(\rn\setminus\widetilde E_\delta)+\mu(\left\{x:\, X(s,t,x)\in \rn\setminus E_\delta\right\})+\mu(\left\{x:\, X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)\in \rn\setminus
E_\delta\right\}) \\
&&\quad\quad+\mu\left(\left\{x\in \widetilde E_\delta, X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x),X(s,t,x)\in E_\delta:
\, |F(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))-F(X(s,t,x))|>c\right\}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Notice that by Theorem \[tran-main\], we have that $$\mu(\left\{x:\, X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)\in \rn\setminus E_\delta\right\})\le \exp\left\{-\left(\log\frac
1\delta\right)^{\exp\left\{-C\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}\right\}$$ uniformly in $k$, and by Lemma \[measure-control\] $$\mu(\left\{x:\, X(s,t,x)\in \rn\setminus E_\delta\right\})\le
\mu\left(\left\{x:\, X(s,t,x)\in \widetilde{\rn\setminus E_\delta}\right\}\right)\le
\exp\left\{-\left(\log\frac 2\delta\right)^{\exp\left\{-C\int_s^t\beta(r)\,dr\right\}}\right\},$$ where $\widetilde{\rn\setminus E_\delta}$ is an open set containing $\rn\setminus E_\delta$ satisfying $$\mu(\widetilde{\rn\setminus E_\delta})\le 2\mu(\rn\setminus E_\delta).$$
By choosing large enough $k$, we have $$\mu\left(\left\{x\in \widetilde E_\delta, X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x),X(s,t,x)\in E_\delta:
\, |F(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))-F(X(s,t,x))|>c\right\}\right)=0.$$
Therefore, for each $\gz>0$, by choosing sufficiently small $\delta$, we see that there exists $k_\gz$, such that for each $k>k_\gz$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mu\left(\left\{x:\, |F(X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))-F(X(s,t,x))|>c\right\}\right)<\gz,\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
\[flow-eq\] Let $X(s,t,x)$ be as in Lemma \[mc-flow\]. Under the assumptions of the Main Theorem, for $0\le s\le t\le T$, we have $$X(s,t,x)=x+\int_{s}^tb(r,X(s,r,x))\,dr$$ for a.e. $x\in\rn$.
It suffices to prove that for each $s\in [0,T)$, $$\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_{\ez_k}(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\to 0\ \mbox{as}\ \ \ez_k\to 0.$$ Write $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_{\ez_k}(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&\quad\le
\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_{\ez_k}(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&\quad\quad+
\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu=:I+II.\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[subexp-cr\] and Lemma \[duality\], we see that $$\begin{aligned}
I&&\le \int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_{\ez_k}(r,x)-b(r,x)|K_{s,r,\ez_k}(x)\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&\le \int_{s}^T
2\|b_{\ez_k}(r,\cdot)-b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(L)}\|K_{s,r,\ez_k}\|_{L\log
L(\mu) }\,dr\to 0,\ \mbox{as}\ \ k\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, by applying Lemma \[measure-convergence\], we find that $$b(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))\to b(r,X(s,r,x))$$ a.e. in $(s,T)\times \rn$. Let $b_M:=\min\{\max\{b,-M\},M\}$. Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_M(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu
&&\le \int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_M(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b_M(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&+ \int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_M(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu.\end{aligned}$$ By using the fact $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$ converges to $X(s,t,x)$ a.e. on $[s,T]\times \rn$, we apply the dominated convergence theorem and Theorem \[subexp-cr\] to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_M(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu&&\le \liminf_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b_M(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&\le \liminf_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b(r,x)|K_{s,r,\ez_k}(x)\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&\le \liminf_{k\to\infty}\int_{s}^T\|b(r,\cdot)\|_{\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})}\|K_{s,r,\ez_k}\|_{L\log L\log\log L(\mu)}\,dr\\
&&\le C(b)<\infty,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last second inequality we used Lemma \[duality\] and the fact $ L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)\subset L\log L\log\log L(\mu)$ for any $\alpha>0$. We therefore see that $b(r,X(s,r,x))\in L^1(s,T;\mu)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
II
&&\le \int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b_M(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&+\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b(r,X(s,r,x))-b_M(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&+ \int_\rn\int_{s}^T\left(|b_M(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b_M(r,X(s,r,x))|\right)\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&=:II_1+II_2+II_3.\end{aligned}$$ For each $\gz>0$, we can choose $M$ sufficient large such that $II_1+II_2<\gz/2$. Applying the dominated convergence theorem to $II_3$, we see that $$II_3\to 0\hspace{.5cm}\text{as }k\to \infty.$$ Hence, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn\int_{s}^T|b(r,X_{\ez_k}(s,r,x))-b(r,X(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu=0,\end{aligned}$$ which together with the fact $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)\to X(s,t,x)$ a.e., implies that $$X(s,t,x)=x+\int_{s}^tb(r,X(s,r,x))\,dr,\ \mu-a.e.$$ The proof is completed.
Applying the above results of this section to the backward flow instead of the forward flow, we can conclude that under the assumptions of the Main Theorem, there exists a Borel map $\tilde X(s,t,x)$ arising as a limit of a sequence of smooth flows $\tilde X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$, given as $$\label{inverse-flow-app}
\tilde X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)=x-\int_{s}^tb_{\ez_k}(r,\tilde X_{\ez_k}(r,t,x))\,dr,$$ such that for each $s\in [0,t]$, it holds $$\label{inverse-flow}
\tilde X(s,t,x)=x-\int_{s}^tb(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))\,dr, \ a.e.\
x\in\rn.$$
Then by using the fact that for $0\le s\le t\le T$ and each $\ez_k$, $$X_{\ez_k}(s,t,\tilde X_{{\ez_k}}(s,t,x))=\tilde X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{{\ez_k}}(s,t,x))=x$$ (see [@cc05 Theorem 2.1]), Lemma \[mc-flow\] and Lemma \[measure-convergence\], we can conclude that for $0\le s\le t\le T$, it holds $$\label{identity-flow}
X(s,t,\tilde X(s,t,x))=\tilde X(s,t,X(s,t,x))=x,
\ a.e. \, x\in\rn.$$
\[rep-density\] Let $X(s,t,x)$ be as in Lemma \[mc-flow\] and $\tilde X(s,t,x)$ be given as in . Under the assumptions of the Main Theorem, for $0\le s\le t\le T$, the density functions $K_{s,t}=\frac{d}{d\mu} (X(s,t)_{\#}d\mu)$ and $\tilde K_{s,t}=\frac{d}{d\mu}
(\tilde X(s,t)_{\#}d\mu)$ satisfy $$K_{s,t}(x)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t -\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))\,dr\right\} \quad \ a.e. \ x\in \rn,$$ and $$\tilde K_{s,t}(x)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t \mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(r, X(s,r,x))\,dr\right\} \quad \ a.e. \ x\in \rn.$$
We only give the proof for $K_{s,t}$ since the proof of $\tilde
K_{s,t}$ is the same. Notice that as we recalled in , it holds for each $\ez_k$ that $$K_{s,t,\ez_k}(x)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t -\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b_{\ez_k}(r,\tilde X_{\ez_k}(r,t,x))\,dr\right\},$$ where $\tilde X_{\ez_k}(r,t,x)$ is as in . By Lemma \[measure-convergence\], we see that for $0\le s\le t\le T$, $$\mathrm{div}_\mu\, b(s,\tilde X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x))\to \mathrm{div}_\mu\, b(s,\tilde X(s,t,x))$$ in measure and a.e. $x\in \rn$ up to a subsequence of $\{\ez_k\}$.
Since $\mathrm{div}_\mu\, b(r,\tilde X_{\ez_k}(r,t,x))$ and $\mathrm{div}_\mu\, b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))$ are uniformly integrable in $L^1(\mu)$, by the same argument in the proof of Lemma \[flow-eq\] we can further conclude that $$\mathrm{div}_\mu\, b_{\ez_k}(r,\tilde X_{\ez_k}(r,t,x))\to \mathrm{div}_\mu\, b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))$$ in measure and a.e. $x\in \rn$ up to a subsequence of $\{\ez_k\}$.
From this together with the fact $ K_{s,t,\ez_k}(x)\rightharpoonup
K_{s,t}(x) \ \mathrm{in} \ L^{\Phi_\alpha}(\mu)$ from Lemma \[density-est\], we can conclude that for $0\le s\le t\le T$ it holds $$K_{s,t}(x)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t -\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(r,\tilde X(r,t,x))\,dr\right\} \quad \ a.e. \ x\in \rn,$$ as desired.
Uniqueness of the flow will follow as a corollary of Theorem \[tran-main\].
\[uniq-flow\] Under the assumptions of the Main Theorem, the flows $X(s,t,x)$, $\tilde X(s,t,x)$ satisfying the properties from part (a) of the Main Theorem are unique.
Once more we only give the proof for $X(s,t,x)$ since the proof of $\tilde
X(s,t,x)$ is the same. By the well-posedness of the transport equation (Theorem \[tran-main\]), it suffices to show that for each $u_0\in
C^\infty_c(\rn)$, $u(s,x):=u_0(X(s,t,x))$ is a distributional solution to the transport equation $$\dfrac{\partial}{\partial s}u(s,x)+b(s,x)\cdot\nabla u(s,x)=0$$ on $(0,t)\times \rn$ with the final value $u(t)=u_0$. That is, for each $\varphi\in C^\infty((0,t]\times\rn)$ with compact support in $(0,t]\times \rn$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\int_0^t\int_{\rn}u(s,x)\,\frac{\partial \varphi(s,x)}{\partial
s}\,ds\,d\mu(x)+ \int_{\rn}u(t,x)\, \varphi(t,x)\,d\mu(x)\\
&&\quad=\int_0^t\int_{\rn}\left[u(s,x)\vz\,\mathrm{div}_\mu(
b)(s,x)+u(s,x)b(s,x)\cdot\nabla \vz\right]\,d\mu(x)\,ds.\end{aligned}$$
From the fact $$K_{s,t}(x)=\frac{d}{d\mu}
(X(s,t, {x})_{\#}d\mu)=\exp\left\{\int_s^t -\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(r,\tilde
X(r,t,x))\,dr\right\} \quad \ a.e. \ x\in \rn,$$ we know that for a.e. $x\in \rn$ the density function $K_{s,t}(x)$ is absolutely continuous on $[0,t]$. Using this, change of variables, integration by parts and the fact $$X(s,t,\tilde X(s,t,x))=\tilde X(s,t,X(s,t,x))=x, \ a.e. \,
x\in\rn,$$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^t\int_{\rr^n} u\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi}{\partial s}\,d\mu\,ds=\int_0^t\int_{\rr^n} u_0(X(s,t,x))\,\dfrac{\partial \varphi(s,x)}{\partial
s}\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_0^t\int_{\rr^n} u_0(y)\,\dfrac{\partial
\varphi(s,z)}{\partial s}\bigg|_{z=\tilde X(s,t,y)}K_{s,t}(y)\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_0^t\int_{\rr^n} u_0(y)\left[\,\dfrac{\partial
\varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t,y))}{\partial s}-\nabla \varphi(s,\tilde
X(s,t,y))\cdot
b(s,\tilde X(s,t,y))\right]K_{s,t}(y)\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_{\rr^n} u_0 \,\varphi(t,\cdot)\,d\mu-\int_0^t\int_{\rr^n} u_0(y) \varphi(s,
\tilde X(s,t,y))K_{s,t}(y)\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(s,\tilde X(s,t,y))\,\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs\hs -\int_0^t\int_{\rr^n} u_0(y)\nabla \varphi(s,\tilde X(s,t,y))\cdot b(s,\tilde X(s,t,y))K_{s,t}(y)\,d\mu\,ds\\
&&\hs=\int_{\rr^n} u_0
\,\varphi(t,\cdot)\,d\mu-\int_0^t\int_{\rr^n} u_0(X(s,t,x))
\left[\varphi(s,x)\mathrm{div}_\mu\,b(s,x)+\nabla \varphi(s,x)\cdot
b(s,x)\right]\,\,d\mu\,ds.\end{aligned}$$ This implies $u_0(X(s,t,x))$ is a distributional solution to the transport equation, as desired.
The existence of a forward flow $X$ and a backward flow $\tilde X$ follows from Lemma \[flow-eq\]. Property (i) follows from . The estimate of the density function follows from Lemma \[density-est\] and Lemma \[rep-density\]. The uniqueness follows from Proposition \[uniq-flow\].
Regularity, semigroup structure and stability
=============================================
In this section, we prove part (b) of the Main Theorem, and give a stability result. To do this, we start by stating the semigroup structure of our flow.
\[semigroup\] Let $b$ be as in the Main Theorem, and let $X$ and $\tilde X$ be the forward and backward flows associated to $b$, respectively, that satisfy properties of part (a) of the Main Theorem. Then $X$ and $\tilde X$ have the semigroup property.
Let $0\le s\le t\le T$. By the proof of part (a) of the Main theorem from the last section, we know such $X(s,t,x)$ can be approximated by $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)$. Notice that by the semigroup structure of $X_{\ez_k}$, we have for each $0\le r\le s\le t\le T$ and a.e. $x\in \rn$, it holds $$X(r,t,x)=\lim_{k\to\infty}X_{\ez_k}(r,t,x)=\lim_{k\to\infty}X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x)), \ a.e.\,x\in\rn.$$ Therefore, to prove the semigroup structure, it suffices to show that $$\lim_{k\to\infty}X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))=X(s,t, X(r,s,x)),\ a.e.\,x\in\rn.$$ Write $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))-X(s,t,X(r,s,x))\right|\\
&&\le \left|X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))-X(s,t,
X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))\right|+ \left|X(s,t,
X(r,s,x))-X(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))\right|=:I+II.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[mc-flow\], we see that $X_{\ez_k}(s,t, \cdot)$ converges to $X(s,t,\cdot)$ in measure. Let $c>0$ be fixed. Then for each $\gz>0$, there exists $k_\gz$, such that for $k>k_\gz$, it holds $$\mu\left(\{x:\,|X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)-X(s,t,x)|>c\}\right)<\gz.$$ Let $E_{k,c}=\{x:\,|X_{\ez_k}(s,t,x)-X(s,t,x)|>c\}$. Recall that by [Lemma \[measure-control\]]{}, for any measurable set $E$ with sufficient small measure, it holds $$\left|\log\log\log\left(
\frac{1}{\int_\rn\chi_E(X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))\,d\mu}\right)-
\log\log\log\left(\frac{1}{\mu(E)}\right)\right|\leq
C\int_r^s\beta(h)\,dh,$$ since $\div_\mu b_{\ez_k}$ has uniform bound in $\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L})$. We then can conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\left(\{x:\,|X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))-X(s,t,
X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))|>c\}\right)
&&=\int_{\rn}\chi_{E_{k,c}}(X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))\,d\mu\\
&&\le \exp\left\{-\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{\mu(E_{k,c})}\right)\right)^{\exp\{-C\int_r^s\beta(h)\,dh\}}\right\}\\
&&\le \exp\left\{-\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{\gz}\right)\right)^{\exp\{-C\int_0^T\beta(h)\,dh\}}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\mu\left(\{x:\,|X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))-X(s,t,
X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))|>c\}\right)=0.$$ On the other hand, using Lemma \[measure-convergence\], we see that $X(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))$ converges to $X(s,t,X(r,s,x))$ in measure. Therefore, we see that $X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x))$ converges in measure to $X(s,t,X(r,s,x))$, up to a subsequence, we can conclude that $$X(s,t,X(r,s,x))=\lim_{k\to\infty}X_{\ez_k}(s,t,X_{\ez_k}(r,s,x)),\ a.e.\, x\in\rn.$$ The same argument works for $\tilde X$, and the proof is completed.
We are now in position to complete the proof of our Main Theorem.
We already know that a flow $X$ associated to $b$ satisfying properties of part (a) exists and is unique. Further, by Lemma \[semigroup\] we also know it has semigroup structure. Thus, in order to prove that $X$ is a regular flow it just remains to show that ${X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}\,dx\ll\,dx}$. For each $\psi\in
C^\infty_c(\rn)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\rn |\psi(X(s,t,x))|\,dx&&=\int_\rn (2\pi)^{n/2}|\psi(X(s,t,x))|\exp\left\{\frac{|x|^2}{2}\right\}\,d\mu(x)\\
&&=\int_\rn (2\pi)^{n/2}|\psi(y)|\exp\left\{\frac{|\tilde X(s,t,y)|^2}{2}\right\}K_{s,t}(y)\,d\mu(y),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde X(s,t,y)$ is the inverse map of $X(s,t,y)$ as indicated in . From the assumption $$\frac{|b|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}\in L^1(0,T;L^\infty),$$ we can see that $\{\,\tilde X(s,t,y):\,y\in \supp\psi\}$ is bounded in $[s,T]\times \rn$ . Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\rn |\psi(X(s,t,x))|\,dx&&\le C(b,s,t,\psi)
\int_\rn |\psi(y)|K_{s,t}(y)\,dy,\end{aligned}$$ and hence, $X(s,t,\cdot)_{\#}\,dx\ll\,dx$. Apparently, the above arguments apply to $\tilde X$ and the same conclusion holds. The proof is completed.
As a result of the techniques we have used throughout this work we get the following result about stability.
\[stability-dpl\] Let $b,\{b_k\}\in L^1(0,T;W^{1,1}_{\mathrm{loc}})$ satisfying $$\frac{|b(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|}, \frac{|b_k(t,x)|}{1+|x|\log^+|x|} \in L^1(0,T;L^\infty)$$ and $$b_k\to b \quad \mbox{in} \ \Exp_\mu(L).$$ Assume that $\div_\mu\,b,\div_\mu\,b_k$ are uniformly bounded in $L^1(0,T;\Exp_\mu(\frac{L}{\log L}))$ and $\div_\mu\,b_k$ converges to $\div_\mu \,b$ in $L^1(0,T;L^1_\loc(\mu))$ . Let $X(s,t,x),\{X_k(s,t,x)\}$, that satisfy properties from part (a) of the Main Theorem, be the forward (or backward) flows generated from $b,\{b_k\}$ respectively. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn\sup_{t\in [s,T]} \left|X(s,t,x)-X_k(s,t,x)\right|\,d\mu\to 0.\end{aligned}$$
For each bounded function $\beta\in C^1(\rr,\rr)$, $\beta(X^i_k(s,t,x))$, $1\le i\le n$, is the solution to the Cauchy problem of the transport equation associated to the vector field $b_k$, with the final value $\beta(x^i)$. By weak-$\ast$ compactness in $L^\infty(s,T;L^\infty)$, we see that there exists a subsequence $\{\beta(X^i_{k_j})\}_j$ converging to a function $\widetilde X$, which is a solution to the Cauchy problem of the transport equation associated to the vector field $b$, with the initial value $\beta(x^i)$. By the uniqueness, we get that $\widetilde X=\beta(X^i(s,t,x))$.
By the well-posedness and the renormalization property of the transport equation, we deduce that, indeed, $\beta(X^i_{k})$ converges in measure to $\beta(X(s,t,x))$. Following the same argument as in Lemma \[mc-flow\], we see that $X_{k}$ converges in measure to $X(s,t,x)$.
Observing this, and the fact $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_\rn\sup_{t\in [s,T]} \left|X(s,t,x)-X_k(s,t,x)\right|\,d\mu\\
&&\quad\le \int_\rn\int_s^T|b(r,X(s,r,x))-b_k(r,X_k(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&\quad\le \int_\rn \int_s^T|b(r,X(s,r,x))-b(r,X_k(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu\\
&&\quad\quad+\int_\rn\int_{{s}}^T|b(r,X_k(s,r,x))-b_k(r,X_k(s,r,x))|\,dr\,d\mu,\end{aligned}$$ we can follow the proof of Lemma \[flow-eq\] to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\int_\rn\sup_{t\in [s,T]} \left|X(s,t,x)-X_k(s,t,x)\right|\,d\mu\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ The proof is completed.
\[manylogs\]From the proofs of the paper and our previous paper [@cjmo], it looks that one can strengthen the borderline condition on the divergence of vector fields $b$ a bit more as $$\div_\mu b\in L^1\left(0,T;\Exp_\mu\left(\frac{L}{\log L\,\log\log L\,\dots\,\underbrace{\log\cdots\log}_{k}L} \right)\right)$$ in order to get well-posedness of the ODE. However, since this would require much more tedious calculations, we will not go through it here.
It will be interesting to know if one can adopt recent developments of regular Lagrangian flows (cf. [@ac14]) and use the continuity equation rather than the transport equation, to improve the Main theorem.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
Albert Clop, Joan Mateu and Joan Orobitg were partially supported by Generalitat de Catalunya (2014SGR75) and Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MTM2013-44699). Albert Clop was partially supported by the Programa Ramón y Cajal (Spain). Renjin Jiang was partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 11301029). All authors were partially supported by Marie Curie Initial Training Network MAnET (FP7-607647).
[999]{}
Ambrosio L., Transport equation and Cauchy problem for BV vector fields, Invent. Math. 158 (2004), 227-260.
Ambrosio L., Transport equation and Cauchy problem for non-smooth vector fields, Calculus of variations and nonlinear partial differential equations, 1-41, Lecture Notes in Math., 1927, Springer, Berlin, 2008.
Ambrosio L., Colombo M., Figalli A., Existence and uniqueness of maximal regular flows for non-smooth vector fields, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 218 (2015), 1043-1081.
Ambrosio L., Crippa G., Continuity equations and ODE flows with non-smooth velocity, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 144 (2014), 1191-1244.
Ambrosio L., Crippa G., Figalli A., Spinolo L.V., Some new well-posedness results for continuity and transport equations, and applications to the chromatography system, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 41 (2009), 1890-1920.
Ambrosio L., Figalli A., On flows associated to Sobolev vector fields in Wiener spaces: an approach à la DiPerna-Lions, J. Funct. Anal. 256 (2009), 179-214.
Bouchut F., Crippa G., Lagrangian flows for vector fields with gradient given by a singular integral, J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ. 10 (2013), 235-282.
Bogachev V., Gaussian measures. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 62. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.
Cipriano F., Cruzeiro A.B., Flows associated with irregular $\rr^d$-vector fields, J. Differential Equations 219 (2005), 183-201.
Clop A., Jiang R., Mateu J., Orobitg J., Linear transport equation for vector fields with subexponentially integrable divergece, to appear in Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations (arXiv:1502.05303).
Colombini F., Crippa G., Rauch J., A note on two-dimensional transport with bounded divergence, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 31 (2006), 1109-1115.
Colombini F., Lerner N., Uniqueness of continuous solutions for BV vector fields, Duke Math. J. 111 (2002), 357-384.
Crippa G., The flow associated to weakly differentiable vector fields. Tesi. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (Nuova Series) \[Theses of Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (New Series)\], 12. Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 2009. xvi+167 pp.
Crippa G., De Lellis C., Estimates and regularity results for the DiPerna-Lions flow, J. Reine Angew. Math. 616 (2008), 15-46.
Cruzeiro A.B., Équations différentielles ordinaires: non explosion et mesures quasi-invariantes, J. Funct. Anal. 54 (1983), 193-205.
Desjardins B., A few remarks on ordinary differential equations, Comm. Partial Diff. Eq. 21 (1996), 1667-1703.
DiPerna R.J., Lions P.L., Ordinary differential equations, transport theory and Sobolev spaces, Invent. Math. 98 (1989), 511-547.
Hale J.K., Ordinary differential equations. Second edition. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., Inc., Huntington, N.Y., 1980.
Rao M., Ren Z., Theory of Orlicz spaces, Dekker, New York, 1991.
*Albert Clop, Joan Mateu and Joan Orobitg*
Departament de Matemàtiques, Facultat de Ciències,\
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona\
08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), CATALONIA.
*Renjin Jiang*
School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems, Ministry of Education, 100875, Beijing, CHINA
and
Departament de Matemàtiques, Facultat de Ciències,\
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona\
08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), CATALONIA.
[*E-mail addresses*]{}:\
`[email protected]`\
`[email protected]`\
`[email protected]`\
`[email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the finite temperature transition in QCD with two flavors of dynamical fermions at a pseudoscalar pion mass of about 350 MeV. We use lattices with temporal extent of $N_t$=8, 10 and 12. For the first time in the literature a continuum limit is carried out for several observables with dynamical overlap fermions. These findings are compared with results obtained within the staggered fermion formalism at the same pion masses and extrapolated to the continuum limit. The presented results correspond to fixed topology and its effect is studied in the staggered case. Nice agreement is found between the overlap and staggered results.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Wuppertal University, Gaussstrasse 20, D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany'
- 'IAS/JSC, Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-52425 Jülich, Germany'
- 'Institute for Theoretical Physics, Eötvös University, Pázmány Peter sétany 1/A, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary'
- 'MTA-ELTE Lendület Lattice Gauge Theory Research Group, Budapest, Hungary'
author:
- 'Sz. Borsanyi'
- 'Z. Fodor'
- 'S.D. Katz'
- 'S. Krieg'
- 'T. Lippert'
- 'D. Nogradi'
- 'F. Pittler'
- 'K.K. Szabo'
- 'B.C. Toth'
bibliography:
- 'ov15.bib'
title: QCD thermodynamics with continuum extrapolated dynamical overlap fermions
---
Lattice QCD, Chiral fermions, Finite temperature QCD
Introduction
============
The QCD Lagrangian possesses an approximate SU(2)$_V\times$SU(2)$_A$$\times$U(1)$_V$$\times$U(1)$_A$ global symmetry. Both SU(2) symmetries and U(1)$_A$ are explicitly broken by small mass effects. SU(2)$_A$ is spontaneously broken even in the massless limit and the U(1)$_A$ is always broken on the quantum level by the chiral anomaly. According to the most popular picture the QCD transition at non-vanishing temperatures is related to the restoration of the SU(2)$_A$ chiral symmetry. Though for physical quark masses the transition turns out to be an analytic cross-over [@Aoki:2006we] the physics of the transition is still determined by the remnants of the above mentioned symmetry breaking and its restoration.
The staggered fermion formulation is the cheapest one among all lattice fermion formulations used for QCD. In addition, staggered fermions possess a chiral symmetry even at non-vanishing lattice spacings. Thus, they show the most important physical feature of the finite temperature QCD transition already at non-zero lattice spacings. These two features, low CPU demand and symmetry, explain why almost all large-scale lattice thermodynamics projects use staggered fermions. For many bulk quantities reliable quantitative results exist. These are obtained by controlled continuum extrapolations. E.g. the scale of the temperature was calculated [@Aoki:2006br; @Aoki:2009sc; @Borsanyi:2010bp; @Bazavov:2011nk] in physical units and the equation of state was determined [@Borsanyi:2010cj; @Borsanyi:2013bia; @Bazavov:2014pvz].
Though staggered fermions possess a chiral symmetry, it is not the same as that of the continuum QCD theory. In addition, there is a subtle procedure how this chiral symmetry is broken, how it is restored and how to look at it for less than four flavors by rooting. Besides the theoretical difficulties related to staggered fermions, there are technical difficulties, too. First of all, the observables, that are related to pion physics suffer from large discretization effects related to the taste symmetry violation (see e.g. [@Bellwied:2015lba] for examples). Secondly, measuring the thermal correlations of quarks and hadrons is notoriously difficult, due to the complicated valence structure of staggered quarks.
Wilson fermions do not possess any chiral symmetry at non-vanishing lattice spacings, the symmetry is restored only in the continuum limit. As a consequence Wilson fermion based thermodynamics has large cutoff effects and small lattice spacings are needed to carry out controlled continuum extrapolations [@Borsanyi:2012uq; @Borsanyi:2015waa].
Chiral lattice fermions (overlap or domain-wall) are ideal candidates for lattice QCD thermodynamics. Obviously, they are much more expensive than the staggered discretization. Since the first dynamical overlap study [@Fodor:2003bh] there have been a number of finite temperature results using overlap [@Cossu:2013uua; @Borsanyi:2012xf] or domain wall [@Buchoff:2013nra; @Chiu:2013wwa; @Bhattacharya:2014ara] fermions. These works used $N_t=6$ and/or $N_t=8$ lattice extents. Until now, no larger temporal extents were used and no continuum extrapolation was performed. The main goal of this paper is to present the very first investigation of this kind.
In this paper we continue our thermodynamic investigations with overlap fermions started in 2012 in Ref. [@Borsanyi:2012xf]. We had two lattice spacings back then, $N_t$=6 and 8. Here we go far beyond that level and extend that work with two finer sets of lattice spacings, $N_t$=10 and 12. Since the action, the observables and many of the methods are the same as in our first paper, here we only describe them briefly and focus on the novel features and improvements. Then we present results with three temporal extents: $N_t$=8,10 and 12 for four observables. We carry out a continuum extrapolation based on these lattice spacings and compare them to staggered calculations.
The structure of this letter is the following. In sections \[se:ov\] and \[se:st\] we briefly summarize the overlap and staggered simulation details, respectively. We present the results in section \[se:res\] and then conclude. Some important algorithmic details are discussed in the appendix.
Overlap simulation details {#se:ov}
==========================
Since we extend our preliminary study [@Borsanyi:2012xf] we employ the same lattice action, which is described in detail there. For completeness we summarize our setup here:
- tree level Symanzik improved gauge action with coupling parameter $\beta$
- two flavors of overlap quarks with the overlap operator defined as $$D =\left(m_0-\frac{m}{2}\right)\left[ 1+\gamma_5 {\rm sgn}\left(\gamma_5 W(-m_0)\right)\right]+m,$$ where $m$ is the mass of the quark, $W(-m_0)$ is a two step HEX smeared Wilson operator with a negative mass of $-m_0=-1.3$. The HEX smearing parameters are $\alpha_1=0.72$, $\alpha_2=0.60$ and $\alpha_3=0.44$.
- two flavors of Wilson fermions with mass $-m_0$, which are irrelevant in the continuum limit [@Fukaya:2006vs].
- two boson fields with mass $m_B=0.54$ and the action $$\phi^\dagger \left[ W(-m_0) + i m_B \gamma_5 \tau_3 \right] \phi,$$ which term is also irrelevant in the continuum limit.
- ensembles are generated using the Hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm with the Zolotarev approximation of the sign function [@vandenEshof:2002ms; @Fodor:2003bh]. HEX smearing is included in the HMC as described in [@Durr:2010aw].
The effect of the irrelevant fields is to disable topological sector changes along the HMC trajectories. Note that the action itself does not constrain the topology, it only differs form the QCD action by irrelevant terms. These irrelevant terms give a delta function like contribution to the action at the topological sector boundaries which the continuous HMC trajectories cannot cross. Our aim is to keep the system in the zero topological charge sector.
The scale is set by the $w_0$ parameter [@Borsanyi:2012zs] and our line of constant physics (LCP) is defined by the condition $m_\pi
w_0=0.312$. In Ref. [@Borsanyi:2012xf] we determined the LCP in the range $\beta=3.6 \dots 4.1$. In this work we needed to determine the line of constant physics (LCP) for larger $\beta$ values. Using two additional simulations on $32^4$ and $32^3\cdot 48$ lattices at $\beta=4.2$ and at $4.3$, respectively, we obtained the LCP, which is shown on Figure \[fi:lcp\].
For the renormalization of the finite temperature results we performed a series of runs on symmetric lattices $N_s=N_t$. These are collected in Table \[ta:zerot\]. The $w_0$ values, that are used to convert the results to physical units, are measured on these lattices. For the conversion we use the value $w_0=0.1755$ fm.[^1] To check the quality of our LCP determination we also measured the pion mass on these lattices. The $m_\pi w_0$ values are also given in Table \[ta:zerot\].
$\beta$ $N_s$ \#traj a\[fm\] $m_\pi w_0$
--------- ------- -------- --------- -------------
3.72601 24 500 0.207 0.310(1)
3.78989 24 600 0.182 0.314(1)
3.84097 24 800 0.165 0.312(2)
3.95191 24 1100 0.135 0.310(2)
4.04464 24 1700 0.115 0.305(2)
4.13912 24 2100 0.096 0.316(5)
4.24969 24 2300 0.079 0.330(8)
4.35979 24 2200 0.066 0.325(17)
4.20588 32 1000 0.087 0.299(5)
4.31965 32 1200 0.070 0.331(9)
: \[ta:zerot\] Summary of zero temperature runs.
The finite temperature lattices are simulated at three temporal extents $N_t=8,10$ and $12$ and with aspect ratio $r=N_s/N_t=2$. Details can be found in Table \[ta:fint\]. The trajectories were generated in two streams. We monitored the topological charge ($Q$) during the simulations: no sector change was observed even though the finite stepsize integration does not necessarily forbid the change. We measured the quark number susceptibility and the chiral condensate on every fifth trajectory.
For the renormalization [@Aoki:2006br] of the Polyakov loop, $L$, we carried out simulations at $T=208$ MeV with temporal extents $N_t=4,5,6,7,8,10,12$ and $14$. We measured the Polyakov loop to obtain the renormalization factor $F_0(\beta)=1/N_t \log L$.
$\beta$ $N_t\times N_s$ \#traj
--------- ----------------- --------
3.72601 $8\times 16$ 6300
3.78989 $8\times 16$ 7600
3.84797 $8\times 16$ 9000
3.90165 $8\times 16$ 10500
3.95191 $8\times 16$ 12100
3.99943 $8\times 16$ 13400
4.04464 $8\times 16$ 14400
4.10869 $8\times 16$ 15700
3.84097 $10\times 20$ 6700
3.90810 $10\times 20$ 8200
3.97002 $10\times 20$ 9800
4.02793 $10\times 20$ 11200
4.08253 $10\times 20$ 12300
4.13412 $10\times 20$ 13200
4.18274 $10\times 20$ 13800
4.24969 $10\times 20$ 14100
3.93963 $12\times 24$ 5800
4.01093 $12\times 24$ 6800
4.07720 $12\times 24$ 6100
4.13912 $12\times 24$ 10100
4.19672 $12\times 24$ 11000
4.24969 $12\times 24$ 11400
4.29763 $12\times 24$ 11600
4.35979 $12\times 24$ 10300
: \[ta:fint\] Summary of finite temperature runs.
![\[fi:lcp\] The line of constant physics used in this work.](plots/lcp.pdf){width="12cm"}
Staggered simulation details {#se:st}
============================
In order to compare the continuum results obtained from different discretizations we also performed a series of staggered runs. We used the same tree level Symanzik improved gauge action with $\beta$ coupling as in the overlap case. The fermion action is a two flavor (rooted) staggered fermion action with four steps of stout smearing with smearing parameter $\rho=0.125$. We tuned the quark mass to the same LCP as in the overlap case ($m_\pi w_0$=0.312). To this end we generated 1000-7000 configurations separated by 5 HMC trajectories on $32^3\cdot 64$, $40^3\cdot 64$ and $48^3\cdot 64$ lattices in the range $\beta= 3.75 \dots 4.4$. These $T=0$ runs are also used for renormalization of the chiral observables. At non-vanishing temperature we used $N_t$=8, 10, 12 and 16 lattices with the same fixed $r=2$ aspect ratio as in the overlap case. This guarantees that the same physical volumes are compared. We chose the couplings such that they correspond to the same fixed temperatures at each $N_t$. Each ensemble consists of 1000-2000 configurations separated by 10 HMC trajectories. Since in the staggered case the topology was not constrained, all our runs sample multiple topological sectors. In the infinite volume limit our observables are expected to be independent of the global topological charge but at the volumes studied in this work there may still be significant $1/V$ volume corrections [@Aoki:2007ka]. To investigate these effects we also selected gauge configurations with zero topological charge. This makes a direct comparison with the overlap results possible and the difference compared to having all sectors gives an estimate of this volume dependence for each observable. For the selection we applied a gradient flow on the gauge configurations. After measuring the topological charge distribution on these gauge fields we were always able to identify a peak in the histogram which belonged to the $Q=0$ sector. We checked that this selection, and, in particular, the resulting expectation value of the chiral condensate, was independent of the $t$ flow time if $T^2t \ge 0.0625$. For all lattice spacings and temperatures we used the selection rule $-0.5 < Q(t=0.0625/T^2) < 0.5$. Note that by dropping the $Q\ne0$ sectors we lost 85% of our statistics below $T_c$, in the deconfined phase this loss was only about 10%.
Results {#se:res}
=======
Continuum extrapolation
-----------------------
We want to compare continuum extrapolated results of temperature dependent observables using two discretizations. This requires a non-trivial analysis, since both an interpolation in $T$ and a continuum extrapolation is needed. In case of the overlap ensembles for all observables we used two independent analyses following different strategies. These are similar to those applied in [@Borsanyi:2012uq; @Borsanyi:2015waa]. In the first approach we first interpolate the data in temperature for each lattice spacing and then perform a continuum extrapolation at fixed temperatures. The interpolation is done using a cubic spline. The continuum extrapolation is performed as a linear fit in $1/N_t^2$ using our three lattice spacings. The continuum extrapolations for all observables had good fit qualities.
In the second approach a given observable is interpolated using a functional form of $O(T)=A(T)+B(T)/N_t^2$ where $A(T)$ and $B(T)$ are cubic spline functions. The two splines have the same node points. These, however, do not coincide with the data points. The number of node points is smaller than the number of data points and the $A(T)$ and $B(T)$ splines are fitted to the data. The node points are scattered randomly in the temperature range with the following constraints: there is always a node point before the first and after the last data point and in each interval between adjacent data points there can be 0 or 1 node point. In order to determine the systematic uncertainty of the resulting $O(T)$ curve we weight the various splines using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [@Akaike1973; @Akaike1978c; @Borsanyi:2014jba]. The weight of each fit result is $w_i=\exp(AIC_i/2)$ with $AIC_i=2k_i-\chi_i^2$ where $k_i$ is the number of degrees of freedom and $\chi_i^2$ is the usual $\chi^2$ for the $i^{\rm th}$ fit. Since there are many possibilities to select node points instead of evenly distributing them we used importance sampling based on the AIC weights. Thus starting from a random set of node points at each step we propose one of the following changes: adding a new node point, removing one, or shifting one without breaking the above constraints. Then the proposed set of new node points is either accepted or rejected using a Metropolis step with probability: $p=\min\left\{ 1, \exp(\Delta AIC/2)\right\}$. Since the number of degrees of freedom $k_i$ (i.e. the number of node points) can change during the Monte-Carlo sampling of node points, bad fit qualities result in small $k_i$. In the extreme case when the data is highly inconsistent with the above functional form (i.e. the lattice spacings are far from the scaling regime) the $AIC$ weights are maximized by having no degree of freedom and consequently vanishing $\chi^2$. We do not observe such behavior for any of our observables, the required number of degrees of freedom is always ${\cal O}(10)$, proving that the continuum extrapolations are under control. The resulting $O(T)$ curves can simply be averaged and the width of their distribution defines our systematic uncertainty. Statistical errors are determined by a jackknife analysis.
The two analyses gave consistent results in all cases. The results presented in the following were obtained with the second one.
As mentioned previously the staggered ensembles were tuned to have the same temperatures for all $N_t$. This makes a pointwise continuum extrapolation trivial. The systematic error has been estimated from continuum extrapolations using all four lattice spacings or only the finest three.
Observables
-----------
The first observable we determine is the isospin susceptibility which is the connected part of the quark number susceptibility, defined as: $$\chi_I=\frac{T}{V}\left.\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \mu_I^2}\right|_{\mu_I=0} \log Z$$ We perform a tree level improvement using the correction factors listed in Table 1 of [@Borsanyi:2012xf]. Figure \[fi:qns\] shows the results on the three lattice spacings and their continuum extrapolation as well as the staggered continuum result using only the $Q=0$ configurations. There is a nice agreement between the two discretizations.
![\[fi:qns\] Isospin susceptibility as a function of temperature. The red, green, and blue symbols show the overlap results on $N_t=$8, 10, 12 lattices and the purple band is their continuum extrapolation. The continuum extrapolated staggered result using only the $Q=0$ configurations is shown by the black dots.](plots/ov_qns.pdf){width="12cm"}
The second observable is the Polyakov loop. The renormalization condition is $\left.L_R\right|_{T=208{\rm MeV}}=1$, according to which we have $$L_R= L \exp\left(-N_t F_0(\beta)\right),$$ where the determination of $F_0(\beta)$ is described in Section \[se:ov\]. It is shown on Figure \[fi:ploop\] again together with the staggered result. In case of the Polyakov loop the selection of $Q=0$ configurations at low temperatures causes a significant loss of statistics at $N_t=16$ which results in large errors after continuum extrapolation. We checked on the $N_t=8$ and 10 lattices that this selection has no effect on the result, therefore we show the continuum extrapolated Polyakov loop obtained from all sectors. The continuum extrapolations of the two discretizations are again consistent with each other.
![\[fi:ploop\] Polyakov loop as a function of temperature. The symbols are the same as in Figure \[fi:qns\]. Since no topology dependence is observed the staggered result contains all topological sectors.](plots/ov_ploop.pdf){width="12cm"}
The third observable is the chiral condensate. On Figure \[fi:pbp\] we show $$m_R \overline{\psi}\psi_R w_0^4= m \left[ \frac{T}{V}\frac{\partial}{\partial m} \log Z\right]_{\rm sub},$$ where $[\dots]_{\rm sub}$ means the zero temperature subtracted value. The staggered result again corresponds to the $Q=0$ topological sector.
![\[fi:pbp\] Chiral condensate as a function of temperature. The symbols are the same as in Figure \[fi:qns\]. The staggered result corresponds to $Q=0$.](plots/ov_pbp.pdf){width="12cm"}
The fourth observable is the chiral susceptibility. On Figure \[fi:psusc\] we show $$m_R^2 \chi_{\overline{\psi}\psi R} w_0^4= m^2 \left[ \frac{T}{V}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial m^2} \log Z\right]_{\rm sub}$$ obtained both from the overlap and staggered ensembles. For both chiral observables we see again a nice agreement between overlap and staggered results.
![\[fi:psusc\] Chiral susceptibility as a function of temperature. The symbols are the same as in Figure \[fi:qns\]. The staggered result corresponds to $Q=0$.](plots/ov_pbpsusc.pdf){width="12cm"}
Let us now discuss the effect of fixed topology. Using the full staggered ensembles we can quantify how much our observables depend on the global topology in these relatively small volumes. The quark number susceptibility and Polyakov loop are completely insensitive, using the full ensembles give consistent results but with smaller errors due to using the full statistics. The chiral observables, however show a different behavior, there is a significant difference between using $Q=0$ and using all sectors. This is demonstrated in Figure \[fi:pbpq\] where the continuum extrapolated chiral condensate is shown for these two ensembles. The difference is expected to scale with $1/V$ therefore using an aspect ratio of $r=4$ which is typical for previous staggered studies, it is smaller by an order of magnitude.
![\[fi:pbpq\] Comparison of the staggered continuum extrapolated chiral condensate in the $Q=0$ sector and in all sectors.](plots/pbpq.pdf){width="12cm"}
Conclusions
===========
We have presented continuum extrapolated results for the temperature dependence of four observables, the isospin susceptibility, the Polyakov loop, the chiral condensate, and the chiral susceptibility using two flavors of dynamical overlap fermions with a pion mass of $\approx$350 MeV. Three temporal extents, $N_t=$8, 10 and 12 were used which made a controlled continuum extrapolation possible. All runs were performed at fixed topology. The results were compared to continuum extrapolated staggered ones and a nice agreement was found for all observables when the topology was also constrained on the staggered ensembles. Using the full staggered ensembles as well we could estimate the finite volume effect caused by fixing the topology. The isospin susceptibility and the Polyakov loop show no $Q$ dependence already on these relatively small volumes. The chiral observables, on the other hand, still depend on $Q$. It is also possible to perform simulations in different sectors and use the topological susceptibility to combine them [@Egri:2005cx].
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank G. Bali, T.W. Chiu, G. Endrodi and A. Schaefer for useful discussions. Computations were performed on JUQUEEN at FZ-Jülich and on GPU clusters at Wuppertal and Budapest. This project was funded by the DFG grant SFB/TR55, by OTKA under grants OTKA-NF-104034 and OTKA-K-113034. S.D.K. is funded by the “Lendület” program of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (LP2012-44/2012).
Methods and algorithms
======================
Preconditioning the inverse of the overlap matrix {#se:prec}
-------------------------------------------------
Beyond the algorithmic ingredients already applied in Ref [@Borsanyi:2012xf], i.e. Hasenbusch trick [@Hasenbusch:2001ne], Omelyan integrator [@Takaishi:2005tz] and a multi-scale scheme [@Sexton:1992nu], a major algorithmic improvement in this work is the preconditioner for the inversion of the overlap matrix. The technique was proposed in [@Brannick:2014vda].
The inverter is the FGMRES algorithm. The preconditioner is the inverse of the Wilson operator with a mass, that is a tuneable parameter. We add a clover term to the Wilson operator, since it makes the preconditioning more efficient: it brings the physical spectrum of the Wilson operator closer to the spectrum of the overlap operator. We utilize an even-odd preconditioned BICGSTAB inverter to invert the Wilson matrix. Since it is still a subdominant part of the total inverter, we did not implement the multigrid acceleration for the Wilson inverse, that was proposed in [@Brannick:2014vda]. The preconditioner utilizes single precision arithmetics.
In the HMC update the inverse of the overlap operator is required at three different occasions: in the heatbath, in the pseudofermion action and in the pseudofermion force. We use two flavors, so in principle the inverse of the square of the overlap operator $(D^{\dagger}D)^{-1}$ is needed. The cases of the heatbath and the pseudofermion action simplify to the application of only $D^{-1}$ for which we can use the preconditioned inverter. In the case of the fermion force we use two consecutive application of the preconditioned inverter: $(D^{\dagger}D)^{-1}= D^{-1}\gamma_5D^{-1} \gamma_5$. Even this two step approach is about a factor five faster compared to the previously used technique (relaxed CG).
Algorithm to determine the index
--------------------------------
Although the action is designed to keep the overlap simulations in fixed sectors, due to the finite stepsize HMC integration sector changes are in principle possible. Therefore it is important to monitor that topology is indeed fixed. Below we discuss how we determined the topological charge using the index of the overlap operator. \[3\][ $#1 \gets #2$ $#3$ ]{}
$i\gets 0$ $n_{\text{zero}} \gets 0$, $n_{\text{vec}} \gets 0$ $n_{\text{vec}} \gets n_{\text{vec}} + 1$ $v_{n_{\text{vec}}} \gets \text{Gaussian random vector}$ $\displaystyle v_{n_{\text{vec}}} \gets v_{n_{\text{vec}}} -
\sum_{l=1}^{n_{\text{vec}}-1} \langle v_l | v_{n_{\text{vec}}} \rangle\, v_l$ $\displaystyle v_{n_{\text{vec}}} \gets \frac{v_{n_{\text{vec}}}}{
\left\| v_{n_{\text{vec}}} \right\|}$ $\varepsilon_{n_{\text{vec}}} \gets {\varepsilon_{\text{nonzero}}}+1$ $\displaystyle w \gets \left( D_0^{\dagger} D_0 + \sigma \right)^{-1} v_k$ \[alg:index:inv\] $\mu \gets \langle w | v_k \rangle$ $\displaystyle \lambda_k \gets -\sigma + \frac{1}{\mu}$ $\displaystyle \varepsilon_k \gets \left\| v_k - \frac{w}{\mu} \right\|
/ \left\| w \right\|$ $\displaystyle w \gets w - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1} \langle v_l | w
\rangle \, v_l$ $\displaystyle v_k \gets \frac{w}{ \left\| w \right\|}$ $n_{\text{zero}} \gets n_{\text{zero}} + 1$ $\displaystyle i \gets i - \mathrm{sgn}\big[ \langle
v_{n_{\text{zero}}} | \gamma_5 | v_{n_{\text{zero}}} \rangle \big]$ $i$
The topological charge of a gauge configuration is given by the index $Q= n_- -
n_+$ of the massless overlap operator $D_0$, where $n_-$ and $n_+$ denote the number of zero modes with negative and positive chirality, respectively. We systematically look for the lowest eigenvalues of $D_0^\dagger D_0$, and stop when the first nonzero eigenvalue is found.
The method we apply to find the zero modes, described in Algorithm \[alg:index\], is based on the inverse iteration. For this one inverts the $D_0^\dagger D_0$ with a shift $\sigma$, which is a fixed parameter of the algorithm. There are three parameters controlling the precision of the eigenmodes, they have to obey the constraint $0 < {\varepsilon_{\text{stop}}}\le {\varepsilon_{\text{zero}}}\le {\varepsilon_{\text{nonzero}}}$. Parameter ${\varepsilon_{\text{stop}}}$ controls the condition when an eigenvector is considered precise enough for the algorithm to stop iterating over it. It is still used for the orthogonalization process. A vector is considered as a zero mode if the corresponding eigenvalue is compatible with zero with an error less than ${\varepsilon_{\text{zero}}}$. A vector is considered as nonzero if the corresponding eigenvalue is different from zero with an error less than ${\varepsilon_{\text{nonzero}}}$.
The inversion in line \[alg:index:inv\] of Algorithm \[alg:index\] is computed as two consecutive inversions: $$\left( D_0^\dagger D_0 + \sigma \right)^{-1} = \left( D_0 + i\gamma_5\sqrt{\sigma}
\right)^{-1} \gamma_5 \left( D_0 - i\gamma_5\sqrt{\sigma} \right)^{-1} \gamma_5.$$ The inversions of $D_0 \pm i\gamma_5\sqrt{\sigma}$ are performed using the FGMRES inverter, as described in Subsection \[se:prec\]. For the shift $\sigma$ we chose a positive value, tuned such that it allows for a rapid convergence in the inversions, while keeps the number of iterations in Algorithm \[alg:index\] as low as possible. In addition, a positive value of $\sigma$ ensures that the zero eigenmodes are found first.
As an example, using the parameter values ${\varepsilon_{\text{stop}}}=10^{-8}$, ${\varepsilon_{\text{zero}}}=10^{-6}$, ${\varepsilon_{\text{nonzero}}}=10^{-4}$ and $\sigma=10^{-4}$ on a $12 \times 24^3$ lattice with $Q=-3$, the algorithm found the three zero modes and the first nonzero mode within 8 iterations.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: Note that this choice is ambiguous since this value corresponds to QCD with physical quark masses. Using a different observable to set the scale might lead to somewhat different results in physical units.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Julius von Kügelgen[^1] [^2] $^{1,2}$, Ivan Ustyuzhaninov $^{3}$,\
**Peter Gehler[^3] $^{4}$, Matthias Bethge$^{3,4}$, Bernhard Schölkopf$^{1,4}$**\
$^{1}$Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems Tübingen, Germany\
$^{2}$Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom\
$^{3}$University of Tübingen, Germany\
$^{4}$Amazon Tübingen, Germany\
`{jvk,bs}@tuebingen.mpg.de`,\
`{ivan.ustyuzhaninov,matthias.bethge}@bethgelab.org`,\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'scenes\_iclr.bib'
title: |
Towards causal generative scene models\
via competition of experts
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The layer-based model of visual scenes {#sec:layer_based_model}
======================================
Related work {#sec:related_work}
============
Ensemble of competing object nets ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">econ</span>]{}) {#sec:method}
==========================================================================================
Experimental results {#sec:experiments_and_results}
====================
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank Alex Smola, Anirudh Goyal, Muhammad Waleed Gondal, Chris Russel, Adrian Weller, Neil Lawrence, and the Empirical Inference “deep learning & causality” team at the MPI for Intelligent Systems for helpful discussions and feedback.
M.B. and B.S. acknowledge support from the German Science Foundation (DFG) through the CRC 1233 “Robust Vision” project number 276693517, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through the Tübingen AI Center (FKZ: 01IS18039A), and the DFG Cluster of Excellence “Machine Learning – New Perspectives for Science” EXC 2064/1, project number 390727645.
Derivations {#app:derivations}
===========
Additional experimental results {#app:additional_results}
===============================
Experimental details {#app:experimental_details}
====================
[^1]: Equal contribution
[^2]: Work done during an internship at Amazon Research Tübingen
[^3]: Joint senior author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '$^{th}$ birthday.'
author:
- 'Nicolas Boizot and Jean-Paul Gauthier [^1]'
title: Motion Planning for Kinematic systems
---
Optimal control, Subriemannian geometry, robotics, motion planning
Introduction
============
Here we present the main lines of a theory of motion planning for kinematic systems, which is developped for about ten years in the papers [@GM; @GZ; @GZ2; @WIL; @GZ3; @ano; @jak]. One of the purposes of the paper is to survey the whole theory disseminated in these papers. But also we improve on the theory, by treating one more case, in which “the fourth order brackets are involved”. We aslo improve on several previous results (periodicity of our optimal trajectories for instance). Potential application of this theory is motion planning for kinematic robots. We will show several basic examples here.
The theory starts from the seminal work of F. Jean, in the papers [@J1; @J2; @J3]. At the root of this point of view in robotics, there are also more applied authors like J.P. Laumond [@lau]. See also [@liu].
We consider kinematic systems that are given under the guise of a vector-distribution $\Delta$ over a $n$-dimensional manifold $M$. The rank of the distribution is $p$, and the corank $k=n-p.\ $Motion planning problems will aways be local problems in an open neighborhood of a given finite path $\Gamma$ in $M.$ Then we may always consider that $M=\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ From a control point of view, a kinematic system can be specified by a control system, linear in the controls, typically denoted by $\Sigma$:$$(\Sigma)\text{ }\dot{x}={\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p}}
F_{i}(x)u_{i},\label{sys1}$$
where the $F_{i}$’s are smooth ($C^{\infty})$ vector fields that span the distribution $\Delta.$ The standard controllability assumption is always assumed, i.e. the Lie algebra generated by the $F_{i}$’s is transitive on $M.$ Consequently, the distribution $\Delta$ is *completely nonintegrable*, and any smooth path $\Gamma:[0,T]\rightarrow M$ can be unifomly approximated by an admissible path $\gamma:[0,\theta]\rightarrow M $, i.e. a Lipschitz path, which is almost everywhere tangent to $\Delta,$ i.e., a trajectory of (\[sys1\])$.$
This is precisely the *abstract answer* to the kinematic motion planning probem: *it is possible to approximate uniformly nonadmissible paths by admissible ones*. The purpose of this paper is to present a general constructive theory that solves this problem in a certain *optimal* way.
More precisely, in this class of problems, it is natural to try to minimize a cost of the following form:$$J(u)={\displaystyle\int\limits_{0^{{}}}^{\theta}}
\sqrt{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p}}
(u_{i})^{2}}dt,$$ for several reasons: 1. the optimal curves do not depend on their parametrization, 2. the minimization of such a cost produces a metric space (the associated distance is called the subriemannian distance, or the Carnot-Caratheodory distance), 3. Minimizing such a cost is equivalent to minimize the following (called the *energy* of the path) quadratic cost $J_{E}(u)$, in fixed time $\theta$:$$J_{E}(u)={\displaystyle\int\limits_{0^{{}}}^{\theta}}
{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p}}
(u_{i})^{2}dt.$$
The distance is defined as the minimum length of admissible curves connecting two points, and the length of the admissible curve corresponding to the control $u:[0,\theta]\rightarrow M$ is just $J(u).$
In this presentation, another way to interpret the problem is as follows: the dynamics is specified by the distribution $\Delta$ (i.e. not by the vector fields $F_{i},$ but their span only). The cost is then determined by an Euclidean metric $g$ over $\Delta,$ specified here by the fact that the $F_{i}$’s form an orthonormal frame field for the metric.
At this point we would like to make a more or less philosophical comment: there is, in the world of nonlinear control theory, a permanent twofold critic against the optimal control approach: 1. the choice of the cost to be minimized is in general rather arbitrary, and 2. optimal control solutions may be non robust.
Some remarkable conclusions of our theory show the following: in reasonable dimensions and codimensions, the optimal trajectories are extremely robust, and in particular, do not depend at all (modulo certain natural transformations) on the choice of the metric, but on the distribution $\Delta$ only. Even stronger: they depend only on the *nilpotent approximation along* $\Gamma$ (a concept that will be defined later on, which is a good local approximation of the problem). For a lot of low values of the rank $p$ and corank $k,$ these nilpotent approximations have no parameter (hence they are in a sense universal). The *asymptotic optimal sysntheses* (i.e. the phase portraits of the admissible trajectories that approximate up to a small $\varepsilon)$ are also universal.
Given a motion planning problem, specified by a (nonadmissible) curve $\Gamma,$ and a Subriemannian structure (\[sys1\]), we will consider two distinct concepts, namely: 1. The *metric complexity* $MC(\varepsilon
)$ that measures asymptotically the length of the best $\varepsilon
$-approximating admissible trajectories$,$ and 2. The *interpolation entropy* $E(\varepsilon)$, that measures the length of the best admissible curves that interpolate $\Gamma$ with pieces of length $\varepsilon.$
The first concept was introduced by F. Jean in his basic paper [@J1]. The second concept is closely related with the entropy of F. Jean in [@J2], which is more or less the same as the Kolmogorov’s entropy of the path $\Gamma,$ for the metric structure induced by the Carnot-Caratheodory metric of the ambient space.
Also, along the paper, we will deal with *generic* problems only (but generic in the global sense, i.e. stable singularities are considered). That is, the set of motion planning problems on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the set of couples $(\Gamma,\Sigma),$ embedded with the $C^{\infty}$ topology of uniform convergence over compact sets, and generic problems (or *problems in general position*) form an open-dense set in this topology. For instance, it means that the curve $\Gamma$ is always tranversal to $\Delta$ (except maybe at isolated points, in the cases $k=1$ only). Another example is the case of a surface of degeneracy of the Lie bracket distribution $[\Delta,\Delta]$ in the $n=3,$ $k=1$ case. Generically, this surface (the Martinet surface) is smooth, and $\Gamma$ intersects it transversally at a finite number of points only.
Also, along the paper, we will illustrate our results with one of the following well known academic examples:
\[unic\]the unicycle: $$\dot{x}=\cos(\theta)u_{1},\text{ }\dot{y}=\sin(\theta)u_{1},\text{ }\dot{\theta}=u_{2}\label{unicycle}$$
\[ctrl\]the car with a trailer:$$\dot{x}=\cos(\theta)u_{1},\text{ }\dot{y}=\sin(\theta)u_{1},\text{ }\dot{\theta}=u_{2},\text{ }\dot{\varphi}=u_{1}-\sin(\varphi)u_{2}\label{cartrailer}$$
\[bpln\]the ball rolling on a plane:$$\dot{x}=u_{1},\text{ }\dot{y}=u2,\text{ }\dot{R}=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}0 & 0 & u_{1}\\
0 & 0 & u_{2}\\
-u_{1} & -u_{2} & 0
\end{array}
\right] R,\label{brp}$$ where $(x,y)$ are the coordinates of the contact point between the ball and the plane, $R\in SO(3,\mathbb{R})$ is the right orthogonal matrix representing an othonormal frame attached to the ball.
\[brpt\]the ball with a trailer$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} & =u_{1},\text{ }\dot{y}=u2,\text{ }\dot{R}=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}0 & 0 & u_{1}\\
0 & 0 & u_{2}\\
-u_{1} & -u_{2} & 0
\end{array}
\right] R,\label{balltrailer}\\
\text{ }\dot{\theta} & =-\frac{1}{L}(\cos(\theta)u_{1}+\sin(\theta
)u_{2}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Typical motion planning problems are: 1. for example (\[ctrl\]),* the parking problem*: the non admissible curve $\Gamma$ is $s\rightarrow(x(s),y(s),\theta(s),\varphi(s))=(s,0,\frac{\pi}{2},0),$ 2. for example (\[bpln\]), the *full rolling with slipping problem*, $\Gamma:s\rightarrow(x(s),y(s),R(s))$ $=(s,0,Id),$ where $Id$ is the identity matrix. On figures \[fig1\], \[fig2\] we show our approximating trajectories for both problems, that are in a sense universal. In figure \[fig1\], of course, the $x$-scale is much larger than the $y$-scale.
[M1AOH500]{}
[M1AOH501]{}
Up to now, our theory covers the following cases:
(C1) The distribution $\Delta$ is one-step bracket generating (i.e. $\dim([\Delta,\Delta]=n)$ except maybe at generic singularities,
(C2) The number of controls (the dimension of $\Delta)$ is $p=2,$ and $n\leq6.$
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section \[prereq\], we introduce the basic concepts, namely the metric complexity, the interpolation entropy, the nilpotent approximation along $\Gamma,$ and the normal coordinates, that will be our basic tools.
Section \[results\] summarizes the main results of our theory, disseminated in our previous papers, with some complements and details. Section \[new\] is the detailed study of the case $n=6,$ $k=4,$ which corresponds in particular to example \[brpt\], the ball with a trailer. In Section \[concl\], we state a certain number of remarks, expectations and conclusions.
Basic concepts \[prereq\]
=========================
In this section, we fix a generic motion planning problem $\mathcal{P=}(\Gamma,\Sigma).$ Also, along the paper there is a small parameter $\varepsilon$ (we want to approximate up to $\varepsilon),$ and certain quantities $f(\varepsilon),g(\varepsilon)$ go to $+\infty$ when $\varepsilon$ tends to zero. We say that such quantities are equivalent $(f\simeq g)$ if $\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\frac{f(\varepsilon)}{g(\varepsilon)}=1.$ Also, $d$ denotes the subriemannian distance, and we consider the $\varepsilon
$-subriemammian tube $T\varepsilon$ and cylinder $C\varepsilon$ around $\Gamma:$ $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\varepsilon} & =\{x\in M\text{ }|\text{ }d(x,\Gamma)\leq\varepsilon\},\\
C_{\varepsilon} & =\{x\in M\text{ }|\text{ }d(x,\Gamma)=\varepsilon\}.\end{aligned}$$
Entropy versus metric complexity \[entcomp\]
--------------------------------------------
\[mc\]The *metric complexity* $MC(\varepsilon)$ of $\mathcal{P}$ is $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ times the minimum length of an admissible curve $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$ connecting the endpoints $\Gamma(0),$ $\Gamma(T)$ of $\Gamma,$ and remaining in the tube $T_{\varepsilon}.$
\[mce\]The *interpolation entropy* $E(\varepsilon)$ of $\mathcal{P}$ is $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$ times the minimum length of an admissible curve $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$ connecting the endpoints $\Gamma(0),\Gamma(T)$ of $\Gamma,$ and $\varepsilon$-interpolating $\Gamma$, that is, in any segment of $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$ of length $\geq\varepsilon,$ there is a point of $\Gamma.$
These quantities $MC(\varepsilon),E(\varepsilon)$ are functions of $\varepsilon$ which tends to $+\infty$ as $\varepsilon$ tends to zero. They are considered **up to equivalence**.The reason to divide by $\varepsilon$ is that the second quantity counts the number of $\varepsilon
$-balls to cover $\Gamma,$ or the number of pieces of length $\varepsilon$ to interpolate the full path. This is also the reason for the name “entropy”.
An asymptotic optimal synthesis is a one-parameter family $\gamma
_{\varepsilon}$ of admissible curves, that realizes the metric complexity or the entropy.
Our main purpose in the paper is twofold:
1. We want to estimate the metric complexity and the entropy, in terms of certain invariants of the problem. Actually, in all the cases treated in this paper, we will give eplicit formulas.
2. We shall exhibit explicit asymptotic optimal syntheses realizing the metric complexity or/and the entropy.
Normal coordinates\[normc\]
---------------------------
Take a **parametrized** $p$-dimensional surface $S,$ transversal to $\Delta$ (maybe defined in a neighborhood of $\Gamma$ only)$,$ $$S=\{q(s_{1},...,s_{p-1},t)\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\},\text{with }q(0,...,0,t)=\Gamma
(t).$$ Such a *germ* exists if $\Gamma$ is not tangent to $\Delta.$ The exclusion of a neighborhood of an isolated point where $\Gamma$ is tangent to $\Delta$, (that is $\Gamma$ becomes almost admissible), will not affect our estimates presented later on (it will provide a term of higher order in $\varepsilon).$ .
In the following, $\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon}^{S}$ will denote the cylinder $\{\xi;$ $d(S,\xi)=\varepsilon\}.$
\[nco\] (Normal coordinates with respect to $S).$ There are mappings $x:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p},$ $y:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}^{k-1},$ $w:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R},$ such that $\xi=(x,y,w)$ is a coordinate system on some neighborhood of $S$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, such that:
0\. $S(y,w)=(0,y,w),$ $\Gamma=\{(0,0,w)\}$
1\. The restriction $\Delta_{|S}=\ker dw\cap_{i=1,..k-1}\ker dy_{i},$ the metric $g_{|S}=\sum_{i=1}^{p}(dx_{i})^{2},$
2\. $\mathcal{C}_{\varepsilon}^{S}=\{\xi|\sum_{i=1}^{p}x_{i}{}^{2}=\varepsilon^{2}\},$
3\. geodesics of the Pontryagin’s maximum principle ([@PMP]) meeting the transversality conditions w.r.t. $S$ are the straight lines through $S,$ contained in the planes $P_{y_{0},w_{0}}=\{\xi|(y,w)=(y_{0},w_{0})\}.$ Hence, they are orthogonal to $S.$
These normal coordinates are unique up to changes of coordinates of the form $$\tilde{x}=T(y,w)x,(\tilde{y},\tilde{w})=(y,w),\label{ccor}$$ where $T(y,w)\in O(p),$ the $p$-orthogonal group.
Normal forms, Nilpotent approximation along $\Gamma$\[nform\]
-------------------------------------------------------------
### Frames\[fra\]
Let us denote by $F=(F_{1},...,F_{p})$ the orthonormal frame of vector fields generating $\Delta.$ Hence, we will also write $\mathcal{P}=(\Gamma,F).$ If a global coordinate system $(x,y,w)$, not necessarily normal, is given on a neighborhood of $\Gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n},$ with $x\in\mathbb{R}^{p},$ $y\in\mathbb{R}^{k-1},$ $w\in\mathbb{R},$ then we write:$$\begin{aligned}
F_{j} & =\sum_{i=1}^{p}\mathcal{Q}_{i,j}(x,y,w)\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_{i}}+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\mathcal{L}_{i,j}(x,y,w)\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}}\label{QLM}\\
& +\mathcal{M}_{j}(x,y,w)\frac{\partial}{\partial w},\text{ }\nonumber\\
\text{\ \ \ }j & =1,...,p.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the SR metric is specified by the triple $(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{L},\mathcal{M})$ of smooth $x,y,w$-dependent matrices.
### The general normal form\[gennf\]
Fix a surface $S$ as in Section \[ncor\] and a normal coordinate system $\xi=(x,y,w)$ for a problem $\mathcal{P}.$
\[normal\](Normal form, [@AG2]) There is a unique orthonormal frame $F=(\mathcal{Q},\mathcal{L},\mathcal{M})$ for ($\Delta,g)$ with the following properties:
1. $\mathcal{Q}(x,y,w)$ is symmetric, $\mathcal{Q}(0,y,w)=Id$ (the identity matrix),
2\. $\mathcal{Q}(x,y,w)x=x,$
3\. $\mathcal{L}(x,y,w)x=0,$ $\mathcal{M}(x,y,w)x=0.$
4\. Conversely if $\xi=(x,y,w)$ is a coordinate system satisfying conditions 1, 2, 3 above, then $\xi$ is a normal coordinate system for the SR metric defined by the orthonormal frame $F$ with respect to the parametrized surface $\{(0,y,w)\}.$
Clearly, this normal form is invariant under the changes of normal coordinates (\[ccor\]).
Let us write: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}(x,y,w) & =Id+Q_{1}(x,y,w)+Q_{2}(x,y,w)+...,\\
\mathcal{L}(x,y,w) & =0+L_{1}(x,y,w)+L_{2}(x,y,w)+...,\\
\mathcal{M}(x,y,w) & =0+M_{1}(x,y,w)+M_{2}(x,y,w)+...,\end{aligned}$$
where $Q_{r},L_{r},M_{r}$ are matrices depending on $\xi=(x,y,w),$ the coefficients of which have order $k$ w.r.t. $x$ (i.e. they are in the $r^{th}
$ power of the ideal of $C^{\infty}(x,y,w)$ generated by the functions $x_{r},$ $r=1,...,n-p).$ In particular, $Q_{1}$ is linear in $x,$ $Q_{2}$ is quadratic, etc... Set $u=(u_{1},...,u_{p})\in\mathbb{R}^{p}.$ Then $\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}L_{1_{j}}(x,y,w)u_{j}$ $=L_{1,y,w}(x,u)$ is quadratic in $(x,u),$ and $\mathbb{R}^{k-1}$-valued. Its $i^{th}$ component is the quadratic expression denoted by $L_{1,i,y,w}(x,u)$. Similarly $\sum
_{j=1}^{k-1}M_{1_{j}}(x,y,w)u_{j}$ $=M_{1,y,w}(x,u)$ is a quadratic form in $(x,u).$ The corresponding matrices are denoted by $L_{1,i,y,w},$ $i=1,...,k-1,$ and $M_{1,y,w}.$
The following was proved in [@AG2], [@char] for corank 1:
\[norprop\] 1. $Q_{1}=0,$
2. $L_{1,i,y,w},$ $i=1,...,p-1,$ and $M_{1,y,w}$ are skew symmetric matrices.
A first useful very rough estimate in normal coordinates is the following:
\[propb\] If $\xi=(x,y,w)\in T_{\varepsilon},$ then: $$\begin{aligned}
||x||_{2} & \leq\varepsilon,\\
||y||_{2} & \leq k\varepsilon^{2},\end{aligned}$$ for some $k>0.$
At this point, we shall split the problems under consideration into two distinct cases: first the 2-step bracket-generating case, and second, the 2-control case.
### Two-step bracket-generating case\[spe\]
In that case, we set, in accordance to Proposition \[propb\], that $x$ has weight 1, and the $y_{i}$’s and $w$ have weight 2$.$ Then, the vector fields $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}$ have weight -1, and $\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i}},\frac{\partial}{\partial w}$ have weight $-2.$
Inside a tube $T_{\varepsilon},$ we write our control system as a term of order -1, plus a residue, that has a certain order w.r.t. $\varepsilon
.\ $Here, $O(\varepsilon^{k})$ means a smooth term bounded by $c\varepsilon
^{k}.$ We have, for a trajectory remaining inside $T_{\varepsilon}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} & =u+O(\varepsilon^{2});\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)}\label{estco1}\\
\dot{y}_{i} & =\frac{1}{2}x^{\prime}L^{i}(w)u+O(\varepsilon^{2});\text{
\ \ }i=1,...,k-1;\nonumber\\
\dot{w} & =\frac{1}{2}x^{\prime}M(w)u+O(\varepsilon^{2}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $L^{i}(w),M(w)$ are skew-symmetric matrices depending smoothly on $w.\ $
In \[estco1\], (1), the term $O(\varepsilon^{2})$ can seem surprising. One should wait for $O(\varepsilon).\ $It is due to (1) in Proposition \[norprop\].
In that case, we define the **Nilpotent Approximation** $\hat{P}$** along** $\Gamma$ of the problem $\mathcal{P}$ by keeping only the term of order -1: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} & =u;\label{nilap1}\\
(\mathcal{\hat{P})}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\dot{y}_{i} & =\frac{1}{2}x^{\prime}L^{i}(w)u;\text{ \ \ }i=1,...,p-1;\nonumber\\
\dot{w} & =\frac{1}{2}x^{\prime}M(w)u.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Consider two trajectories $\xi(t),\hat{\xi}(t)$ of $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{\hat{P}}$ corresponding to the same control $u(t),$ issued from the same point on $\Gamma,$ and both arclength-parametrized (which is equivalent to $||u(t)||=1).$ For $t\leq\varepsilon,$ we have the following estimates:
$$||x(t)-\hat{x}(t)||\leq c\varepsilon^{3},||y(t)-\hat{y}(t)||\leq
c\varepsilon^{3},||w(t)-\hat{w}(t)||\leq c\varepsilon^{3},\label{ff0}$$ for a suitable constant $c.\ $
\[dist1\]It follows that the distance (either $d$ or $\hat{d}$-the distance associated with the nilpotent approximation$)$ between $\xi
(t),\hat{\xi}(t)$ is smaller than $\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}$ for some $\alpha>0.
$
This fact comes from the estimate just given, and the standard ball-box Theorem ([@GRO]). It will be the key point to reduce the motion planning problem to the one of its nilpotent approximation along $\Gamma$.
### The 2-control case\[2control\]
### Normal forms\[nffs\]
In that case, we have the following general normal form, in normal coordinates. It was proven first in [@AmPetr92], in the corank1 case. The proof holds in any corank, without modification.
Consider Normal coordinates with respect to any surface $\mathcal{S}$. There are smooth functions, $\beta(x,y,w),\gamma_{i}(x,y,w),\delta(x,y,w),$ such that $\mathcal{P}$ can be written as (on a neighborhood of $\Gamma)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{1} & =(1+(x_{2}^{{}})^{2}\beta)u_{1}-x_{1}x_{2}\beta u_{2},\text{
\ }\label{nf2}\\
\text{\ }\dot{x}_{2} & =(1+(x_{1}^{{}})^{2}\beta)u_{2}-x_{1}x_{2}\beta
u_{1},\nonumber\\
\dot{y}_{i} & =\gamma_{i}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\text{\ \ }\dot{w}=\delta(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where moreover $\beta$ vanishes on the surface $\mathcal{S}$.
The following normal forms can be obtained, on the tube $T_{\varepsilon},$ by just changing coordinates in $\mathcal{S}$ in certain appropriate way. It means that a trajectory $\xi(t)$ of $\mathcal{P}$ remaining in $T_{\varepsilon
}$ satisfies:
**Generic** $4-2$** case (see [@GZ3])**$:$$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1}+0(\varepsilon^{3}),\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2}+0(\varepsilon
^{3}),\\
\dot{y} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon^{2}),\\
\dot{w} & =\delta(w)x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon^{3}).\end{aligned}$$ We define the nilpotent approximation as:$$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{4,2})\text{ \ \ }\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1},\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2},\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\\
\dot{w} & =\delta(w)x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}).\text{\ }$$
Again, we consider two trajectories $\xi(t),\hat{\xi}(t)$ of $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{\hat{P}}$ corresponding to the same control $u(t),$ issued from the same point on $\Gamma,$ and both arclength-parametrized (which is equivalent to $||u(t)||=1).$ For $t\leq\varepsilon,$ we have the following estimates:
$$||x(t)-\hat{x}(t)||\leq c\varepsilon^{4},||y(t)-\hat{y}(t)||\leq
c\varepsilon^{3},||w(t)-\hat{w}(t)||\leq c\varepsilon^{4}.\label{ff1}$$
Which implies that, for $t\leq\varepsilon,$ the distance ($d$ or $\hat{d})$ between $\xi(t)$ and $\hat{\xi}(t)$ is less than $\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}$ for some $\alpha>0,$ and this will be also the keypoint to reduce our problem to the Nilpotent approximation.
**Generic** $5-2$** case (see [@ano])**$:$$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1}+0(\varepsilon^{3}),\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2}+0(\varepsilon
^{3}),\\
\dot{y} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon^{2}),\\
\dot{z} & =x_{2}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon
^{3}),\\
\dot{w} & =\delta(w)x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon^{3}).\end{aligned}$$ We define the nilpotent approximation as:$$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{5,2})\text{ \ \ }\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1},\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2},\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\\
\dot{z} & =x_{2}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\\
\dot{w} & =\delta(w)x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}).\text{\ }$$
The estimates necessary to reduce to Nilpotent approximation are:$$\begin{aligned}
||x(t)-\hat{x}(t)|| & \leq c\varepsilon^{4},||y(t)-\hat{y}(t)||\leq
c\varepsilon^{3},\label{ff2}\\
||z(t)-\hat{z}(t)|| & \leq c\varepsilon^{4},||w(t)-\hat{w}(t)||\leq
c\varepsilon^{4}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
**Generic** $6-2$** case (proven in Appendix)**$:$$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1}+0(\varepsilon^{3}),\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2}+0(\varepsilon
^{3}),\label{nf62}\\
\dot{y} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon
^{2}),\nonumber\\
\dot{z}_{1} & =x_{2}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon
^{3}),\nonumber\\
\dot{z}_{2} & =x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon
^{3}),\nonumber\\
\dot{w} & =Q_{w}(x_{1},x_{2})(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon^{4}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $Q_{w}(x_{1},x_{2})$ is a quadratic form in $x$ depending smoothly on $w.$
We define the nilpotent approximation as:$$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{6,2})\text{ \ \ }\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1},\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2},\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\label{nil62}\\
\dot{z}_{1} & =x_{2}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\dot{z}_{2}=x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\nonumber\\
\text{\ }\dot{w} & =Q_{w}(x_{1},x_{2})(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The estimates necessary to reduce to Nilpotent approximation are:$$\begin{aligned}
||x(t)-\hat{x}(t)|| & \leq c\varepsilon^{4},||y(t)-\hat{y}(t)||\leq
c\varepsilon^{3},\label{fff3}\\
||z(t)-\hat{z}(t)|| & \leq c\varepsilon^{4},||w(t)-\hat{w}(t)||\leq
c\varepsilon^{5}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In fact, the proof given in Appendix, of the reduction to this normal form, contains the other cases 4-2 and 5-2.
### Invariants in the 6-2 case, and the ball with a trailer
Let us consider a one form $\omega$ that vanishes on $\Delta^{\prime\prime
}=[\Delta,[\Delta,\Delta]].\ $Set $\alpha=d\omega_{|\Delta},$ the restriction of $d\omega$ to $\Delta.$ Set $H=[F_{1},F_{2}],$ $I=[F1,H], $ $J=[F_{2},H],$ and consider the $2\times2$ matrix $A(\xi)=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}d\omega(F_{1},I) & d\omega(F_{2},I)\\
d\omega(F_{1},J) & d\omega(F_{2},J)
\end{array}
\right) .$
Due tu Jacobi Identity, $\ A(\xi)$ is a symmetric matrix. It is also equal to $\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\omega([F_{1},I]) & \omega([F_{2},I])\\
\omega([F_{1},J]) & \omega([F_{2},J])
\end{array}
\right) ,$ using the fact that $\omega([X,Y])=d\omega(X,Y)$ in restriction to $\Delta^{\prime\prime}.$
Let us consider a gauge transformation, i.e. a feedback that preserves the metric (i.e. a change of othonormal frame $(F_{1},F_{2})$ obtained by setting $\tilde{F}_{1}=\cos(\theta(\xi))F_{1}+\sin(\theta(\xi))F_{2\text{ }},$ $\tilde{F}_{2}=-\sin(\theta(\xi))F_{1}+\cos(\theta(\xi))F_{2\text{ }}).$
It is just a matter of tedious computations to check that the matrix $A(\xi) $ is changed for $\tilde{A}(\xi)=R_{\theta}A(\xi)R_{-\theta}.$ On the other hand, the form $\omega$ is defined modulo muttiplication by a nonzero function $f(\xi),$ and the same holds for $\alpha,$ since $d(f\omega)=fd\omega
+df\wedge\omega,$ and $\omega$ vanishes over $\Delta^{\prime\prime}.$ The following lemma follows:
\[lem62inv\]The ratio $r(\xi)$ of the (real) eigenvalues of $A(\xi)$ is an invariant of the structure.
Let us now consider the normal form (\[nf62\]), and compute the form $\omega=\omega_{1}dx_{1}+...+\omega_{6}dw$ along $\Gamma$ (that is, where $x,y,z=0).$ Computing all the brackets show that $\omega_{1}=\omega
_{2}=...=\omega_{5}=0.$ This shows also that in fact, along $\Gamma$, $A(\xi)$ is just the matrix of the quadratic form $Q_{w}.\ $We get the following:
\[lem62inv1\] The invariant $r(\Gamma(t))$ of the problem $\mathcal{P}$ is the same as the invariant $\hat{r}(\Gamma(t))$ of the nilpotent approximation along $\Gamma.$
Let us compute the ratio $r$ for the ball with a trailer, Equation (\[balltrailer\]). We denote by $A_{1},A_{2}$ the two right-invariant vector fields over $So(3,\mathbb{R)}$ appearing in (\[balltrailer\]). We have: $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1} & =\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{1}}+A_{1}-\frac{1}{L}\cos(\theta
)\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta},\\
F_{2} & =\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{2}}+A_{2}-\frac{1}{L}\sin(\theta
)\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}.\\
\lbrack A_{1},A_{2}] & =A_{3},[A_{1},A_{3}]=-A_{2},[A_{2},A_{3}]=A_{1}.\end{aligned}$$
Then, we compute the brackets: $H=A_{3-}\frac{1}{L^{2}}\frac{\partial
}{\partial\theta},$ $I=-A_{2-}\frac{1}{L^{3}}\sin(\theta)\frac{\partial
}{\partial\theta},$ $J=A_{1+}\frac{1}{L^{3}}\cos(\theta)\frac{\partial
}{\partial\theta},$ $[F_{1},I]=-A_{3-}\frac{1}{L^{4}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta},$ $[F_{1},J]=0=[F_{2},I],$ $[F_{2},J]=-A_{3-}\frac{1}{L^{4}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}.$ Then:
\[balltrailerratio\]For the ball with a trailer, the ratio $r(\xi)=1.$
These two last lemmas are a key point in the section \[new\]: theyl imply in particular that the system of geodesics of the nilpotent approximation is integrable in Liouville sense, as we shall see.
Results\[results\]
==================
In this section, we summarize and comment most of the results obtained in the papers [@GM; @GZ; @GZ2; @GZ3; @ano; @jak].
General results\[genres\]
-------------------------
We need the concept of an $\varepsilon$-modification of an asymptotic optimal synthesis.
Given a one parameter family of (absolutely continuous, arclength parametrized) admissible curves $\gamma_{\varepsilon}:$ $[0,T_{\gamma
_{\varepsilon}}]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n},$ **an** $\varepsilon
$**-modification of** $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$ is another one parameter family of (absolutely continuous, arclength parametrized) admissible curves $\tilde{\gamma}_{\varepsilon}:$ $[0,T_{\tilde{\gamma}_{\varepsilon}}]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that for all $\varepsilon$ and for some $\alpha>0$, if $[0,T_{\gamma_{\varepsilon}}]$ is splitted into subintervals of length $\varepsilon,$ $[0,\varepsilon],$ $[\varepsilon,2\varepsilon],$ $[2\varepsilon,3\varepsilon],...$ then:
1\. $[0,T_{\tilde{\gamma}_{\varepsilon}}]$ is splitted into corresponding intervals, $[0,\varepsilon_{1}],$ $[\varepsilon_{1},\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{2}],$ $[\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{2},\varepsilon
_{1}+\varepsilon_{2}+\varepsilon_{3}],...$ with $\varepsilon\leq$ $\varepsilon_{i}<\varepsilon(1+\varepsilon^{\alpha}),$ $i=1,2,...,$
2. for each couple of an interval $I_{1}=[\tilde{\varepsilon}_{i},\tilde{\varepsilon}_{i}+\varepsilon],$ (with $\tilde{\varepsilon}_{0}=0,$ $\tilde{\varepsilon}_{1}=\varepsilon_{1},$ $\tilde{\varepsilon}_{2}=\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{2},...$) and the respective interval $I_{2}=[i\varepsilon,(i+1)\varepsilon],$ $\frac{d}{dt}(\tilde{\gamma})$ and $\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma)$ coincide over $I_{2},$ i.e.:$$\frac{d}{dt}(\tilde{\gamma})(\tilde{\varepsilon}_{i}+t)=\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma)(i\varepsilon+t),\text{ for almost all }t\in\lbrack0,\varepsilon].$$
This concept of an $\varepsilon$**-modification** is for the following use: we will construct asymptotic optimal syntheses for the nilpotent approximation $\mathcal{\hat{P}}$ of problem $\mathcal{P}$. Then, the asymptotic optimal syntheses have to be slightly modified in order to realize the interpolation constraints for the original (non-modified) problem. This has to be done “slightly” for the length of paths remaining equivalent.
In this section it is always assumed but not stated that **we consider generic problems only**. One first result is the following:
\[eqnil\]In the cases 2-step bracket generating, 4-2, 5-2, 6-2, (without singularities), an asymptotic optimal synthesis \[relative to the entropy\] for $\mathcal{P}$ is obtained as an $\varepsilon$-modification of an asymptotic optimal synthesis for the nilpotent approximation $\mathcal{\hat{P}}.$ As a consequence the entropy $E(\varepsilon)$ of $\mathcal{P}$ is equal to the entropy $\hat{E}(\varepsilon)$ of $\mathcal{\hat{P}}.$
This theorem is proven in [@GZ3]. However, we can easily get an idea of the proof, using the estimates of formulas (\[ff0\], \[ff1\], \[ff2\], \[fff3\]).
All these estimates show that, if we apply an $\varepsilon$-interpolating strategy to $\mathcal{\hat{P}}$, and the same controls to $\mathcal{P}$, at time $\varepsilon$ (or length $\varepsilon$-since it is always possible to consider arclength-parametrized trajectories), the enpoints of the two trajectories are at subriemannian distance (either $d$ or $\hat{d})$ of order $\varepsilon^{1+\alpha},$ for some $\alpha>0.\ $Then the contribution to the entropy of $\mathcal{P}$, due to the correction necessary to interpolate $\Gamma$ will have higher order.
Also, in the one-step bracket-generating case, we have the following equality:
\[2pi\](one step bracket-generating case, corank $k\leq3)$ The entropy is equal to $2\pi$ times the metric complexity: $E(\varepsilon)=2\pi
MC(\varepsilon).$
The reason for this distinction between corank less or more than 3 is very important, and will be explained in the section \[onestep\].
Another very important result is the following **logarithmic lemma**, that describes what happens in the case of a (generic) singularity of $\Delta.\ $ In the absence of such singularities, as we shall see, we shall always have formulas of the following type, for the entropy (the same for the metric complexity): $$E(\varepsilon)\simeq\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{p}}{\displaystyle\int\limits_{\Gamma}}
\frac{dt}{\chi(t)},\label{ent1}$$
where $\chi(t)$ is a certain invariant along $\Gamma$. When the curve $\Gamma(t)$ crosses tranversally a codimension-1 singularity (of $\Delta^{\prime},$ or $\Delta^{\prime\prime}),$ the invariant $\chi(t)$ vanishes. This may happen at isolated points $t_{i},$ $i=1,...r.$ In that case, we always have the following:
\[logl\](logarithmic lemma). The entropy (resp. the metric complexity) satisfies:$$E(\varepsilon)\simeq-2\frac{\ln(\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon^{p}}\sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{1}{\rho(t_{i})},\text{ \ \ where }\rho(t)=|\frac{d\chi(t)}{dt}|.$$
On the contrary, there are also generic codimension 1 singularities where the curve $\Gamma$, at isolated points, becomes tangent to $\Delta,$ or $\Delta^{\prime},...$ At these isolated points, the invariant $\chi(t)$ of Formula \[ent1\] tends to infinity. In that case, **the formula \[ent1\] remains valid** (the integral converges).
Generic distribution in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$\[contact3\]
----------------------------------------------------
This is the simplest case, and is is important, since many cases just reduce to it. Let us describe it in details.
Generically, the 3-dimensional space $M$ contains a 2-dimensional singularity (called the Martinet surface, denoted by $\mathcal{M)}.$ This singularity is a smooth surface, and (except at isolated points on $\mathcal{M)},$ the distribution $\Delta$ is not tangent to $\mathcal{M}.$ Generically, the curve $\Gamma$ crosses $\mathcal{M}$ transversally at a finite number of isolated points $t_{i},$ $i=1,...,r,.\ $These points are not the special isolated points where $\Delta$ is tangent to $\mathcal{M}$ (this would be not generic). They are called Martinet points. This number $r$ can be zero. Also, there are other isolated points $\tau_{j},$ $j=1,...,l,$ at which $\Gamma$ is tangent to $\Delta$ (which means that $\Gamma$ is almost admissible in a neighborhood of $\tau_{j}).$ Out of $\mathcal{M}$, the distribution $\Delta$ is a contact distribution (a generic property).
Let $\omega$ be a one-form that vanishes on $\Delta$ and that is 1 on $\dot{\Gamma}$, defined up to multiplication by a function which is 1 along $\Gamma.$ Along $\Gamma,$ the restriction 2-form $d\omega_{|\Delta}$ can be made into a skew-symmetric endomorphism $A(\Gamma(t))$ of $\Delta$ (skew symmetric with respect to the scalar product over $\Delta),$ by duality: $<A(\Gamma(t))X,Y>=d\omega(X,Y).$ Let $\chi(t)$ denote the moduli of the eigenvalues of $A(\Gamma(t)).$ We have the following:
\[dim3\]1. If $r=0,$ $MC(\varepsilon)\simeq\frac{2}{\varepsilon^{2}}{\displaystyle\int\limits_{\Gamma}}
\frac{dt}{\varkappa(t)}.\ $At points where $\chi(t)\rightarrow+\infty,$ the formula is convergent.
2. If $r\neq0,$ $MC(\varepsilon)\simeq-2\frac{\ln(\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{r}\frac{1}{\rho(t_{i})},$ where $\rho(t)=|\frac{d\chi(t)}{dt}|.$
3. $E(\varepsilon)=2\pi MC(\varepsilon).$
Let us describe the asymptotic optimal syntheses. They are shown on Figures \[Figcontact\], \[figmar\].
[M1AOH502]{}
Figure \[Figcontact\] concerns the case $r=0$ (everywhere contact type). The points where the distribution $\Delta$ is not transversal to $\Gamma$ are omitted (they again do not change anything)$.$ Hence $\Delta$ is also transversal to the cylinders $C_{\varepsilon}$, for $\varepsilon$ small$.\ $Therefore, $\Delta$ defines (up to sign) a vector field $X_{\varepsilon}$ on $C\varepsilon,$ tangent to $\Delta,$ that can be chosen of length 1. The asymptotic optimal synthesis consists of: 1. Reaching $C_{\varepsilon}$ from $\Gamma(0),$ 2. Follow a trajectory of $X_{\varepsilon
},$ 3. Join $\Gamma(t).\ $The steps 1 and 3 cost 2$\varepsilon,$ which is neglectible w.r.t. the full metric complexity. To get the optimal synthesis for the interpolation entropy, one has to make the same construction, but starting from a subriemannian cylinder $C_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}$ tangent to $\Gamma.$
In normal coordinates, in that case, the $x$-trajectories are just circles, and the corresponding optimal controls are just trigonometric functions, with period $\frac{2\pi}{\varepsilon}.$
Figure \[figmar\] concerns the case $r\neq0$ (crossing Martinet surface). At a Martinet point, the vector-field $X_{\varepsilon}$ has a limit cycle, which is not tangent to the distribution. The asymptotic optimal strategy consists of: a. following a trajectory of $X_{\varepsilon} $ till reaching the height of the center of the limit cycle, b. crossing the cylinder, with a neglectible cost $2\varepsilon,$ c. Following a trajectory of the opposite vector field $-X_{\varepsilon}.$ The strategy for entropy is similar, but using the tangent cylinder $C_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}.$
[M1AOH503]{}
The one-step bracket-generating case\[onestep\]
-----------------------------------------------
For the corank $k\leq3,$ the situation is very similar to the 3-dimensional case. It can be competely reduced to it. For details, see [@GZ2].
At this point, this strange fact appears: there is the limit corank $k=3.$ If $k>3$ only, new phenomena appear. Let us explain now the reason for this$\ $
Let us consider the following mapping $\mathcal{B}_{\xi}:\Delta_{\xi}\times\Delta_{\xi}\rightarrow T_{x}M/\Delta_{\xi},$ $(X,Y)\rightarrow\lbrack
X,Y]+\Delta_{\xi}.\ $It is a well defined **tensor mapping** , which means that it actually applies to vectors (and not to vector fields, as expected from the definition). This is due to the following formula, for a one-form $\omega:$ $\ d\omega(X,Y)=\omega([X,Y])+\omega(Y)X-\omega(X)Y.$ Let us call $I_{\xi}$ the image by $\mathcal{B}_{\xi}$ of the product of two unit balls in $\Delta_{\xi}.\ $The following holds:
\[convexity\] For a generic $\mathcal{P}$, for $k\leq3,$ the sets $I_{\Gamma(t)}$ are **convex**.
This theorem is shown in [@GZ2], with the consequences that we will state just below.
This is no more true for $k>3,$ the first catastrophic case being the case 10-4 (a $p=4$ distribution in $\mathbb{R}^{10}).$ The intermadiate cases $k=4,5$ in dimension 10 are interesting, since on some open subsets of $\Gamma,$ the convexity property may hold or not. These cases are studied in the paper [@ano].
The main consequence of this convexity property is that everything reduces (out of singularities where the logarithmic lemma applies) to the 3-dimensional contact case, as is shown in the paper [@GZ2]. We briefly summarize the results.
Consider the one forms $\omega$ that vanish on $\Delta$ and that are 1 on $\dot{\Gamma},$ and again, by the duality w.r.t. the metric over $\Delta,$ define $d\omega_{|\Delta}(X,Y)=<AX,Y>,$ for vector fields $X,Y$ in $\Delta.$ Now, we have along $\Gamma,$ a ($k-1)$-parameter affine family of skew symmetric endomorphisms $A_{\Gamma(t)}$ of $\Delta_{\Gamma(t).}$ Say, $A_{\Gamma(t)}(\lambda)=A_{\Gamma(t)}^{0}+{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1}}
\lambda_{i}A_{\Gamma(t)}^{i}.$ Set $\chi(t)=\inf_{\lambda}||A_{\Gamma
(t)}(\lambda)||=||A_{\Gamma(t)}(\lambda^{\ast}(t))||.$
Out of isolated points of $\Gamma$ (that count for nothing in the metric complexity or in the entropy), the $t-$one parameter family $A_{\Gamma
(t)}(\lambda^{\ast}(t))$ can be smoothly block-diagonalized (with $2\times2$ bloks), using a gauge transformation along $\Gamma$. After this gauge transformation, the 2-dimensional eigenspace corresponding to the largest (in moduli) eigenvalue of $A_{\Gamma(t)}(\lambda^{\ast}(t)),$ corresponds to the two first coordinates in the distribution, and to the 2 first controls. In the asymptotic optimal synthesis, all other controls are put to zero \[here the convexity property is used\], and the picture of the asymptotic optimal synthesis is exactly that of the 3-dimensional contact case. We still have the formulas: $$MC(\varepsilon)\simeq\frac{2}{\varepsilon^{2}}{\displaystyle\int\limits_{\Gamma}}
\frac{dt}{\varkappa(t)},\text{ \ \ }E(\varepsilon)=2\pi MC(\varepsilon).$$
The case $k>3$ was first treated in [@GZ3] in the 10-dimensional case, and was completed in general in [@jak].
In that case, the situation does not reduce to the 3-dimensional contact case: the optimal controls, in the asymptotic optimal synthesis for the nilpotent approximation are still trigonometric controls, but with different periods that are successive integer multiples of a given basic period. New invariants $\lambda_{\theta(t)}^{j}$ appear, and the formula for the entropy is:$$E(\varepsilon)\simeq\frac{2\pi}{\varepsilon^{2}}\int_{0}^{T}\frac{\sum
_{j=1}^{r}j\lambda_{\theta}^{j}}{\sum_{j=1}^{r}(\lambda_{\theta}^{j})^{2}}d\theta,$$ the optimal controls being of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
u_{2j-1}(t) & =-\sqrt{\frac{j\lambda_{\theta(t)}^{j}}{\sum_{j=1}^{r}j\lambda_{\theta(t)}^{j}}}\sin(\frac{2\pi jt}{\varepsilon}),\label{controls}\\
u_{2j}(t) & =\sqrt{\frac{j\lambda_{\theta(t)}^{j}}{\sum_{j=1}^{r}j\lambda_{\theta(t)}^{j}}}\cos(\frac{2\pi jt}{\varepsilon}),\text{
\ \ }j=1,...,r\nonumber\\
{u_{2r+1}(t)} & =0{\text{ if }p\text{ is odd }}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
These last formulas hold in the free case only (i.e. the case where the corank $k=\frac{p(p-1)}{2},$ the dimension of he second homogeneous component of the free Lie-algebra with $p$ generators). The non free case is more complicated (see [@jak]).
To prove all the results in this section, one has to proceed as follows: 1. use the theorem of reduction to nilpotent approximation (\[eqnil\]), and 2. use the Pontriaguin’smaximum principle on the normal form of the nilpotent approximation, in normal coordinates
The 2-control case, in $\mathbb{R}^{4}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{5}.$
-------------------------------------------------------------
These cases correspond respectively to the car with a trailer (Example \[ctrl\]) and the ball on a plate (Example \[bpln\]).
We use also the theorem \[eqnil\] of reduction to Nilpotent approximation, and we consider the normal forms $\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{4,2},$ $\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{5,2}$ of Section \[nffs\]. In both cases, we change the variable $w$ for $\tilde{w}$ such that $d\tilde{w}=\frac{dw}{\delta(w)}.\ $ We look for arclength-parametrized trajectories of the nilpotent approximation (i.e. $(u_{1})^{2}+(u_{2})^{2}=1),$ that start from $\Gamma(0),$ and reach $\Gamma$ in fixed time $\varepsilon,$ maximizing ${\displaystyle\int\limits_{0}^{\varepsilon}}
\dot{w}(\tau)d\tau.$ Abnormal extremals do no come in the picture, and optimal curves correspond to the hamiltonian $$H=\sqrt{(PF_{1})^{2}+(PF_{2})^{2}},$$ where $P$ is the adjoint vector. It turns out that, in our normal coordinates, the same trajectories are optimal for both the $4$-$2$ and the $5$-$2$ case (one has just to notice that the solution of the $4$-$2$ case meets the extra interpolation condition corresponding to the 5-2 case).
Setting as usual $u_{1}=\cos(\varphi)=PF_{1},u_{2}=\sin(\varphi)=PF_{2},$ we get $\dot{\varphi}=P[F_{1},F_{2}],\ddot{\varphi}=-P[F_{1},[F_{1},F_{2}]]PF_{1}-P[F_{2},[F_{1},F_{2}]]PF_{2}.$
At this point, we have to notice that only the components $P_{x_{1}},P_{x_{2}}$ of the adloint vector $P$ are not constant (the hamiltonian in the nilpotent approximation depends only on the $x$-variables), $\ $therefore, $P[F_{1},[F_{1},F_{2}]]$ and $P[F_{2},[F_{1},F_{2}]]$ are constant (the third brackets are also constant vector fields). Hence, $\ddot{\varphi}=\alpha
\cos(\varphi)+\beta\sin(\varphi)$ $=\alpha\dot{x}_{1}+\beta\dot{x}_{2}$ for appropriate constants $\alpha,\beta.$ It follows that, for another constant $k,$ we have, for the optimal curves of the nilpotent approximation, in normal coordinates $x_{1},x_{2}:$$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{1} & =\cos(\varphi),\dot{x}_{2}=\sin(\varphi),\\
\dot{\varphi} & =k+\lambda x_{1}+\mu x_{2}.\end{aligned}$$
\[remcurv\]1. It means that we are looking for curves in the $x_{1},x_{2}$ plane, whose curvature is an affine function of the position,
2. In the two-step bracket generating case (contact case), otimal curves were circles, i.e. curves of constant curvature,
3. the conditions of $\varepsilon$-interpolation of $\Gamma$ say that these curves must be periodic (there will be more details on this point in the next section), that the area of a loop must be zero $(y(\varepsilon)=0), $ and finally (in the 5-2 case) that another moment must be zero.
It is easily seen that such a curve, meeting these interpolation conditions, must be an elliptic curve of elastica-type. The periodicity and vanishing surface requirements imply that it is the only periodic elastic curve shown on Figure \[elastica\], parametrized in a certain way.
[M1AOH504]{}
The formulas are, in terms of the standard Jacobi elliptic functions:$$\begin{aligned}
u_{1}(t) & =1-2dn(K(1+\frac{4t}{\varepsilon}))^{2},\\
u_{2}(t) & =-2dn(K(1+\frac{4t}{\varepsilon}))sn(K(1+\frac{4t}{\varepsilon
}))\sin(\frac{\varphi_{0}}{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_{0=130{{}^\circ}}$ (following [@Love], p. 403) and $\varphi_{0}=130,692{{}^\circ}$ following Mathematica$^{\textregistered},$ with $k=\sin(\frac{\varphi_{0}}{2})$ and $K(k)$ is the quarter period of the Jacobi elliptic functions. The trajectory on the $x_{1},x_{2}$ plane, shown on Figure \[elastica\], has equations: $$\begin{aligned}
x_{1}(t) & =-\frac{\varepsilon}{4K}[\frac{-4Kt}{\varepsilon}+2(Eam(\frac
{4Kt}{\varepsilon}+K)-Eam(K))],\\
x_{2}(t) & =k\frac{\varepsilon}{2K}cn(\frac{4Kt}{\varepsilon}+K).\end{aligned}$$
On the figure \[fig2\], one can clearly see, at the contact point of the ball with the plane, a trajectory which is a “repeated small deformation” of this basic trajectory.
The formula for the entropy is, in both the 4-2 and 5-2 cases:$$E(\varepsilon)=\frac{3}{2\sigma\varepsilon^{3}}\int_{\Gamma}\frac{dt}{\delta(t)},$$ where $\sigma$ is a universal constant, $\sigma\approx0.00580305.$
Details of computations on the 4-2 case can be found in [@GZ3], and in [@ano] for the 5-2 case.
The ball with a trailer\[new\]
==============================
We start by using Theorem \[eqnil\], to reduce to the nilpotent approximation along $\Gamma:$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{6,2})\text{ \ \ }\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1},\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2},\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\\
\dot{z}_{1} & =x_{2}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\dot{z}_{2}=x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\nonumber\\
\text{\ }\dot{w} & =Q_{w}(x_{1},x_{2})(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[balltrailerratio\], we can consider that $$Q_{w}(x_{1},x_{2})=\delta(w)((x_{1})^{2}+(x_{2})^{2})\label{mainf}$$ where $\delta(w)$ is **the main invariant**. In fact, it is the only invariant for the nilpotent approximation along $\Gamma.$ Moreover, if we reparametrize $\Gamma$ by setting $dw:=\frac{dw}{\delta(w)},$ we can consider that $\delta(w)=1.$
Then, we want to maximaize $\int\dot{w}dt$ in fixed time $\varepsilon,$ with the interpolation conditions: $x(0)=0,y(0)=0,z(0)=0,w(0)=0,$ $x(\varepsilon
)=0,y(\varepsilon)=0,z(\varepsilon)=0.$
From Lemma \[periodl\] in the appendix, we know that the optimal trajectory is smooth and periodic, (of period $\varepsilon).$
Clearly, the optimal trajectory has also to be a length minimizer, then we have to consider the usual hamiltonian for length: $H=\frac{1}{2}((P.F_{1})^{2}+(P.F_{2})^{2}),$ in which $P=(p_{1},...,p_{6})$ is the adjoint vector. It is easy to see that the abnormal extremals do not come in the picture (cannot be optimal with our additional interpollation conditions), and in fact, we will show that **the hamiltonian system corresponding to the hamiltonian** $H$** is integrable**.
This integrability property is no more true in the general 6-2 case.** It holds only for the ball with a trailer.**
As usual, we work in Poincaré coordinates, i.e. we consider level $\frac{1}{2}$ of the hamiltonian $H,$ and we set: $$u_{1}=PF=\sin(\varphi),\text{ \ \ }u_{2}=PG=\cos(\varphi).$$
Differentiating twice, we get $$\dot{\varphi}=P[F,G],\text{ }\ddot{\varphi}=-PFFG.PF-PGFG.PG,$$ where $FFG=[F,[F,G]]$ and $GFG=[G,[F,G]].\ $ We set $\lambda=-PFFG,$ $\mu=-PGFG.\ $We get that: $$\ddot{\varphi}=\lambda\sin(\varphi)+\mu\cos(\varphi).\label{phi2}$$
Now, we compute $\dot{\lambda}$ and $\dot{\mu}.$ We get, with similar notations as above for the brackets (we bracket from the left): $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\lambda} & =PFFFG.PF+PGFFG.PG,\\
\dot{\mu} & =PFGFG.PF+PGGFG.PG,\end{aligned}$$ and computing the brackets, we see that $GFFG=FGFG=0.\ $Also, since the hamiltonian does not depend on $y,z,w,$ we get that $p_{3},p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}$ are constants. Computing the brackets $FFG$ and $GFG$ , we get that $$\lambda=\frac{3}{2}p_{4}+p_{6}x_{1},\text{ \ }\mu=\frac{3}{2}p_{5}+p_{6}x_{2},$$ and then, $\dot{\lambda}=p_{6}\sin(\varphi)$ and $\dot{\mu}=p_{6}\cos
(\varphi).$ Then, by (\[phi2\]), $\ddot{\varphi}=\frac{\lambda\dot{\lambda}}{p_{6}}+\frac{\mu\dot{\mu}}{p_{6}},$ and finally:$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{1} & =\sin(\varphi),\text{ \ \ }\dot{x}_{2}=\cos(\varphi
),\label{sysint}\\
\dot{\varphi} & =K+\frac{1}{2p_{6}}(\lambda^{2}+\mu^{2}),\nonumber\\
\dot{\lambda} & =p_{6}\sin(\varphi),\text{ \ }\dot{\mu}=p_{6}\cos
(\varphi).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Setting $\omega=\frac{\lambda}{p_{6}},\delta=\frac{\mu}{p_{6}},$ we obtain:$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\omega} & =\sin(\varphi),\text{ \ }\dot{\delta}=\cos(\varphi),\\
\dot{\varphi} & =K+\frac{p_{6}}{2}(\omega^{2}+\delta^{2}).\end{aligned}$$
It means that the plane curve $(\omega(t),\delta(t))$ has a curvature which is a quadratic function of the distance to the origin. Then, the optimal curve ($x_{1}(t),x_{2}(t))$ projected to the horizontal plane of the normal coordinates has a curvature which is a quadratic function of the distance to some point. Following the lemma (\[eqcur\]) in the appendix, this system of equations is integrable.
Summarizing all the results, we get the following theorem.
\[mainth\](**asymptotic optimal synthesis for the ball with a trailer**) The asymptotic optimal synthesis is an $\varepsilon$-modification of the one of the nilpotent approximation, which has the following properties, in projection to the horizontal plane $(x_{1},x_{2})$ in normal coordinates:
1. It is a closed smooth periodic curve, whose curvature is a quadratic function of the position, and a function of the square distance to some point,
2. The area and the 2$^{nd}$ order moments $\int_{\Gamma}x_{1}(x_{2}dx_{1}-x_{1}dx_{2})$ and $\int_{\Gamma}x_{2}(x_{2}dx_{1}-x_{1}dx_{2})$ are zero.
3. The entropy is given by the formula: $E(\varepsilon)=\frac{\sigma
}{\varepsilon^{4}}\int_{\Gamma}\frac{dw}{\delta(w)},$ where $\delta(w)$ is the main invariant from (\[mainf\]), and $\sigma$ is a universal constant.
In fact we can go a little bit further to integrate explicitely the system (\[sysint\]). Set $\bar{\lambda}=\cos(\varphi)\lambda-\sin(\varphi)\mu,$ $\bar{\mu}=\sin(\varphi)\lambda+\cos(\varphi)\mu.\ $we get:$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\bar{\lambda}}{dt} & =-\bar{\mu}(K+\frac{1}{2p_{6}}(\bar{\lambda}^{2}+\bar{\mu}^{2})),\\
\frac{d\bar{\mu}}{dt} & =p_{6}+\bar{\lambda}(K+\frac{1}{2p_{6}}(\bar{\lambda
}^{2}+\bar{\mu}^{2})).\end{aligned}$$
This is a 2 dimensional (integrable) hamiltonian system. The hamiltonian is:$$H_{1}=-p_{6}\bar{\lambda}-\frac{2p_{6}}{4}(K+\frac{1}{2p_{6}}(\bar{\lambda
}^{2}+\bar{\mu}^{2}))^{2}.$$ This hamiltonian system is therefore integrable, and solutions can be expressed in terms of hyperelliptic functions. A liitle numerics now allows to show, on figure \[fig62\], the optimal $x$-trajectory in the horizontal plane of the normal coordinates.
[M1AOH505]{}
On the figure \[figmov\], we show the motion of the ball with a trailer on the plane (motion of the contact point between the ball and the plane).Here, the problem is to move along the $x$-axis, keeping constant the frame attached to the ball and the angle of the trailer.
[M1AOH506]{}
Expectations and conclusions\[concl\]
=====================================
Some movies of minimum entropy for the ball rolling on a plane and the ball with a trailer are visible on the website \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*.
Universality of some pictures in normal coordinates
---------------------------------------------------
Our first conclusion is the following: there are certain universal pictures for the motion planning problem, in corank less or equal to 3, and in rank 2, with 4 brackets at most (could be 5 brackets at a singularity, with the logarithmic lemma).
These figures are, in the two-step bracket generating case: a circle, for the third bracket, the periodic elastica, for the 4$^{th}$ bracket, the plane curve of the figure \[fig62\].
They are periodic plane curves whose curvature is respectively: a constant, a linear function of of the position, a quadratic function of the position.
[M1AOH507]{}
This is, as shown on Figure \[global\], the clear beginning of a series.
Robustness
----------
As one can see, in many cases (2 controls, or corank $k\leq3),$ our strategy is extremely robust in the following sense: the asymptotic optimal syntheses do not depend, from the qualitative point of view, of the metric chosen. They depend only on the number of brackets needed to generate the space.
The practical importance of normal coordinates
----------------------------------------------
The main practical problem of implementation of our strategy comes with the $\varepsilon$-modifications. How to compute them, how to implement? In fact, the $\varepsilon$-modifications count at higher order in the entropy. But, if not applied, they may cause deviations that are not neglectible. The high order w.r.t. $\varepsilon$ in the estimates of the error between the original system and its nilpotent approximation (Formulas \[ff0\], \[ff1\], \[ff2\], \[ff3\]) make these deviations very small. It is why the use of our concept of a nilpotent approximation along $\Gamma,$ based upon normal coordinates is very efficient in practice.
On the other hand, when a correction appears to be needed (after a noneglectible deviation), it corresponds to brackets of lower order. For example, in the case of the ball with a trailer (4$^{th}$ bracket), the $\varepsilon$-modification corresponds to brackets of order 2 or 3. The optimal pictures corresponding to these orders can still be used to perform the $\varepsilon$-modifications.
Final conclusion
----------------
This approach, to approximate optimally nonadmissible paths of nonholomic systems, looks very efficient, and in a sense, universal. Of course, the theory is not complete, but the cases under consideration (first, 2-step bracket-generating, and second, two controls) correspond to many practical situations. But there is still a lot of work to do to in order to cover all interesting cases. However, the methodology to go ahead is rather clear.
Appendix\[app\]
===============
Appendix 1: Normal form in the 6-2 case\[apnf62\]
-------------------------------------------------
We start from the general normal form (\[nf2\]) in normal coordinates:$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_{1} & =(1+(x_{2}^{{}})^{2}\beta)u_{1}-x_{1}x_{2}\beta u_{2},\text{
\ }\\
\text{\ }\dot{x}_{2} & =(1+(x_{1}^{{}})^{2}\beta)u_{2}-x_{1}x_{2}\beta
u_{1},\\
\text{ \ }\dot{y}_{i} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})\gamma_{i}(y,w),\text{ }\\
\text{\ }\dot{w} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})\delta(y,w)\end{aligned}$$
We will make a succession of changes of parametriztion of the surrface $\mathcal{S}$ (w.r.t. which normal coordinates were constructed). These coordinate changes will always preserve tha fact that $\Gamma(t)$ is the point $x=0,y=0,w=t.$
Remind that $\beta$ vanishes on $\mathcal{S},$ and since $x$ has order $1,$ we can already write on $T_{\varepsilon}$: $\dot{x}=u+O(\varepsilon^{3}).$ $\ $One of the $\gamma_{i}$’s (say $\gamma_{1})$ has to be nonzero (if not, $\Gamma$ is tangent to $\Delta^{\prime}).$ Then, $y_{1}$ has order 2 on $T_{\varepsilon}.$Set for $i>1,$ $\tilde{y}_{i}=y_{i}-\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{1}}.\ $Differentiating, we get that $\frac{d\tilde{y}_{i}}{dt}=\dot{y}_{i}-\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{1}}\dot{y}_{1}+O(\varepsilon^{2}),$ and $z_{1}=\tilde{y}_{2},$ $z_{2}=\tilde{y}_{3}$ have order 3. We set also $w:=w-\frac{\delta}{\gamma_{1}},$ and we are at the following point:$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} & =u+O(\varepsilon^{3}),\text{ \ }\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})\gamma_{1}(w)+O(\varepsilon^{2}),\\
\dot{z}_{i} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})L_{i}(w).x+O(\varepsilon^{3}),\\
\dot{w} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})\delta
(w).x+O(\varepsilon^{3}),\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{i}(w).x,$ $\delta(w).x$ are liner in $x.$ The function $\gamma
_{1}(w)$ can be put to 1 in the same way by setting $y:=\frac{y}{\gamma
_{1}(w)}.$ Now let $T(w)$ be an invertible 2$\times2$ matrix. Set $\tilde
{z}=T(w)z.$ It is easy to see that we can chose $T(w)$ for we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} & =u+O(\varepsilon^{3}),\text{ \ }\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})+O(\varepsilon^{2}),\\
\dot{z}_{i} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})x_{i}+O(\varepsilon^{3}),\\
\dot{w} & =(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})\delta
(w).x+O(\varepsilon^{3}),\end{aligned}$$
Another change of the form: $w:=w+L(w).x,$ where $L(w).x$ is linear in $x$ kills $\delta(w)$ and brings us to $\dot{w}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})O(\varepsilon^{2}).\ $This $O(\varepsilon^{2})$ can be of the form $Q_{w}(x)+h(w)y+O(\varepsilon^{3})$ where $Q_{w}(x)$ is quadratic in $x.$ If we kill $h(w),$ we get the expected result. This is done with a change of coordinates of the form: $w:=w+\varphi(w)\frac{y^{2}}{2}.$
Appendix 2: Plane curves whose curvature is a function of the distance to the origin\[curvaturedist\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This result was known already, see [@Singer]. However we provide here a very simple proof.
Consider a plane curve $(x(t),y(t)),$ whose curvature is a function of the distance from the origin, i.e.:$$\dot{x}=\cos(\varphi),\dot{y}=\sin(\varphi),\dot{\varphi}=k(x^{2}+y^{2}).\label{eqcur}$$
Equation \[eqcur\] is integrable.
Set $\bar{x}=x\cos(\varphi)+y\sin(\varphi),$ $\bar{y}=-x\sin(\varphi
)+y\cos(\varphi).$ Then $k(\bar{x}^{2}+\bar{y}^{2})=k(x^{2}+y^{2}).$ Just computing, one gets: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\bar{x}}{dt} & =1+\bar{y}k(\bar{x}^{2}+\bar{y}^{2}),\label{ham}\\
\frac{d\bar{y}}{dt} & =-\bar{x}k(\bar{x}^{2}+\bar{y}^{2}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We just show that (\[ham\]) is a hamiltonian system. Since we are in dimension 2, it is always Liouville-integrable. Then, we are looking for solutions of the system of PDE’s: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial H}{\partial\bar{x}} & =1+\bar{y}k(\bar{x}^{2}+\bar{y}^{2}),\\
\frac{\partial H}{\partial\bar{y}} & =-\bar{x}k(\bar{x}^{2}+\bar{y}^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ But the Schwartz integrability conditions are satisfied: $\frac{\partial^{2}H}{\partial\bar{x}\partial\bar{y}}=\frac{\partial^{2}H}{\partial\bar
{y}\partial\bar{x}}=2\bar{x}\bar{y}k^{\prime}.$
Appendix 3: periodicity of the optimal curves in the 6-2 case \[periodicity\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We consider the nilpotent approximation $\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{6,2}$ given in formula \[nil62\]: $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{6,2})\text{ \ \ }\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1},\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2},\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\\
\dot{z}_{1} & =x_{2}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\dot{z}_{2}=x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\nonumber\\
\text{\ }\dot{w} & =Q_{w}(x_{1},x_{2})(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We consider the particular case of the ball with a trailer. Then, according to Lemma \[balltrailerratio\], the ratio $r(\xi)=1.$
It follows that the last equation can be rewritten $\dot{w}=\delta
(w)((x_{1})^{2}+(x_{2})^{2})(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})$ for some never vanishing function $\delta(w)$ (vanishing would contradict the full rank of $\Delta^{(4)}$). We can change the coordinate $w$ for $\tilde{w}$ such that $d\tilde{w}=\frac{dw}{\delta(w)}.$
We get finally: $$\begin{aligned}
(\mathcal{\hat{P}}_{6,2})\text{ \ \ }\dot{x}_{1} & =u_{1},\dot{x}_{2}=u_{2},\dot{y}=(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\label{finalnil}\\
\dot{z}_{1} & =x_{2}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\dot{z}_{2}=x_{1}(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2}),\nonumber\\
\ \dot{w} & =((x_{1})^{2}+(x_{2})^{2})(\frac{x_{2}}{2}u_{1}-\frac{x_{1}}{2}u_{2})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
This is a right invariant system on $\mathbb{R}^{6}$ with cooordinates $\xi=(\varsigma,w)=(x,y,z,w),$ for a certain Nilpotent Lie group structure over $\mathbb{R}^{6}$ (denoted by $G).$ It is easily seen (just expressing right invariance) that the group law is ot the form $(\varsigma_{2},w_{2})(\varsigma_{1},w_{1})=$ $(\varsigma_{1}\ast\varsigma_{2},w_{1}+w_{2}+\Phi(\varsigma_{1},\varsigma_{2})),$ where $\ast$ is the multiplication of another Lie group structure on $\mathbb{R}^{5},$ with coordinates $\varsigma$ (denoted by $G_{0}).$ In fact, $G$ is a central extension of $\mathbb{R}$ by $G_{0}.$
\[periodl\]The trajectories of (\[finalnil\]) that maximize ${\displaystyle\int}
\dot{w}dt$ in fixed time $\varepsilon,$ with interpolating conditions $\varsigma(0)=\varsigma(\varepsilon)=0,$ have a periodic projection on $\varsigma$ (i.e. $\varsigma(t)$ is smooth and periodic of period $\varepsilon).$
1. Due to the invariance with respect to the $w$ coordinate of (\[finalnil\]), it is equivalent to consider the problem with the more restrictive terminal conditions $\varsigma(0)=\varsigma(\varepsilon)=0,$ $w(0)=0,$
2. The scheme of this proof works also to show periodicity in the 4-2 and 5-2 cases.
The idea for the proof was given to us by A. Agrachev.
Let $(\varsigma,w_{1}),(\varsigma,w_{2})$ be initial and terminal points of an optimal solution of our problem. By right translation by $(\varsigma^{-1},0),$ this trajectory is mapped into another trajectory of the system, with initial and terminal points $(0,w_{1}+\Phi(\varsigma,\varsigma^{-1})) $ and $(0,w_{1}+\Phi(\varsigma,\varsigma^{-1})).\ $Hence, this trajectory has the same value of the cost ${\displaystyle\int}
\dot{w}dt.$ We see that the optimal cost is in fact independant of the $\varsigma$-coordinate of the initial and terminal condition.
Therefore, the problem is the same as maximizing ${\displaystyle\int}
\dot{w}dt$ but with the (larger) endpoint condition $\varsigma(0)=\varsigma
(\varepsilon)$ (free). Now, we can apply the general transversality conditions of Theorem 12.15 page 188 of [@AS]. It says that the initial and terminal covectors $(p_{\varsigma}^{1},p_{w}^{1})$ and $(p_{\varsigma}^{2},p_{w}^{2})$ are such that $p_{\varsigma}^{1}=p_{\varsigma}^{2}.\ $This is enough to show periodicity.
[99]{} A.A. Agrachev, H.E.A. Chakir, J.P. Gauthier, Subriemannian Metrics on R$^{3},$ in Geometric Control and Nonholonomic Mechanics, Mexico City 1996, pp. 29-76, Proc. Can. Math. Soc. 25, 1998.
A.A. Agrachev, J.P. Gauthier, Subriemannian Metrics and Isoperimetric Problems in the Contact Case, in honor L. Pontriaguin, 90th birthday commemoration, Contemporary Maths, Tome 64, pp. 5-48, 1999 (Russian). English version: journal of Mathematical sciences, Vol 103, N${{}^\circ}6,$ pp. 639-663.
A.A. Agrachev, J.P. Gauthier, On the subanalyticity of Carnot Caratheodory distances, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré, AN 18, 3 (2001), pp. 359-382.
A.A. Agrachev, Y. Sachkov, Contro Theory from the geometric view point, Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.
G. Charlot Quasi Contact SR Metrics: Normal Form in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$, Wave Front and Caustic in $\mathbb{R}^{4};$ Acta Appl. Math., 74, N${{}^\circ}3,$ pp. 217-263, 2002.
H.E.A. Chakir, J.P. Gauthier, I.A.K. Kupka, Small Subriemannian Balls on R$^{3},$ Journal of Dynamical and Control Systems, Vol 2, N${{}^\circ}3,$ , pp. 359-421, 1996.
F.H. Clarke, Optimization and nonsmooth analysis, John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
J.P. Gauthier, F.Monroy-Perez, C. Romero-Melendez, On complexity and Motion Planning for Corank one SR Metrics, 2004, COCV; Vol 10, pp. 634-655.
J.P. Gauthier, V. Zakalyukin, On the codimension one Motion Planning Problem, JDCS, Vol. 11, N${{}^\circ}1,$ January 2005, pp.73-89.
J.P. Gauthier, V. Zakalyukin, On the One-Step-Bracket-Generating Motion Planning Problem, JDCS, Vol. 11, N${{}^\circ}2,$ april 2005, pp. 215-235.
J.P. Gauthier, V. Zakalyukin, Robot Motion Planning, a wild case, Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, Vol 250, pp.56-69, 2005.
J.P. Gauthier, V. Zakalyukin, On the motion planning problem, complexity, entropy, and nonholonomic interpolation, Journal of dynamical and control systems, Vol. 12, N${{}^\circ}3$, [J]{}uly 2006.
J.P. Gauthier, V. Zakalyukin , Entropy estimations for motion planning problems in robotics, Volume In honor of Dmitry Victorovich Anosov, Proceedings of the Steklov Mathematical Institute, Vol. 256, pp. 62-79, 2007.
JP Gauthier, B. Jakubczyk, V. Zakalyukin, Motion planning and fastly oscillating controls, SIAM Journ. On Control and Opt, Vol. 48 (5), pp. 3433-3448, 2010.
M. Gromov, Carnot Caratheodory Spaces Seen from Within, Eds A. Bellaiche, J.J. Risler, Birkhauser, pp. 79-323, 1996.
F. Jean, Complexity of Nonholonomic Motion Planning, International Journal on Control, Vol 74, N${{}^\circ}$8, pp 776-782, 2001.
F. Jean, Entropy and Complexity of a Path in SR Geometry, COCV, Vol 9, pp. 485-506, 2003.
F. Jean, E. Falbel, Measures and transverse paths in SR geometry, Journal d’Analyse Mathématique, Vol. 91, pp. 231-246, 2003.
T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Springer Verlag 1966, pp. 120-122.
J.P. Laumond, (editor), Robot Motion Planning and Control, Lecture notes in Control and Information Sciences 229, Springer Verlag, 1998.
L. Pontryagin, V. Boltyanski, R. Gamkelidze, E. Michenko, The Mathematical theory of optimal processes, Wiley, New-York, 1962.
A.E.H. Love, A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, Dover, New-York, 1944.
H.J. Sussmann, G. Lafferriere, Motion planning for controllable systems without drift; In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, April 1991. IEEE Publications, New York, 1991, pp. 109-148.
D.A. Singer, Curves whose curvature depend on the distance from the origin, the American mathematical Monthly, 1999, vol. 106, no9, pp. 835-841.
H.J. Sussmann, W.S. Liu, Lie Bracket extensions and averaging: the single bracket generating case; in Nonholonomic Motion Planning, Z. X. Li and J. F. Canny Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1993, pp. 109-148.
[^1]: The authors are with LSIS, laboratoire des sciences de l’information et des systèmes, UMR CNRS 6168, Domaine universitaire de Saint Jérôme, Avenue Escadrille Normandie Niemen, 13397 MARSEILLE Cedex 2, France. J.P. Gauthier is also with INRIA team GECO.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The determination of non-spherical angular momentum amplitudes in nucleons at long ranges (low $Q^{2}$), was accomplished through the $p(\vec{e},e''p)\pi^0$ reaction in the $\Delta$ region at $Q^2=0.060$, 0.127, and 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}at the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) with an accuracy of 3%. The results for the dominant transition magnetic dipole amplitude and the quadrupole to dipole ratios have been obtained with an estimated model uncertainty which is approximately the same as the experimental uncertainty. Lattice and effective field theory predictions agree with our data within the relatively large estimated theoretical uncertainties. Phenomenological models are in good agreement with experiment when the resonant amplitudes are adjusted to the data. To check reaction model calculations additional data were taken for center of mass energies below resonance and for the $\sigma_{TL''}$ structure function. These results confirm the dominance, and general $Q^{2}$ variation, of the pionic contribution at large distances.'
author:
- 'S. Stave'
- 'N. Sparveris'
- 'M. O. Distler'
- 'I. Nakagawa'
- 'P. Achenbach'
- 'C. Ayerbe Gayoso'
- 'D. Baumann'
- 'J. Bernauer'
- 'A. M. Bernstein'
- 'R. Böhm'
- 'D. Bosnar'
- 'T. Botto'
- 'A. Christopoulou'
- 'D. Dale'
- 'M. Ding'
- 'L. Doria'
- 'J. Friedrich'
- 'A. Karabarbounis'
- 'M. Makek'
- 'H. Merkel'
- 'U. Müller'
- 'R. Neuhausen'
- 'L. Nungesser'
- 'C.N. Papanicolas'
- 'A. Piegsa'
- 'J. Pochodzalla'
- 'M. Potokar'
- 'M. Seimetz'
- 'S. Širca'
- 'S. Stiliaris'
- 'Th. Walcher'
- 'M. Weis'
title: 'Measurements of the $\gamma^*p\rightarrow\Delta$ Reaction At Low $Q^2$: Probing the Mesonic Contribution'
---
Introduction
============
Experimental confirmation of the presence of non-spherical hadron amplitudes (i.e. d states in quark models or p wave $\pi$-N states) is fundamental and has been the subject of intense experimental and theoretical interest (for reviews see [@athens2006; @mit2004; @nstar2001; @cnp; @amb]). This effort has focused on the measurement of the electric and Coulomb quadrupole amplitudes (E2, C2) in the predominantly M1 (magnetic dipole-quark spin flip) $\gamma^* N\rightarrow \Delta$ transition.
The present low $Q^2$ experiments add important data to determine the physical basis of long range nucleon and $\Delta$ non-spherical amplitudes. This is the region where pionic effects are predicted to be dominant and appreciably changing. The experiment was carried out at the Mainz Microtron to measure cross sections and extract the resonant multipoles at $Q^2=0.060$, 0.127, and 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}. The $Q^2 = 0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}point is the lowest $Q^{2}$ value probed to date in modern electroproduction experiments. The $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}point tests the $Q^2$ variation and provides a valuable overlap with newly obtained Jefferson Lab data [@CLAS2007]. The $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}point tested the background amplitudes and acted as a comparison of results from Mainz and Bates. Aspects of this work are given in [@stave; @sparveris_Q20]. This work includes more of the details and is a complete account of those data and includes previously unpublished data as well.
The present measurements fill in an important gap in the coverage of the $Q^2$ evolution between the photon point($Q^2=0$) [@beck; @blanpied] and previously published electroproduction experiments at JLab [@joo; @frolov; @ungaro] for $Q^2$ from 0.4 to 6.0 (GeV/c)$^2$, with the exception of good coverage at $Q^2$ = 0.127 [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}at Bates [@warren; @mertz; @kunz; @sparveris] and Mainz [@pospischil; @bartsch; @elsner] at $Q^2$ = 0.127, 0.200 (GeV/c)$^2$ that have been published.
Since the proton has spin 1/2, no quadrupole moment can be measured. However, the $\Delta$ has spin 3/2 so the $\gamma^*N\rightarrow \Delta$ reaction can be studied for quadrupole amplitudes in the nucleon and $\Delta$. Due to spin and parity conservation in the $\gamma^*N(J^\pi=1/2^+)
\rightarrow \Delta(J^\pi=3/2^+)$ reaction, only three multipoles can contribute to the transition: the magnetic dipole ($M1$), the electric quadrupole ($E2$), and the Coulomb quadrupole ($C2$) photon absorption multipoles. The corresponding resonant pion production multipoles are $M_{1+}^{3/2}$, $E_{1+}^{3/2}$, and $S_{1+}^{3/2}$. The relative quadrupole to dipole ratios are EMR=Re($E_{1+}^{3/2}/M_{1+}^{3/2}$) and CMR=Re($S_{1+}^{3/2}/M_{1+}^{3/2}$). In the quark model, the non-spherical amplitudes in the nucleon and $\Delta$ are caused by the non-central, tensor interaction between quarks [@glashow; @isgur_karl]. However, the magnitudes of this effect for the predicted E2 and C2 amplitudes [@capstick_karl] are at least an order of magnitude too small to explain the experimental results (see Fig. \[fig:mpole\_vs\_Q2\] below) and even the dominant M1 matrix element is $\simeq$ 30% low [@amb; @capstick_karl]. A likely cause of these dynamical shortcomings is that the quark model does not respect chiral symmetry, whose spontaneous breaking leads to strong emission of virtual pions (Nambu-Goldstone Bosons) [@amb]. These couple to nucleons as $\vec{\sigma}\cdot \vec{p}$ where $\vec{\sigma}$ is the nucleon spin, and $\vec{p}$ is the pion momentum. The coupling is strong in the p wave and mixes in non-zero angular momentum components. Based on this, it is physically reasonable to expect that the pionic contributions increase the M1 and dominate the E2 and C2 transition matrix elements in the low $Q^2$ (large distance) domain. This was first indicated by adding pionic effects to quark models [@quark_pion_1; @quark_pion_2; @quark_pion_3], subsequently in pion cloud model calculations [@sato_lee; @dmt], and recently demonstrated in effective field theory (chiral) calculations [@gail_hemmert; @pasc].
Equipment
=========
The $p(\vec{e},e'p)\pi^{0}$ measurements were performed using the A1 spectrometers at the Mainz Microtron [@blom]. Electrons were detected in Spectrometer A which used two pairs of vertical drift chambers for track reconstruction and two layers of scintillator detectors for timing information and particle identification. The protons were detected in Spectrometer B which has a detector package similar to Spectrometer A. Spectrometer B also has the ability to measure at up to 10$^\circ$ out-of-plane in the lab. Due to the Lorentz boost, this corresponds to a significantly larger value in the center of mass frame. The momentum resolution of the spectrometers is 0.01% and the angular resolution at the target is 3 mrad [@blom]. Details about the spectrometers are available in [@blom]. The MAMI B accelerator delivered a longitudinally polarized, continuous, electron beam up to 855 MeV. Beam polarization was measured periodically with a Møller polarimeter [@bartsch_thesis] to be $\approx
75\%$. The beam with average current of up to 25 $\mu$A was scattered from a liquid hydrogen cryogenic target. The beam energy has an absolute uncertainty of $\pm 160$ keV and a spread of 30 keV (FWHM) [@blom]. The effects of these uncertainties and the various kinematic cuts were studied to estimate an overall systematic uncertainty (see Table \[table:sys\_errs\]) for the cross sections of 3 to 4%. This was tested with elastic electron-proton scattering and the data agree with a fit to the world data [@mergell] at the 3% level. In addition, a third spectrometer (Spectrometer C) was used throughout the experiment as a luminosity monitor.
Experimental methodology
========================
The five-fold differential cross section for the $p(\vec{e},e'p)\pi^{0}$ reaction is written as five two-fold differential cross sections with an explicit $\phi^*$ dependence as [@drechsel_tiator]
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \frac{d^5\sigma}{d\Omega_f dE_f d\Omega} = & \Gamma (\sigma_T + \epsilon
\sigma_L + v_{LT}\sigma_{LT}\cos\phi_{\pi q}^* \nonumber \\
+ & \displaystyle \epsilon \sigma_{TT} \cos 2\phi_{\pi q}^*
+ h p_e v_{LT'}\sigma_{LT'} \sin \phi_{\pi q}^*)
\label{eq:XS}\end{aligned}$$
where $\phi_{\pi q}^*$ is the pion center of mass azimuthal angle with respect to the electron scattering plane, $h$ is the helicity of the electron beam, $p_e$ is the polarization of the electron beam, $v_{LT}=\sqrt{2\epsilon(1+\epsilon)}$, $v_{LT'}=\sqrt{2\epsilon(1-\epsilon)}$, $\epsilon$ is the transverse polarization of the virtual photon, and $\Gamma$ is the virtual photon flux. The virtual photon differential cross sections ($\sigma_{T},\sigma_{L},\sigma_{LT},\sigma_{TT},\sigma_{LT'}$) are all functions of the center of mass energy $W$, the four momentum transfer squared $Q^2$, and the pion center of mass polar angle $\theta_{\pi q}^{*}$ (measured from the momentum transfer direction). They are bilinear combinations of the multipoles [@drechsel_tiator].
The extraction of the cross sections was performed using three sequential measurements. For the helicity independent cross sections there are three cross sections to extract: $\sigma_0=\sigma_T+\epsilon\sigma_L$ ($\epsilon$ was not varied so the two cross sections cannot be separated), $\sigma_{TT}$ and $\sigma_{LT}$. The three two-fold differential cross sections can be extracted algebraically by measuring the five-fold differential cross section at the same center-of-mass energy $W$, four-momentum transfer squared $Q^2$, and proton center-of-mass polar angle $\theta_{pq}^*$ but different values of the proton azimuthal angle $\phi_{pq}^*$. (The proton and pion are back-to-back in the center of mass frame leading to the following relations between the angles: $\theta_{pq}^*=180^\circ-\theta_{\pi q}^*$ and $\phi_{pq}^*= 180^\circ
+ \phi_{\pi q}^*$.) The sequential kinematic settings then keep $W$ and $Q^2$ constant by keeping the electron arm (Spectrometer A) unchanged and the proton arm was moved so that $\theta_{pq}^*$ remained the same and $\phi_{pq}^*$ was changed. Using Eq. \[eq:XS\], the three two-fold differential cross sections ($\sigma_0,
\sigma_{TT}, \sigma_{LT}$) can then be found algebraically from the three measured five-fold cross sections and the $\phi_{pq}^{*}$ angles at which they were measured. The fifth two-fold differential cross section $\sigma_{LT'}$ was measured by reversing the helicity of the longitudinally polarized electron beam at non-zero (out-of-plane) $\phi_{pq}^*$ angles. $\sigma_{LT'}$ is sensitive to the background terms and provides another test of the reaction calculations.
Figure \[fig:acc\_overlap\] shows the kinematic overlap for the sequential $\phi_{pq}^*$ settings at $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}. The $W$ overlap is approximately 40 MeV, the $\Delta Q^2\approx 0.04$ GeV$^2$/c$^2$, $\Delta \theta_{pq}^{*}\approx
10^\circ$, and $\Delta\phi_{pq}^{*}\approx 40^\circ$. For $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}, the overlap region is slightly larger due to the larger Lorentz boost but the shapes are qualitatively similar.
{width="1.6\columnwidth"}
Studies of the extraction process showed that the smallest uncertainties and most sensitivity were achieved when the three $\phi_{pq}^*$ measurements were as far apart as possible. However, at the larger $\theta_{pq}^*$ angles, not all $\phi_{pq}^*$ values can be reached because of the $10^\circ$ out-of-plane angle constraint of Spectrometer B. Therefore, for each $\theta_{pq}^*$ setting, the maximally out-of-plane settings were used. However, each kinematic setting was carefully chosen in order to minimize the uncertainties in the algebraic cross section extraction process.
The kinematics for all of the setups are shown in detail in Table \[tab:kine\]. The data presented in this work were taken during two run periods in 2003. The first period was in April and measured the mostly non-parallel cross sections for $Q^2=0.060$ and 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}in addition to an extension of the $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}data set. The October period was used to measure the $W$ scans at $Q^2=0.060$ and 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}and the low $W$ background terms. In addition to the $Q^2=0.060,0.127$, and 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}measurements, some cross check measurements were made at $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}which overlapped with existing data from Bates.
------------------------ ----------- ----------------- --------------- ------------
$Q^2$ $W$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\phi_{pq}^*$ $E_{beam}$
$[$[(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}$]$ $[$MeV$]$ $[^\circ]$ $[^\circ]$ $[$MeV$]$
0.060 1221 — $\vec{q}$ 795
0.060 1221 24 0.0,90,180 795
0.060 1221 30 29 795
0.060 1221 37 134,180 795
0.200 1221 — $\vec{q}$ 855
0.200 1221 33 0.0,90,180 855
0.200 1221 57 38, 142,180 855
0.060 1125-1300 — $\vec{q}$ 705
0.200 1125-1275 — $\vec{q}$ 855
0.300 1205 — $\vec{q}$ 855
0.060 1155 26 0,180 855
0.127 1140 59 45,135 855
0.127 1221 30,43,63 90,135,150 855
0.127 1212,1232 — $\vec{q}$ 855
0.127 1232 28 0,180 855
------------------------ ----------- ----------------- --------------- ------------
: \[tab:kine\]Kinematic values for $W$, $Q^2$, proton center-of-mass polar angle $\theta_{pq}^*$, proton azimuthal angle $\phi_{pq}^*$ and the initial electron beam energy $E_{beam}$. See Tables \[table:results:lowQ:XS\] and \[table:results:Q20:XS\] for detailed settings for the $W$ scans.
Data Analysis
=============
Phase Space Acceptance and Simulation
-------------------------------------
The phase space acceptance in the spectrometers is in a multi-dimensional space and has a complex shape (see Fig. \[fig:acc\_overlap\]). One challenge was defining the phase space acceptance in a similar manner across all the kinematic settings with the phase space varying by a large amount across the spectrometer acceptance. One solution is to have a very small acceptance which will limit the variations but also limit the statistics. Too large of a phase space acceptance leads to large systematic errors as the variation in phase space is too large for the simulation to reliably calculate. However, a compromise can be found by settling in a region where the combination of the statistical and systematic errors is a minimum. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\] where the normalized cross section is plotted against the size of the kinematic cut. More details of the calculation are presented below but the effect of too small of a phase space acceptance (large statistical errors on the left side of Fig. \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\]) can be seen as well as the effect of too large of a phase space acceptance (large systematic errors seen as deviations from the central value on the right side of Fig. \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\]).
To ensure uniformity of the phase space selection across the varying kinematics, a unique solution was found which non-arbitrarily defined the edges of the acceptance. The maximum allowed phase space region was found by locating the half-maximum points in the distributions of the variables upon which the cross section depends: $W$, $Q^2$, $\theta_{pq}^{*}$, $\phi_{pq}^{*}$. Symmetry around the central kinematics was also enforced so that neither side of the phase space was weighted too heavily. Once the maximum acceptance regions were defined, then fractional widths of those regions were used to study the behavior of the extracted cross section. Those studies, detailed below, were then used to define the final phase space region used for extracting the cross sections.
![\[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\]Variation in the cross section due to changes in cut size for $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}, $\theta_{pq}^*=24^\circ$, $\phi_{pq}^*=0^\circ$. The abscissa shows the fractional phase space selection width for all the variables mentioned in the text and the ordinate shows the cross section normalized to the cross section result with the 0.50 fractional phase space selection width. The bars are centered on the cut corrected result. The dark bar is the statistical uncertainty and the light bar shows the total uncertainty with the systematic uncertainty added in quadrature. ](Q06-t24-p1-fine-scan.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Simul++ [@COLA] is the software which was employed to calculate the multi-dimensional phase space. Simul++ also simulates the collimators inside the spectrometers as part of calculating the phase space. After the subtraction of background events (see next subsection), the spectrometer acceptance was limited in software to the central region of the spectrometers to keep edge effects out of the analysis. The details are in [@stave_thesis]. In addition to precise spectrometer properties and collimators, Simul++ also calculates energy loss and the radiative corrections in the same way as for the data. Each simulated event contains the proper weighting for radiative corrections, the virtual photon flux $\Gamma$ and the lab to center-of-mass Jacobian. The simulated events undergo kinematic selection processes identical to those used on the data and can then be used to determine the phase space and, finally, a cross section.
{width="1.5\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:data\_sim\] shows a comparison of the data for an in-plane, forward setup with the results of Simul++ weighted by the MAID 2003 phenomenological model [@maid1] cross section and plotted against the four physics variables upon which the cross section depends: $W$, $Q^2$, $\theta_{pq}^{*}$, $\phi_{pq}^{*}$. As is clear in the figure, there is very good agreement for all the variables across the acceptance. A fifth variable, $z$, was also examined closely because it affects the size of the spectrometer acceptance. $z$ is the vertex position determined by Spectrometer B which has better vertex resolution than Spectrometer A. The real edges of the $z$ distribution are not as sharp as in the simulation, but extensive studies showed that avoiding those regions in $z$ yielded reliable cross section results. Other setups have similarly good agreement between data and simulation. In addition to good agreement in the previously listed variables, there is also acceptable agreement on the shape and location of the missing mass peak as shown in Fig. \[fig:mm\_data\_sim\]. The differences between simulation and data for the missing mass do not cause appreciable uncertainties and the level of agreement is sufficient for this analysis.
 Comparison of the missing mass from the data (black crosses) and the simulation (solid line) for the $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}, $W=1221$ MeV, $\theta_{pq}^*=36^\circ$, $\phi_{pq}^*=180^\circ$ setting. ](MM_comp_Q06-t36-p3.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
To investigate the effects of different sized phase space acceptance regions on the extracted cross section, several types of studies were performed. In all of them, the maximum phase space selection width was defined by the half-maximum points as mentioned earlier. Then, only the fractional width of the phase space region relative to the maximum width was varied. In this manner, the phase space selection was consistent across the many kinematic settings.
Fine scans were made for each kinematic setting by simultaneously varying the fractional width of the phase space selection of all the physics variables ($W$, $Q^2$, $\theta_{pq}^*$, $\phi_{pq}^*$) and the vertex position, $z$. (The cross section does not depend on the vertex position but the shape of the vertex distribution did change from setup to setup requiring a similar definition of the cut.) Figure \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\] shows the scan for a non-parallel, forward angle, $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}setting. The abscissa shows the fractional phase space selection width for all the variables mentioned and the ordinate shows the cross section normalized to the cross section result with the 0.50 fractional phase space selection width. The variation of the cross section ratio with changing cut fractions seen in Fig. \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\] was representative of the variation seen in the other kinematic settings. As mentioned before, Figure \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\] shows that the extracted cross section gets more stable with smaller selection regions but the statistical uncertainties necessarily get larger. Small statistical uncertainties are possible with larger cut fractions but then the systematic errors suffer. What is not shown here is that the helicity dependent cross sections have the most stable results for a fractional phase space selection width of 0.75. The fraction of 0.75 was then chosen as a compromise in order to have stable results across all kinematics with small statistical uncertainties.
In most settings, like that shown in Fig. \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\], the cross section for a fractional phase space selection width of 0.75 is slightly lower than the 0.50 result. To correct for this, a phase space correction factor was determined by averaging the results of these selection scans over all the similar kinematic settings. These corrections are all on the order of 2 to 3% with a 1% systematic uncertainty. (Some of the backward angle settings had flat phase space selection width scan results and did not require a phase space correction factor.) For a comparison of the relative uncertainties, see the light and dark bars in Fig. \[fig:analysis:scans:otherQ06\]. The light bar shows the statistical uncertainty for the final cross section result with a fractional phase space selection width of 0.75 and the dark bar shows the total uncertainty including the appropriate systematic uncertainties. (Since this is a comparison of only one kinematic setting, it is not appropriate to include any uncertainties from quantities which vary statistically or systematically from setup to setup like the luminosity.) The cross section ratios with fractional phase space selection widths of 0.50 and 0.75 agree with each other within statistical and systematic uncertainty and are also both stable.
This phase space selection procedure was used for the analysis of the $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}data. Similar cuts were used in the $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}analysis and their stability was verified. Any small differences in the cuts lead to only small differences in the cross sections and are not significant.
Elimination of Background Counts
--------------------------------
During the pion production runs, there were two types of backgrounds: $\pi^-/\mu^-$ background and general accidental background. The $\pi^-/\mu^-$ background was removed by making a two-dimensional selection in missing mass versus coincidence timing space. The $\pi^-/\mu^-$ background region was very clearly separated from $\pi^0$ events of interest. Their identity was confirmed with a Cherenkov counter in Spectrometer A which was only present during the first running period. However, the two-dimensional selection in missing mass versus coincidence timing space was found to be just as effective at removing the $\pi^-/\mu^-$ background.
After the $\pi^-/\mu^-$ cut, an accidental subtraction was applied using accidentals from both sides of the coincidence peak to determine the background counts per channel. Figure \[fig:bg\_sub\] shows the coincidence peak on top of the accidental background with the light gray region indicating the average background level seen in the two side regions. The accidental subtraction removes about 6% to 20% of the events in the coincidence peak depending on the kinematics and is the largest of the background subtractions.
![\[fig:bg\_sub\]Coincidence timing of the proton and electron. The dark gray areas indicate the background subtraction region and the light gray under the peak indicates the size of the background. The full-width at half-maximum of the peak is 0.9 ns.](timing_cuts.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
After both the pion and accidental background subtractions, the data consist of only coincidence events and a cross section can be extracted which is not contaminated with background events.
Luminosity
----------
The luminosity is calculated based upon the total current measured by the Förster probe, a pair of toroidal coils which surround the beam and measure the current induced by the beam [@sirca]. The Förster probe is located in the third stage of the microtron which can recirculate the beam up to 90 times. Therefore, the current of the recirculated beam in the third stage can be up to 90 times larger than the beam on target. A measurement there leads to a much more precise determination of the beam current.
The luminosity can then be calculated given the beam current, target length, and target density (from pressure and temperature). To prevent local boiling of the hydrogen target, the electron beam is rasterized or wobbled across the target in a rectangular pattern. During the April run, the beam was also placed off-center to ensure a path to the out-of-plane Spectrometer B that was free of obstructions. The flat plate above the target extended out and would have been in the path of the out-going protons if the beam were not shifted down and to the right. This offset in the beam position decreased the effective target length by less than 1.5% and the effect was taken into account by the simulation.
The normal operating pressure for the target is 2.1 bar. With a normal temperature of 22 K, this leads to an undercooling of 1 K. This temperature buffer allows for a certain amount of local heating without the target starting to boil. However, both pion production run periods experienced lower target pressure which led to less undercooling. Instead of 1 K undercooling, the experiment operated closer to 0.6 K undercooling.
The singles rates in Spectrometer A were used to study the effect of the beam current on the luminosity. (Spectrometer B was rarely in the same place from one setup to another but Spectrometer A was returned to the same location repeatedly.) By plotting the singles rate in A versus beam current, any target boiling effect should be visible. Figure \[fig:lumi\_corr\] shows the A singles rate divided by the beam current for all the $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}runs. Also plotted are the average and the RMS deviation of all of the data. Notice that almost all of the points are consistent with a horizontal line which indicates no beam current dependent luminosity change. Therefore, the low $Q^2$ runs were below the boiling threshold and do not need any correction.
 The singles rate in Spectrometer A divided by the beam current for all the $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}runs in the April beam time period. The uncertainties shown are statistical only. The lines show the average and RMS deviation of all the data points. Most of the data are within the uncertainties. Even over a range of 3 $\mu$A, there is no large target boiling effect. ](Q06_ndelta1_singles.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
However, other data were taken with higher beam currents, specifically the parallel pion production cross section comparison with Bates data and the $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}data. It is possible that these runs were taken above the boiling threshold. To test this, the singles rates from Spectrometer A divided by the current was plotted and a line was fit to the data. During the experiment, the effect of the beam current on the luminosity was explicitly checked for one setting where data were taken at 25 $\mu$A for 2.5 hours and 12.5 $\mu$A for 5 hours. The results of the fit to the singles data and the beam current study indicate a current dependent effect for beam currents above 12.5 $\mu$A. A luminosity correction factor and uncertainty of $(3\pm 1)\%$ were adopted which are consistent with all the available data. More details are presented in [@stave_thesis].
The conclusion from the luminosity studies is that the $Q^2=0.06$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}data are unaffected by beam target heating and a $(3\pm 1)\%$ correction is sufficient to account for the effect in the remaining data.
Extraction at Central Kinematic Values
--------------------------------------
The analysis procedure yields a cross section which has been averaged over the multi-dimensional phase space while the theoretical models provide predicted values at points in that phase space. To compare the averaged cross section to theory, a kinematic translation procedure is applied to the data. This is also known as bin centering corrections [@arrington] or transport. The goal of the procedure is to find the correction factor which will convert the cross section which has been averaged over phase space to the cross section evaluated at the central kinematic values of the phase space. The kinematic correction factor is found by averaging the model predictions over the same volume in phase space as the data. That value is then divided by the model prediction at the center of the phase space. The inverse of that ratio is the correction factor. This technique does not rely upon the absolute size of the theory but merely requires that the theory have the same shape throughout the same phase space as the data. Corrections are typically 2 to 3% indicating that the cross section tends to vary smoothly and fairly symmetrically through the phase space. A small (0.5%) systematic uncertainty is introduced with this method which was estimated by performing the translation with several models and taking the RMS deviation of the results.
This method of translation was tested by varying the size of the phase space selection region and checking for convergence to the point cross section. Smaller cuts lead to larger statistical uncertainties but the tests showed that the results were stable and converged within the uncertainties.
Absolute Cross Section Verification
-----------------------------------
In order to determine stability over time and the proper normalization, the elastic reaction $p(e,e'p)$ was measured throughout the experiment. As during the pion production runs, Spectrometer A was used to detect electrons and Spectrometer B for protons. The measurement uncertainties are dominated by the systematics estimated at approximately 4%. The results are stable over time and are consistent, within systematic uncertainties, with the 1996 dispersion-theoretical analysis fit to the world elastic data [@mergell]. The 2004 dispersion analysis [@hammer] and other fits to the elastic scattering data [@seely; @lomon2002; @friedrich; @simon1980] were examined and there is only a small amount of spread between the fits and they agree at $(98.5 \pm 1.5)\%$ of the 1996 dispersion fit. A more recent dispersion analysis [@hammer07] is slightly lower (about 95% of the 1996 fit) but agrees with the other fits and the data within the systematic errors.
The conclusion from the coincidence elastic analysis is that the measured cross sections are stable over time and agree well with previous elastic results. This indicates stability in the luminosity, target density, and beam position. It also indicates that the spectrometers can be placed reliably (typically 0.6 mm and 0.1 mrad [@blom]) and that the central momenta are well known.
For another check of the absolute cross sections, the parallel pion production cross section at $W=1232$ MeV and $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}was taken during both run times. This measurement had been carried out previously at Bates [@mertz; @mertz_thesis; @vellidis; @sparveris; @sparveris_thesis]. The beam energy for each of these past experiments was slightly different and so the $\epsilon$ factor is slightly different. This can be corrected for using the ratio of $\sigma_{T}$ to $\sigma_{L}$ from a model. Using MAID 2003, the correction factor is about 1% and is even smaller for other models. Figure \[fig:analysis:par\_XS\_comp\] shows all of the parallel cross section comparisons for the previous Bates data and the current experiment. There is a reasonable overlap region since the systematic uncertainties are accounted for in the plot. The Mainz results are stable over time from April 2003 to October 2003. Another item to consider is that the variation in the Bates measurements is about 4% and the difference from Mainz to the lowest Bates point is about the same. The conclusion drawn is that the current measurement agrees with previous measurements within the systematic uncertainties.
 Comparison of the parallel cross section from previous experiments at Bates ($\circ$: Mertz-Vellidis (MV) $\epsilon=0.614$ [@mertz] and Sparveris (Spar.) $\epsilon=0.768$ [@sparveris]) and from the current experiment ($\bullet$) all measured at or converted to $\epsilon=0.707$. The uncertainties are the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The / lines are the average of the central values and the uncertainties for Bates. The $\backslash$ lines are the values for Mainz. The overlap region is easily seen.](parallel_comp.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Systematic Uncertainties
------------------------
As mentioned above, the uncertainties from the kinematic translation procedure can be estimated by using various models and looking at the RMS deviation and, for most settings, the effect is less than 0.5%. The one exception is a 1.3% effect due to worse phase space overlap in the $Q^2=0.06$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}, $\theta_{pq^*}=29.6^\circ$ setting. This was caused by unforeseen difficulties in placing the spectrometers.
Table \[table:sys\_errs\] summarizes the remaining uncertainties. The luminosity uncertainty comes from a 1% uncertainty in the target length and a 1% uncertainty in the density. Those estimates have been conservatively added linearly. However, the stability of the elastic cross sections indicates that this systematic uncertainty should affect all runs in the same way. The detector inefficiency correction was estimated in previous works and is quoted here [@richter; @sirca]. The dead time correction factor was calculated using vetoed and unvetoed scalers and is based upon counting statistics.
The phase space cut uncertainties were found by varying the size of the kinematic phase space cuts. The large, in-plane angle settings had very little difference, but for the rest of the settings, the difference was typically 2 to 3%. The systematic uncertainty in phase space cut uncertainties was estimated to be the average of the uncertainties in the ratios of the small and large cut regions. The systematic uncertainty in the cut correction is between 1.5% and 2.4%.
The model uncertainty in kinematic translation has already been detailed as has the beam current luminosity correction uncertainty. Note that the beam current related luminosity correction is not applied for beam currents less than 12.5 $\mu$A and when it is applied, has a 1% uncertainty.
To see the effect of the spectrometer angular and momentum resolution, the central momentum and angle settings for the spectrometers were shifted in the simulation and the shifted simulation results were used to extract cross sections. Using various combinations of the resolutions and for several, representative setups, the resolution uncertainty was estimated at 1%. The spectrometer positioning uncertainties of 0.6 mm and 0.1 mrad [@blom] are much smaller than the resolution uncertainties and so do not affect the results. The beam position can also affect the cross section. A study showed that this effect is about 1%.
To summarize, there are several corrections applied to the data (luminosity, phase space, kinematic translation) but they have all been studied in detail and their contributions are all well determined. The total systematic uncertainties are in the range of 3 to 4% and agree very well with the estimates based upon comparisons with the world elastic cross sections.
Uncertainty Size \[%\]
-------------------------------------------- ------------
Luminosity 2
Detector inefficiency correction 1
Dead time correction uncertainty per setup $<0.5$
Phase space cut uncertainty 1.5 - 2.4
Model uncertainty 0.4,1.3
Beam current luminosity correction 0,1
Momentum and angular resolution 1
Beam position 1
Total in quadrature 3.3 - 3.7
Beam polarization 1.2
: \[table:sys\_errs\]Summary of systematic and model uncertainties.
Experimental Results
====================
The methods described in the previous sections were applied to the data at $Q^2=0.060,0.127$ and $0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}and the results are given here and in the Appendix in tabular form. There are two types of cross sections presented. One is the five-fold differential cross section which is dependent on $W, Q^2,\theta_{pq}^*$, and $\phi_{pq}^*$ and is measured directly by the spectrometers. The other type is the two-fold differential cross section which is $\phi_{pq}^*$ independent and must be extracted from the five-fold cross sections using Eq. \[eq:XS\]. Both types of cross sections are used to aid in comparison with theory and for fitting purposes.
Near resonance: $Q^2= 0.060, 0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}\[Q06\_Q20\_fit\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The extracted partial cross sections $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_{TT}$, $\sigma_{LT}$, and $\sigma_{LT'}$ versus $\theta_{\pi q}^*$ for $W =
1221$ MeV, $Q^2 =0.060$ and $W=1232$ MeV, $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}are plotted in Figs. \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\] and \[fig:Q20\_XS\_all\] respectively. These data are compared with the chiral effective field theory calculations (EFT) which have a few low energy parameters and then rely on theory to arrive at results. These calculations have relatively large estimated uncertainty bands due to the neglect of higher order terms. Within these uncertainties the agreement with experiment is good. While these calculations and their uncertainty estimates are a great contribution to the field, conclusions cannot be drawn unless there are further improvements. The precision of the data is such that more precise theory is required. The inclusion of even higher order terms appears to be necessary.
The top sections of Figures \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\] and \[fig:Q20\_XS\_all\] also show the predictions of four model calculations. The Sato-Lee (SL) [@sato_lee] and Dubna-Mainz-Taipei (DMT) [@dmt] models contain explicit pion cloud contributions while the MAID [@maid1] and SAID [@said] calculations are primarily phenomenological. These models have been adjusted by their authors to agree with our previous data [@warren; @mertz; @kunz; @sparveris]. For $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}, all models agree with the data for $\sigma_{TT}$. For $\sigma_0$ only MAID is not in agreement with the data. However, for $\sigma_{LT}$ the dispersion between the models and data is greater showing that they have not been adjusted to agree with $S_{1+}$. For $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}, the agreement between models and experiment for $S_{1+}$ is even less satisfactory. One item that this indicates is that the $Q^2$ dependence of $S_{1+}$ is not correct in DMT and MAID since both models agree well with $S_{1+}$ data at $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}shown in Ref. [@sparveris]. For $\sigma_{LT'}$, only the SL model agrees with the data at both $Q^2$ values. All of these disagreements show the importance of performing measurements at low $Q^2$.
The extraction of the three resonant $\gamma^* + p \rightarrow \Delta$ amplitudes $M_{1+}$, $E_{1+}$ and $S_{1+}$ was accomplished by adjusting these amplitudes in the four phenomenological models described above. Following the practice of Refs. [@mertz; @sparveris; @stave; @sparveris_Q20] the model dependent extraction from successful phenomenological reaction models allows for a reliable extraction of the resonant amplitudes. The model uncertainty is estimated by the spread of the derived values using the various model amplitudes [@cnp; @stave_etal; @stiliaris_cnp].
The fitting procedure used in this analysis is described in detail in [@stave_thesis]. Briefly, the procedure takes all the background multipoles up to $L=5$ from a model and varies the amplitude of the resonant, isospin 3/2 multipoles ($M_{1+}^{3/2}$, $E_{1+}^{3/2}$ and $S_{1+}^{3/2}$) to attain a best fit to data at one value of $W$ and $Q^2$. By performing the fit in this manner, there is not the usual truncation of the fit past p waves. However, there is a model dependence since the various models differ in the sizes of background terms.
{width="1.8\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="1.8\columnwidth"}
{width="1.8\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="1.8\columnwidth"}
The fitting of the data started with the helicity independent results, the three $\theta_{pq}^*$ angles with the $\phi_{pq}^*$ dependence. Those seven five-fold differential cross section results were fit using the three resonant parameter fit with the four models. All the fits had $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom near one indicating good fits. Correlations between the fitting parameters were taken into account in the uncertainties estimated by the fitting routine [@stave_thesis; @minuit]. Figures \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\] and \[fig:Q20\_XS\_all\] show the data and the different fitted models. Despite different background terms, the four model fits converged. It is impressive that the four model curves almost fall on top of each other when the three resonant $\gamma^*p\rightarrow\Delta$ amplitudes ($M_{1+}^{3/2},E_{1+}^{3/2},S_{1+}^{3/2}$) are varied to fit the data as shown in the lower panel of Figs. \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\] and \[fig:Q20\_XS\_all\]. In addition, the lower panels show the “spherical” calculated curves when the resonant quadrupole amplitudes ($E_{1+}^{3/2}$ in $\sigma_{0}$ and $S_{1+}^{3/2}$ in $\sigma_{LT}$) are set equal to zero. The difference between the spherical and full curves shows the sensitivity of these cross sections to the quadrupole amplitudes and demonstrates the basis of the present measurement. The small spread in the spherical curves indicates their sensitivity to the model dependence of the background amplitudes.
Figure \[fig:results:lowQ:EMRCMR\_conv\] shows the model convergence for the EMR and CMR at $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}in another way. The convergence in $M_{1+}$ was not as significant but the values for $M_{1+}$ have been modified by the various model authors in order to fit previous data.
{width="1.95\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="1.95\columnwidth"}
It is interesting that good fits were achieved in the resonant region despite the differing model backgrounds. The $M_{1+}$ term is dominant but the background multipoles are of a similar size to the resonant multipoles. The reason that the fitting routine is able to be rather insensitive to the backgrounds is due, mostly, to their having a different phase. Near resonance, the $I=3/2$ resonant multipoles are mostly imaginary due to the Fermi-Watson theorem [@drechsel_tiator]. The $E_{0+}$ and $S_{0+}$ are mostly imaginary while others are primarily real. Since the $M_{1+}$ amplitude near resonance is almost pure imaginary, the interference with mostly real amplitudes is very small. In addition, the $E_{0+}$ multipole does not differ very much from model to model so while it has a large effect, it does not affect the resonant fits. The fitting procedure is also insensitive to the background amplitudes partly because of their angular dependence. The primary contributors to the cross section near resonance are the resonant $M_{1+}$, $E_{1+}$ and $S_{1+}$ and the background $E_{0+}$ and $S_{0+}$. The multipole contributions to the cross section have different angular shapes which the fitter can use to separate the components.
As mentioned before, in Figures \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\] and \[fig:Q20\_XS\_all\], the $\sigma_{LT'}$ results are only close for the Sato-Lee model but then those cross sections were not included in this fit. The $\sigma_{LT'}$ cross section is sensitive primarily to the background amplitudes and a resonant fit is not expected to improve the agreement. In fact, the fit results were the same, within the uncertainties, whether or not the $\sigma_{LT'}$ data were included.
Table \[table:fit:bothQ\] shows model and chiral EFT predictions along with fitted results for the models and the averages of those models at both $Q^2$ values. The table also contains three different types of uncertainties: statistical (used when fitting the data), systematic, and model. The systematic uncertainties are calculated by scaling all of the cross sections to the minimum and maximum allowed by the uncertainties and refitting. The range of the refit values then gives the systematic uncertainty. The systematic uncertainty for the EMR and CMR mostly cancelled because the quantities are ratios of multipoles and so are supressed in Table \[table:fit:bothQ\]. However, since $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ is not a ratio, the systematic uncertainties remained. Following our previous work [@sparveris; @cnp; @stave_etal; @stiliaris_cnp], the model uncertainties were found by taking the root mean square deviation of the results using the four models. We believe that this is reasonable since the chosen models represent state-of-the-art calculations and also a variety of different approaches. The final statistical and systematic uncertainties are the average over the four models. The model uncertainties and experimental uncertainties are very similar in size, especially for the EMR and CMR, as also seen at $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}in Ref. [@sparveris]. Therefore, one can conclude that the current experimental limit has been reached and further gains can only be achieved after improving the models. The effect of background amplitudes on the resonant amplitudes was studied and determined to have an effect approximately the same size as the model to model RMS deviation. This study is detailed in Refs. [@stave_thesis] and [@stave_etal].
------------------------ ------- ------------------------------------ --------- ------------------------- --------- ------------------------------------------- -------
$Q^2$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{} Model EMR (%) CMR (%) $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ ($10^{-3}/m_{\pi^+}$)
Fit Orig. Fit Orig. Fit Orig.
0.06 SAID $-2.18 \pm 0.31$ $-1.80$ $-4.87 \pm 0.29$ $-5.30$ $40.81 \pm 0.29\pm 0.57$ 40.72
SL $-2.26 \pm 0.30$ $-2.98$ $-4.46 \pm 0.25$ $-3.48$ $40.20 \pm 0.27 \pm 0.56$ 41.28
DMT $-2.11 \pm 0.28$ $-2.84$ $-4.85 \pm 0.26$ $-5.74$ $40.78 \pm 0.27 \pm 0.57$ 40.81
MAID $-2.56 \pm 0.27$ $-2.16$ $-5.07\pm 0.26$ $-6.51$ $39.51 \pm 0.26 \pm 0.57$ 40.53
Avg. $-2.28 \pm 0.29 \pm 0.01 \pm 0.20$ $-4.81 \pm 0.27 $40.33 \pm 0.27 \pm 0.57 \pm 0.61$
\pm 0.03 \pm 0.26$
GH $-2.66$ $-6.06$ 41.15
PV $-2.88 \pm 0.70$ $-5.85 \pm 1.40$ $39.75 \pm 3.87$
$Q^2$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{} Model EMR (%) CMR (%) $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ ($10^{-3}/m_{\pi^+}$)
Fit Orig. Fit Orig. Fit Orig.
0.20 SAID $-1.41 \pm 0.67$ $-1.47$ $-4.68 \pm 0.28$ $-5.85$ $38.89 \pm 0.44 \pm 0.62$ 39.85
SL $-2.24 \pm 0.69$ $-3.11$ $-5.11 \pm 0.27$ $-4.64$ $39.76 \pm 0.43 \pm 0.62$ 40.48
DMT $-1.75 \pm 0.67$ $-2.82$ $-5.04 \pm 0.27$ $-6.65$ $39.84 \pm 0.43 \pm 0.62$ 39.65
MAID $-2.36 \pm 0.69$ $-2.06$ $-5.50 \pm 0.29$ $-6.50$ $39.43 \pm 0.43 \pm 0.62$ 39.98
Avg. $-1.96 \pm 0.68 \pm 0.01 \pm 0.41$ $-5.09 \pm 0.28 $39.57 \pm 0.43 \pm 0.62 \pm 0.40$
\pm 0.02 \pm 0.30$
GH $-1.68 \pm 0.47$ $-6.75 \pm 1.85$
PV $-3.05 \pm 1.20$ $-9.19 \pm 3.00$ $38.22 \pm
5.10$
------------------------ ------- ------------------------------------ --------- ------------------------- --------- ------------------------------------------- -------
Parallel cross section\[par\_XS\]
---------------------------------
In Figures \[fig:Q06\_W\] and \[fig:Q20\_W\], the parallel cross section $W$ scans at $Q^2=0.060$ and 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}, respectively, are plotted along with corresponding model predictions. In Panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:Q06\_W\], the unmodified models are shown. In Panel (b) of Fig. \[fig:Q06\_W\], the results of the three resonant parameter fit to the previously shown data were used. It is important to note that in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_W\], only the helicity independent, low $Q^2$ results from Sec. \[Q06\_Q20\_fit\] have been fit and yet the agreement with the $W$ scan data is improved significantly. However, there is still disagreement with the data near the tails which indicate issues with the model backgrounds.
The model curves in Fig. \[fig:Q20\_W\] were made in the same way as those for Fig. \[fig:Q06\_W\]. Again, even though the $W$ dependent data were not included in the fit, the models converged noticeably. There are even larger deviations at high $W$ indicating an additional $Q^2$ dependence to the model background terms which is not accounted for properly. It is hoped that both these sets of $W$ dependent data will help to constrain the models once the models have been improved.
 Parallel cross section for the $p(\vec{e},e'p)\pi^0$ reaction at $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}before (panel a) and after (panel b) three resonant parameter fit. Model curves are the same as in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\]. The smaller error bars are the statistical uncertainty and the larger error bars include the systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.](Q06_W_before_letts.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Parallel cross section for the $p(\vec{e},e'p)\pi^0$ reaction at $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}before (panel a) and after (panel b) three resonant parameter fit. Model curves are the same as in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\]. The smaller error bars are the statistical uncertainty and the larger error bars include the systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.](Q06_W_after_letts.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
 Parallel cross section for the $p(\vec{e},e'p)\pi^0$ reaction at $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}before (panel a) and after (panel b) fit. Model curves are the same as in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\]. The uncertainty is the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.](Q20_W_before_letts.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Parallel cross section for the $p(\vec{e},e'p)\pi^0$ reaction at $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}before (panel a) and after (panel b) fit. Model curves are the same as in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\]. The uncertainty is the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.](Q20_W_XS_after_letts.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
One property that these data can help determine is the shape of the parallel cross section versus $Q^2$ in the range from $Q^2=0.060$ to 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}. The four models (MAID, Sato-Lee, SAID, and DMT) do not have a large variation of the shape of the parallel cross section with $Q^2$ but they do differ from one another in peak center value and width. This was found by plotting the model predictions versus $W$ for the $Q^2$ range of the data after normalizing the cross sections to the value at the peak. The same procedure was carried out on the Mainz and Bates data and plotted with the peak normalized DMT model in Fig. \[fig:par\_shape\]. To aid in the comparison, fits to the data were performed using a Breit-Wigner form plus a quadratic background. The fits determined the peak to be $W=1206 \pm 1$ MeV with widths of 83 to 108 MeV with 10% uncertainties. The shape of the data clearly does not change dramatically. There does appear to be some deviation from the predicted shape toward high $W$ in this model.
 Parallel cross section data (uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature) for the $p(\vec{e},e'p)\pi^0$ reaction from Mainz (this paper) and Bates [@mertz; @sparveris] and model predictions from [@dmt] scaled so that the $W=1205$ MeV peak is at 1.0. Note that the shape of the parallel cross does not vary by a large amount. The data points are connected by fits (thick lines) which were a Breit-Wigner form plus a quadratic background. ](par_comp_fit_vs_W_DMT.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In addition to the data taken at $Q^2=0.060,0.127,$ and $0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}, one data point was taken at $Q^2=0.300$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}. This was a parallel cross section measurement near the peak of the cross section, $W=1205$ MeV. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:Sig0\_vs\_Q2\], all of the points taken at Mainz are consistent with the unfit Sato-Lee model but show the same variation with $Q^2$ as all the models. Previous data from Bates [@mertz] tend to have larger values in general as in Fig. \[fig:analysis:par\_XS\_comp\] but are within the combined uncertainties. The variation with $Q^2$ is significant because the shape is consistent with a large pion cloud contribution. Note that none of the models in Fig. \[fig:Sig0\_vs\_Q2\] were fit to the data and the spread in their predicted values is similar to the spread seen in the Panels (a-d) of Figs. \[fig:Q06\_W\] and \[fig:Q20\_W\] which also show unfit models.
 Results for $\sigma_0$ versus $Q^2$ for $W=1205$ MeV, $\theta_{pq}^*=0^\circ$. The solid circle data were taken at Mainz and include the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}point was taken at $W=1212$ MeV and models [@maid1; @sato_lee; @dmt; @said] were used to extrapolate to $W=1205$ MeV. As a result, the uncertainty is slightly larger for that point than the others. The plotted models have not been fit to the data. ](Sig0_W1205_vs_Q2_all_Mainz.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Background Sensitive Data Below Resonance
-----------------------------------------
Background sensitive data were taken at $Q^2=0.060$ (GeV/c)$^2$ and at low $W$, where the $M_{1+}$ amplitude is less dominant, to test the background amplitudes in the reaction models. Comparing over a wide range of $W$ is a rigorous test of the background multipoles and the shape of $M_{1+}$. Also, the background multipoles are more important at low $W$ where they are relatively larger than the resonant multipoles which are then off-resonance. In addition, the $M_{1+}$ term is not purely imaginary in that region and interferences from real background amplitudes will not be suppressed as much. Although the extraction of specific background multipoles was not planned, model predictions can be compared to the data to see whether they agree or not. In addition, some fitting including background terms can provide an indication as to which amplitudes may be significant. Similar studies were performed in Ref. [@sparveris] on the Bates $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}data.
Figure \[fig:BG\_Q06\] shows the new low $W$ data at $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}compared with models before and after fitting the three resonant multipoles at resonance. In the unfit panel (a) of Fig. \[fig:BG\_Q06\] only the DMT model is close to the data but does not reproduce both points. The other models differ in size and shape due to their different background amplitudes. The same low $W$ data points are plotted in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:BG\_Q06\] along with the model fits at resonance found in Sec. \[Q06\_Q20\_fit\]. These data points were not included in those fits. The agreement with the models has not improved significantly. This is corroborating the known disagreement among the models for the various background amplitudes.
 Background sensitive data from Mainz at $W=1155$ MeV, $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}before (panel a) and after (panel b) fit to the data near resonance. The smaller error bars are the statistical uncertainty and the larger error bars include the systematic uncertainty added in quadrature. The curves are MAID 2003 (dotted) [@maid1] DMT (dot-dash) [@dmt], Sato-Lee (dot-dot-dash) [@sato_lee] and SAID (dot-dot-dot-dash) [@said]. Panel (b) also includes an example of one of the four parameter fits (long dash) including these background data. That fit used the three resonant parameters along with $M_{1-}$) using the MAID 2003 model.](Q06_W1155_p_phi_leg_letts.eps){width="1.05\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Background sensitive data from Mainz at $W=1155$ MeV, $Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}before (panel a) and after (panel b) fit to the data near resonance. The smaller error bars are the statistical uncertainty and the larger error bars include the systematic uncertainty added in quadrature. The curves are MAID 2003 (dotted) [@maid1] DMT (dot-dash) [@dmt], Sato-Lee (dot-dot-dash) [@sato_lee] and SAID (dot-dot-dot-dash) [@said]. Panel (b) also includes an example of one of the four parameter fits (long dash) including these background data. That fit used the three resonant parameters along with $M_{1-}$) using the MAID 2003 model.](Q06_W1155_p_allfit2_leg_letts.eps){width="1.05\columnwidth"}
Taken together, both panels of Fig. \[fig:BG\_Q06\] are indicating that, as expected, more than a three parameter resonant fit is required away from the resonance region. As an example, one of the best four parameter fits (using the three resonant parameters along with $M_{1-}$) which include these background data is shown in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:BG\_Q06\]. While that fit is satisfactory for the two low $W$ data points, it is still in disagreement with the background sensitive $\sigma_{LT'}$ data near resonance and for some of the parallel cross section $W$ scan results especially at the low and high $W$ tails. Because of the sensitivity of these few points, the overall $\chi^2$ was not improved very much. However, as mentioned above, since the data set is limited, it is not a surprise that no single background multipole allows a good fit. The effect of background amplitudes from the models can be compared to data but the amplitudes themselves cannot be determined.
Figure \[fig:BG\_Q06\] indicates the need for more precise model calculations and possible estimates of uncertainties. In addition, dedicated low $W$ experiments could help constrain the models and lead to more refined predictions.
After comparing the data and models over a range of observables, the DMT model has the best overall agreement with all of the low $Q^2$ data. The fitted DMT result in Fig. \[fig:BG\_Q06\] is the closest to the data of all the models. The fitted DMT results for $\sigma_{LT'}$ in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_XS\_all\] are fairly close to the data and no worse than MAID and SAID. Finally, the fitted DMT results for the $W$ scan in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_W\] look very good overall and only disagree at a few points. While no model agrees perfectly with all the data, the DMT model after the three resonant parameter fit does appear to describe the new data the best.
Studies using various fitting parameters indicate a path to follow for improving the agreement between data and theory. The problem encountered with the fitting method used in this work is that the parameters apparently do not give the models enough freedom to fit the background amplitudes. As is clear in the plot in Fig. \[fig:Q06\_W\], the models simply have the wrong shape. The next step to constrain the background is to fit the less well determined coupling constants and other internal model terms which affect many multipoles at once. This would hopefully add enough freedom to allow the models to fit the data. Despite these quantitative problems, the background amplitudes are sufficiently small near resonance so that the uncertainties in them do not contribute more than the experimental uncertainties in determining the resonant amplitudes.
$Q^2$ variation of resonant multipoles
======================================
{height="13cm"}
One of the main goals of this experiment is to determine the $Q^2$ variation of the resonant multipoles. The new Jefferson Lab results [@CLAS2007] for the EMR and CMR at $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}agree with our results very well. In addition, it was already shown that the present Mainz data agree with the previous Bates data [@mertz] at $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}. All of this shows that there is reasonable consistency of the results from the different laboratories.
Figure \[fig:mpole\_vs\_Q2\] shows the evolution of the multipoles at low $Q^2$ along with all the other published points. Two representative constituent quark models, the newer hypercentral quark model (HQM) [@hqm], and an older non-relativistic calculation of Capstick [@capstick_karl], have been included (the relativistic calculations are in even worse agreement with experiment). These curves are representative of quark models which typically under-predict the dominant $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ multipole by $\simeq$ 30% and underestimate the EMR and CMR by an order of magnitude, even predicting the wrong sign. One solution to this problem has been to add pionic degrees of freedom to quark models [@quark_pion_1; @quark_pion_2; @quark_pion_3]. All of these models treat the $\Delta$ as a bound state and therefore do not have the $\pi$N continuum (i.e. no background amplitudes) so that cross sections are not calculated. The Sato-Lee [@sato_lee] and DMT [@dmt] dynamical reaction models with pion cloud effects bridge this gap and are in qualitative agreement with the $Q^{2}$ evolution of the data. These models calculate the virtual pion cloud contribution dynamically but have an empirical parameterization of the inner (quark) core contribution which gives them some flexibility in these observables. By contrast the empirical MAID [@maid1] and SAID [@said] represent fits to other data with a smooth $Q^2$ dependence.
Both the dynamical [@dmt; @sato_lee] and the phenomenological [@maid1; @said] models are in qualitative agreement with the experimental results. Nevertheless, all models exhibit some small deficiencies either on top or at the wings of the resonance indicating that detailed improvements could and should be implemented to the models description of resonant or background amplitudes towards accounting for these deficiencies. As a general remark one can note the much better behavior of the dynamical models (DMT and Sato-Lee) compared to the phenomenological ones (MAID and SAID) as far as the description of the $W$ evolution of the cross section is concerned (see Fig. \[fig:Q06\_W\]) while for Sato-Lee the description of the fifth response is also excellent thus indicating that the model provides the most consistent description of the background amplitudes. One must also point out though the consistent description that SAID provides for the unpolarized cross sections on top of the resonance measurements for all $Q^2$ points.
The plotted lattice QCD results with a linear pion mass extrapolation [@alexandrou] are in general agreement with the data for the EMR but disagree for the CMR by a wide margin. This margin is bridged, though, when using a chiral extrapolation to the physical pion mass instead of the linear one. The EFT analysis of Pascalutsa and Vanderhaeghen (PV) [@pasc] indicates that a linear extrapolation is close to the data for the EMR but not for the CMR for which these extrapolated lattice results are considerably reduced. The second plotted lattice QCD results were performed with an improved method an a smaller pion mass and are reported without any extrapolation [@alexandrou2]. It is significant that these newer results have the same sign as the data at low $Q^2$. The general qualitative agreement of the lattice QCD calculation provides a direct link with the experimental evidence for deformation to QCD.
The results of the two effective field theory calculations [@gail_hemmert; @pasc] are also presented in Fig. \[fig:mpole\_vs\_Q2\]. These contain empirical low energy constants. For Gail and Hemmert this includes fits to the dominant $M_{1+}^{3/2}$ multipole for $Q^{2}\leq
0.2$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}and for the EMR at the photon point ($Q^{2}$=0). In order to achieve the good overall agreement they had to employ one higher order term with another empirical constant. The EFT calculation of Pascalutsa and Vanderhaeghen [@pasc] provided a valuable estimate of the uncertainties caused by excluding the next higher order terms from the calculation. While this is a very helpful start, the uncertainties are significantly larger than the experimental uncertainties and will have to be reduced through a proper treatment of the excluded higher order terms. However, these effective field theoretical (chiral) calculations that are solidly based on QCD, successfully account for the magnitude of the effects giving further credence to the dominance of the meson cloud effect.
One way to see the major role played by the pion cloud contribution to the resonant multipoles is that for this case the expected scale for the $Q^2$ evolution is $m_\pi^2=0.02$ GeV$^2$. In these units the range of the present experiment for $Q^2$ from 0.060 to 0.200 [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}is 3 to 10 units. Therefore it is not surprising that one should see relatively large changes in the predicted $Q^2$ evolution of the resonant multipoles as is shown in Fig. \[fig:mpole\_vs\_Q2\]. It is also clear that there is significant model dependence in these predictions.
Conclusions
===========
The data presented here provide a precise determination of the resonant amplitudes in the $\gamma^{*} p \rightarrow \Delta$ reaction in the range of $Q^2=0.06$ to $Q^2=0.20$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}(3 to 10 $m_{\pi}^{2}$). The experiment at the Mainz Microtron was carefully designed to reach the lowest possible $Q^2$ to test effective field theory calculations and to probe the regime where pionic effects are predicted to be a maximum and to vary significantly [@sato_lee; @dmt]. The absolute cross section accuracy at the 3% level was verified with several cross-checks. The measurement of the $\sigma_{0}=
\sigma_{T}+\epsilon
\sigma_{T}, \sigma_{LT},\sigma_{TT}$ and $\sigma_{LT'}$ partial cross sections, at center of mass energies both on and off resonance, allows for sensitive tests of effective field theory [@gail_hemmert; @pasc] and reaction model calculations [@sato_lee; @dmt; @said; @maid1]. These partial cross sections are also important for extracting the resonant multipoles from the data; these are used to test lattice calculations [@alexandrou; @alexandrou2] and quark models [@hqm; @capstick]. At the present time the experiments are more accurate than both theory and model calculations.
The chiral effective field theory predictions [@gail_hemmert; @pasc] agree with our cross section data within the relatively large estimated theoretical uncertainties due to the neglect of higher order terms. It is clear that a quantitative comparison of these calculations and experiment must wait until the next order calculations are performed. The phenomenologically adjusted models Sato-Lee, DMT, SAID and MAID [@sato_lee; @dmt; @said; @maid1] are in good agreement with experiment when the resonant amplitudes are adjusted to the data. This allows an accurate extraction of the M1, E2 and C2 resonant multipoles ($M_{1+}^{3/2}, E_
{1+}^{3/2},
S_{1+}^{3/2}$) with an estimated model uncertainty which is approximately the same as the experimental uncertainty. This has been achieved due to the precision of the experimental data and also because of the dominance of the magnetic dipole amplitude $M_{1+}$; this dominance means that differences in the background amplitudes are not significant near resonance and that the model uncertainties in the determination of the resonant multipoles are comparable with with the experimental uncertainties. The differences in the background amplitudes have been demonstrated in our low $W$ data and in $\sigma_{LT'}$ for which the background multipoles play a more significant role. This emphasizes the need for model builders to improve their calculations and also to present their uncertainties, as has been done in the EFT calculations. We have performed our own error estimate by comparing the extracted resonance multipoles using different models.
Comparisons of the measured resonant multipoles as a function of $Q^2$ show reasonable agreement between experiments at different laboratories. The non-zero values of the quadrupole amplitudes ($E_{1+}^{3/2},S_{1+}^{3/2}$) demonstrate the existence of non-spherical amplitudes in the nucleon and $\Delta$ conjectured many years ago on the basis of the non-spherical interaction between quarks [@glashow]. This feature is also present in the lattice calculations [@alexandrou; @alexandrou2], thus linking the experimental evidence for deformation directly to QCD. Unfortunately, the uncertainties in the present calculations are large, which precludes a quantitative comparison with experiment. We anticipate further advances with calculations at lower quark masses combined with improved chiral calculations which are also just in the beginning [@pasc]. These results show qualitative agreement with the two chiral effective field theory results [@gail_hemmert; @pasc]. The uncertainties in these latter two calculations indicate that higher order terms must be evaluated before a quantitative comparison can be made.
Comparison with representative quark models [@hqm; @capstick] shows that they are not close to the data indicating a deficiency of the underlying physics description while demonstrating that the color hyperfine interaction is inadequate to explain the effect, at least at large distances. Our present understanding is that the long range (low $Q^2$) region is dominated by the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry in QCD which results in non-spherical pion emission and absorption from the nucleon and $
\Delta$ [@athens2006; @mit2004; @nstar2001; @cnp; @amb].
Even though experiments are ahead of theory at the present time, future experiments can add to the current understanding by measuring in the $n\pi^+$ and $\gamma$ channels and by utilizing polarized targets and polarimeters. New data for the $\gamma$ channel from Mainz are under analysis and should be published soon [@sparveris_vcs]. Additional low $W$ data would also give a better handle on the background amplitudes.
We thank L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, T.-S. H. Lee, V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, T. Gail, T. Hemmert and L. C. Smith for their assistance with valuable discussions and for sharing their unpublished work. This work is supported at Mainz by the Sonderforschungsbereich 443 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), U. Athens by the Program PYTHAGORAS of the Greek ministry of Education (co-funded by the European Social Fund and National Resources), and at MIT by the U.S. DOE under Grant No. DE-FG02-94ER40818.
Data Tables \[app:data\]
========================
------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------------------
$W$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\phi_{pq}^{*}$ $\sigma$
$[\rm MeV]$ $[^\circ]$ $[^\circ]$ \[$\mu$b/sr\]
1221 0 — 12.35 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.38
1221 24 0 11.65 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.36
1221 24 90 18.67 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.58
1221 24 180 15.39 $\pm$ 0.07 $\pm$ 0.48
1221 37 32 15.67 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.52
1221 37 134 23.38 $\pm$ 0.12 $\pm$ 0.73
1221 37 180 17.87 $\pm$ 0.08 $\pm$ 0.56
1155 26 0 5.57 $\pm$ 0.05 $\pm$ 0.20
1155 26 180 6.38 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.23
1125 0 — 2.40 $\pm$ 0.02 $\pm$ 0.09
1155 0 — 5.48 $\pm$ 0.06 $\pm$ 0.20
1185 0 — 10.27 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.39
1205 0 — 12.58 $\pm$ 0.11 $\pm$ 0.47
1225 0 — 10.88 $\pm$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.41
1245 0 — 7.21 $\pm$ 0.09 $\pm$ 0.27
1275 0 — 3.17 $\pm$ 0.04 $\pm$ 0.12
1300 0 — 1.48 $\pm$ 0.02 $\pm$ 0.06
------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------------------
: \[table:results:lowQ:XS\]$Q^2=0.060$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}cross sections. The first uncertainty is the statistical uncertainty and the second is the systematic uncertainty. The helicity dependent cross sections are shown in Table \[table:results:sigs\_Q06\]. The uncertainties are statistically dominated for those results. The third set of results are from the background amplitude test. The lower set of results is the $W$ parallel cross section scan.
--------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------
$W$ $Q^2$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\sigma$ $\sigma$
${\rm [MeV]}$ \[[(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}\] $[^\circ]$ \[$\mu$b/sr\]
1221 0.060 24.0 $\sigma_0$ $16.10 \pm 0.17 \pm 0.44$
1221 0.060 24.0 $\sigma_{TT}$ $-3.30 \pm 0.22 \pm 0.10$
1221 0.060 24.0 $\sigma_{LT}$ $1.12 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.04$
1221 0.060 37.0 $\sigma_0$ $21.02 \pm 0.31 \pm 0.58$
1221 0.060 37.0 $\sigma_{TT}$ $-7.99 \pm 0.63 \pm 0.20$
1221 0.060 37.0 $\sigma_{LT}$ $1.85 \pm 0.13 \pm 0.05$
1155 0.060 26.0 $\sigma_{LT}$ $0.22 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.07$
1155 0.060 26.0 $\sigma_{0}+\epsilon\sigma_{TT}$ $5.97 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.10$
1221 0.060 24.0 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $1.23 \pm 0.18 \pm 0.04$
1221 0.060 37.0 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $1.59 \pm 0.35 \pm 0.06$
--------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------
: \[table:results:sigs\_Q06\] Summary of the extracted values for $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_{TT}$, $\sigma_{LT}$, and $\sigma_{LT'}$. The uncertainties in the cross section are the statistical and systematic uncertainty respectively. See text for details of the uncertainty estimation procedure.
------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------
$W$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\phi_{pq}^{*}$ $\sigma$
$[\rm MeV]$ $[^\circ]$ $[^\circ]$ \[$\mu$b/sr\]
1140 58.6 45 $6.93 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.26$
1140 58.6 135 $5.53 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.21$
1221 30 90 $22.61 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.80$
1221 43 135 $26.97 \pm 0.21 \pm 0.95$
1221 63 150 $29.51 \pm 0.23 \pm 1.04$
1205 0 — $13.92 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.54$
1232 0 — $10.89 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.36$
------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------
: \[table:results:Q127:XS\]$Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}results. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is the systematic. The helicity dependent results are in Table \[table:results:sigs\_Q127\].
--------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
$W$ $Q^2$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\sigma$ $\sigma$
${\rm [MeV]}$ \[[(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}\] $[^\circ]$ \[$\mu$b/sr\]
1140 0.127 58.6 $\sigma_0$ $6.23 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.12$
1140 0.127 58.6 $\sigma_{LT}$ $-0.58 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.10$
1140 0.127 58.6 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $0.94 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.04$
1221 0.127 30.0 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $1.84 \pm 0.28 \pm 0.07$
1221 0.127 43.0 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $2.80 \pm 0.51 \pm 0.10$
1221 0.127 63.0 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $1.25 \pm 0.78 \pm 0.05$
--------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
: \[table:results:sigs\_Q127\] Summary of the extracted values for $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_{LT}$, and $\sigma_{LT'}$ at $Q^2=0.127$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}. The uncertainties in the cross section are the statistical and systematic uncertainty respectively.
--------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------
$W$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\phi_{pq}^{*}$ $\sigma$
$[MeV]$ $[^\circ]$ $[^\circ]$ \[$\mu$b/sr\]
1221 0 — $12.29 \pm 0.10 \pm 0.51$
1221 27 0 $12.25 \pm 0.13 \pm 0.46$
1221 27 90 $18.28 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.65$
1221 27 180 $16.94 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.58$
1221 33 0 $12.71 \pm 0.11 \pm 0.43$
1221 33 90 $21.73 \pm 0.18 \pm 0.76$
1221 33 180 $18.09 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.63$
1221 40 0 $13.72 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.52$
1221 40 90 $26.46 \pm 0.21 \pm 0.92$
1221 40 180 $19.28 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.67$
1221 57 38 $23.20 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.81$
1221 57 142 $27.86 \pm 0.21 \pm 0.97$
1221 57 180 $22.75 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.77$
1125 0 — $2.32 \pm 0.02 \pm 0.08$
1155 0 — $5.72 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.19$
1185 0 — $10.66 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.36$
1205 0 — $12.96 \pm 0.09 \pm 0.44$
1225 0 — $11.62 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.39$
1245 0 — $7.84 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.26$
1275 0 — $3.71 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.12$
--------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------
: \[table:results:Q20:XS\]$Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{} cross section results. The uncertainties correspond to the statistical and the systematic uncertainties respectively. The lower set of results is the $W$ parallel cross section scan.
--------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------- -----------------------------
$W$ $Q^2$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\sigma$ $\sigma$
${\rm [MeV]}$ \[[(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}\] $[^\circ]$ \[$\mu$b/sr\]
1221 0.20 27.0 $\sigma_0$ $16.44 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.65$
1221 0.20 27.0 $\sigma_{TT}$ $-2.99 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.32$
1221 0.20 27.0 $\sigma_{LT}$ $1.66 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.13$
1221 0.20 33.0 $\sigma_0$ $18.56 \pm 0.21 \pm 0.68$
1221 0.20 33.0 $\sigma_{TT}$ $-5.13 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.31$
1221 0.20 33.0 $\sigma_{LT}$ $1.90 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.12$
1221 0.20 40.0 $\sigma_0$ $21.48 \pm 0.24 \pm 0.99$
1221 0.20 40.0 $\sigma_{TT}$ $-8.08 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.59$
1221 0.20 40.0 $\sigma_{LT}$ $1.97 \pm 0.07 \pm 0.15$
1221 0.20 57.0 $\sigma_0$ $27.36 \pm 0.49 \pm 1.14$
1221 0.20 57.0 $\sigma_{TT}$ $-12.28 \pm 0.66 \pm 1.06$
1221 0.20 57.0 $\sigma_{LT}$ $2.10 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.24$
1221 0.20 33.0 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $2.10 \pm 0.22 \pm 0.35$
1221 0.20 57.0 $\sigma_{LT'}$ $2.24 \pm 0.26 \pm 0.41$
--------------- ---------------------- ----------------- ---------------- -----------------------------
: \[table:results:sigs\_Q20\] Extracted values for $\sigma_0$, $\sigma_{TT}$, $\sigma_{LT}$, and $\sigma_{LT'}$ at $Q^2=0.200$ [(GeV/c)$^2$]{}. The uncertainties correspond to the statistical and the systematic uncertainties respectively.
------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------
$W$ $\theta_{pq}^*$ $\phi_{pq}^{*}$ $\sigma$
$[\rm MeV]$ $[^\circ]$ $[^\circ]$ \[$\mu$b/sr\]
1205 0 — $11.25 \pm 0.18 \pm 0.54$
------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------
: \[table:results:Q30:XS\]$Q^2=0.300$ [(GeV/c)$^2$ ]{}results. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.
[62]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, eds., ** (, ).
, eds., ** ().
, eds., ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
(), ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
(), ****, (), .
(), ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
(), ****, (), .
(), ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, , , ().
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, , , in ** ().
, , ().
, , , , ****, (), .
, , , ().
, , ().
, ****, (), .
, **, ().
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, , ().
, , ().
, , ().
, , , ().
, , , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , (), .
, , , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, .
, ****, (), .
(), .
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
(), .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze the accuracy of quantum phase gates acting on “0-$\pi$ qubits” in superconducting circuits, where the gates are protected against thermal and Hamiltonian noise by continuous-variable quantum error-correcting codes. The gates are executed by turning on and off a tunable Josephson coupling between an $LC$ oscillator and a qubit or pair of quits; assuming perfect qubits, we show that the gate errors are exponentially small when the oscillator’s impedance $\sqrt{L/C}$ is large compared to $\hbar/4e^2 \approx 1~k\Omega$. The protected gates are not computationally universal by themselves, but a scheme for universal fault-tolerant quantum computation can be constructed by combining them with unprotected noisy operations. We validate our analytic arguments with numerical simulations.'
author:
- 'Peter Brooks, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill'
title: Protected gates for superconducting qubits
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Building a scalable quantum computer is a formidable challenge because quantum systems decohere readily and because their interactions are hard to control accurately, yet we hope to succeed someday by prudently applying the principles of quantum error correction and fault-tolerant quantum computing. In the standard “software” approach to quantum fault-tolerance [@Shor1996], the deficiencies of noisy quantum hardware (if not [*too*]{} noisy) are overcome through clever circuit design, while in the alternative “topological” approach [@Kitaev1997], the hardware itself is intrinsically resistant to decoherence. Both approaches exploit the idea that logical qubits can be stored and processed reliably when suitably encoded in a quantum system with many degrees of freedom; perhaps both approaches will be employed together in future quantum computing systems.
The best known version of the topological approach is based on nonabelian anyons, with quantum information stored in the fusion spaces of the anyons and processed by braiding the anyons, but it is important to search for other ways to realize quantum hardware such that intrinsic robustness results from how the information is physically encoded. One intriguing possibility is to use superconducting circuits for this purpose. Specifically, several authors [@DoucotVidal2002; @IoffeFeigelman2002; @Kitaev2006] have proposed designs for a superconducting “0-$\pi$ qubit,” a circuit containing Josephson junctions. The circuit’s energy is a function of the superconducting phase difference $\theta$ between the two leads of the circuit, and there are two nearly degenerate ground states, localized near $\theta =0$ and $\theta = \pi$ respectively. The splitting of this degeneracy is exponentially small as a function of extensive system parameters, and stable with respect to weak local perturbations. Thus the 0-$\pi$ qubit should be highly resistant to decoherence arising from local noise.
For reliable quantum computing we need not just very stable qubits, but also the ability to apply very accurate nontrivial quantum gates to the qubits. A method for achieving protected single-qubit and two-qubit phase gates acting on 0-$\pi$ qubits, exploiting the error-correcting properties of a continuous-variable quantum code [@GottesmanKitaevPreskill2001], was suggested in [@Kitaev2006], and it was claimed that the gate errors can be exponentially small as a function of extensive system parameters. In this paper we further develop and explore the ideas behind this protected gate.
Protected phase gates are executed by turning on and off a tunable Josephson coupling between an $LC$ oscillator and a qubit or pair of qubits. Assuming the qubits are perfect, we show, using analytic arguments validated by numerical simulations, that the gate errors are exponentially small when the oscillator’s impedance $\sqrt{L/C}$ is large compared to $\hbar/4e^2 \approx 1~k\Omega$, where $L$ is the inductance and $C$ is the capacitance of the oscillator. The gates are robust against small deformations of the device Hamiltonian and against small thermal fluctuations of the oscillator. The very large inductance in the superconducting oscillator, which is crucial for the high gate accuracy, may be quite challenging to achieve in practice, but the potential rewards are correspondingly substantial.
The internal structure of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is not relevant to our analysis, but for completeness we nevertheless explain in Sec. \[sec:qubit\] the idea behind the qubit design proposed in [@Kitaev2006], which also requires a large inductance in a superconducting circuit. We describe how a protected phase gate is executed in Sec. \[sec:gate\], and in Sec. \[sec:sketch\] we outline our strategy for estimating the gate accuracy. We review the properties of continuous-variable quantum error-correcting codes in Sec. \[sec:code\], and explain in Sec. \[sec:overrotation\] how the code provides protection against imperfect timing in the pulse that executes the gate. We analyze contributions to the gate error due to diabatic transitions and squeezing in Sec. \[sec:diabatic\] and Sec. \[sec:squeezing\], then compare our predictions with numerical simulations in Sec. \[sec:numerics\]. We discuss robustness with respect to thermal effects in Sec. \[sec:temperature\] and with respect to Hamiltonian perturbations in Sec. \[sec:anharmonic\]. In Sec. \[sec:universal\] we explain how to obtain a complete scheme for universal fault-tolerant quantum computation by augmenting the protected phase gates with measurements and unprotected noisy phase gates. Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] contains our conclusions, and some further details are contained in Appendices.
The 0-$\pi$ qubit {#sec:qubit}
=================
For most of this paper we may treat the 0-$\pi$ qubit as a black box, disregarding its internal structure. But here we will briefly explain the concept underlying the proposal in [@Kitaev2006].
We consider a two-lead superconducting circuit, whose energy $E(\theta)$ is a function of the phase difference $\theta$ between the two leads. Here $\theta$ is a periodic variable with period $2\pi$, but for a suitably constructed circuit, $E(\theta)$ will actually be very nearly a function with period $\pi$, apart from exponentially small corrections. This function has minima at $\theta=0$ and $\theta = \pi$, separated by a high barrier, so that there are two well localized states centered at $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \pi$ respectively, which we may take to be the basis states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ of an encoded qubit, as shown in Fig. \[fig:zero-pi\]. The high tunneling barrier suppresses bit flip errors, but the key feature of the qubit is that the $\pi$ periodicity, and hence the degeneracy of the two states, is robust against generic local perturbations, so that dephasing of coherent superpositions of $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ is also highly suppressed.
![\[fig:zero-pi\] (Color online) The 0-$\pi$ qubit. The energy $E(\theta)$ of a superconducting circuit is a periodic function with period $\pi$ of the phase difference $\theta$ between its two leads, aside from exponentially small corrections. The two basis states $\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ of the qubit, localized near the minima of the energy at $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \pi$ respectively, are nearly degenerate.](zero-pi.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
![\[fig:four-leads\] Two-rung superconducting circuit underlying the 0-$\pi$ qubit. If $\sqrt{L/C}$ is large, $C_1$ is large compared to $C$, and $JC$ is not too large, then the circuit’s energy is a function of the combination of phases $\left(\theta_2 + \theta_4\right) - \left(\theta_1+\theta_3\right)$, aside from corrections that are exponentially small in $\sqrt{L/C}$.](four-leads.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
To understand the qubit’s properties, first consider the four-lead circuit shown in Fig. \[fig:four-leads\]. This circuit has two identical rungs, connected by a large capacitance $C_1$. Each rung consists of a Josephson junction, with Josephson energy $J$ and intrinsic capacitance $C$, connected in series with a inductance $L$, chosen such that $\sqrt{L/C}$ is large compared to the natural unit of impedance $\hbar / (2e)^2 \approx 1.03 ~k\Omega$, and hence much larger than its “geometric” value $4\pi/c\approx 377 ~\Omega$ (where $c$ is the speed of light), the impedance of free space. Achieving such a “superinductance” may be an engineering challenge, but we take it for granted here that it is possible. The properties of a single rung, which can operate as an adiabatic switch when $J$ varies, is discussed in more detail in Appendix \[app:switch\].
We denote the value of the superconducting phase on the circuit’s four leads as $\theta_1$, $\theta_2$, $\theta_3$, $\theta_4$ as shown, and the phase on either side of the capacitor connecting the rungs by $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_2$. Then the phase $\varphi_+ = \left(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2\right)/2$ is insensitive to the value of the capacitance $C_1$, which we assume is much larger than $C$. Therefore the sum $\varphi_+$ is a “light” variable with large fluctuations (assuming $JC$ is not too large), while in contrast the difference $\varphi_- = \varphi_1 - \varphi_2$, which does feel the effect of the large capacitance $C_1$, is a well localized “heavy” variable. We assume that phase slips through the inductors are suppressed, so that we may regard $\varphi_{\pm}$ as real variables rather than periodic phase variables with period $2\pi$.
A circuit with capacitance $C_{\rm conv}$ and inductance $L_{\rm conv}$ has Hamiltonian $$H = \frac{q^2}{2C_{\rm conv}} + \frac{\Phi^2}{2L_{\rm conv}},$$ where $q$ is the charge on the capacitor and $\Phi$ is the magnetic flux linking the circuit. We use the subscript “conv” to indicate that capacitance and inductance are expressed here in conventional units, while we will find it more convenient to use rationalized units such that $$C = C_{\rm conv}/(2e)^2,\quad L = L_{\rm conv} /\left(\hbar/2e\right)^2,$$ so that $$\label{eq:hamiltonian-rationalized}
H = \frac{Q^2}{2C} + \frac{\varphi^2}{2L},$$ where $Q = q/2e$ is charge expressed in units of the Cooper pair charge $2e$, and $\varphi = (2e/\hbar)\Phi$ is the superconducting phase, such that $\varphi= 2\pi$ corresponds to the quantum $h/2e$ of magnetic flux. Then $[\varphi,Q]= i$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{L/C}& = &\sqrt{L_{\rm conv}/C_{\rm conv}}~/ ~\left(\hbar/4 e^2\right)\nonumber\\
&\approx& \sqrt{L_{\rm conv}/C_{\rm conv}}~/~(1.03~ k\Omega)\end{aligned}$$ is dimensionless. The ground state of the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:hamiltonian-rationalized\]), with energy $E_0= 1/2\sqrt{LC}$, has Gaussian wave function $\psi(\varphi)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(\varphi)|^2 \propto e^{-\varphi^2/2\langle \varphi^2\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \varphi^2\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}, \end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \cos\varphi\rangle = e^{-\langle \varphi^2\rangle/2} = \exp\left(-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For $\sqrt{L/C} \gg 1$, the ground state wave function is very broad and the wiggles of the cosine nearly average out aside from an exponentially small correction.
The effective capacitance controlling the phase $\varphi_+$ is $C_{\rm eff} = 2C$ and the effective inductance is $L_{\rm eff} = L/2$. Therefore, in the circuit’s ground state we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \varphi_+^2\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{L_{\rm eff}}{C_{\rm eff}}} = \frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}.\end{aligned}$$ The dependence of the Josephson energy on the strongly fluctuating light variable $\varphi_+$ is proportional to $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \cos \varphi_+ \rangle = \exp\left(-\frac{1}{8}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which is negligible when $\sqrt{L/C}$ is large. We therefore need only consider the dynamics of the well localized heavy variable $\phi_-$, which locks to the value $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_-=\left(\theta_4 - \theta_1\right) - \left(\theta_3-\theta_2\right)
= \left(\theta_2 + \theta_4\right) - \left(\theta_1+\theta_3\right)\end{aligned}$$ determined by the phases on the leads, so that the energy stored in the circuit is $$\begin{aligned}
E = f\left(\theta_2 + \theta_4 - \theta_1 - \theta_3\right) +O\left(\exp\left(-\frac{1}{8}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}\right)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $f(\theta)$ is a periodic function with period $2\pi$.
![\[fig:qubit-circuit\] The circuit for the 0-$\pi$ qubit is obtained from the circuit in Fig. \[fig:four-leads\] by twisting one of the rungs and connecting the leads, thus identifying $\theta_2$ with $\theta_4$ and $\theta_1$ with $\theta_3$. In addition, another large capacitance is added to further suppress tunneling events that change $\theta_2-\theta_1$ by $\pi$.](qubit-circuit.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Now, to devise a qubit, we twist the upper rung relative to the lower one and connect the leads as shown in Fig. \[fig:qubit-circuit\], thus identifying $\theta_2$ with $\theta_4$ and $\theta_1$ with $\theta_3$. In addition, we add another large capacitance to ensure that tunneling events changing $\theta_2-\theta_1$ by $\pi$ are heavily suppressed. The energy of the resulting circuit is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qubit-periodicity}
E = f(2(\theta_2 - \theta_1))+ \cdots\end{aligned}$$ where the ellipsis represents exponentially small corrections. Thus the energy is very nearly a periodic function with period $\pi$ of the phase difference $\theta_2-\theta_1$, with two nearly degenerate minima as in Fig. \[fig:zero-pi\].
This robust degeneracy derives from the “superinducting” properties of each rung, [*i.e.*]{}, the large value of $\sqrt{L/C}$. One way to achieve a superinductor, suggested in [@Kitaev2006], is to construct a long chain of $N$ Josephson junctions, each with Josephson coupling $\bar J$ and capacitance $\bar C$. Then the inductance of the chain is linear in $N$, and the capacitance is proportional to $1/N$, so $\sqrt{L/C} \propto N$, and the breaking of the degeneracy is exponentially small in the chain length. This suppression arises because the correction terms in Eq. (\[eq:qubit-periodicity\]) that break the $\pi$-periodicity are associated with quantum tunneling from one end to the other in the two-rung ladder. We also require $\bar J \bar C$ to be large, to suppress phase slips due to tunneling across the chain, thus ensuring that $\varphi_+$ can be regarded as a real variable rather than a periodic variable with period $2\pi$.
An impedance $\sqrt{L/C}\approx 20$ has been achieved using long chains of devices [@Devoret2009; @Masluk2012; @Gershenson2012]. Another possibility for achieving large $\sqrt{L/C}$ is to use a long wire, thick enough to suppress phase slips, built from an amorphous superconductor with a large kinetic inductance. Whatever method is used, reaching, say, $\sqrt{L/C}$ of order 100 may be quite challenging, but in this paper we take it for granted that a robust 0-$\pi$ qubit can be realized. In fact, our scheme for implementing accurate quantum gates will also be based on superinducting circuits.
We will need to be able to measure the qubit, in either the standard $\{|0\rangle,|1\rangle\}$ basis (measurement of the Pauli operator $Z$) or in the dual basis $\{|0\rangle \pm |1\rangle\}$ (measurement of the Pauli operator $X$). In principle the $Z$ measurement could be performed by connecting the two leads of the qubit with a Josephson junction, while inserting $1/4$ of a flux quantum through the loop; then the current through the junction is proportional to $\sin\left(\theta_2-\theta_1 - \pi/2\right)$, with sign dependent on whether $\theta_2-\theta_1$ is $0$ or $\pi$.
For measuring $X$, we envision “breaking” the connection between $\theta_1$ and $\theta_3$ and then measuring the charge conjugate to the phase difference $\theta_1 - \theta_3$. The energy of the circuit is $f(\theta_1+\theta_3 - 2\theta_2)$, so that if $\theta_1$ advances adiabatically by $2\pi$ with $\theta_3$ fixed, then $\theta_2$ advances by $\pi$; if $X=1$ the wave function is invariant and if $X=-1$ the wave function changes sign. Correspondingly, the dual charge is either an even or odd multiple of $1/2$. In practice, the $X$ and $Z$ measurements are bound to be noisy, but the limitations on measurement accuracy can be overcome by repeating the measurements or by using appropriate coding schemes, as we describe in Sec. \[sec:universal\].
Phase gate {#sec:gate}
==========
Following [@Kitaev2006], we will explain how to execute with high fidelity the single-qubit phase gate $\exp\left(i \frac{\pi}{4}Z\right)$ and the two-qubit phase gate $\exp\left(i \frac{\pi}{4}Z\otimes Z\right)$. These gates are not sufficient by themselves for universal quantum computation, but we will discuss in Sec. \[sec:universal\] how they can be used as part of a universal fault-tolerant scheme.
First, for contrast, consider an example of an unprotected single-qubit gate implementation. As shown in Fig. \[fig:unprotected\] we could close a switch that couples the qubit for time $t$ to a Josephson junction with Josephson coupling $J$, in effect turning on a term $J\cos\theta = JZ$ in the Hamiltonian, where $\theta\in \{0,\pi\}$ is the phase difference across the qubit. After time $t$ the unitary transformation $\exp(-itJZ)$ has been applied. Thus by choosing the time $t$ appropriately we can rotate the qubit about the $z$ axis by any desired angle. However, this gate is sensitive to errors in the pulse that closes and opens the switch, and to other fluctuations in the circuit parameters.
![\[fig:unprotected\] A phase gate can be applied to a qubit by coupling it to a Josephson junction, but the gate is not protected against pulse errors and other noise sources.](unprotected.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
![\[fig:protected\] A protected phase gate is executed by coupling a qubit (or a pair of qubits connected in series) to a “super-quantum” $LC$ circuit with $\sqrt{L/C}\gg 1$. ](protected.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
![\[fig:switch\] An effective Josephson junction can be tuned by adjusting the flux $(\eta/2\pi)\Phi_0$ inserted in a circuit containing two identical junctions.](switch1.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
The protected single-qubit phase gate is executed as shown in Fig. \[fig:protected\] by coupling the qubit to a “superinductive” $LC$ circuit via a switch that pulses on and off. The switch is actually a tunable Josephson junction, which can be realized, as in Fig. \[fig:switch\], by a loop containing two identical junctions, each with Josephson coupling $J$, linked by the magnetic flux $(\eta/2\pi)\Phi_0$, where $\Phi_0=h/2e$ is the flux quantum. The Josephson energy of this tunable junction is E(,) &=& -J(- /2) -J(+ /2)\
&=& -2 J(/2)= -J\_[eff]{}()where $\theta$ is the phase difference between the two leads on the loop. Thus the switch is “on” for $\eta = 0$ and “off” for $\eta = \pi$. The “off” setting can be fairly soft — it is good enough for $J_{\rm eff}$ to be comparable to $1/L$ rather than strictly zero — while in the “on” position we require $J_{\rm eff} C$ to be large. The inductance $L$ and capacitance $C$ of the circuit are unrelated to the inductance and capacitance for the 0-$\pi$ qubit discussed in Sec. \[sec:qubit\], though we will again demand that $\sqrt{L/C}\gg 1$. From now on we will assume the 0-$\pi$ qubit is perfect, and will focus on realizing the robust phase gate under this assumption.
Using the same normalization conventions as in Sec. \[sec:qubit\], the Hamiltonian for the circuit can be expressed as H(t) = + - J(t)(- ), where now $J(t)$ is the time-dependent effective Josephson coupling of the tunable junction, $\theta$ is the phase difference across the qubit, and $\varphi$ is the phase difference across the inductor. We assume that phase slips through the circuit are strongly suppressed, so that $\varphi$ can be regarded as a real variable rather than a periodic phase variable — when $\varphi$ winds by $2\pi$ the flux linking the $LC$ circuit increases by one flux quantum. Depending on whether the state of the qubit is $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$, the phase $\theta$ is either 0 or $\pi$; hence, the Hamiltonian can be expressed as \[eq:hamiltonian\] H\_[0,1]{}(t) = + J(t), with the $\mp$ sign conditioned on the qubit’s state.
Suppose for now that the initial state $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ of the oscillator is its ground state, a Gaussian wave function with $\langle \varphi^2\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{L/C}$ and $\langle Q^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{C/L}$. (Other harmonic oscillator energy eigenstates will be considered in Sec. \[sec:temperature\].) Because $\sqrt{L/C}\gg 1$, the wave function is broad in $\varphi$ space and narrow in $Q$ space. Hence when the switch pulses on, the contribution to the expectation of the energy arising from the cosine potential is highly suppressed by the factor \[eq:cosine-expect\] = e\^[-\^2/2]{} = (-). Correspondingly, the energy is very insensitive to the state of the qubit, which determines the sign of the cosine potential. This suppression factor determines the characteristic scale of the error in the phase gate.
![\[fig:pulse\] (Color online) The profile of the tunable Josephson coupling $J(t)$ in the execution of the protected phase gate.](pulse.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Schematically, the tunable Josephson coupling $J(t)$ has the form shown in Fig. \[fig:pulse\] — it starts at zero, ramps on smoothly, maintains the value $J_0$ for a time $t\approx L/\pi$, and then ramps off smoothly. The characteristic time $\tau_J$ for the coupling to ramp on and off is subject to some constraints which we will specify shortly. With $J_0$ at its steady state value, phase slips (tunneling events between successive minima of the cosine potential) are suppressed by the WKB factor ( -\_0\^[2]{} d)=(-8).\
We assume that $\sqrt{J_0C}$ is large enough so that phase slips can be safely neglected. In addition, we assume that $J(t)$ ramps up slowly enough to prepare adiabatically the ground state in each local minimum of the cosine potential, yet quickly enough to prevent the state from collapsing to just a few local minima with the smallest values of $\varphi^2/2L$. Thus, as $J(t)$ turns on, the initial state of the oscillator evolves to become a “grid state” as shown in Fig. \[fig:grids\], a superposition of narrowly peaked functions governed by a broad envelope function. The width of the broad envelope is $\langle \varphi^2\rangle \approx \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{L/C}\gg 1$ as for the oscillator’s initial state, while the width of each narrow peak is $\langle (\varphi-\varphi_0)^2\rangle\approx\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1/J_0C}\ll 1$, the width of the ground state supported near the local minimum of the cosine potential.
![\[fig:grids\] (Color online) Coupling the qubit to the oscillator prepares a grid state in $\varphi$ space, a superposition of narrowly peaked functions governed by a broad envelope function. The peaks occur where $\varphi$ is an even multiple of $\pi$ if the qubit’s state is $|0\rangle$, and where $\varphi$ is an odd multiple of $\pi$ if the qubit’s state is $|1\rangle$.](phi-grid-tall.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
If the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is $|0\rangle$ and the coefficient of the cosine in Eq. (\[eq:hamiltonian\]) is negative, then the narrow peaks occur where $\varphi$ is an even multiple of $\pi$. We denote this grid state of the oscillator as $|0_C\rangle$; the subscript stands for “code,” since as we will explain latter this state can be regarded as a basis state for a quantum error-correcting code. If the state of the qubit is $|1\rangle$ and the coefficient of the cosine is positive, then the narrow peaks occur where $\varphi$ is an odd multiple of $\pi$; in that case we denote the grid state as $|1_C\rangle$. Thus, if the initial state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is $a|0\rangle+b|1\rangle$, then when $J(t)$ turns on the joint state of the qubit and oscillator evolves according to (a|0+ b|1) |\^[in]{}a |0|0\_C+ b|1|1\_C.
A diabatic transition that excites the oscillator in the cosine well is most likely to occur while $J(t)C$ is approximately one and the frequency of oscillations in the well is approximately $1/C$. Landau-Zener theory therefore indicates that the probability $P_{\rm diab}$ of such a transition scales like P\_[diab]{}(\_J) \~(-([constant]{})). where $\tau_J$ is the characteristic time for $J(t)$ to ramp on. (We will discuss this error in more detail in Sec. \[sec:diabatic\].) Since diabatic effects also contribute to the error in the phase gate, we require $\tau_J \gg C$. Indeed, the diabatic error is comparable to the intrinsic error in Eq. (\[eq:cosine-expect\]) for \_J \~; that is, when the ramping time is of order the period of the $LC$ oscillator. During this ramping time, the envelope function of the Gaussian grid state is squeezed somewhat in $\varphi$ space (and correspondingly spreads somewhat in $Q$ space), but stays broad enough for the intrinsic error to remain heavily suppressed. In Sec. \[sec:squeezing\] we argue that the error arising from squeezing scales like \[eq:squeeze-scaling\] P\_[sq]{}(\_J) \~(-([constant]{})); hence it too is comparable to the intrinsic error for $\tau_J\sim \sqrt{LC}$.
After the Gaussian grid state has been prepared, the Josephson coupling $J(t)$ maintains its steady-state value $J_0$ for a time $t \equiv L\tilde t/\pi$, where $\tilde t$ is a rescaled time variable. While the coupling is on, each narrowly peaked function is stabilized by the strongly confining cosine potential, but the state is subjected to the Gaussian operation $e^{-it \varphi^2/2L} = e^{-i\tilde t\varphi^2/2\pi}$ due to the harmonic potential $\varphi^2/2L$, which alters the relative phases of the peaks. As $\tilde t$ increases the oscillator states $|0_C\rangle$ and $|1_C\rangle$ evolve, but when $\tilde t$ reaches 1, each returns to its initial value, apart from a state-dependent geometric phase. For the grid state $|0_C\rangle$, the peaks in $\varphi$ space occur at $\varphi = 2\pi n$ where $n$ is an integer, and the Gaussian operation |=2ne\^[-2i t n\^2]{}|=2nacts trivially. But for the grid state $|1_C\rangle$, the peaks occur at $\varphi = 2\pi(n+\tfrac{1}{2})$, and the operation |=2ne\^[-2i t (n+)\^2]{}|=2(n+) therefore modifies the phase of the state by the factor $-i$. Hence the joint state of the qubit and oscillator becomes a |0|0\_C+b|1|1\_Ca|0|0\_C-ib|1|1\_C.\
To complete the execution of the phase gate, the tunable coupling $J(t)$ ramps down from $J_0$ to zero, again with a characteristic time scale $\tau_J$ subject to the constraints specified above. As the coupling turns off, the state $|0_C\rangle$ of the oscillator evolves to $|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$ and the state $|1_C\rangle$ evolves to $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle$; the final joint state of the qubit and oscillator is \[eq:gate-psi-final\] && a |0|0\_C-ib|1|1\_C\
&& a|0|\_0\^[fin]{}-ib|1|\_1\^[fin]{}. Thus, a perfect phase gate $\exp\left(i\tfrac{\pi}{4}Z\right)$ has been applied to the qubit if $|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle = |\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle$. If on the other hand $|\langle \psi_1^{\rm fin}|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle| < 1$, then the qubit and oscillator are entangled in the final state, compromising the gate fidelity. Even if $|\langle \psi_1^{\rm fin}|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle| =1 $ so there is no entanglement, the gate may be imperfect because the phase of $\langle \psi_1^{\rm fin}|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$ deviates from zero.
We will argue that under appropriate conditions $\langle \psi_1^{\rm fin}|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle\approx 1$ to extremely high accuracy so that the phase gate is nearly perfect. Note that we need not require the final state of the oscillator to match the initial state $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$; noise terms in the Hamiltonian may excite the oscillator, but the phase gate is still highly reliable as long as the oscillator’s final state depends only very weakly on the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit, [*i.e.*]{}, on whether the sign of $J(t)$ is positive or negative. Indeed, the oscillator serves as a reservoir that absorbs the entropy introduced by noise. If not too badly damaged, the oscillator can be reused a few times for the execution of additional protected gates. Eventually, though, it will become too highly excited, and will need to be cooled before being employed again.
A gate error may arise if the coupling between qubit and oscillator remains on for too long or too short a time, [*i.e.*]{}, if $\tilde t=1+ \varepsilon$ rather than $\tilde t=1$. But we will see that such timing errors do not much compromise the performance of the gate when $\varepsilon$ is small; specifically, the gate error is $\exp\left(-\tfrac{1}{4}\sqrt{L/C}\right)\times O(1)$ provided $|\varepsilon| < 2\pi \left(L/C\right)^{-3/4}$. Slightly overrotating or underrotating contributes to the damage suffered by the oscillator, but without much enhancing the sensitivity of the oscillator’s final state to the qubit’s state, and hence without much reducing the fidelity of the gate. We study the consequences of overrotation/underrotation in Sec. \[sec:overrotation\], and confirm our findings using numerical simulations in Sec. \[sec:numerics\]. We also argue, in Sec. \[sec:temperature\] and Sec. \[sec:anharmonic\], that the phase gate is robust against a sufficiently small nonzero temperature and against small perturbations in the Hamiltonian.
The two-qubit phase gate $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z\otimes Z)$ is executed using a similar procedure, but where now two qubits connected in series are coupled to the $LC$ oscillator. The total phase difference across the pair of qubits is either $0$ for the states $|0\rangle\otimes|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle\otimes |1\rangle $, in which case the oscillator evolves to the final $|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$, or $\pi$ for the states $|0\rangle\otimes|1\rangle$ and $|1\rangle\otimes |0\rangle $, in which case the oscillator evolves to the final state $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle$. Again, the gate is executed perfectly if $|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle = |\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle$.
Let us summarize the sufficient conditions for the phase gate to be well protected. Just as for the realization of the 0-$\pi$ qubit itself, the execution of the protected phase gate relies on the construction of a “superinducting” circuit with $\sqrt{L/C} \gg 1$. This is a daunting engineering challenge as we have already noted at the end of Sec. \[sec:qubit\]. To ensure high gate accuracy, we also assume that the steady state value $J_0$ of the Josephson coupling between the 0-$\pi$ qubit and the oscillator satisfies $\sqrt{J_0 C} \gg 1$ and that the characteristic time scale $\tau_J$ for the coupling to ramp on and off is $O(\sqrt{LC})$; thus $\tau_J$ is also small compared to the time $L/\pi$ needed to execute the gate. Under these conditions, the error in the phase gate scales as $\exp\left(-O\left(\sqrt{L/C}~\right)\right)$, and is stable with respect to small fluctuations in the implementation of the gate.
Sketch of the error estimate {#sec:sketch}
============================
A noisy quantum gate realizes a quantum operation ${\cal N}_{\rm actual}$, and a useful way to quantify the error in the gate is to specify the deviation $\| {\cal N}_{\rm actual} - {\cal N}_{\rm ideal}\|_{\diamond}$ from the ideal gate ${\cal N}_{\rm ideal}$ in the “diamond norm” [@KitaevDiamond]. As explained in Appendix \[app:error\], for the protected phase gate this diamond norm distance (assuming there are no bit flips) is \_[actual]{} - [N]{}\_[ideal]{}\_ = |1 - \_1\^[fin]{}|\_0\^[fin]{}| where $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm fin}\rangle$ denotes the final state of the oscillator when $|0\rangle,|1\rangle$ is the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit, as in Eq. (\[eq:gate-psi-final\]). Thus we assess the gate accuracy by estimating the deviation of $\langle \psi_0^{\rm fin}|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle$ from 1.
To perform this estimate we track how the oscillator states $|\psi_0(t)\rangle$ and $|\psi_1(t)\rangle$ are related through three stages of evolution: &&|\^[in]{} |\_[0]{}\^[begin]{}|\_[0]{}\^[end]{} |\_[0]{}\^[fin]{},\
&&|\^[in]{} |\_[1]{}\^[begin]{}-i|\_[1]{}\^[end]{} -i|\_[1]{}\^[fin]{}\
In the first stage $J(t)$ ramps on and the grid states are prepared – the initial state $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ evolves to $|\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle$ if the 0-$\pi$ qubit’s state is $|0\rangle$ and to $|\psi_1^{\rm begin}\rangle$ if the qubit’s state is $|1\rangle$. In the second stage $J(t)=J_0$ and the grid state $|\psi^{\rm begin}_{0}\rangle$ evolves to $|\psi^{\rm end}_{0}\rangle$ while the grid state $|\psi^{\rm begin}_{1}\rangle$ evolves to $-i|\psi^{\rm end}_{1}\rangle$, where ideally $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm end}\rangle = |\psi_{0,1}^{\rm begin}\rangle$. In the third stage $J(t)$ ramps off and the grid states $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm end}\rangle$ evolve to the final oscillator states $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm fin}\rangle$, where ideally $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle = |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$. Consider the first (or third) stage of the evolution, where the coupling $J(t)$ ramps on (or off) in a time of order $\tau_J$. If $\tau_J$ is not too large compared to the period $2\pi\sqrt{LC}$ of the oscillator, then the harmonic potential term $\varphi^2/2L$ may be treated perturbatively during this evolution stage. Hence, in first approximation the Hamiltonian is one of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:truncated-H}
H_0 = \frac{Q^2}{2C} - J(t)\cos\varphi,\quad H_1 = \frac{Q^2}{2C} + J(t)\cos\varphi,\end{aligned}$$ depending on whether the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is $|0\rangle$ or $|1\rangle$. This Hamiltonian commutes with the operator $e^{-2\pi i Q}$, which translates $\varphi$ by $2\pi$; therefore $e^{-2\pi i Q}$ and the Hamiltonian can be simultaneously diagonalized. We may express the eigenvalue of this translation operator as $e^{-2\pi i q}$, where $q = Q-[Q] \in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$ is the conserved Bloch momentum, and $[Q]$ denotes the nearest integer to $Q$; thus $[Q]$ labels the distinct bands in the Hamiltonian’s spectrum.
A diabatic transition between bands may be excited while $J(t)$ varies, changing the value of $[Q]$ by an integer, most likely $\pm 1$. If such transitions occur with nonnegligible probability, the final state of the oscillator will contain, in addition to a primary peak supported near $Q=0$, also secondary peaks supported near $Q=\pm 1$; the phases of the secondary peaks depend on whether the Hamiltonian is $H_0$ or $H_1$, and therefore diabatic transitions contribute to the gate error. The probability of a diabatic transition cannot be computed precisely, but as we will explain in Sec. \[sec:diabatic\] it can be analyzed semi-quantitatively, and is very small if $\tau_J$ is sufficiently large.
For the purpose of discussing this diabatic error and other contributions to the deviation of $\langle \psi_1^{\rm fin}|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$ from 1, we will find it useful to consider the operator \[barX-define\] |X && (-1)\^[\[Q\]]{} = \^Q\_[even]{} - \^Q\_[odd]{}\
&& 2\^Q\_[even]{} - II - 2\^Q\_[odd]{}. Here $\Pi^Q_{\rm even}$ projects onto values of $Q$ such that the nearest integer value $[Q]$ is even and $\Pi^Q_{\rm odd}$ projects onto values of $Q$ such that $[Q]$ is odd. We denote this operator as $\bar X$ because it can be regarded as the error-corrected Pauli operator $\sigma^X$ acting on a qubit encoded in the Hilbert space of the oscillator, as we explain in Sec. \[sec:code\]. (Note that $\bar X^2 = I$.) Another (related) important property is that, since $e^{\mp i \varphi}$ translates $Q$ by $\pm 1$, $\bar X$ anticommutes with $\cos\varphi$: |X |X = - . Our argument showing that $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle \approx |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$ has two main elements. On the one hand we use approximate symmetries and properties of grid states to see that $|\psi_1(t)\rangle \approx \bar X |\psi_0(t)\rangle$ at each stage of the oscillator’s evolution, so that in particular $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle \approx \bar X |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$. On the other hand we argue that if the time scale $\tau_J$ for $J(t)$ to turn on and off is suitably chosen, then the oscillator’s final state is mostly supported near $Q=0$, so that in particular $\bar X|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle \approx |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$.
We note that the approximate Hamiltonians $H_0$ and $H_1$ in Eq. (\[eq:truncated-H\]) are related by $$H_1 = \bar X H_0 \bar X.$$ By integrating the Schrödinger equation using the Hamiltonian $H_0$ or $H_1$ during the first stage of evolution while $J(t)$ ramps on, we obtain the unitary time evolution operators $U_{0}$, $U_{1}$, which are related by $$U_{1} = \bar X U_{0} \bar X.$$ Thus the initial oscillator state $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ evolves to one of the states $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle = U_0 |\psi^{\rm in}\rangle \nonumber\\
&&| \psi_1^{\rm begin} \rangle = U_1 |\psi^{\rm in}\rangle = \bar X U_0\bar X|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:almost-X-conjugate}
\langle \psi_1^{\rm begin}|\bar X |\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle &=& \langle \psi^{\rm in} |\bar X|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle
= \langle \psi^{\rm in}|I-2\Pi^Q_{\rm odd}|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& 1 - 2\langle \psi^{\rm in} |\Pi^Q_{\rm odd}|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that if the initial state is almost fully supported on even values of $[Q]$ (for example, the oscillator ground state, a Gaussian in $Q$-space with width much less than $1/2$), then $| \psi_1^{\rm begin}\rangle$ is very close to $\bar X|\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle$.
So far we have ignored the effects of the quadratic term $\varphi^2/2L$ in the potential. This term can cause the wave function to broaden in $Q$-space and be squeezed in $\varphi$ space, but we argue in Sec. \[sec:squeezing\] that this squeezing is a relatively small effect, so that the conclusion $| \psi_1^{\rm begin}\rangle\approx \bar X|\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle$ still holds accurately. Specifically, the contribution to the gate error due to squeezing scales as in Eq. (\[eq:squeeze-scaling\]), and hence becomes comparable to the other sources of error when we choose $\tau_J\sim\sqrt{LC}$.
During the second stage of the evolution, while $J(t) = J_0$ is held constant, distinct peaks in the grid state acquire relative phases, and the condition $|\psi_1(t)\rangle = \bar X |\psi_0(t)\rangle$ becomes badly violated. However, after a time $t\approx L/\pi$, the initial states $|\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle$ and $|\psi_1^{\rm begin}\rangle$ are restored, aside from the state dependent phase $-i$, and hence $|\psi_1^{\rm end}\rangle = \bar X |\psi_0^{\rm end}\rangle$ apart from a small error. Equivalently, the beginning states |\_\^[begin]{}= (|\_0\^[begin]{}|\_1\^[begin]{}) are very nearly $\bar X$ eigenstates with eigenvalues $\pm 1$, and this property is preserved by the ending states |\_\^[end]{}= (|\_0\^[end]{}|\_1\^[end]{}). The $\bar X$ eigenvalues of these states are highly stable with respect to timing errors in the gate, in which the coupling is left on for too short or too long a time, because these states are approximate codewords of a quantum code, well protected against logical phase errors. We study the errors resulting from imperfect timing in detail in Sec. \[sec:overrotation\], because they can be calculated explicitly and are the dominant errors in some parameter regimes.
In the third stage of the evolution, as in the first stage, it is a good first approximation to ignore the harmonic $\varphi^2/2L$ term in the potential as the coupling $J(t)$ ramps off. Using this approximation, the time evolution operators $V_{0,1}$ obtained by integrating the Schrödinger equation during the third stage when the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is $|0\rangle,|1\rangle$, are related by V\_1 = |X V\_0|X; hence the final oscillator states are |\_0\^[fin]{}= V\_0 |\_0\^[end]{}, |\_1\^[fin]{}= |X V\_0 |X|\_1\^[end]{}and we conclude that \_1\^[fin]{}||X |\_0\^[fin]{}= \_1\^[end]{} ||X|\_0\^[end]{}. Again, this conclusion is not modified much when the $\varphi^2/2L$ term is properly taken into account, so we may infer that the condition $|\psi_0(t)\rangle \approx \bar X |\psi_1(t)\rangle$ is well preserved during the final stage of evolution.
We have now seen that $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle \approx \bar X|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$, and it remains to show that $\bar X|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle \approx |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$. This condition will be well satisfied provided that the final state $|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$ of the oscillator, like the initial state $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$, is almost fully supported in the interval $Q\in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$. Logical errors may occur because of diabatic transitions between bands, which may change $Q$ by an odd integer, or because of spreading in $Q$ space, which may enhance the tails of the wave function outside $[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$. However, if diabatic transitions are rare and spreading is modest, as we expect if $\tau_J$ lies in the appropriate range, then the gate will be highly accurate.
That our criterion for achieving $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle \approx |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$ involves the operator $\bar X$, which has a sharp discontinuity at $Q=\frac{1}{2} +{\rm integer}$, is really an artifact of an insufficiently careful treatment of diabatic transitions. The transitions occur with enhanced probability for $Q$ close to $\frac{1}{2} +{\rm integer}$, replacing the sharp edge in $Q$ space by a rounded step with width of order $C/\tau_J$, as we will explain in Sec. \[sec:diabatic\].
Encoding a qubit in an oscillator {#sec:code}
=================================
A continuous-variable quantum error-correcting code [@GottesmanKitaevPreskill2001] underlies the robustness of the protected phase gate. The theory of quantum codes is not really essential for understanding our estimate of the gate accuracy, but this theory provides motivation for our construction of the protected gate, as well a convenient language for explaining how it works. Therefore, we will now review some of the relevant features of a code first described in [@GottesmanKitaevPreskill2001].
In the version of the code we will use, a two-dimensional encoded qubit is embedded in the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space of a harmonic oscillator with position $\varphi$ and conjugate momentum $Q$ satisfying $[\varphi,Q] = i$. The code space can be specified as the simultaneous eigenspace with eigenvalue 1 of the two commuting operators M\_Z = e\^[2i]{},M\_X = e\^[-2i Q]{}; we say that $M_Z$ and $M_X$ are the generators of the code’s “stabilizer group.” Using the identify $e^Ae^B = e^{[A,B]}e^B e^A$ (where $A$ and $B$ commute with their commutator), we can easily verify that $M_X$ and $M_Z$ commute. The logical Pauli operators acting on the encoded qubit are |Z = e\^[i]{}, |X = e\^[-iQ]{}. One sees that $\bar X$ and $\bar Z$ commute with the stabilizer generators $M_X$ and $M_Z$, and hence preserve the code space; furthermore they anticommute with one another, as the logical Pauli operators should.
The (unnormalizable) state $|0_C\rangle^{\rm ideal}$ is the unique $\bar Z$ eigenstate with eigenvalue 1 in the code space. The condition $\bar Z=1$ requires the variable $\varphi$ to be an integer multiple of $2\pi$, and the condition $M_X=1$ requires the codeword to be invariant under translation of $\varphi$ by $2\pi$. Hence $|0_C\rangle^{\rm ideal}$ is represented in $\varphi$ space as the uniform superposition of delta functions |0\_C\^[ideal]{} = \_[n=-]{}\^|=2n; the $\bar Z=-1$ eigenstate $|1_C\rangle^{\rm ideal} = \bar X |0_C\rangle^{\rm ideal}$, obtained from $|0_C\rangle^{\rm ideal}$ by displacing $\varphi$ by $\pi$, is |1\_C\^[ideal]{} = \_[n=-]{}\^|=2(n+). Similarly, the $X=\pm 1$ eigenstates $|\pm_C\rangle^{\rm ideal}$, invariant under translation of $Q$ by 2, are represented in $Q$ space as |+\_C\^[ideal]{} &=& \_[n=-]{}\^|Q=2n,\
|-\_C\^[ideal]{} &=& \_[n=-]{}\^|Q=2(n+).\
See Fig. \[fig:ideal-codewords\].
![\[fig:ideal-codewords\] (Color online) Ideal codewords of the continuous variable code. The $\bar Z=\pm 1$ eigenstates $|0_C\rangle,|1_C\rangle$, expressed in $\varphi$ space, are uniform superpositions of position eigenstates with $\varphi$ an even or odd multiple of $\pi$, respectively. The $\bar X=\pm 1$ eigenstates $|+_C\rangle,|-_C\rangle$, expressed in $Q$ space, are uniform superpositions of momentum eigenstates with $Q$ an even or odd integer, respectively. ](ideal-codewords-wide.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Weak noise may displace $\varphi$ slightly, but the codewords $|0_C\rangle^{\rm ideal}$ and $|1_C\rangle^{\rm ideal}$ remain perfectly distinguishable, and the error is correctable, as long as the value of $\varphi$ shifts by less than $\pi/2$ in either direction. Similarly, a shift in $Q$ by less than 1/2 is correctable. In principle we could diagnose the error by measuring $M_Z$ to determine the value of $\varphi$ modulo $\pi$, and $M_X$ to determine the value of $Q$ modulo 1, then perform active error correction by applying the minimal shifts in $\varphi$ and $Q$ that return the damaged code state to the code space. (In our protected phase gate, however, the error correction will be passive rather than active.)
The unnormalizable ideal codewords, with infinite $\langle \varphi\rangle$ and $\langle Q\rangle$, are unphysical. But if we coherently apply Gaussian distributed small shifts in $\varphi$ and $Q$ to the ideal codewords, we obtain the normalizable approximate codewords shown in Fig. \[fig:approx-codewords\]. The wave function in $\varphi$ space is a superposition of narrow Gaussians, each of width $\Delta\ll \pi/2$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $\langle(\delta\varphi)^2\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\Delta^2$, where $\delta\varphi$ denotes the deviation from the center of the narrow Gaussian), governed by a broad Gaussian envelope with width $\kappa^{-1} \gg 2$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $\langle \varphi^2\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\kappa^{-2}$). The Fourier dual wave function in $Q$ space is a superposition of narrow Gaussians each of width $\kappa$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $\langle (\delta Q)^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{2}\kappa^2$, where $\delta Q$ denotes the deviation from the center of the narrow Gaussian), governed by a broad Gaussian envelope with width $\Delta^{-1}$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $\langle Q^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{2}\Delta^{-2}$). If $\Delta$ and $\kappa$ are sufficiently small, these approximate codewords retain good error correction properties. However, there is now an intrinsic error arising from the tails of the narrow Gaussians, with the probability of a logical $\bar Z$ error (a shift in $\varphi$ by more than $\pi/2$) suppressed by $e^{-\pi^2/4\Delta^2}$, and the probability of a logical $\bar X$ error (a shift in $Q$ by more than $1/2$) suppressed by $e^{-1/4\kappa^2}$.
Note that in Sec. \[sec:sketch\] we used the notation $\bar X = (-1)^{[Q]}$ for the logical $X$ operator, where $[Q]$ denotes the nearest integer to the real variable $Q$. The operator $(-1)^{[Q]}$ acts in the same way as $e^{-i\pi Q}$ on ideal codewords for which $Q$ is an integer. By expressing the logical operator as $\bar X = (-1)^{[Q]}$ we are implicitly correcting phase errors that displace $Q$. That is, a $Q$ eigenstate is decoded by shifting $Q$ to the nearest integer value, and the eigenvalue of $\bar X$ is determined by this ideal shifted value of $Q$, rather than the actual value of $Q$ prior to the shift.
![\[fig:approx-codewords\] (Color online) Approximate codewords of the continuous variable code. The codeword $|0_C\rangle$, expressed in $\varphi$ space, is a superposition of Gaussian peaks, each of width $\Delta$, governed by a broad Gaussian envelope with width $\kappa^{-1}$. The codeword $|+_C\rangle$, expressed in $Q$ space, is a superposition of Gaussian peaks, each of width $\kappa$, governed by a broad Gaussian envelope with width $\Delta^{-1}$. ](approx-codewords.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The first step in the execution of the protected phase gate described in Sec. \[sec:gate\] is the preparation of just such approximate codewords. If the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is $|0\rangle$, then the approximate $\bar Z = 1$ eigenstate $|0_C\rangle$ is prepared, and if the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is $|1\rangle$, then the approximate $\bar Z=-1$ eigenstate $|1_C\rangle$ is prepared. The narrowly peaked functions have width $\Delta^2= (J_0C)^{-1/2}$ in $\varphi$ space (though, because the potential is a cosine rather than harmonic, the tail of the peaked function decays more slowly than the tail of a Gaussian), and width $\kappa^2 = (L/C)^{-1/2}$ in $Q$ space. Hence the intrinsic logical $\bar X$ error of the approximate codewords, which is central to our estimate of the error in the phase gate, is suppressed by the factor $\exp\left(-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{L/C}\right)$.
After the approximate codeword is prepared, the Gaussian unitary operator $e^{-i t\varphi^2/2L} = e^{-i\tilde t\varphi^2/2\pi}$ is applied (where $\tilde t= \pi t /L$ is a rescaled time variable). This unitary operator rotates the code space, transforming the stabilizer generator $M_X=e^{-2\pi iQ}$ according to M\_X && M\_X’= e\^[-it\^2/2]{}e\^[-2i Q]{}e\^[it\^2/2]{}\
&=&e\^[-2i (Q+t/)]{} = M\_X e\^[-2i t]{}e\^[-2i t]{}. Recalling that $M_Z^{-1}=e^{-2i\varphi}$ is also a stabilizer generator, we see that the state returns to the code space at (rescaled) time $\tilde t=1$, but during its excursion the codeword acquires a Berry phase, and thus a nontrivial logical operation is applied. Specifically, the logical operator $\bar X$ is transformed according to |X && |X’= e\^[-i\^2/2]{}e\^[-i Q]{}e\^[i\^2/2]{}\
&=&e\^[- i(Q+/)]{} = |X e\^[-i ]{}e\^[ -i/2]{}\
&=& -i |X|Z = (i |Z )|X (-i |Z ) while $\bar Z$ remains invariant; hence the logical operation acting on the code space is $\exp\left (i\tfrac{\pi}{4} \bar Z \right)$. An error in the logical gate arises if the coupling remains on for too long or too short a time ([*i.e.*]{} if $\tilde t$ is not precisely 1). However, this error is correctable with high probability if the timing error is small. We will study the consequences of overrotation/underrotation in Sec. \[sec:overrotation\].
Imperfect grid states {#sec:overrotation}
=====================
Now we will analyze the intrinsic phase errors in approximate codewords of the continuous variable code, and in particular how the phase error is affected by errors in the timing of the pulse that executes the phase gate.
In Sec. \[sec:code\] we considered approximate codewords that can be described as “Gaussian grid states” — the codeword is a superposition of narrow Gaussian peaks governed by a broad Gaussian envelope. The Fourier transform of such a wave function is also a Gaussian grid state, so that both logical bit flip errors and logical phase errors are suppressed.
But it actually suffices for the approximate codeword to be a superposition of narrow functions with a broad envelope; neither the peak nor the envelope needs to be Gaussian. Even a non-Gaussian grid is mapped to a conjugate non-Gaussian grid by the Fourier transform, so there is good protection against both $\bar X$ and $\bar Z$ errors. A Gaussian grid state could result from coherently applying Gaussian-distributed $\varphi$ and $Q$ shifts to an ideal codeword, assuming large shifts are suppressed. But we can also get a reasonable approximate codeword by applying more general small errors to the ideal codeword, with a distribution that is not necessarily Gaussian. What is important is that large shifts in both $\varphi$ and $Q$ are improbable, not the detailed form of the distribution.
This observation will be useful when we consider in Sec. \[sec:temperature\] the execution of the protected phase gate in the case where the initial state of the harmonic oscillator is an excited state rather than the ground state. In that case, the envelope of the approximate codeword in $\varphi$ space is not strictly Gaussian, but rather Gaussian modulated by a Hermite polynomial, and its Fourier transform is also Gaussian modulated by a Hermite polynomial. Thus, in $Q$ space, the narrow functions peaked at integer values of $Q$ are also oscillator excited states. These functions have highly suppressed tails, ensuring that encoded phase errors are rare. In any event, considering more general kinds of grid states helps to clarify conceptually why the phase gate is robust.
Bit-flip and phase errors {#subsec:intrinsic}
-------------------------
Let $f$ denote a narrow function in $\varphi$ space, and $\tilde F$ denote a broad envelope function in $\varphi$ space. We express the approximate codewords as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:approx-codewords-zero-one}
|0_C\rangle &=& \sqrt{2\pi}~\sum_{n~{\rm even}} \tilde F(\pi n) \int d\varphi~f(\varphi-\pi n)|\varphi\rangle,\nonumber\\
|1_C\rangle &=& \sqrt{2\pi}~\sum_{n~{\rm odd}}\tilde F(\pi n)\int d\varphi~f(\varphi-\pi n)|\varphi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
The function $f$ is normalized so that $$\int d\varphi~|f(\varphi)|^2 = 1,$$ and if the overlap between peaks centered at distinct integer multiples of $\pi$ can be neglected, then $|0_C\rangle$ and $|1_C\rangle$ are normalized provided $$2\pi\sum_{n~{\rm even}} |\tilde F(\pi n)|^2 \approx 1,\quad 2\pi \sum_{n~{\rm odd}}|\tilde F(\pi n)|^2\approx 1.$$ The intrinsic bit-flip error of the approximate codeword $|0_C\rangle$ arises from the probability that $\varphi$ lies closer to an odd multiple of $\pi$ than to an even multiple, which can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bit-flip-error}
P_{\rm error}^{|0_C\rangle} &\approx& \left(2\pi \sum_{n~{\rm even}} |\tilde F(\pi n)|^2\right)\nonumber\\
&& \times \left(\int_{-\infty}^{-\pi/2}d\varphi~|f(\varphi)|^2 +\int_{\pi/2}^{\infty}d\varphi~|f(\varphi)|^2 \right)\nonumber\\
&\approx& \int_{-\infty}^{-\pi/2}d\varphi~|f(\varphi)|^2 +\int_{\pi/2}^{\infty}d\varphi~|f(\varphi)|^2;\end{aligned}$$ the intrinsic error in $|1_C\rangle$ can be estimated similarly. Thus logical bit-flip errors are highly suppressed if $f(\varphi)$ is a narrow, rapidly decaying function supported near zero.
The approximate codewords in the conjugate basis are $$\begin{aligned}
|+_C\rangle &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0_C\rangle + |1_C\rangle\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n \tilde F(\pi n) \int d\varphi~f(\varphi - \pi n)|\varphi\rangle,\nonumber\\
|-_C\rangle &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0_C\rangle - |1_C\rangle\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n\tilde F(\pi n) (-1)^n \int d\varphi~f(\varphi-\pi n)|\varphi\rangle,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:F-n-norm}
\pi\sum_n |\tilde F(\pi n)|^2\approx 1.$$ We show in Appendix \[app:overrotation\] that these codewords can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:code-in-Q-space}
|+_C\rangle &=&\sqrt{2}\int dQ~\tilde f(Q)\sum_{m~{\rm even}}F(Q -m) |Q\rangle,\nonumber\\
& \approx&\sqrt{2}~\sum_{m~{\rm even}} \tilde f(m) \int dQ~ F(Q -m) |Q\rangle,\nonumber\\
|-_C\rangle &=&\sqrt{2}\int dQ~\tilde f(Q)\sum_{m~{\rm odd}}F(Q -m) |Q\rangle,\nonumber\\
&\approx& \sqrt{2}~\sum_{m~{\rm odd}} \tilde f(m) \int dQ~ F(Q-m) |Q\rangle.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
2 \sum_{m~{\rm even}} |\tilde f(m)|^2 &\approx& \int dQ~|\tilde f(Q)|^2 \approx 1 ,\nonumber\\
2\sum_{m~{\rm odd}} |\tilde f(m)|^2 &\approx& \int dQ~|\tilde f(Q)|^2 \approx 1 .\end{aligned}$$ The intrinsic phase error of the approximate codeword $|+_C\rangle$ arises from the probability that $Q$ lies closer to an odd integer than an even integer, which can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:unprimed-phase-error}
P_{\rm error}^{|+_C\rangle} &&\approx \left(2\sum_{m~{\rm even}}|\tilde f(m)|^2\right)\nonumber\\
&& \times \left(\int_{-\infty}^{-1/2}dQ~|F(Q)|^2 +\int_{1/2}^{\infty}dQ~|F(Q)|^2 \right)\nonumber\\
&&\approx\int_{-\infty}^{-1/2}dQ~|F(Q)|^2 +\int_{1/2}^{\infty}dQ~|F(Q)|^2;\end{aligned}$$ the intrinsic error in $|-_C\rangle$ is estimated similarly. Thus logical phase errors are highly suppressed if $F(Q)$ is a narrow, rapidly decaying function supported near zero.
We see that for a good approximate codeword, the particular form of the narrow function $f(\varphi)$ and the broad function $\tilde F(\varphi)$ is not so important. Instead, what matters is that the [*same*]{} narrow function $f$ appears at each of the periodically spaced peaks (apart from the slow modulation in the normalization, governed by $F$). Then when we Fourier transform, constructive interference occurs for values of $Q$ that are reciprocally related to the spacing ([*e.g.*]{}, even integer values of $Q$ if the spacing in $\varphi$ space is $\pi$), since for such $Q$ values the various peaks in $\varphi$ space add together with a common phase.
Gate error estimate {#subsec:gate-error}
-------------------
As explained in Sec. \[sec:sketch\], the error in the protected phase gate can be expressed as |1-\_1\^[fin]{}|\_0\^[fin]{}| where $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm fin}\rangle$ denotes the final state of the oscillator (modulo the state dependent phase $-i$ applied by the gate) when the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit is $|0\rangle,|1\rangle$. Under conditions enumerated in Sec. \[sec:sketch\], this quantity can be well approximated by the modulus of \[eta-define-again\] 1-\_1\^[end]{}||X|\_0\^[end]{}, where $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm end}\rangle$ denotes the state of the oscillator as the coupling $J(t)$ between oscillator and qubit starts to turn off, and $\bar X = \Pi^Q_{\rm even} - \Pi^Q_{\rm odd}$ denotes the error-corrected logical operator.
Let us suppose that the states $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm begin}\rangle$ prepared when the coupling $J(t)$ turns on are the approximate codewords $|0_C\rangle, |1_C\rangle$ depicted in Eq. (\[eq:approx-codewords-zero-one\]), where $f(\varphi)$ is a narrow rapidly decreasing function and $\tilde F(\varphi)$ is a broad envelope function. The coupling remains on for time $t= (1+\varepsilon)\tfrac{L}{\pi}$, where $\varepsilon$ is the fractional error in the timing of the gate. Then as explained in Appendix \[app:overrotation\], the states $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm end}\rangle$ have the same form as $|0_C\rangle,|1_C\rangle$, but with $\tilde F(\varphi)$ replaced by the function F\_() = e\^[-i\^2/2]{}F().
We define states |\_\^[end]{}= (|\_0\^[end]{}|\_1\^[end]{}); note that $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm end}\rangle$ are normalized, since each is obtained by applying a unitary time evolution operator to the normalized state $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ of the oscillator, but they are not necessarily orthogonal and hence the states $|\psi_\pm^{\rm end}\rangle$ are not necessarily normalized. We may write \_1\^[end]{}||X|\_0\^[end]{}= &&(\_+\^[end]{}||X|\_+\^[end]{}- \_-\^[end]{}||X|\_-\^[end]{}\
&&+\_+\^[end]{}||X|\_-\^[end]{}-\_-\^[end]{}||X|\_+\^[end]{}),\
which, using Eq. (\[barX-define\]), has real part &&[Re]{} \_1\^[end]{}||X|\_0\^[end]{}\
&&=(\_+\^[end]{}|I-2\^Q\_[odd]{}|\_+\^[end]{}- \_-\^[end]{}|2\^Q\_[even]{}-I|\_-\^[end]{})\
&&= 1- \_+\^[end]{}|\^Q\_[odd]{}|\_+\^[end]{}- \_-\^[end]{}|\^Q\_[even]{}|\_-\^[end]{}.
Therefore, using Eq. (\[eta-define-again\]) we may estimate the real part of the gate error as in Eq. (\[eq:unprimed-phase-error\]): \[eq:real-eta\] [Re]{} \_2(\_[-]{}\^[-1/2]{}dQ |F\_(Q)|\^2 +\_[1/2]{}\^dQ |F\_(Q)|\^2) .\
To estimate the imaginary part we note that \_=(\_-\^[end]{}||X|\_+\^[end]{}-\_+\^[end]{}||X|\_-\^[end]{}). As in Eq. (\[eq:code-in-Q-space\]), we express
|\_-\^[end]{}& &(\_[\[Q\] [even]{}]{}dQ +\_[\[Q\] [odd]{}]{}dQ)f(Q)\_[m [odd]{}]{} F\_(Q -m) |Q,\
|X|\_+\^[end]{}& &(\_[\[Q\] [even]{}]{}dQ -\_[\[Q\] [odd]{}]{}dQ)f(Q)\_[m [even]{}]{} F\_(Q -m) |Q,\
and therefore obtain &&\_-\^[end]{}||X |\_+\^[end]{}\
&&2 \_[\[Q\] [even]{}]{}dQ |f(Q)|\^2\_[[m [even]{}]{}]{}F\_(Q-n)\^\*F\_(Q-m)\
&& - 2\_[\[Q\] [odd]{}]{}dQ |f(Q)|\^2\_[[m [even]{}]{}]{}F\_(Q-n)\^\*F\_(Q-m).\
Thus ${\rm Im} ~\eta_\varepsilon$ is dominated by overlaps between sharply peaked functions $\{F_\varepsilon(Q-m)\}$ centered at neighboring values of $m$; we show in Appendix \[app:overrotation\] that \[eq:imag-eta\] [Im]{} \_4 [Im]{}\_[0]{}\^dQ [Odd]{}where ${\rm Odd}[G(Q)]\equiv\tfrac{1}{2}\left(G(Q) - G(-Q)\right)$ denotes the odd part of the function $G(Q)$.
Gaussian case {#subsec:overrotation}
-------------
The gate error estimate in Eq. (\[eq:real-eta\]) and Eq. (\[eq:imag-eta\]) is expressed in terms of the narrow function $F_\varepsilon(Q)$, whose Fourier transform $\tilde F_\varepsilon(\varphi)$ is the broad envelope function that governs the grid state of the oscillator. To be concrete, let us now suppose that this function is Gaussian, the relevant case where the oscillator’s initial state $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ is the ground state.
The normalized ground state wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:F-and-F-tilde}
&&\tilde F(\varphi)=\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}e^{-\kappa^2\varphi^2/2}, \nonumber\\
&&F(Q)= \left(\frac{1}{\pi\kappa^2}\right)^{1/4}e^{-Q^2/2\kappa^2},\end{aligned}$$ where \^[-2]{} = . Therefore, for $\varepsilon=0$ the probability of an intrinsic phase error in the grid state is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gaussian-phase-flip-error}
P_{\rm error}^{|+_C\rangle} \approx 2\int_{1/2}^{\infty}dQ~|F(Q)|^2\approx 2\sqrt{\frac{\kappa^2}{\pi}}e^{-1/4\kappa^2},\end{aligned}$$ using the leading asymptotic approximation to the error function.
To find the probability of a phase error for $\varepsilon \ne 0$, we evaluate $$\begin{aligned}
F_\varepsilon(Q) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int d\varphi~e^{-iQ\varphi}\tilde F_\varepsilon(\varphi)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int d\varphi~e^{-iQ\varphi}\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{\pi}\right)^{1/4}e^{-\kappa^2\varphi^2/2}e^{-i\varepsilon\varphi^2/2\pi}\nonumber\\
&=& \left(\frac{\kappa^2}{\pi\kappa'^4} \right)^{1/4}\exp\left(-Q^2/2\kappa'^2\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa'^2 = \kappa^2 + \frac{i\varepsilon}{\pi}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa'^{-2} &=& \kappa^{-2}\left( 1 +\frac{i\varepsilon}{\pi\kappa^2}\right)^{-1}\nonumber\\
&=&\bar\kappa^{-2}\left( 1 -\frac{i\varepsilon}{\pi\kappa^2}\right),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\bar\kappa^2=\kappa^{2}\left( 1 +\frac{\varepsilon^2}{\pi^2\kappa^4}\right);\end{aligned}$$ therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|F_\varepsilon(Q)|^2&=&\left(\frac{\kappa^2}{\pi|\kappa'|^4} \right)^{1/2}\exp\left(-Q^2~{\rm Re}(\kappa'^{-2})\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi\bar\kappa^2}}e^{-Q^2/\bar\kappa^2},\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[eq:real-eta\]), our estimate of the real part of the gate error becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phase-error-gaussian}
{\rm Re}~\eta_\varepsilon\approx \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi\bar\kappa^2}}\int_{1/2}^\infty dQ ~ e^{-Q^2/\bar\kappa^2}\approx 4\sqrt{\frac{\bar\kappa^2}{\pi}}e^{-1/4\bar\kappa^2}.\end{aligned}$$
For $\varepsilon$ small compared to $\pi\kappa^2$, we may expand $$\bar\kappa^{-2} = \kappa^{-2} -\frac{\varepsilon^2}{\pi^2\kappa^6} + \cdots,$$ so that $$\label{eq:gaussian-eta-real}
{\rm Re}~\eta_\varepsilon \approx \exp\left(\frac{\varepsilon^2}{4\pi^2\kappa^6}\right) {\rm Re}~\eta_{\varepsilon=0};$$ the overrotation of the gate has little effect on the real part of the gate error for $\varepsilon \ll 2\pi\kappa^3$. On the other hand, when $\varepsilon$ is large compared to $\pi\kappa^2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bar \kappa^{-2}\approx\frac{\pi^2\kappa^2}{\varepsilon^2};\end{aligned}$$ thus ${\rm Re}~\eta_\varepsilon=O(1)$ for $\varepsilon\approx \pi\kappa$.
To see that these results are reasonable, note that $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i\varepsilon \varphi^2/2\pi} Q e^{i\varepsilon \varphi^2/2\pi} = Q +\varphi\varepsilon/\pi.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, crudely speaking, overrotation by $\varepsilon$ shifts $ Q$ by \[eq:delta-Q-epsilon\] Q(/)\^2\^[1/2]{}=/(). We expect this shift to have a small effect if the amount of the shift is small compared to the width $\langle Q^2\rangle^{1/2}= \sqrt{\kappa^2/2}$ of the narrow peaks in $Q$-space, [*i.e.*]{} for $\varepsilon \ll \pi\kappa^2$. On the other hand, for $\varepsilon \approx \pi\kappa$, the shift in $ Q$ is O(1), and we expect the error probability to be large.
To estimate the imaginary part of the gate error, we note that &&F\_(Q+)\^\*F\_(Q-)\
&=&\
&=&\
&=&e\^[-1/4|\^2]{}e\^[-Q\^2/|\^2]{} ( ),\
and from Eq. (\[eq:imag-eta\]) we obtain \[eq:phase-error-imag\] &&[Im]{} \_\
&&= - e\^[-1/4|\^2]{}\_0\^dQ e\^[-Q\^2/|\^2]{}(Q/|\^2\^2)\
&&= - e\^[-1/4|\^2]{}I(), where I() \_0\^dx e\^[-x\^2]{}(x). The integral $I(\alpha)$ can be expressed in terms of Gamma functions with imaginary arguments, but for our purposes it will suffice to observe some of its properties. For small $\alpha$ it has the power series expansion I() = - + , for large $\alpha$ it has the asymptotic expansion I() = + + , and it attains its maximum value $I=.5410\dots$ at $\alpha = 1.8483\dots$.
Combining the real part in Eq. (\[eq:phase-error-gaussian\]) with the imaginary part in Eq. (\[eq:phase-error-imag\]), our estimate of the gate error becomes \[eq:overrotation-error-complete\] |\_| = e\^[-1/4|\^2]{} The ratio of the imaginary and real parts is =-|\^[-1]{}I()-, expanding to linear order in $\alpha$. Thus the imaginary part of the error is smaller than the real part when $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small, but dominates by a factor of order $\kappa^{-1}$ for $\varepsilon \sim \pi\kappa^3$. The error $|\eta_\varepsilon|$ is bounded above by $e^{-1/4\bar\kappa^2}\times O(1)$ for all $\varepsilon$, and hence by $e^{-1/4\kappa^2}\times O(1)$ for $\varepsilon < 2\pi \kappa^3$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:kappa30\] (Color online) The estimated gate error $|\eta_\varepsilon|$ (on a log scale) as a function of the rotation error $\varepsilon$, for $\kappa^{-2}= 40$.[]{data-label="fig:30"}](Kappa40.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:kappa80\] (Color online) The estimated gate error $|\eta_\varepsilon|$ (on a log scale) as a function of the rotation error $\varepsilon$, for $\kappa^{-2}= 80$.[]{data-label="fig:100"}](Kappa80.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:kappa30\] and \[fig:kappa80\], we plot the gate error estimate $|\eta_{\varepsilon}|$ as a function of $\varepsilon$ for $\kappa^{-2}=40$ and $\kappa^{-2}=80$. Recall that, in the case where the $LC$ circuit is initially in its ground state, we can identify $\kappa^{-2}$ with $\sqrt{L/C}$.
Diabatic error {#sec:diabatic}
==============
As explained in Sec. \[sec:sketch\], the protected phase gate is very accurate if the final state vector of the oscillator depends only very weakly on the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit: $|\psi_1^{\rm fin}\rangle\approx |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$. Our argument establishing high gate accuracy has two elements — we show that $|\psi_1(t)\rangle \approx \bar X |\psi_0(t)\rangle$ at each stage of the oscillator’s evolution, and also that $\bar X|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle \approx |\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$. In Sec. \[sec:overrotation\] we have seen that the condition $|\psi_1(t)\rangle \approx \bar X |\psi_0(t)\rangle$ is stable with respect to imperfections in the timing of the pulse that executes the gate. Now we will consider rare diabatic transitions, occurring as the coupling $J(t)$ ramps on and off, that contribute to the deviation of $\bar X|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$ from $|\psi_0^{\rm fin}\rangle$
While the coupling $J(t)$ turns on or off, the harmonic $\varphi^2/2L$ term in the potential can be treated perturbatively, where in first approximation the Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[eq:truncated-H\]); we will consider the consequences of the harmonic term in Sec. \[sec:squeezing\]. This Hamiltonian commutes with the operator $e^{-2\pi i Q}$, which translates $\varphi$ by $2\pi$; therefore $e^{-2\pi i Q}$ and the Hamiltonian can be simultaneously diagonalized. We express the eigenvalue of this translation operator as $e^{-2\pi i q}$, where $q = Q-[Q] \in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$ is the conserved Bloch momentum, and the integer $[Q]$ labels the distinct bands in the Hamiltonian’s spectrum.
A diabatic transition between bands may be excited while $J(t)$ varies, changing the value of $[Q]$ by an integer, typically $\pm 1$. If such transitions occur with nonnegligible probability, the final state of the oscillator will contain, in addition to a primary peak supported near $Q=0$ (where $\bar X=1$), also secondary peaks supported near $Q=\pm 1$ (where $\bar X = -1)$. We will discuss the probability of a transition between bands while $J(t)$ ramps on; a similar analysis applies to transitions occurring as $J(t)$ ramps down.
The probability of a diabatic transition can be computed most reliably for $q$ close to $\pm\tfrac{1}{2}$, since in that case the splitting between the lowest band and the first excited band is small when $J(t)$ is small, and the continuous variable system can be well approximated by a two-level system. For example when $J=0$, the state in the lowest band with Bloch momentum $q$ slightly less than $\tfrac{1}{2}$ has charge $Q=q$, while the state in the first excited band has $Q= q-1$. Hence the splitting between bands is ((q-1)\^2 - q\^2)= . Since $e^{\mp i\varphi}$ translates $Q$ by $\pm 1$, the perturbation $J(t)\cos\varphi$ has matrix elements q-1|J(t)|q= = q|J(t)|q-1, and the effective two-level Hamiltonian is H\_[0,1]{}\^[eff]{} = - \^Z \^X, where $\sigma^{Z,X}$ are Pauli matrices. The energy eigenstates are $\sigma^Z$ eigenstates for $J(t)\rightarrow 0$ and $\sigma^X$ eigenstates for $J(t)\to \infty$.
The time-dependent Schrödinger equation for this effective Hamiltonian can be solved exactly if $J(t)$ increases exponentially with time, as J(t) = J\_0 (t/\_J\^[eff]{}); we show in Appendix \[app:landau\] that if the initial state as $t\rightarrow -\infty$ is the ground state, then the probability that the final state is excited as $t\rightarrow\infty$ is \[eq:landau-tanh\] P\_[diab]{}(q,\_J\^[eff]{})&=& - (( - q))\
&& (-( - q)) , where the second equality holds when the argument of the $\tanh$ is large and positive.
We recall that if the initial state of the oscillator is the ground state or a low-lying excited state, then the probability distribution for $q$ decays as P(q) \~( - q\^2); hence expanding in $\delta = \tfrac{1}{2} -q$ we find P(q) P\_[diab]{}(q,\_J\^[eff]{})&\~& ((-))\
&&(-).\
Therefore, if \[eq:tau-J-inequality\] \_J\^[eff]{} > , the most likely diabatic transitions occur for $q\approx \tfrac{1}{2}$, where the two-level approximation is reasonable; we conclude in that case that the probability of a diabatic transition is suppressed by the factor $\exp(-\tfrac{1}{4}\sqrt{L/C})$. If on the other hand $\tau_J^{\rm eff} < \frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{LC}$, then the most likely diabatic transitions occur for $q$ far from $\pm\tfrac{1}{2}$ and the two-level approximation cannot be justified.
If $J(t)$ does not ramp on exponentially, then the exact solution in Appendix \[app:landau\] does not apply directly. To estimate roughly the probability of a diabatic transition for more general pulse shapes, we note that the transition typically occurs when $\sigma^Z$ and $\sigma^X$ in the effective Hamiltonian have comparable coefficients, so that \[eq:tauJ-effective-define\] \_J\^[eff]{} ( )\_[JC1- 2q]{} If $J(t)$ turns on like an error function with width $\tau_J$, then \[eq:J(t)-asymptote\] J(t) = \_[-]{}\^[t/\_J]{}dx e\^[-x\^2]{}e\^[-t\^2/\_J\^2]{} asymptotically for $t/\tau_J\rightarrow -\infty$, and we have \[eq:JdotJ\] J/J \_J\^2/ 2|t|; Combining Eq. (\[eq:tauJ-effective-define\]),(\[eq:J(t)-asymptote\]),(\[eq:JdotJ\]) we obtain \[eq:tauJ-effective-error-func\] = (()-O(()))\^[-1/2]{};\
though $\tau_J^{\rm eff}$ given by Eq. (\[eq:tauJ-effective-error-func\]) does not satisfy Eq. (\[eq:tau-J-inequality\]) when $q$ is very close to $\frac{1}{2}$, the dominant diabatic transitions may still occur for $q\approx \tfrac{1}{2}$, where the two-level approximation is applicable, provided $\tau_J - \frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{LC}$ is positive and sufficiently large. Otherwise, if the dominant value of $q$ is far from $\tfrac{1}{2}$, we can anticipate that typical diabatic transitions occur for $J(t) C=O(1)$, where the band gap is $O(1/C)$ and the transition probability is P\_[diab]{}(\_J) = (-O());
In the two-level approximation, which applies for $|Q|\approx \tfrac{1}{2}$, the probability of a jump from the lowest band ($|Q| < \tfrac{1}{2}$) to the first excited band ($|Q| > \tfrac{1}{2} $) matches the probability of a jump from the first excited band to the lowest band. Therefore, neglecting transitions to other bands and the higher-order probability of multiple transitions, and also ignoring other sources of error aside from diabatic jumps, we infer from Eq. (\[eq:landau-tanh\]) that the probability of $\bar X = 1$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $|Q| <\tfrac{1}{2}$) in the final state of the oscillator can be expressed as &&P(|Q\^[fin]{}| < )\
&&dQ\^[in]{} P(Q\^[in]{})(( - |Q\^[in]{}|));\
a factor of two has been included to take into account that the transition could occur during either the ramping-up phase or the ramping-down phase. Because of the enhanced probability of a transition for $|Q|\approx \tfrac{1}{2}$, the $Q^{\rm in}$ integral has support extending beyond the range $[-\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2}]$; the $\tanh$ function smooths out the sharp edges at $Q= \pm \tfrac{1}{2}$, replacing them by rounded steps with width of order $C/\tau_J^{\rm eff}$.
Squeezing error {#sec:squeezing}
===============
In Sec. \[sec:sketch\] we discussed how the state of the oscillator evolves as the coupling $J(t)$ ramps on and off. There we used the idea that, because the oscillator’s period is long compared to the time scale $\tau_J$ for the coupling to turn on and off, we may as a first approximation ignore the $\varphi^2/2L$ term in the potential as in Eq. (\[eq:truncated-H\]). Under that assumption we concluded that \_1\^[begin]{}||X|\_0\^[begin]{}= \^[in]{}||X|\^[in]{}1, where $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ is the oscillator’s initial state, and $|\psi_{0,1}^{\rm begin}\rangle$ denotes the state just after the coupling turns on, where $|0\rangle,|1\rangle$ is the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit. The second equality follows if the initial state of the oscillator has negligible support outside the interval $Q\in [-\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2}]$.
How is this conclusion affected when the quadratic term $\varphi^2/2L$ is included? If the coupling turns on slowly enough, this term can cause some squeezing of the wave function in $\varphi$ space and correspondingly some spreading in $Q$ space. To model crudely the effect of the spreading, consider first turning on $J(t)$ using $H_0$ or $H_1$ in Eq. (\[eq:truncated-H\]), then applying the operator $e^{-i\alpha \varphi}$ (which shifts $Q$ by an amount $\alpha$ that does not depend on the state of the 0-$\pi$ qubit). Denoting the time evolution operator as $J(t)$ turns on by $U_0$ or $U_1=\bar X U_0 \bar X$ as in Sec. \[sec:sketch\], we then have $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle &=& e^{-i\alpha\varphi} U_0 |\psi^{\rm in}\rangle, \nonumber\\
| \psi_1^{\rm begin} \rangle &=& e^{-i\alpha\varphi} \bar X U_0\bar X |\psi^{\rm in}\rangle, \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi_1 ^{\rm begin}|\bar X | \psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle = \langle \psi^{\rm in}|\bar X U_0^{-1}\bar X e^{i\alpha \varphi} \bar X e^{-i\alpha \varphi} U_0 |\psi^{\rm in}\rangle.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Now we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar X e^{i\alpha \varphi} \bar X e^{-i\alpha \varphi} &=& (-1)^{-[Q]}e^{i\alpha \varphi} (-1)^{[Q]} e^{-i\alpha \varphi} \nonumber\\
&=& (-1)^{-[Q]}(-1)^{[Q-\alpha]} = (-1)^{[Q-\alpha] - [Q]};\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ furthermore, $[Q-\alpha] - [Q]$ commutes with $\cos\varphi$ and hence with $U_0$, because $e^{-i\varphi}$ acting by conjugation increases both $[Q-\alpha$\] and $[Q]$ by 1 (while $e^{i\varphi}$ decreases both by 1). Hence we find $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi_1 ^{\rm begin}|\bar X | \psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle &=& \langle \psi^{\rm in}|e^{i\alpha\varphi}\bar X e^{-i\alpha\varphi}|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle\nonumber\\
&=& \langle \psi^{\rm in}|(-1)^{[Q-\alpha]}|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle;\end{aligned}$$ in particular if $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ is almost fully supported in the interval $Q\in [-1/2+|\alpha|, 1/2 - |\alpha|~]$, then $|\psi_1^{\rm begin}\rangle$ is very close to $\bar X|\psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle$. If $|\psi^{\rm in}\rangle$ is the Gaussian ground state with $\langle Q^2\rangle = \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{C/L}$, the deviation of $\langle \psi_1 ^{\rm begin}|\bar X | \psi_0^{\rm begin}\rangle$ from 1 is suppressed by the exponential factor &&|1-\_1 \^[begin]{}||X | \_0\^[begin]{}| \~(( - ||)\^2)\
&&(||)(-).\
How much spreading in $Q$ space should be expected? To make a crude estimate of how the harmonic term affects the distribution in $Q$ space, we note that $$e^{-i\beta\varphi^2}Q e^{i\beta\varphi^2} = Q +2\beta \varphi,$$ and choose $\beta \approx \tau_J/2L$ where $\tau_J$ is the time scale for the coupling to turn on; using $\langle \varphi^2\rangle = \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{L/C}$ in the Gaussian ground state we infer $Q$ is shifted by an amount of order \~()\^[1/4]{}. Assuming $\tau_J\sim \sqrt{LC}$ in order to suppress the diabatic error, we find that squeezing enhances the gate error by a factor (([constant]{})()\^[1/4]{}); that is, it contributes a subleading correction to the logarithm of the gate error.
More realistically, treating the harmonic term as a perturbative correction to the zeroth-order Hamiltonian which has $\varphi\rightarrow\varphi + 2\pi$ periodicity, the dynamics is governed by the effective Hamiltonian H\_[eff]{} = \_[J,C]{}(q) + where $q\in [-\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2}]$ is the Bloch momentum and $\epsilon_{J,C}(q)$ is the energy of the lowest band. Expanding this band energy to quadratic order, we have \_[J,C]{}(q) . The effective capacitance $C_{\rm eff}$ is approximately $C$ for $J$ small, but for $JC\approx 1$, the band curvature begins to flatten rapidly; correspondingly $C_{\rm eff}$ increases sharply, as does the oscillator’s period $2\pi\sqrt{LC_{\rm eff}}$. The oscillator evolves adiabatically for $J$ small, but its evolution freezes when its period becomes comparable to $\tau_J$, the characteristic time scale for the variation of the Hamiltonian. Therefore, the squeezing error is determined by the wave function’s width in $q$-space at the time when the oscillator freezes; hence,
&&P\_[sq]{}\~( -([constant]{}))\
&&\~( -([constant]{})) \~( -([constant]{})),\
where we obtain the last equality by choosing $\tau_J \sim \sqrt{LC}$ to suppress the diabatic error. Thus the contribution to the gate error due to squeezing is comparable to the other sources of error. We can use a similar argument to conclude that the squeezing error arising as the coupling $J(t)$ turns off is also of the same order.
Simulations {#sec:numerics}
===========
We have compared the predictions from Sec. \[sec:overrotation\] and \[sec:sketch\] to numerical simulations of the single-qubit phase gate $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z)$. We solved the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonians $H_{0,1}$ in Eq. (\[eq:hamiltonian\]), assuming the oscillator starts in the ground state (excited states will be considered in Sec. \[sec:temperature\]). These simulations were done in MATLAB using the fourth-order split-operator method, which is based on the identity $$\begin{aligned}
&e^{i t(A + B)} \nonumber\\
&= e^{i \frac{\gamma}{2} t A} e^{i \gamma t B} e^{i \frac{1-\gamma}{2} t A} e^{i (1-2\gamma) t B} e^{i \frac{1-\gamma}{2} t A} e^{i \gamma t B} e^{i \frac{\gamma}{2} t A} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \mathcal{O}(t^4)
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma = \frac{1}{2 - \sqrt[3]{2}}$, and $A$, $B$ are the portions of the Hamiltonian that are diagonal in the position, momentum eigenbases, respectively. The full time evolution is broken up into many small steps with the Hamiltonian alternating between $A$ and $B$ and the Fourier transform or its inverse applied between successive steps.
We assume that the coupling $\mp J(t) \cos \varphi$ between the oscillator and the 0-$\pi$ qubit turns on with an error-function profile, $$J(t) = J_0 \left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2} \operatorname{erf}(t/\tau_J)\right),$$ and that the coupling turns off after the time delay $\tau\approx L/\pi$ according to the time-reversed function $J(\tau-t)$; the time scale $\tau_J$ for turning the coupling on and off and the time delay $\tau$ were chosen to optimize the gate accuracy. Then we varied the time delay $\tau = \tau_0\left( 1+\varepsilon\right)$, where $\tau_0$ is the optimal value, to study the effect of overrotation/underrotation on the gate accuracy.
![\[fig:diamond-norm\] (Color online) Blue diamonds show on a logarithmic scale the numerically computed diamond-norm deviation from the ideal phase gate, for $\kappa^{-2}=\sqrt{L/C}= 80$, $\Delta^{-2} = \sqrt{J_0 C}=8$, and $\tau_J/C = 80$, as a function of the overrotation parameter $\varepsilon$. The solid green line is the analytic prediction from Eq. (\[eq:overrotation-error-complete\]) for the overrotation error alone. The discrepancy for small $\varepsilon$ arises from corrections due to diabatic transitions and squeezing.](diamond-norm.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:diamond-norm\] shows the results for a series of simulations with $\sqrt{L/C} = 80$, $\sqrt{J_0 C }= 8$ and $\tau_J = \sqrt{LC}$, plotted together with the analytic prediction Eq. (\[eq:overrotation-error-complete\]) arising from the overrotation error alone. For small $\varepsilon$, the gate error is |\_| 2 10\^[-8]{}10 (-), substantially larger than the analytic prediction $|\eta_\varepsilon|\approx 5\times 10^{-10}$, but roughly compatible with our expectations for the scale of the error due to diabatic transitions and squeezing, the dominant errors in this regime, when we choose $\tau_J\approx \sqrt{LC}$. For larger values of $\varepsilon$ the overrotation error dominates and the numerical results agree well with the analytic prediction.
The simulations verify that the protected phase gate is much more robust than an unprotected gate. For an unprotected gate, executed by coupling the 0-$\pi$ qubit to a Josephson junction as described in Sec. \[sec:gate\], achieving a gate error less $10^{-4}$ in the diamond norm requires pulse timing accuracy of order $10^{-4}$. In contrast, for a protected gate with the parameters specified above, 4% accuracy in the pulse timing suffices for achieving a gate error less than $10^{-4}$. When the pulse timing accuracy is better than 1%, the gate error is below $4\times 10^{-8}$.
Nonzero temperature {#sec:temperature}
===================
Our estimate of the intrinsic gate error in Eq. (\[eq:real-eta\]) and Eq. (\[eq:imag-eta\]) applies to any grid-like state of the form Eq. (\[eq:code-in-Q-space\]). In Eq. (\[eq:phase-error-gaussian\]) and Eq. (\[eq:phase-error-imag\]) we treated the specific case of a Gaussian grid state, which is what arises during the execution of the protected phase gate in the case where the initial state $|\psi_{\rm in}\rangle$ of the harmonic oscillator is the ground state. Let us now consider the case where the initial state is excited, as occurs with nonzero probability at any nonzero temperature. To keep things simple, we will ignore the effects of overrotation, setting $\varepsilon = 0$. In that case, ${\rm Im}~\eta_\varepsilon = 0$ because $F_\varepsilon(Q)$ is real, so we only need to worry about the real part of the gate error. In this section we also neglect the corrections due to diabatic transitions and squeezing.
When the coupling to the 0-$\pi$ qubit is turned off, the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian is $$H = \frac{Q^2}{2C} + \frac{\varphi^2}{2L} ,$$ and its ground state $|\psi_0\rangle$ obeys $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \varphi |\psi_0\rangle &=& \left(\frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{C}{L}} \right)^{1/4}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{C}{L}}~\varphi^2}, \nonumber\\
\langle Q|\psi_0\rangle &=& \left(\frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}} \right)^{1/4}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}~Q^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Our estimate diamond norm deviation from the ideal gate becomes $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta(0)| &\approx& 4\int_{1/2}^{\infty}dQ ~|\langle Q|\psi_0\rangle|^2\nonumber\\
&=& 4 \left(\frac{1}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}} \right)^{1/2}\int_{1/2}^\infty dQ ~e^{-\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}~Q^2}\nonumber\\
&\approx& \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}\left(\frac{L}{C}\right)^{-1/4} e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Numerically, we have, [*e.g.*]{}, $|\eta(0)| \approx 1.6 \times 10^{-5}$ for $\sqrt{L/C} = 40$ and $|\eta(0)| \approx 5.2 \times 10^{-10}$ for $\sqrt{L/C} = 80$.
The oscillator’s $n$th excited state is $$|\psi_n\rangle = \frac{\left(a^\dagger\right)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|\psi_0\rangle,$$ where $$a^\dagger = \left(\frac{C}{4L}\right)^{1/4}\varphi - i \left(\frac{L}{4C}\right)^{1/4} Q,$$ which becomes $$a^\dagger = i\left(\frac{C}{4L}\right)^{1/4}\frac{d}{dQ} - i \left(\frac{L}{4C}\right)^{1/4} Q$$ in the $Q$ representation. Therefore, the $n$th harmonic oscillator excited state can be expressed in $Q$ space as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle Q|\psi_n\rangle = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}\left(-\left(\tfrac{C}{4L}\right)^{1/4}\tfrac{d}{dQ} + \left(\tfrac{L}{4C}\right)^{1/4} Q\right)^n \langle Q|\psi_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&&= \tfrac{2^{n/2}\pi^{-1/4}}{\sqrt{n!}} \left( \sqrt{\tfrac{L}{C}}~\right)^{\frac{n}{2} + \frac{1}{4}}\left(Q^n+ \cdots\right)e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}~Q^2},\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we have retained only the leading power of $Q$ in the prefactor of the exponential. To estimate the probability of a logical phase error, we assume that this leading power dominates, and we also use the leading term in the asymptotic expansion $$\int_x^\infty dt~ t^{2n} e^{-\alpha t^2} = \left(\frac{x^{2n-1}}{2\alpha }\right)e^{-\alpha x^2}\left(1-O(1/x^2)\right)$$ to calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phase-error-excited}
|\eta(n)| &\approx& 4\int_{1/2}^{\infty}dQ ~|\langle Q|\psi_n\rangle|^2\nonumber\\
&\approx&
\tfrac{2^{n+2}}{n!\sqrt{\pi}} \left( \frac{L}{C}\right)^{\frac{n}{2} + \frac{1}{4}}\int_{1/2}^\infty dQ ~Q^{2n}e^{-\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}~Q^2}\nonumber\\
&\approx &
\tfrac{1}{2^{n-2}n!\sqrt{\pi}} \left( \frac{L}{C}\right)^{\frac{n}{2} - \frac{1}{4}}e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}}\nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2^{n}n!} \left(\frac{L}{C}\right)^{n/2}|\eta(0)|.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for example, the intrinsic gate error for the first excited ($n=1$) state is enhanced relative to the ground state by the factor $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{L/C}$. This approximation is applicable when $n$ is not too large, so that the leading power of $Q$ dominates the prefactor of the exponential in the tail of the wave function at $|Q| > 1/2$; in particular we require that $$\langle Q^2\rangle_n = n \langle Q^2\rangle_0 = \frac{n}{2}\left(\frac{L}{C}\right)^{-1/2} \ll \frac{1}{2},$$ or $$n \ll \sqrt{L/C}.$$
The energy of the $n$th oscillator state is $E_n = n/\sqrt{LC}$; therefore, in the thermal ensemble with inverse temperature $\beta$, the probability that the oscillator is in the $n$th state is $$P_n = \left(1-e^{-\beta/\sqrt{LC}}\right)e^{-n\beta/\sqrt{LC}}.$$ Thus, if the oscillator is in a thermal state, while the intrinsic phase error probability for the $n$th state is enhanced by the factor $(L/C)^{n/2}/2^{n}n!$, it is also suppressed by the Boltzmann factor $e^{-n\beta/\sqrt{LC}}$. Summing up the error probabilities for all oscillator states, with the appropriate Boltzmann weights, we find
$$\begin{aligned}
|\eta(\beta)|=\left(1-e^{-\beta/\sqrt{LC}}\right)\sum_{n=0}^\infty e^{-n\beta/\sqrt{LC}}~|\eta(n)|
&\approx&
\left(1-e^{-\beta/\sqrt{LC}}\right)|\eta(0)|\sum_{n=0}^\infty e^{-n\beta/\sqrt{LC}}~\frac{1}{2^{n}n!} \left(\frac{L}{C}\right)^{n/2}\nonumber\\
&=& \left(1-e^{-\beta/\sqrt{LC}}\right)\exp\left( \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}~e^{-\beta/\sqrt{LC}}\right)|\eta(0)|;\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
the real part of $\eta$ (and in the case we are considering there is no imaginary part) is essentially the probability of a logical phase error in the grid state, and hence to compute the gate error we need only compute this logical error probability for the thermal ensemble. Thus, the error at finite temperature is comparable to the zero-temperature error, provided that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{\frac{L}{C}}~e^{-\beta/\sqrt{LC}} \ll 1.\end{aligned}$$ If, for example, $\beta/\sqrt{LC}\approx 3$, then compared to the zero-temperature case, thermal effects enhance the phase error probability by the factor $2.6$ for $\sqrt{L/C}=40$ and $7.0$ for $\sqrt{L/C}=80$. We expect, then, that the protected phase gate remains reasonably robust provided the temperature is smaller than or comparable to the frequency of the superinductive $LC$ circuit.
Numerical results, plotted in Fig. \[fig:diamond-norm-vs-n\], show that the gate performance remains robust for excited eigenstates. In addition to the enhancement of the intrinsic phase error predicted by Eq. (\[eq:phase-error-excited\]), there is also a contribution to the gate error arising from diabatic transitions and squeezing, which becomes less important for more highly excited eigenstates.
![\[fig:diamond-norm-vs-n\] (Color online) The minimum diamond-norm deviation of the protected phase gate from the ideal gate, as a function of the initial oscillator eigenstate $n$, for $\sqrt{L/C} = 80$ and $\sqrt{J_0C}= 8$. Results from numerical simulations are shown in blue, and the analytic prediction Eq. (\[eq:phase-error-excited\]) is shown in red. The discrepancy arises from corrections due to diabatic effects and squeezing, which are neglected in the derivation of Eq. (\[eq:phase-error-excited\]).](diamond-n.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Up until now we have addressed how the accuracy of the phase gate is affected if, due to thermal fluctuations, the [*initial*]{} state of the $LC$ oscillator is not the ground state, but we have not considered thermally excited transitions that might occur while the qubit and oscillator are coupled [*during*]{} the execution of the gate. A thermally activated transition between bands, like a diabatic transition, could flip the value of $\bar X = (-1)^{[Q]}$ and cause the gate to fail. But as in Sec. \[sec:diabatic\], the relevant band gap is of order $1/C$, so such transitions are suppressed by a Boltzmann factor P\_[thermal]{}() &=& (-O())\
&=& (-O()), exponentially small in $\sqrt{L/C}$ if $\beta/\sqrt{LC} = O(1)$. On the other hand, spontaneous decay of the oscillator during the execution of the gate is not likely to flip the value of $\bar X$, and hence has little impact on the gate accuracy.
Perturbative stability {#sec:anharmonic}
======================
Aside from its stability with respect to pulse timing errors and thermal effects, we also expect the protected phase gate to be robust against small deformations in the Hamiltonian of the $LC$ oscillator and of the switch coupling the oscillator to the qubit. Suppose for example that the oscillator’s potential energy $V$ includes a small anharmonic term so that V = + \^4. Over time $t$, the effect of the anharmonic term on the charge $Q$ is e\^[-i\^4 t]{} Q e\^[i\^4 t]{} = Q + 4t \^3; thus the charge spreads by an amount Q 4t \^6\^[1/2]{} = 4t \^2\^[3/2]{}. Comparing to the contribution in Eq. (\[eq:delta-Q-epsilon\]) to $\delta Q$ arising from overrotating the gate, and choosing $t \approx L/\pi$, we see that the effect of the anharmonic term is roughly comparable to the effect of an overrotation error 4 L \^2= 2 L 7.75, where $\alpha \equiv \lambda L\sqrt{L/C}$ is a dimensionless parameter characterizing the strength of the anharmonic correction. For $\sqrt{L/C} = 80$ and $\sqrt{J_0C}=8$ as in Sec. \[sec:numerics\], numerical results plotted in Fig. \[fig:diamond-norm-vs-alpha\] confirm that the gate accuracy is not much affected by the anharmonic term for $\alpha \lesssim 10^{-3}$, as expected. In these simulations, we assumed that the initial state of the oscillator is the ground state of the unperturbed oscillator Hamiltonian, which for $\alpha$ small has a large overlap with the ground state of the perturbed Hamiltonian.
![\[fig:diamond-norm-vs-alpha\] The minimum diamond-norm deviation of the protected phase gate from the ideal gate, as a function of the oscillator’s anharmonicity parameter $\alpha = \lambda L\sqrt{L/C}$. Here, as in Fig. \[fig:diamond-norm\], $\sqrt{L/C} = 80$ and $\sqrt{J_0C}= 8$.](diamond-alpha.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The Josephson coupling between the 0-$\pi$ qubit and the oscillator is a periodic function of $\varphi$ with period $2\pi$, but need not be a pure cosine potential. If we include a next-to-leading harmonic correction, the time-dependent Hamiltonian has the form $$\label{eq:beta-pert}
H_{0,1}(t) = \frac{Q^2}{2C} + \frac{\varphi^2}{2L} \mp f(t) J_0\left[ \cos\varphi \pm \beta \cos 2\varphi \right],$$ where $f(t)$ varies between $0$ and $1$ as the coupling turns on or off, and $\beta$ is a dimensionless parameter characterizing the strength of the perturbation. (Note that shifting $\varphi$ by $\pi$ changes the sign of $\cos\varphi$ but not the sign of $\cos 2\varphi $.) For $\sqrt{J_0C} \gg 1$ and $\beta \ll 1$, we expect the wave function to be well localized near even or odd integer multiples of $\pi$ in $\varphi$ space (depending on whether the Hamiltonian is $H_0$ or $H_1$) while the coupling is turned on; hence it should be a good approximation to expand the potential in a power series about these local minima, and therefore the perturbation is roughly equivalent to rescaling $J_0$ according to J\_0J\_0(1+ 4). The precise value of $J_0$ does not strongly influence the phase error probability, as long as it is large enough to allow discrete peaks to form in $\varphi$ space ([*i.e.*]{}, to strongly suppress phase slips); it instead determines the probability of an intrinsic bit flip error, as in Eq. (\[eq:bit-flip-error\]).
Numerical simulations confirm that the phase gate accuracy is insensitive to the perturbation in Eq. (\[eq:beta-pert\]) when $\beta$ is small. For $\sqrt{L/C} = 80$ and $\sqrt{J_0 C}=8$, we find that the effect on the gate error is negligible for $| \beta | \lesssim 0.05$.
Universality {#sec:universal}
============
We have focused so far on performing the single-qubit gate $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z)$ and the two-qubit gate $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z\otimes Z)$; in principle these can be executed with very high fidelity by coupling a 0-$\pi$ qubit or a pair of such qubits to a superinductive $LC$ circuit. But unfortunately these gates are not adequate by themselves for universal quantum computing.
One way to obtain a universal gate set is to augment these gates by the following operations [@Kitaev2006]: (1) Preparation of the single-qubit states $|0\rangle$ and $|+\rangle$ (the $Z=1$ and $X=1$ eigenstates). (2) Measurement of the single-qubit Pauli operators $Z$ and $X$. (3) The single-qubit gate $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{8}Z)$. (In fact (1) need not be regarded as independent of (2), since repeated noncommuting measurements can be used to achieve the state preparation, but we list these operations separately for clarity and completeness.)
The operation $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{8}Z)$ could be executed by coupling the 0-$\pi$ qubit to a Josephson junction for a specified time, as in Fig. \[fig:unprotected\]. This unprotected gate might be fairly noisy. However, if all the other operations in the universal set were perfect, then scalable quantum computing would be possible provided the noisy $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{8}Z)$ gate meets the loose fidelity criterion $F > .93$ [@BravyiKitaev2005]. Therefore if the gates $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z)$ and $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z\otimes Z)$ are well protected, it follows that highly reliable universal quantum computation can be achieved provided that the measurements, like these gates, have a very low error rate.
In practice, the measurements are likely to be noisy. However, if they can be performed nondestructively (with only a very low probability of changing the eigenvalue of measured operator), then they can be repeated multiple times to improve reliability.
We note that the [cphase]{} gate, the two-qubit gate, diagonal in the computational basis, with eigenvalues $\{1,1,1,-1\}$, can be constructed from protected gates using the decomposition && = (i(Z-I)(Z-I))\
&& = (iZZ)(-iZI)(-iIZ)\
(up to an overall phase). One way to perform a nondestructive measurement of $Z$ is to use the property : &|0|+|0|+,\
&|1|+|1|-; we may apply [cphase]{} to the target qubit (the one to be measured) and an ancilla qubit prepared in the state $|+\rangle$, then perform $X$ measurement on the ancilla qubit. If the [cphase]{} gate is not likely to induce a bit flip on the target qubit, this procedure can be repeated many times, then the measurement result determined by a majority vote of the outcomes.
If we are limited to using our protected gates, we cannot use the same trick to amplify an $X$ measurement. Perhaps the charge measurement described in Sec. \[sec:qubit\], though the outcome is noisy, can be done fault tolerantly, meaning that measurement procedure is not likely to flip the eigenvalue of $X$. In that case, amplification by repetition and majority voting will work. Otherwise, there are alternative ways to boost the measurement accuracy, using repetition coding.
For example, Ref. [@AliferisPreskill2008; @Aliferis2009; @Brooks2012] describes a scheme for universal fault-tolerant quantum computing built from the [cphase]{} gate, $|+\rangle$ preparation, $X$ measurement, and, in addition, preparation of the single-qubit states |[-]{}i&=& (|0-i |1),\
|e\^[-i/4]{}&=& (|0+e\^[-i/4]{} |1),which can be achieved by applying $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z)$ or $\exp(i\frac{\pi}{8}Z)$ to $|+\rangle$. The main point of [@AliferisPreskill2008; @Aliferis2009; @Brooks2012] is that this scheme works effectively when the noise in the [cphase]{} gate is highly biased, [*i.e.*]{}, when $Z$ errors are much more common than $X$ errors. The point we wish to emphasize here is that the scheme remains effective when the $X$ measurement error rate is much higher than the [cphase]{} gate error rate.
The crucial element of the construction in [@AliferisPreskill2008; @Aliferis2009] is a “teleported” encoded [cnot]{} gate acting on blocks of a repetition code, shown in Fig. \[fig:cnot\]. (In [@Brooks2012] this construction is extended to Bacon-Shor codes.) The probability of a logical error in the [cnot]{} gate can be bounded above as [@AliferisPreskill2008] &&\_ 4[n ]{}(3n\_g+2\_m)\^[(n+1)/2]{} +7n\^2\_g’\
&& ( 12 n\_g + 8 \_m)\^[(n+1)/2]{}+7n\^2\_g’, where $\varepsilon_g$ is the probability of a dephasing error and $\varepsilon_g'$ is the probability of a bit flip error in the [cphase]{} gate, and $\varepsilon_m$ is the error probability in a $|+\rangle$ preparation or an $X$ measurement. Here $n$ is the length of the repetition code, and we assume that each measurement is repeated $n$ times; the prefactor of 4 arises because the [cnot]{} gadget contains four measurements decoded by majority vote, any of which might fail, and the factor $3n\varepsilon_g+2\varepsilon_m$ is an upper bound on the probability of error for each bit in each decoded block, neglecting the bit flip errors. (The second inequality is obtained from the Stirling approximation.) The term $7n^2\varepsilon_g'$ is an upper bound on the probability that one or more [cphase]{} gates in the [cnot]{} gadget have bit flip errors.
Just to illustrate the robustness of the [cnot]{} gadget with respect to measurement and preparation errors (assuming bit flips are highly suppressed), note that for $\varepsilon_m = .01$, $\varepsilon_g = 10^{-5}$, and $\varepsilon_g'= 10^{-9}$, by choosing $n=11$ we find $\varepsilon_{\rm CNOT} < 10^{-6}$. The analysis in [@AliferisPreskill2008] then shows that, by applying the state distillation ideas from [@BravyiKitaev2005], scalable quantum computing can achieved by augmenting the CNOT gadget with $|-i\rangle$ and $|e^{-i\pi/4}\rangle$ preparations having the relatively high error rate $\varepsilon_m$. This example indicates one possible way in which noisy measurements can be tolerated if appropriate gates are highly reliable.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
A “0-$\pi$ qubit,” is a two-lead superconducting device whose energy is minimized when the superconducting phase difference between the leads is either 0 or $\pi$. This qubit, if properly designed, can be very robust with respect to weak local noise [@DoucotVidal2002; @IoffeFeigelman2002; @Kitaev2006]. In this paper, we have taken it for granted that near-perfect 0-$\pi$ qubits are attainable, and have asked whether quantum information encoded in such qubits can be processed fault tolerantly. Our conclusion, fleshing out a suggestion in [@Kitaev2006], is that highly accurate nontrivial quantum gates can be executed by coupling one or two qubits to a superconducting $LC$ oscillator with very large inductance. In principle the gate error becomes exponentially small when $\sqrt{L/C}$ is large compared to $\hbar/4e^2 \approx 1.03 ~ k\Omega$, where $L$ is the inductance and $C$ is the capacitance of the oscillator.
We have estimated the gate accuracy using both analytic arguments and numerical simulations. The analytic arguments use approximations, in particular for the analysis of errors due to diabatic transitions and squeezing, that are validated by the simulations. The point of the simulations is not necessarily to capture fully the behavior of realistic devices, but rather to verify that the analytic arguments are on solid ground. The analysis applies to any sufficiently robust 0-$\pi$ qubit, regardless of its internal structure.
The protected gates are the single-qubit phase gate $\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z \right)$ and the two-qubit phase gate $\exp\left(i\frac{\pi}{4}Z\otimes Z \right)$. In both cases, the oscillator starts out in a low-lying energy state; then turning on a tunable Josephson coupling between the qubit(s) and the oscillator prepares a state of the oscillator protected by a continuous variable quantum error-correcting code. The coupling is kept on for a specified time, during which the code state acquires a nontrivial Berry phase, inducing a nontrivial encoded operation, with error probability exponentially small in $\sqrt{L/C}$. Then the coupling turns off, returning the oscillator to a low-lying state slightly different from the initial one.
The ramping of the coupling on and off takes place over a time scale $\tau_J = O(\sqrt{LC})$, chosen to achieve an optimal compromise between errors due to diabatic transitions (which favor large $\tau_J$) and errors due to squeezing (which favor small $\tau_J$). The gates are robust against generic small errors in the Hamiltonian and thermal effects, due to the good error-correcting properties of the quantum code. Entropy due to noise is mostly absorbed by the oscillator, inflicting little damage on the 0-$\pi$ qubit. These protected phase gates are not a universal gate set by themselves, but a universal fault-tolerant scheme can be built from the protected gates together with single-qubit measurements and noisy unprotected phase gates.
We do not know whether a very robust 0-$\pi$ qubit, and/or the superinductive $LC$ circuit needed for protected phase gates, will prove to be feasible in superconducting devices. We hope that other settings will be found in which highly reliable quantum gates can be realized by using tunable couplings between qubits and oscillators.
We thank David DiVincenzo for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior National Business Center contract number D11PC20165. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of IARPA, DoI/NBC or the U.S. Government. We also acknowledge support from NSF grant PHY-0803371, DOE grant DE-FG03-92-ER40701, and NSA/ARO grant W911NF-09-1-0442. The Institute for Quantum Information and Matter (IQIM) is an NSF Physics Frontiers Center with support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Adiabatic switch {#app:switch}
================
Here we describe the static properties of a single rung of the two-rung circuit depicted in Fig. \[fig:four-leads\]. This single-rung circuit is of independent interest; because it’s effective Josephson energy depends sensitively on circuit parameters, it can serve as an “adiabatic switch” which turns on and off the coupling between superconducting qubits.
![\[fig:LJC\] Adiabatic switch. For $\sqrt{L/C} \gg 1$, the effective Josephson energy $J_{\rm eff}$ of the switch is depends sensitively on circuit parameters.](LJC.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
The circuit shown in Fig. \[fig:LJC\] is described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:CLJ}
H=\frac{Q^{2}}{2C}+\frac{\varphi^{2}}{2L}-J\cos(\varphi-\theta),\quad
\text{where}\quad Q=-i\frac{\partial}{\partial\varphi}.$$ The dynamical variable is the superconducting phase $\varphi$ at the indicated point, and the phase difference $\theta$ between the leads is fixed; $Q$ is the electric charge operator in units of $2e$. While $\theta$ is defined modulo $2\pi$, the variable $\varphi$ is a real number because the states $|\varphi\rangle$ and $|\varphi+2\pi\rangle$ differ by the phase winding in the inductor. We choose units such that $\hbar=1$ and express the capacitance and inductance in rationalized units such that $C^{-1}$ and $L^{-1}$ have dimensions of energy (or inverse time). Specifically, $$C=\frac{C_{{\text{conv}}}}{(2e)^2},\qquad\quad
L=\frac{L_{{\text{conv}}}}{(\hbar/2e)^2},$$ where the subscript “conv” refers to conventional units. We can also relate the parameters $J$, $C$ to the commonly used charging energy $E_C$ and Josephson energy $E_J$: $$E_C=\frac{e^2}{2C_{{\text{conv}}}}=\frac{1}{8C},\qquad\quad
E_J=J_{{\text{conv}}}=J.$$ In the main text of the paper we have studied this same Hamiltonian, where $\theta=0$ or $\pi$ and $J$ pulses on and off during the execution of a quantum gate. But here we focus on the case where $J$ is time independent.
In the d.c. regime, the whole device behaves like an effective Josephson element — its ground state energy $E(\theta)$ depends on the phase difference $\theta$ between the leads. The effective Josephson energy can be characterized by $$J_{{\text{eff}}}=E''(0)=\left.\frac{\partial^{2}E}{\partial\theta^2}\right|_{\theta=0}.$$ We will see that this number varies by orders of magnitude when the circuit parameters change in a much narrower range.
Suppose that $C$ and $L$ are fixed, while $J$ may vary from very small to very large values. In the limit $J\to 0$, we may treat the Josephson energy as a small perturbation of the $LC$ oscillator, obtaining $$E(\theta)=-J_{{\text{eff}}}\cos\theta+{\mathrm{const}},$$ where $$\label{eq:cosPhi}
J_{{\text{eff}}}=J\langle\cos\varphi\rangle,
=Je^{-\langle\varphi^2\rangle/2}=J\exp\left(-\tfrac{1}{4}\sqrt{L/C}\right).$$ In the opposite limit $J\to\infty$, the dynamical phase is locked: $\varphi\equiv\theta\pmod{2\pi}$, and therefore $$E(\theta)=\min_{n}\frac{(\theta+2\pi n)^2}{2L}+{\mathrm{const}},\quad
J_{{\text{eff}}}=L^{-1}.$$ If $L$ is large, the effective Josephson coupling is suppressed in both limits, but the suppression is exponential only in the limit $J\to 0$.
We say that the circuit is superinducting if the dimensionless characteristic impedance is large, or equivalently if the impedance in conventional units is large compared to the superconducting impedance quantum $R_Q = \hbar/(2e)^2\approx 1.03\,\mathrm{k\Omega}$. Reaching this superinducting regime is a significant engineering challenge, quite hard to achieve using geometric inductance (except perhaps by constructing a coil with a very large number of turns). Indeed, the inductance of a loop of wire is accompanied by a parasitic capacitance such that $\sqrt{L_{{\text{conv}}}/C_{{\text{conv}}}}\sim 4\pi/c\approx 377\,\Omega$ (where $c$ is the speed of light). This is the impedance of the free space, smaller than $R_Q$ by the factor $16\pi\alpha$ where $\alpha = e^2/\hbar c \approx 1/137$ is the fine structure constant. One possible way to realize a superinductor is to build a long chain of Josephson junctions [@Devoret2009; @Masluk2012; @Gershenson2012]. Another is to use a long wire, thick enough to suppress phase slips, built from a material with large kinetic inductance.
In the case where $\sqrt{L/C}\gg 1$, we can compute the ground state energy of the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:CLJ\]) semi-analytically. First we note that in the limit $L\to \infty$ the problem reduces to particle moving in a periodic potential: $$\label{eq:CJ}
H'=\frac{Q^{2}}{2C}-J\cos\widetilde{\varphi},\qquad
\text{where}\quad \widetilde{\varphi}=\varphi-\theta.$$ This approximate Hamiltonian $H'$ preserves the quasimomentum $q=Q\bmod 1$, and therefore can be solved using Bloch wave functions. In the lowest Bloch band, the energy can be expressed as a function of the quasimomentum $q\in \left[-\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2}\right]$ in two different limits: $$\begin{aligned}
&JC\ll 1: &&
{\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(q)=\frac{q^2}{2C},\\
&JC\gg 1: &&
{\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(q)=-J+\frac{\omega}{2}-2\lambda\cos(2\pi q),
\label{eq:tunamp}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tunnel-amp}
\omega=\sqrt{J/C},\quad
\lambda=\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}\,J^{3/4}C^{-1/4}\,e^{-8\sqrt{JC}}.\end{aligned}$$ In the case $JC\gg 1$, the system stays near a minimum of the cosine potential at $\widetilde{\varphi}=2\pi n$ and occasionally tunnels to an adjacent minimum through the potential barrier. In Eq. (\[eq:tunnel-amp\]), $\omega$ is the angular frequency for small oscillations about the potential minimum, and $\lambda$ is the amplitude tunneling amplitude.
To compute $\lambda$ we recall the semiclassical analysis [@Coleman] for a particle of mass $m$ tunneling through a symmetric double-well potential $V(x)$ with minima at $x=a,b$, which yields $$\label{eq:tungen}
\lambda=\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-S+\omega\tau/2},$$ where $$S=\int_{a}^{b}dx\sqrt{2mV(x)},\quad
\tau=\int_{a+\Delta x}^{b-\Delta x}dx\sqrt{\frac{m}{2V(x)}};$$ here $\omega=\sqrt{V''(a)/m}$ and $\Delta x=(V''(a)\,m)^{-1/4}$ is the width of the ground state localized around the potential minimum. We obtain Eq. (\[eq:tunamp\]) using $m=C$ and $V(\widetilde{\varphi})=J(1-\cos\widetilde{\varphi})$.
Defining the effective capacitance $C_{\rm eff}$ by $$\frac{1}{C_{{\text{eff}}}}={\mathcal{\varepsilon}}''(0),$$ we obtain from Eq. (\[eq:tunamp\],\[eq:tunnel-amp\]) the asymptotic values $$\frac{C}{C_{{\text{eff}}}}=\left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad}l}
1, &\text{if } JC\ll 1,\\
32\pi^{3/2}(JC)^{3/4}e^{-8\sqrt{JC}}, &\text{if } JC\gg 1.
\end{array}\right.$$ The numerically computed value of $C_{\rm eff}$ as a function of $JC$ is plotted in Fig. \[fig:Ceff\].
![\[fig:Ceff\] (Color online) The inverse effective capacitance of a Josephson junction as a function of $JC$.](Ceff.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Now we return to the original Hamiltonian $H$ in Eq. (\[eq:CLJ\]). For small but nonzero $L^{-1}$. the quasimomentum $q$, though not exactly conserved, is a slow variable which can be treated using the adiabatic approximation. We obtain the effective Hamiltonian $$H_{{\text{eff}}}=\frac{\varphi^2}{2L}+{\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(q),\qquad
\text{where}\quad \varphi=i\frac{\partial}{\partial q}+\theta.$$ This problem is similar to the one we have just solved, Eq. (\[eq:CJ\]); now the variable $q$ is periodic (defined modulo $1$), and the parameter $\theta$ plays the role of quasimomentum.
If $\sqrt{L/C_{{\text{eff}}}}\gg 1$, [*i.e.*]{} $JC\ll\ln(L/C)$, the ground state energy is given by the formula $E(\theta)=-J_{{\text{eff}}}\cos\theta+{\mathrm{const}}$, where $J_{{\text{eff}}}$ is twice the tunneling amplitude. This expression is analogous to Eq. (\[eq:tunamp\]), except that now we consider tunneling through the periodic “potential” ${\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(q)$ from an integer value of $q$ to an adjacent integer value. From Eq. (\[eq:tungen\]) we find $$\label{eq:Jeff-tunnel}
J_{{\text{eff}}}=\nu\,C_{{\text{eff}}}^{-3/4}L^{-1/4} \exp\left(-\mu\sqrt{L/C_{{\text{eff}}}}\right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mu&=2\int_{0}^{1/2}\sqrt{2C_{{\text{eff}}}\bigl({\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(q)-{\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(0)\bigr)}\,dq,\\
\nu&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\,\exp\left(\int_{0}^{1/2}
\Bigl(\bigl(2C_{{\text{eff}}}\bigl({\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(q)-{\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(0)\bigr)\bigr)^{-1/2}
-q^{-1}\Bigr)dq\right).\end{aligned}$$ The parameters $\mu$ and $\nu$ are numbers of order $1$: As $JC$ increases from zero to infinity, $\mu$ changes from $1/4=0.25$ to $2/\pi^2\approx 0.2026$, and $\nu$ changes from $1/\sqrt{\pi}\approx 0.564$ to $4/\pi^{3/2}\approx 0.718$.
For Eq. (\[eq:Jeff-tunnel\]) to apply we also need that $J$ not be too small: $JC\gg(L/C)^{-1/4}$. For smaller $J$, the adiabatic approximation breaks down near the point $q=\pm 1/2$ where two branches of the parabola ${\mathcal{\varepsilon}}(q)=q^2/(2C)$ meet each other. However, the exponential factor $e^{-S}$ is still correct and coincides with $\langle\cos\varphi\rangle$ from Eq. (\[eq:cosPhi\]).
To summarize, we have calculated the effective Josephson coupling in three different regimes, finding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Jeff_smallJ}
JC&\ll(L/C)^{-1/4}:\nonumber\\
&
J_{{\text{eff}}}=J\exp\left(-\tfrac{1}{4}\sqrt{L/C}\right),&&\\[3pt]
\label{eq:Jeff_mediumJ}
(L/C)^{-1/4}&\ll JC\ll\ln(L/C):\nonumber\\
&
J_{{\text{eff}}}=\nu\,C_{{\text{eff}}}^{-3/4}L^{-1/4}
\exp\left(-\mu\sqrt{L/C_{{\text{eff}}}}\right),&&\\[3pt]
\label{eq:Jeff_largeJ}
JC&\gg\ln(L/C):\nonumber\\
&
J_{{\text{eff}}}=L^{-1}.&&\end{aligned}$$ The numerical results for $\sqrt{L/C}=40$, together with plots of Eqs. (\[eq:Jeff\_smallJ\]–\[eq:Jeff\_largeJ\]), are shown in Figure \[fig:Jeff\].
![\[fig:Jeff\] (Color online) The effective Josephson parameter of the adiabatic switch as a function of $JC$ for $\sqrt{L/C}=40$.](Jeff.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Quantifying the gate error {#app:error}
==========================
The protected phase gate is executed by coupling the qubit to an oscillator for a prescribed time interval. We assume that the initial state of qubit and oscillator is a product state $|\psi\rangle\otimes |\psi_{\rm in}\rangle$, where $|\psi\rangle = a|0\rangle + i b|1\rangle$ is the initial (normalized) state of the qubit and $|\psi_{\rm init}\rangle$ is the initial state of the oscillator. After the coupling between qubit and oscillator is switched off, the joint state of qubit and oscillator becomes $$|\psi'\rangle =a|0\rangle\otimes|\psi_0\rangle +b|1\rangle\otimes |\psi_1\rangle,$$ where $\langle\psi_0|\psi_0\rangle = \langle\psi_1|\psi_1\rangle=1$. We assume that there are no bit flip errors, but there may be a phase error. If the gate is ideal, then $\langle \psi_0|\psi_1\rangle=1$, and the gate rotates the phase of $|1\rangle$ by the angle $-\pi/2$ relative to the phase of $|0\rangle$. We wish to quantify the error, using some appropriate measure of the deviation of $\langle \psi_0|\psi_1\rangle$ from 1.
Fidelity
--------
One way to quantify the error is to use the fidelity of the actual state with the ideal state. Tracing out the oscillator, we obtain the final density operator for the qubit $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &=& {\rm tr}_{\rm osc}|\psi'\rangle\langle\psi'|
= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\langle\psi_0|\psi_0\rangle |a|^2 & \langle\psi_1|\psi_0\rangle ab^* \\
\langle\psi_0|\psi_1\rangle a^*b & \langle\psi_1|\psi_1\rangle |b|^2 \end{array} \right)\nonumber\\
&=& \left( \begin{array}{cc}
|a|^2 & Ce^{-i\phi}ab^* \\
Ce^{i\phi}a^*b & |b|^2 \end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\langle\psi_0|\psi_1\rangle = Ce^{i\phi},$$ and $C=|\langle\psi_0|\psi_1\rangle|$ is real and nonnegative. The fidelity $F$ with the ideal state $|\psi_{\rm ideal}\rangle = a|0\rangle + b|1\rangle$ is $$\begin{aligned}
F &=& \langle \psi_{\rm ideal}|\rho|\psi_{\rm ideal}\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& |a|^4 +|a|^2|b|^2\left(Ce^{i\phi} + Ce^{-i\phi}\right)+|b|^4\nonumber\\
&=&\left(|a|^2+|b|^2\right)^2 -2\left(1-C\cos\phi\right)|a|^2|b|^2\end{aligned}$$ Thus the “infidelity” (the deviation of $F$ from 1) is maximal when $|a|^2=|b|^2=1/2$, and we conclude that $$1-F \le \frac{1}{2}\left(1-C\cos\phi\right).$$ Denoting $\delta = 1-C$, we have $$1-F\approx \frac{1}{2}\delta + \frac{1}{4}\phi^2.$$ assuming $\delta,\phi \ll 1$.
Trace norm
----------
Another useful measure is the deviation of $\rho$ from the ideal density operator $\rho_{\rm ideal}=|\psi_{\rm ideal}\rangle\langle \psi_{\rm ideal}|$ in the trace norm. We see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rho-rho-ideal}
\rho_{\rm ideal} -\rho
= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \left(1-Ce^{-i\phi}\right)ab^* \\
\left(1-Ce^{i\phi}\right) a^*b & 0 \end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ whose eigenvalues $$\pm ~|a|~|b|~\sqrt{1+C^2-2C\cos\phi}$$ have maximal absolute value for $|a|=|b| = 1/\sqrt{2}$. Hence the trace norm satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\|\rho_{\rm ideal} -\rho \|_1 &\le& \sqrt{1+C^2-2C\cos\phi}\nonumber\\
&=&\left| 1-\langle\psi_0|\psi_1\rangle\right|.\end{aligned}$$ Denoting $\delta=1-C$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\rho_{\rm ideal} -\rho \|_1 &\le& \sqrt{(1-C)^2+2C(1-\cos\phi)}\nonumber\\
&\approx& \sqrt{\delta^2 +\phi^2},\end{aligned}$$ assuming $\delta,\phi \ll 1$.
Kraus operators
---------------
It is also useful to have a Kraus operator decomposition of the noise process. We may define states $|\psi_0'\rangle$ and $|\psi_1'\rangle$ such that $$|\psi_0\rangle = e^{-i\phi/2}|\psi_0'\rangle,\quad |\psi_1\rangle = e^{i\phi/2}|\psi_1'\rangle$$ and therefore $$\langle\psi_0'|\psi_1'\rangle =C \ge 0.$$ In terms of these states, $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi'\rangle &=&a|0\rangle\otimes|\psi_0\rangle +b|1\rangle\otimes |\psi_1\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& \left(e^{-i\phi/2}a|0\rangle +be^{i\phi/2}|1\rangle\right)\otimes \frac{1}{2}\left(|\psi_0'\rangle + |\psi_1'\rangle\right) \nonumber\\
&+& \left(e^{-i\phi/2}a|0\rangle -be^{i\phi/2}|1\rangle\right)\otimes \frac{1}{2}\left(|\psi_0'\rangle -|\psi_1'\rangle\right),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\|\frac{1}{2}\left(|\psi_0'\rangle \pm |\psi_1'\rangle\right)\right\|=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(1\pm C)},\nonumber\\
&&\left(\langle \psi_0'| + \langle\psi_1'|\right)\left(|\psi_0'\rangle - |\psi_1'\rangle\right)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cal-N-define}
\rho = {\cal N}(\rho_{\rm ideal})=M_0\rho_{\rm ideal}M_0^\dagger + M_1\rho_{\rm ideal}M_1^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M_0 &=& \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(1+C)}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
e^{-i\phi/2} & 0 \\
0 & e^{i\phi/2} \end{array} \right), \nonumber\\
M_1 &=& \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(1-C)}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
e^{-i\phi/2} & 0 \\
0 & -e^{i\phi/2} \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have rotated away the ideal phase gate in our definition of the noise operation ${\cal N}$, so that ${\cal N}=I$ corresponds to the ideal gate.
Diamond norm
------------
In some versions of the quantum accuracy threshold theorem, the strength of Markovian noise is characterized by the deviation $$\varepsilon = \| {\cal N}- U\|_\diamond .$$ of a noisy gate ${\cal N}$ from the corresponding ideal gate $U$ in the “diamond norm” [@KitaevDiamond]. The advantage of the diamond norm is that it quantifies the damage inflicted by an operation that acts on a subsystem that might be entangled with a complementary subsystem, [*e.g.*]{}, a noisy gate acting on a qubit or pair of qubits that is entangled with the rest of the qubits in a quantum computer. The diamond norm $\|{\cal E}\|_\diamond$ is defined as the $L^1$ norm of the extended operator ${\cal E} \otimes I$; that is $$\|{\cal E}\|_\diamond = \max_\sigma \|{\cal E}\otimes I(\sigma)\|_1.$$ If ${\cal E}$ acts on a Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ of dimension $d$, then $I$ denotes the identity operator acting on another Hilbert space ${\cal H}'$ of dimension $d$, and $\sigma$ is a state on ${\cal H}\otimes{\cal H}'$.
For the operation defined by Eq. (\[eq:cal-N-define\]), the two-qubit state $\sigma$ that maximizes the $L^1$ distance between $({\cal N}\otimes I)(\sigma)$ and $\sigma$ is a maximally entangled pure state, which we may choose to be $|\phi^+\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|00\rangle + |11\rangle\right)$. Letting ${\cal N}$ act on the first qubit, we obtain an ensemble of two pure states, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^{-i\phi/2}|00\rangle + e^{i\phi/2} |11\rangle\right), \quad &{\rm prob}=\frac{1}{2}(1+C),\nonumber\\
&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(e^{-i\phi/2}|00\rangle - e^{i\phi/2} |11\rangle\right), \quad &{\rm prob}=\frac{1}{2}(1-C),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ and the density operator can be expressed as a $2\times 2$ matrix acting on the span of $|00\rangle$ and $|11\rangle$:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}\otimes I(|\phi^+\rangle\langle \phi^+|)
= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2}Ce^{-i\phi} \\
\frac{1}{2}Ce^{i\phi} & \frac{1}{2} \end{array} \right),
\quad
({\cal N}\otimes I-I\otimes I)(|\phi^+\rangle\langle \phi^+|)
= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{1}{2}(Ce^{-i\phi} -1)\\
\frac{1}{2}(Ce^{i\phi}-1) & 0 \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$
Comparing with Eq. (\[eq:rho-rho-ideal\]) in the case $a=b=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
&&\|{\cal N}-I\|_\diamond = \max \|\rho_{\rm ideal} -\rho \|_1 \nonumber\\
&&= \sqrt{1+C^2-2C\cos\phi}
= \left| 1-\langle\psi_0|\psi_1\rangle\right|.\end{aligned}$$ Evidently, extending ${\cal E}$ to ${\cal E}\otimes I$ does not increase its maximal $L^1$ norm; hence the noisy gate’s deviation from the ideal gate in the diamond norm coincides with the maximal trace distance deviation of the density operator $\rho$ from the ideal density operator $\rho_{\rm ideal}$.
The accuracy of the two-qubit phase gate can be analyzed in the same way. Now the final state of the oscillator depends on the total phase difference across a pair of 0-$\pi$ qubits; it is $|\psi_0\rangle$ for the two-qubit states $|00\rangle$ and $|11\rangle$, and $|\psi_1\rangle$ for the two-qubit states $|01\rangle$ and $|10\rangle$. The eigenvalues of $\rho_{\rm ideal} - \rho$ become doubly degenerate, and hence the diamond norm deviation from the ideal gate is twice as large as for the single-qubit phase gate.
Both the fidelity and the diamond norm are useful measures of the gate error. The significant difference is that the diamond norm deviation ($\approx \sqrt{(1-C)^2+ \phi^2}$) is linear in $\phi$ (for $\phi$ small and $C\approx 1$), while the infidelity is quadratic in $\phi$. The threshold theorem establishes a sufficient condition for scalable quantum computing, expressed as an upper bound on the diamond norm, and it applies under the pessimistic assumption that phase errors accumulate linearly with the circuit size. But if the phase errors are actually random, we might expect them to add in quadrature, and in that case the infidelity may be a more appropriate way to quantify the gate error.
Grid states {#app:overrotation}
===========
Here we provide additional details concerning the properties of grid states, which were omitted from the discussion in Sec. \[sec:overrotation\].
Approximate codewords in $\varphi$ space and $Q$ space
------------------------------------------------------
Let $f$ denote a narrow function in $\varphi$ space, and $\tilde F$ denote a broad envelope function in $\varphi$ space. We express the approximate codewords of the continuous variable code as
$$\begin{aligned}
|0_C\rangle &=& \sqrt{2\pi}~\sum_{n~{\rm even}} \tilde F(\pi n) T(\pi n)\int d\varphi~f(\varphi)|\varphi\rangle,\nonumber\\
|1_C\rangle &=& \sqrt{2\pi}~\sum_{n~{\rm odd}}\tilde F(\pi n) T(\pi n) \int d\varphi~f(\varphi)|\varphi\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
where $T(a)$ denotes the $\varphi$ translation operator whose action is $T(a)|\varphi\rangle = |\varphi + a\rangle$. The function $f$ is normalized so that $$\int d\varphi~|f(\varphi)|^2 = 1,$$ and if the overlap between peaks centered at distinct integer multiples of $\pi$ can be neglected, then $|0_C\rangle$ and $|1_C\rangle$ are normalized provided $$2\pi\sum_{n~{\rm even}} |\tilde F(\pi n)|^2 \approx 1,\quad 2\pi \sum_{n~{\rm odd}}|\tilde F(\pi n)|^2\approx 1.$$
The approximate codewords in the conjugate basis are $$\begin{aligned}
|+_C\rangle &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0_C\rangle + |1_C\rangle\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n \tilde F(\pi n) T(\pi n)\int d\varphi~f(\varphi)|\varphi\rangle,\nonumber\\
|-_C\rangle &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0_C\rangle - |1_C\rangle\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n\tilde F(\pi n) (-1)^nT(\pi n) \int d\varphi~f(\varphi)|\varphi\rangle,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\pi\sum_n |\tilde F(\pi n)|^2\approx 1.$$ To express these states in the $Q$ basis we use d f()|&=& dQd f() |QQ|\
&=& dQ f(Q)|Q, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Fourier-define}
\tilde f(Q) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int d\varphi ~e^{-iQ\varphi}f(\varphi),\nonumber\\
f(\varphi) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int dQ ~e^{iQ\varphi}\tilde f(Q);\quad \end{aligned}$$ since the function $f$ is narrow in $\varphi$ space, its Fourier transform $\tilde f$ is broad in $Q$ space. The translation operator is represented in $Q$ space as $T(a)= \exp(-iQa)$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:plus-minus-codewords}
|+_C\rangle &=& \sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n \tilde F(\pi n) T(\pi n)\int d\varphi~f(\varphi)|\varphi\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& \sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n \tilde F(\pi n) \int dQ~e^{-i\pi nQ}\tilde f(Q)|Q\rangle,\nonumber\\
|-_C\rangle &=& \sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n\tilde F(\pi n) (-1)^nT(\pi n) \int d\varphi~f(\varphi)|\varphi\rangle\nonumber\\
&=& \sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n \tilde F(\pi n) \int dQ~e^{-i\pi n(Q-1)}\tilde f(Q)|Q\rangle.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Now we reverse the order of the summation and integration, and use the Poisson summation formula, in the form (see Appendix \[app:poisson\]): $$\label{eq:poisson-summation}
\sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n e^{-i\pi n Q }\tilde F(\pi n) = \sqrt{2}~\sum_m F(Q-2m),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2-pi-fourier}
F(Q) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int d\varphi~e^{-iQ\varphi}\tilde F(\varphi), \nonumber\\
\tilde F(\varphi)&=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int dQ ~e^{iQ\varphi }F(Q).\end{aligned}$$ The codewords $|+_C\rangle$ and $|-_C\rangle$ can now be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:codeword-plus-minus-F}
|+_C\rangle & = &\sqrt{2}\int dQ~\tilde f(Q)\sum_{m~{\rm even}} F(Q -m) |Q\rangle,\nonumber\\
|-_C\rangle &= & \sqrt{2}\int dQ~\tilde f(Q)\sum_{m~{\rm odd}} F(Q-m) |Q\rangle.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Here $F$ is a narrow function centered at zero in $Q$ space, so that $|+_C\rangle$ has support near even integer values of $Q$, and $|-_C\rangle$ has support near odd integer values of $Q$. Because $\tilde f(Q)$ is slowly varying, it is nearly constant within each peak, and the codewords can be well approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
|+_C\rangle & \approx &\sqrt{2}~\sum_{m~{\rm even}} \tilde f(m) \int dQ~ F(Q -m) |Q\rangle,\nonumber\\
|-_C\rangle &\approx& \sqrt{2}~\sum_{m~{\rm odd}}\tilde f(m) \int dQ~ F(Q-m) |Q\rangle.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
2 \sum_{m~{\rm even}} |\tilde f(m)|^2 &\approx& \int dQ~|\tilde f(Q)|^2 \approx 1 ,\nonumber\\
2\sum_{m~{\rm odd}} |\tilde f(m)|^2 &\approx& \int dQ~|\tilde f(Q)|^2 \approx 1 .\end{aligned}$$
Phase gate overrotation
-----------------------
We wish to study the performance of the encoded phase gate, which rotates the relative phase of $|0_C\rangle$ and $|1_C\rangle$ by $-\pi/2$. For ideal codewords, this gate is achieved by applying the unitary operator $e^{-i\varphi^2/2\pi}$, which has the value 1 when $\varphi$ is an even multiple of $\pi$, and has the value $-i$ when $\varphi$ is an odd multiple of $\pi$. Loosely speaking, this operation arises from the harmonic potential of the superinductor, turned on for a specified time interval. An error could occur because the timing is not precisely correct, so that $e^{-i\varphi^2(1+\varepsilon)/2\pi}$ is applied instead, where $\varepsilon \ll 1$. In $\varphi$ space, each narrow peak in the approximate codeword is stabilized by the cosine potential, but when the phase gate is overrotated, the relative phases of the peaks are modified, with the peak localized near $\varphi = n\pi$ acquiring the phase $e^{-i\varepsilon \pi n^2 /2}$. Thus, instead of Eq. (\[eq:plus-minus-codewords\]), the approximate $\bar X$ eigenstates become $$\begin{aligned}
|\pm_C\rangle_\varepsilon&=& \sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n (\pm 1)^n e^{-i\varepsilon \pi n^2 /2}\tilde F(n\pi)\nonumber\\
&&\quad \quad \times \int dQ~e^{-i\pi nQ}\tilde f(Q)|Q\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We again use the Poisson summation formula $$\sqrt{\pi}~\sum_n e^{-i\pi n Q }\tilde F_\varepsilon(\pi n) = \sqrt{2}~\sum_m F_\varepsilon(Q-2m),$$ but now applied to the modified function $$\tilde F_\varepsilon(\varphi) =e^{-i\varepsilon\varphi^2/2\pi} \tilde F(\varphi)$$ such that $$\tilde F_\varepsilon(n\pi) = e^{-i\varepsilon \pi n^2 /2}\tilde F(n\pi).$$ Therefore, as in Eq. (\[eq:code-in-Q-space\]), the approximate codewords $|\pm_C\rangle_\varepsilon$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:overrotated-plus_codeword}
|+_C\rangle_\varepsilon &\approx& \sqrt{2}~\sum_{m~{\rm even}} \tilde f(m) \int dQ~ F_\varepsilon(Q -m) |Q\rangle,\nonumber\\
|-_C\rangle_\varepsilon &\approx& \sqrt{2}~\sum_{m~{\rm odd}} \tilde f(m) \int dQ~ F_\varepsilon(Q -m) |Q\rangle,\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F_\varepsilon(Q) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int d\varphi~e^{-iQ\varphi}\tilde F_\varepsilon(\varphi).\end{aligned}$$
Imaginary part of overrotation error
------------------------------------
As explained in Sec. \[subsec:gate-error\], the imaginary part of the gate error due to overrotation is estimated as \_= [Im]{} \_-\^[end]{}||X|\_+\^[end]{}, where &&\_-\^[end]{}||X |\_+\^[end]{}\
&&2 \_[\[Q\] [even]{}]{}dQ |f(Q)|\^2\_[[m [even]{}]{}]{}F(Q-n)\^\*F(Q-m)\
&& - 2\_[\[Q\] [odd]{}]{}dQ |f(Q)|\^2\_[[m [even]{}]{}]{}F(Q-n)\^\*F(Q-m).\
We evaluate this expression as follows:
\_-\^[end]{}||X |\_+\^[end]{}&&2 \_[m [even]{}]{} |f(m)|\^2 \_[m-]{}\^[m+]{}dQ (F(Q-m-1)\^\* + F(Q-m+1)\^\*)F(Q-m)\
&-&2 \_[n [odd]{}]{} |f(n)|\^2 \_[n-]{}\^[n+]{}dQ F(Q-n)\^\* (F(Q-n-1)+F(Q-n+1))\
&& (2\_[m [even]{}]{} |f(m)|\^2)(\_[-1]{}\^0 dQ F(Q-)\^\*F(Q+) +\_0\^1 dQ F(Q+)\^\*F(Q-))\
&-& (2\_[n [odd]{}]{} |f(n)|\^2)(\_[-1]{}\^0 dQ F(Q+)\^\*F(Q-) +\_0\^1 dQ F(Q-)\^\*F(Q+))\
&& 2\_[0]{}\^1 dQ ([Odd]{}- c.c.)\
&& 2\_[0]{}\^dQ ([Odd]{}- c.c.),
To obtain the first equality we suppose that the integral is dominated by the overlaps of peaked functions $\{F(Q-m)\}$ centered at neighboring integer values of $m$, and approximate the slowly varying function $\tilde f(Q)$ by a constant in each integral. We obtain the second equality by shifting the integration variable in each integral, and the third equality by using the normalization condition $2 \sum_{m~{\rm even}} |\tilde f(m)|^2 \approx 1\approx 2 \sum_{n~{\rm odd}} |\tilde f(n)|^2 $, while noting that the integral of the even part of $F(Q+\tfrac{1}{2})^*F(Q-\tfrac{1}{2})$ cancels between the integrals over $[-1,0]$ and $[0,1]$. (${\rm Odd}[G(Q)]\equiv\tfrac{1}{2}\left(G(Q) - G(-Q)\right)$ denotes the odd part of the function $G(Q)$, and $c.c.$ denotes the complex conjugate.) Finally, because the integrand decays rapidly we make a negligible error by extending the upper limit of integration from 1 to infinity. Thus we conclude that \_4 [Im]{}\_[0]{}\^dQ [Odd]{}.\
Poisson summation formula {#app:poisson}
=========================
To derive Eq. (\[eq:poisson-summation\]), we note that $$\label{eq:periodic-define}
G(Q) \equiv \sum_m F(Q-2m)$$ is a periodic function of $Q$ with period two, and therefore has a Fourier series expansion $$\label{eq:fourier-series}
G(Q)= \sum_n e^{-i\pi n Q} \tilde G_n,$$ where G\_n&=& \_0\^2 dQ e\^[inQ]{} G(Q)\
&=& \_0\^2 dQ \_m F(Q-2m) e\^[i n Q ]{} e\^[-i2mn]{} (in the last equality we have inserted $e^{-i2\pi m n}=1$). Now we can combine the integral over $Q$ from 0 to 2 and the sum over $m$, obtaining an integral over $Q$ from $-\infty$ to $\infty$; therefore, $$\tilde G_n= \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dQ~ F(Q) e^{i \pi Q n}= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} ~\tilde F(\pi n),$$ and combining Eq. (\[eq:periodic-define\]) with Eq. (\[eq:fourier-series\]) yields $$\label{eq:Poisson}
G(Q) = \sum_m F(Q-2m)= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}
~\sum_n e^{-i\pi nQ} \tilde F(\pi n).$$
A more general formula is also sometimes useful: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Poisson-generalized}
&&\sum_m F(Q-2m)e^{i\pi(Q-2m)\alpha}\nonumber\\
&&= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}
~\sum_n e^{-i\pi Qn} \tilde F(\pi \left(n +\alpha\right)).\end{aligned}$$ We may obtain Eq. (\[eq:Poisson-generalized\]) from Eq. (\[eq:Poisson\]) by observing that multiplying $F(Q)$ by $e^{i\pi Q\alpha}$ is equivalent to shifting the argument of its Fourier transform $\tilde F(\varphi)$ by $\pi\alpha$.
Diabatic transitions in a two-level system {#app:landau}
==========================================
Here we derive a formula for the probability of a diabatic transition in a time dependent two-level system, used in Sec. \[sec:diabatic\] to estimate the probability of a transition in the oscillator as the coupling between the oscillator and the 0-$\pi$ qubit ramps on or off.
We consider the Schrödinger equation |(t)= -i H(t)|(t)(with $\hbar = 1$) for the two-level time-dependent Hamiltonian H(t) = - \^Z - V\_0 e\^[t/]{}\^X, where $\sigma^Z$,$\sigma^X$ are the Pauli matrices. If we express the time $t$ in units of $\tau$, and absorb $V_0$ by shifting the time variable, the Hamiltonian becomes (assuming $V_0 > 0$) H(t) = -u \^Z - e\^[t]{}\^X, where u = . In the limit $t\rightarrow -\infty$, the second term is negligible, and the general solution becomes |(t)= c\_0 e\^[iut]{}(
[c]{} 1\
0
) + c\_1 e\^[-iut]{}(
[c]{} 0\
1
), while in the limit $t\rightarrow \infty$ the first term is negligible and the solution is |(t)= c\_+ e\^[i[e\^t]{}]{} (
[c]{} 1\
1
) + c\_- e\^[-i[e\^t]{}]{} (
[c]{} 1\
[-]{}1
). Our goal is the find the S-matrix relating these two asymptotic solutions: (
[c]{} c\_+\
c\_-
) = S(
[c]{} c\_0\
c\_1
).
Defining |(t)(
[c]{} c\_0(t)\
c\_1(t)
) = (
[c]{} e\^[iut]{} c\_0(t)\
e\^[-iut]{} c\_1(t)
), the Schrödinger equation becomes &=& i e\^[(1-2iu)t]{} c\_1\
&=& i e\^[(1+2iu)t]{} c\_0. Assuming $u> 0$, the solution $|\psi^{(0)}(t)\rangle$ that starts out in the ground state obeys the initial conditions $\tilde c_0 \rightarrow 1$ and $\tilde c_1\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow -\infty$; expanded as a power series in $e^t$, this solution is c\_0(t) & = & \_[n=0]{}\^()\^[2n]{}\
c\_1(t) & = & ()e\^[(1+2iu)t]{}\_[n=0]{}\^()\^[2n]{}\
Matching this formula to the power series expansion for the Bessel function J\_(x)=\_[n=0]{}\^()\^[+2n]{}, we find c\_0(t) & = & ( + iu) ()\^[ -iu]{}J\_[[-]{} +iu]{}(e\^t),\
c\_1(t) & = & e\^[(1+2iu)t]{} ( + iu) ()\^[[-]{} -iu]{}J\_[ +iu]{}(e\^t),\
and therefore |\^[(0)]{}(t)= 2\^[[-]{} + iu]{} e\^[t/2]{} ( + iu) (
[c]{} J\_[[-]{} +iu]{}(e\^t)\
i J\_[ +iu]{}(e\^t)
).\
To find the solution $|\psi^{(1)}(t)\rangle$ that starts out in the excited state, it suffices to change the sign of $u$ and interchange $c_0$, $c_1$; hence |\^[(1)]{}(t)= 2\^[[-]{} - iu]{} e\^[t/2]{} ( - iu) (
[c]{} i J\_[ -iu]{}(e\^t)\
J\_[[-]{} -iu]{}(e\^t)
).\
From the asymptotic behavior J\_(x) (x - (+)) of the Bessel function as $x\rightarrow \infty$, we find how the solutions $|\psi^{(0,1)}(t)\rangle$ behave for $t\rightarrow \infty$:
|\^[(0)]{}(t)&& (e\^[u]{} e\^[i[e\^t]{}]{} (
[c]{} 1\
1
) + e\^[-u]{} e\^[-i[e\^t]{}]{} (
[c]{} 1\
[-]{}1
)),\
|\^[(1)]{}(t)&& (e\^[-u]{} e\^[i[e\^t]{}]{} (
[c]{} 1\
1
) + e\^[u]{} e\^[-i[e\^t]{}]{} (
[c]{} [-]{}1\
1
)).
Hence we conclude that the S-matrix is (
[cc]{} f(u) & f(-u)\
f(-u)\^\* & -f(u)\^\*
), where f(u) = 2\^[iu]{} ( + iu) e\^[ u]{}.
The probability of a transition from the ground state $|0\rangle$ to the excited state $|-\rangle$, or from the excited state to the ground state, is P(0-) = |f(-u)|\^2 = (+iu)( - iu) e\^[-u]{};\
from the identity $\Gamma(x)\Gamma(1-x) = \tfrac{\pi}{\sin\pi x}$, we obtain P(0-) = P(1+) =\
== ( 1-u). (The probability that no transition occurs is given by the same formula, but with $u$ replaced by $-u$.) For $u$ large, [*i.e.*]{}, when the initial energy splitting $2\Delta$ is large compared to the time scale $\tau$ for the perturbation to turn on, the transition probability is exponentially suppressed: P(0-) =P(1+) e\^[-2u]{}= e\^[-2]{}.
[10]{}
P. W. Shor, Fault-tolerant quantum computation, 37th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 96), p. 56 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9605011.
A. Yu. Kitaev, Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons, Annals of Physics 303, 230 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/9707021.
B. Doucot, J. Vidal, Pairing of Cooper pairs in a fully frustrated Josephson junction chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 227005 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0202115.
L. B. Ioffe, M. V. Feigelman, Possible realization of an ideal quantum computer in Josephson junction array, Phys. Rev. B 66, 224503 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0205186.
A. Kitaev, Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror, arXiv:0609441 (2006).
D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0008040.
V. E. Manucharyan, J. Koch, L. Glazman, M. Devoret, Fluxonium: single Cooper pair circuit free of charge offsets, Science 326, 113-116 (2009), arXiv:0906.0831.
N. A. Masluk, I. M. Pop, A. Kamal, Z. K. Minev, M. H. Devoret, Implementation of low-loss superinductances for quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 137002 (2012), arXiv:1206.2964.
M. T. Bell, I. A. Sadovsky, L. B. Ioffe, A. Yu. Kitaev, M. E. Gershenson, Quantum superinductor with tunable non-linearity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 137003 (2012), arXiv:1206.0307.
A. Yu. Kitaev, A. H. Shen, M. N. Vyalyi, [*Classical and Quantum Computation*]{}, Vol. 47 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2002).
S. Bravyi, A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022316 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0403025.
P. Aliferis, J. Preskill, Fault-tolerant quantum computation against biased noise, Phys. Rev. A 78, 052331 (2008), arXiv:0710.1301.
P. Aliferis, F. Brito, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. Preskill, M. Steffen, B. M. Terhal, Fault-tolerant computing with biased-noise superconducting qubits, New J. Phys. 11, 013061 (2009), arXiv:0806.0383.
P. Brooks, J. Preskill, Fault-tolerant quantum computation with asymmetric Bacon-Shor codes, arXiv:1211.1400 (2012).
S. Coleman, “The double well done doubly well,” pp. 341-344 in [*Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Some Poisson structures do admit resolutions by symplectic manifolds of the same dimension. We give examples and simple conditions under which such resolutions can not exist.'
address:
- 'Laboratoire d’Analyse Numerique et d’Optimisation et de Statistique L.A.N.O.S, Université Badji Mokhtar -Annaba- B.P.12 Annaba, 23000 Algérie. '
- 'Institut Elie Cartan de Lorraine I.E.C.L., UMR 7502 , Université de Lorraine, Île du Saulcy 57010 Metz, France '
author:
- Hichem Lassoued
date: 'March 10th, 2017'
title: Dimension preserving resolutions of singularities of Poisson structures
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Poisson manifolds of dimension $n$ are known to admit symplectic realizations of dimension $2n$ (see [@DZ] or [@BX16] for the holomorphic case). Recall that a *symplectic realization* of a Poisson manifold $(M,\pi_M)$ is a triple of $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ where $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma)$ is a symplectic[^1] manifold and $\varphi : \Sigma \to M$ is a surjective submersion on $(M,\pi_M)$ which is also a Poisson morphism.
It is obviously impossible to find a symplectic realization of a Poisson manifold of dimension $n=dim M$, unless $M$ is itself symplectic. But it is possible to modify the concept of realization by imposing only that $\varphi$ is a surjective map, but not necessarily a submersion. More precisely, we define symplectic resolutions as follows:
\[def:resolutions\] Let $(M,\pi_M)$ be a real or complex Poisson manifold of dimension $n$. We call *symplectic resolution* a triple $(\Sigma,\pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ where $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma)$ is a symplectic manifold of dimension $n$ and $\varphi : \Sigma \to M$ is a surjective Poisson morphism.
The term “symplectic resolution” has been used by Arnaud Beauville in the context of the algebraic geometry [@sym] and BaoHua Fu [@res] for instance - see for instance [@BellamySchedler] for lists of examples of those. The concept that we have introduced in above is consistent with this previously given meaning. It can not be really compared, because we work with in differential geometry, while they work in algebraic geometry, and singular points are for these authors points where the variety is singular, while for us singular points are those where the Poisson structure is singular. But the Poisson structures they resolve are symplectic at regular points, and their resolutions are birational at these points. Something similar happens here: we are going to see that the necessary condition for the existence of a symplectic resolution is that the bivector $\pi$ should be invertible (i.e. symplectic) on an open dense subset of $M$ (see Proposition \[prop1\]) and our resolutions are local diffeomorphisms at these points. As a consequence, it makes sense to use the same name.
Many examples of symplectic resolutions exist (see Section \[sec1\]). But we give in this article a simple example of Poisson structure of dimension $2$ which does not have reasonable symplectic resolutions. We use this result to exclude a large class of symplectic Poisson manifold which, although there are symplectic on a dense open subset, do not admit reasonable symplectic resolutions. In particular, in the holomorphic setting, we prove that such connected resolutions do not exist for non-symplectic Poisson manifolds.
[ **Conventions:**]{} Throughout this article, we denote the Poisson structures by $\pi$ or $\left\{\cdot,\cdot\right\}$ indifferently. We write $\pi$ when we see it as a section of $\wedge^2 TM$ and by $\left\{\cdot,\cdot\right\}$ the associated skew-symmetric biderivation of the algebra of smooth or holomorphic functions on $M$. Also, we shall denote by $\pi_X$ or $ \left\{\cdot,\cdot\right\}_X$ a Poisson structure defined on the manifold $X$. As we shall in general not consider two Poisson structures on the same manifold, this notation is not ambiguous. When the Poisson structure is invertible, that is, a symplectic Poisson structure, we shall use a capital letter instead, e.g. $\Pi_X$.
Examples of symplectic resolutions of the same dimension in dimension 2 {#sec1}
=======================================================================
In this section, we give examples of manifolds of dimension $2$ that do admit symplectic resolutions. Consider the Poisson structure on $M:={\mathbb R}^2$ (or an open subset of ${\mathbb R}^2$) given by: $$\label{laplussimple01}
\left\{ x,y \right\}_{M}=f(x,y)$$ where $x,y$ are the canonical coordinates to $M$, and $f(x,y)$ is a smooth function. We suppose that the Poisson manifold $(M,\pi_M)$ described by (\[laplussimple01\]) admits a symplectic resolution $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$. With $\Pi_{\Sigma}$ the symplectic Poisson structure on $\Sigma$. Since $ M= {\mathbb R}^2$, the map $\varphi$ is of the form $\varphi=(u,v)$, where $u$ and $v$ are two smooth functions on $\Sigma $ with values in ${\mathbb R}$. For any choice $(p,q)$ of local coordinates on $(\Sigma,\Pi_{\Sigma})$, the functions $u$ and $v$ are functions of the variables $p$ and $q$.
\[prop1\] Let $\Sigma $ be a manifold, $\Pi_\Sigma$ a symplectic Poisson structure on $\Sigma$, and $\varphi:\Sigma \to M = {\mathbb R}^2$ a surjective map, the pair $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ is a symplectic resolution of the Poisson manifold $(M,\pi_M)$ which is given by (\[laplussimple01\]) if and only if $$\label{eq:conditionMorphisme} \{p,q\}_\Sigma \left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial p}\frac{\partial v}{\partial q}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial q}\frac{\partial v}{\partial p}\right)= f(u,v)$$ where $p, q$ are local coordinates on $(\Sigma,\Pi_{\Sigma})$ and $\varphi=(u,v)$.
The map $\varphi$ is Poisson if and only if $ \{\varphi^* x , \varphi^* y\}_\Sigma = \varphi^* \{x,y\} = \varphi^* f(x,y)$, with $(x,y)$ the coordinates on $M ={\mathbb R}^2$. As $u = \varphi^* x $ et $ v=\varphi^* y$, this condition is equivalent to $ \{u , v\}_\Sigma = f(u,v)$, the result is obtained by writing in the coordinates $(p,q)$ the bracket $\{ u,v\}_\Sigma $.
\[ex:squares\] This example has appeared in [@c1234], Section 6. We construct a symplectic resolution of the Poisson structure on $M:={\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ given by : $$\label{h1} \left\{ x,y \right\}_{M} =x^{2}+y^{2},$$ where $x,y$ denote the canonical coordinates of $M= {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. Our candidate of symplectic resolution is given by $\Sigma := {{\mathbb{R}}}^{2}$ equipped with the canonical symplectic Poisson bracket $ \{q,p\}_ \Sigma =1 $, with $(p,q)$ the coordinates on $\Sigma := {{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ (we use different letters for coordinates on $M$ and $\Sigma$ which by accident, in our example, happen to be isomorphic). We define a map $\varphi$ from $\Sigma $ to $M $ by: $$\begin{array}{rrcl} \varphi :& \Sigma& \to & M \\ & (p,q)& \mapsto& (q\sin(pq),q\cos(pq)).
\end{array}$$
It is easy to check that $\varphi$ is surjective. We are left with the task of showing that this map $\varphi$ is a Poisson morphism, for which it suffices to check that the condition given by Equation (\[eq:conditionMorphisme\]) is satisfied. This is done by direct computation: as $u(p,q)=q\sin(pq)$ and $v(p,q)=q\cos(pq)$, we have on the one hand $f(u,v) = (q\sin(pq))^2+(q\cos(pq))^2 = q^2 $, and on the other hand: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial p}\frac{\partial v}{\partial q}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial q}\frac{\partial v}{\partial p} &=&
\frac{\partial q\sin(pq) }{\partial p}\frac{\partial q\cos(pq)}{\partial q}-\frac{\partial q\sin(pq)}{\partial q}\frac{\partial q\cos(pq)}{\partial p}\\
&=& q^2 (\sin^2(pq)+\cos^2(pq)) = q^2.\\
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left\{p,q\right\}_{\Sigma}=1$ and $f(u,v)=q^2$. This proves the claim.
We can also construct a symplectic resolution of a Poisson structure more general than (\[h1\]).
\[ex:moregeneraleverpowers\] We equip ${\mathbb{R}}^{2}:= M$ with the Poisson structure defined by $$\left\{x,y\right\}_{M}=x^{2n}+y^{2m}, \hbox{ with $n \geq m > 1$}$$ where the couple $(x,y)$ stands for the canonical coordinates of $M$, and $n$ and $m$ are integers with $n \geq m$. Our candidate of symplectic resolution is given by $\Sigma := {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ with the Poisson bracket $\left\{p,q\right\}_{\Sigma}=q^{2n-2m}\sin^2(pq^{2m-1})+\cos^2(pq^{2m-1})$, with $(p,q)$ being the canonical coordinates of $\Sigma$. This Poisson bracket is symplectic, because $q^{2n-2m}\sin^2(pq^{2m-1})+\cos^2(pq^{2m-1})$ is strictly positive an for all $p,q \in {\mathbb R}$. We define a map $\varphi$ from $\Sigma$ to $M$ by: $$\begin{array}{rrcl} \varphi :& \Sigma& \to & M \\ & (p,q)& \mapsto& (q\sin(pq^{2m-1}),q\cos(pq^{2m-1})).
\end{array}$$ To show that $(\Sigma,\varphi)$ is a symplectic resolution of $M$, it is sufficient to check that the condition given by Equation (\[eq:conditionMorphisme\]) is satisfied. As $u(p,q)=q\sin(pq^{2m-1})$ and $v(p,q)=q\cos(pq^{2m-1})$, we have on the one hand, $f(u,v) = (q\sin(pq))^{2n}+(q\cos(pq))^{2m} $, and on the other hand, by direct computation: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial p}\frac{\partial v}{\partial q}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial q}\frac{\partial v}{\partial p} &=&
\frac{\partial q\sin(pq^{2m-1}) }{\partial p}\frac{\partial q\cos(pq^{2m-1})}{\partial q} \\ & & -\frac{\partial q\sin(pq^{2m-1})}{\partial q}\frac{\partial q\cos(pq^{2m-1})}{\partial p}\\
&=& q^{2m} (\sin^2(pq^{2m-1})+\cos^2(pq^{2m-1})) = q^{2m}.\\
\end{aligned}$$ This proves the claim. Since ${p,q}_{\Sigma}=1$ and $F(u,v)=q^{2m}$, this implies that any Poisson structure of the form $$\left\{x,y\right\}_{M}=\kappa(x,y) (x^{2n}+y^{2m}),$$ admits a resolution, provided that the function $\kappa(x,y)$ is strictly positive on $M$: it suffices to consider the triple $(\Sigma,(\varphi^* \kappa) \, \Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$.
Examples \[ex:squares\] and \[ex:moregeneraleverpowers\] are Poisson structures with isolated singularities. We want to introduce an example with non-isolated singularities. We equip $M:={\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ with the bracket given in the canonical coordinates by $\left\{x,y\right\}_M=x$. We define $\Sigma := {\mathbb{R}}^{2}\coprod{{\mathbb{R}}^{2}}\coprod{{\mathbb{R}}^{2}}$ to be the disjoint union of three copies of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. There is a natural symplectic structure on $\Sigma $ obtained by restricting each of the three copies canonical symplectic Poisson structure. Consider the map $\varphi : \Sigma \rightarrow M$ defined by : $$\varphi :=\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
(\exp(p),q) \hbox{ on the first copy } \\
(-\exp(p),q) \hbox{ on the second copy } \\
(0,q) \hbox{ on the third copy}
\end{array}\right.$$ A direct computation using Condition (\[eq:conditionMorphisme\]) implies that the restriction on all three copies is a Poisson morphism, which is sufficient to make $\varphi$ a Poisson morphism. The map $\varphi$ is surjective, making the couple $(\Sigma,\varphi)$ a symplectic resolution of $(M,\pi)$. Note that $\Sigma$ is *not* connected.
\[ex:tropfacile\] There is a general but non-satisfying construction for making a symplectic resolution of any Poisson manifold of even dimension. Let $(M,\pi_M)$ be a Poisson manifold of dimension $2d$. For all symplectic leaf ${\mathcal S}$ of $\pi_M$, consider the direct product $\Sigma_{\mathcal S} := {\mathcal S} \times {\mathbb R}^{2d - 2s}$ where $2s$ is the dimension of ${\mathcal S}$. Equip $\Sigma_{\mathcal S}$ with the direct product Poisson symplectic structure $\Pi_{\Sigma_{\mathcal S} }$, with the understanding that ${\mathcal S} $, the symplectic leaf, comes equipped with its induced symplectic structure, and the vector space of even dimension $ {\mathbb R}^{2d - 2s}$ comes equipped with any symplectic Poisson structure. The natural map $\varphi_{\mathcal S}$ obtained by projecting ${\mathcal S} \times {\mathbb R}^{2d - 2s}$ onto ${\mathcal S}$, then by including $ {\mathcal S}$ into $M$ is a Poisson map.
Now, let $S$ be the set of all symplectic leaves. Let $\Sigma := \coprod_{{\mathcal S} \in S} \Sigma_{\mathcal S}$. All connected components of this manifold have dimension $2d$ and are symplectic manifolds, hence $\Sigma$ is symplectic, with respect to a symplectic Poisson structure $\Pi_\Sigma$ whose restriction to ${\Sigma_{\mathcal S} }$ is $\Pi_{\Sigma_{\mathcal S} }$. The map $\varphi: \Sigma \to M$ whose restriction to ${\mathcal S} \in S$ is $ \varphi_{\mathcal S}$ is a surjective Poisson map. Hence, $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ defines a Poisson resolution. In general, the symplectic leaves form a non-countable family hence $\Sigma$ may not be separable (i.e. does not admit a dense countable subset).
Of Poisson structures that do not admit symplectic resolutions of the same dimension
====================================================================================
We describe in this section broad classes of Poisson manifolds that can not admit reasonable symplectic resolutions. As shown in Example \[ex:tropfacile\], it is very reasonable to assume that the symplectic resolutions are separable, since without such a condition they always exists, but they are not very interesting. The first result is the following.
\[nari\] A Poisson manifold $(M,\pi)$ that admits a separable symplectic resolution is symplectic on an open dense subset.
For all $\sigma \in \Sigma$ such that $d_\sigma \varphi $ is surjective, hence invertible, $\varphi$ is a local diffeomorphism from a neighborhood of $\sigma$ in $\Sigma$ to a neighborhood of $\varphi (\sigma) $ in $M$. Hence, the bivector field $\pi_M$ is symplectic at the point $\varphi (\sigma) $.
Now, since $\varphi$ is surjective, it follows from Sard’s Theorem (which is precisely valid for smooth maps between separable manifolds) that the image through $\varphi$ of the set of points in $\Sigma$ where the differential of $\varphi$ is surjective (and therefore is a local diffeomorphism) is an open dense subset of $M$. This completes the proof.
For Poisson manifolds that are symplectic on an open dense subset, the singular points of the Poisson structures are exactly the points where the bivector field is not invertible. The following proposition will be used several times. A critical value of $\varphi$ is a point $m \in M$ where $\sigma\in\Sigma$ with $\varphi(\sigma)=m$ and $d_{\sigma}\varphi$ is not surjective. A singular point of a Poisson structure is point $m$ where $\pi^{\#}_m:T_{m}^* M\rightarrow T_{m}M$ is not of maximal rank.
Let $(\Sigma,\pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ be a symplectic resolution of the Poisson manifold $(M,\pi_M)$.
1. Singular points of $\pi_M$ coincides with the set of critical values of $\varphi$.
2. The differential $T_{\sigma}\varphi$ of $\varphi$ at a point $\sigma \in\Sigma$ is invertible if and only if $\varphi(\sigma)$ is a regular point of $\pi_M$.
The map $\varphi$ is a Poisson map if and only if the following diagram is commutative for all $m \in M$ and all $\sigma \in \Sigma$ with $\varphi (\sigma) = m$: $$\xymatrix{ T_{\sigma}^* \Sigma \ar[r]^{\Pi^{\#}_{\sigma}}& T_{\sigma} \Sigma \ar[d]^{T_{\sigma} \varphi} \\ T_{m}^* M \ar[u]^{T_{\sigma}^* \varphi} \ar[r]^{\pi^{\#}_m} & T_{m} M.}$$ The commutativity of this diagram implies that $\pi^{\#}_{m}$ is invertible if and only if vertical arrows are invertible, i.e. if and only if $T_{\sigma}\varphi$ is invertible for all $\sigma$ in the inverse image of $m$ through $\varphi$. This proves the result.
Consider the Poisson structure given by:
$$\label{laplussimple}\left\{x,y\right\}_{M}=f(x,y)=xg(x,y),$$
where $x,y$ are local coordinates on $M:={\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ and $g(x,y)$ is a smooth function that does not vanish unless $x=0$. We saw in Section \[sec1\] that, for $g=1$, this Poisson structure admits a symplectic resolution for which $\Sigma$ is a disjoint union of three copies of ${\mathbb R}^2$. But we now show that $(M,\pi_M)$ admits no symplectic resolution when we impose additional conditions. A resolution is said type proper when $\varphi$ is a *proper* map, i.e. the inverse image though $\varphi$ of a compact subset of $M$ is a compact subset.
\[lepremierthéorème\] The Poisson manifold $(M,\pi)$ described in (\[laplussimple\]) admits no proper symplectic resolution. It does not admit connected real analytic or holomorphic symplectic resolution.
Of course, when we say “It does not admit real analytic or holomorphic symplectic resolution”, we mean that we consider the case where $f(x,y)$ is real analytic or holomorphic, and in the holomorphic case, we place ourselves on an open subset of $M\subset{\mathbb C}^2$ a open subset that contains $(0,0)$. We define resolutions in this context as being resolutions in the previous sense, with $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ real analytic or holomorphic.
The following problem is still open: in the smooth case, does the Poisson manifold $(M,\pi)$ described by (\[laplussimple\]) admit a connected symplectic resolution?
Let us prove Theorem \[lepremierthéorème\].
Let $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ be a symplectic resolution of $(M,\pi_{M})$. Since $M \simeq {\mathbb R}^2 $, we write $\varphi = (u,v)$ with $u,v$ smooth real valued functions on $\Sigma$. According to Sard’s theorem [@Sard1], applied to the differentiable function $v : \Sigma \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, function which is surjective since $\varphi$ is surjective, the set of critical values of $v$ admits a dense complement in ${\mathbb{R}}$.
Let $v_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be outside the set of all critical values of $v$. Since $v_{0}$ is not a critical value, the inverse image by $v : \Sigma\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ of $q_0$ is an union $({\mathcal C}_{i})_{i\in I}$ of curves. Since $v$ is a submersion in a neighborhood of all point in $v^{-1}(v_0)$, the curves $({\mathcal C}_i)_{i \in I}$ whose union form $v^{-1}(v_0))$ can be separated: that is to say there are open sets $(U_i)_{i \in I}$, with $U_i$ containing ${\mathcal C}_i$ for all indice $i\in I$, such that $U_i \cap U_j = \emptyset$ for all distinct $i,j \in I$.
Let us now call curves of *good type* curves in the previous set on there exists at least one point $\sigma$ with $u(\sigma) \in [-1,1]$. We claim that there are only finitely many curves of the good type. Let $K$ be the inverse image through $\varphi$ of $ [-1,1] \times \{v_0\} \subset M$. Curves of the good type are those that intersect $K$. Since $\varphi$ is proper, this inverse image $K$ is compact. But the open subsets $ (U_i \cap K)_{i \in I}$ form a partition of $K$ by open subsets. Now, in a partition of a compact set by open subset, only finitely many can be non-empty. Said otherwise, there is a finite subset $j \in J$ such that $\cup_{j\in J}C_{J}$ contains the inverse image of $ [-1,1] \times \{v_0\} \subset M$ through $ \varphi$. Said otherwise, there are finitely many curves of the good type.
Consider the point $(0,v_0)\in M := {\mathbb{R}}^{2}$. This point is a singular point of $\pi_M$ by the definition thereof. Consider a point $\sigma\in \Sigma$ in its inverse image. This point $\sigma$ belongs to a curve ${\mathcal C}_{j_0} $ for a certain $j_0 \in I$. We are going to show that the image of ${\mathcal C}_{j_0}$ by $\varphi$ is reduced to the point $(0,v_0)$, or, equivalently, that $u$ identically vanishes on this curve ${\mathcal C}_{j_0}$.
Since the function $ v$ has a differential that does not vanish at the point $\sigma$, there exists another local function $p$, defined on a neighborhood of $\sigma$, such that the pair $(p,v)$ form local Darboux coordinates on an open subset $U_{\sigma}\subset\Sigma$. On $U_{\sigma}\subset\Sigma$ the map $\varphi$ reads $\varphi : (p,q)\rightarrow (u(p,v),v)$ while the restriction $U_{\sigma}\subset\Sigma$ of the curve ${\mathcal C}_{i_0}$ is given by $v=v_0$. By Proposition \[prop1\], since the map $\varphi$ is a Poisson morphism, the following differential equation in the variable $p$ holds for all value of $v$ in a neighborhood of $v_0$: $$\label{hih1} \frac{\partial u}{\partial p}(p,v)=f(u(p,v),v).$$ In particular, for $v=v_0$, we obtain the differential equation: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial p}(p,v_0)=f(u(p,v_0),v_0)\\
\hbox{ and } u(p_{0},v_{0})=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ where $(p_{0},v_{0})$ are coordinates of the point $\sigma$. Since $f(0,v)=0$ for all value of $v$ and in particular $f(0,v_0)=0$, the Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem imply that the differential equation (\[hih1\]) admits for solution the zero function, i.e. $u(p,v_{0})=0$ for all $p$ close to zero. In particular, the function $u$ vanishes on the restriction of the curve ${\mathcal C}_{j_0}$ to a neighborhood of $\sigma \in \Sigma$. One can repeat the above deduction in a neighborhood of every point in ${\mathcal C}_{j_0}$, which proves that the function $u$ vanishes identically on the whole curve ${\mathcal C}_{j_0}$.
As previously stated, the inverse image by $v : \Sigma\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ of $v_0$ is a union of curves. The conclusion of the previous lines is that there are two types of such curves, those on which the restriction of the function $u$ is never equal to $0$ (curves that we call curves of the *first type*) and those where $u$ vanishes identically, (curves that we call curves of the *second type*). Since the map $\varphi$ is a surjection, there is necessarily at least one curve of the first type is of the good type. Also all curves of the second type are of the good type.
Since there are only finitely many curves of the good type, those which are both of the good type and of the first type and those the second type can be separated by two open subsets $V$ and $W$ of $\Sigma$. We now consider a sequence $(y_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\in \Sigma$ such that $\varphi(y_{n})=(\frac{1}{n},v_0)$. For all $n\geq 1$ Since the map $\varphi$ is proper, out of the sequence $y_{n}$, we can extract a convergent subsequence. Let $\tilde{y}\in\Sigma$ be its limit. By construction, $\varphi(\tilde{y})=(0,v_0)$. For any $n\in \mathbb{N}$, the element $y_{n}$ belongs to a curve of the first type and of the good type, and therefore is in $V$, but its limit has to belong to a curve of the good type and of the second type, and is therefore in $W$. This contradicts the assumption that $V\cap W = \emptyset$, this completes the proof.
We now look at the real analytic or holomorphic case (i.e, the case where the function $f$ in (\[laplussimple\]) is a real analytic or holomorphic function, and we impose that so are $\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma $ and $\varphi$. We will start with a lemma:
\[hch2\]
Let $(\Sigma,\Pi,\varphi)$ be a connected symplectic resolution of the Poisson structure in (\[laplussimple\]). For any point $\sigma\in\Sigma$ such as $d_{\sigma}v\neq 0$ et $\varphi(\sigma)\in\mathbf{M}_{sing}$, there exists a neighborhood $U_{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ such as $\varphi(U_{\sigma})\cap \mathbf{M}_{sing}=\left\{\varphi(\sigma)\right\}$ where $\mathbf{M}_{sing}\subset M$ is the set $\left\{x=0\right\}$, i.e. is the singular set of $\pi_{M}$.
For any point $\sigma\in\Sigma$ such that $d_{\sigma} v\neq 0$, there exists a neighborhood $U_{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ in $\Sigma$ and a function $p$ defined on $\Sigma$ such that the pair $(p,v)$ are local Darboux coordinates on $\Sigma$. the map $\varphi$ reads in these coordinates as : $$\begin{array}{rrcl} \varphi :& U_{\sigma}\subset\Sigma& \to & M \\ & (p,q)& \mapsto& (u(p,q),q)
\end{array}$$
Let $(p_0,v_0)$ be the coordinates of a point $\sigma \in \Sigma$ such that $\varphi(\sigma)=(0,v_0) \in \mathbf{M}_{sing}$. Proposition \[prop1\] implies that Relations (\[hih1\]) are satisfied. Consider the function $h:v\rightarrow u(p_{0},v)$. Since the function $h$ is real analytic or holomorphic, and $h$ has a zero at $v=v_{0}$, there are two possibilities : either this function is identically equal to zero or it has an isolated zero at $v_{0}$. Equation (\[hih1\]) and Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem give that if $h$ is identically equal to $0$ on a neighborhood of $v_{0}$, the function $u$ vanishes at all point of $U_{\sigma}$. Since the function $u$ is real analytic or holomorphic, this implies that $u=0$ on the whole connected manifold $\Sigma$. But this is impossible because this contradicts the surjectivity of $\varphi$. Hence $v_{0}$ is necessarily an isolated zero of $h$ and Equation (\[hih1\]) and Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem imply that $u(p,v)$ can not be zero for $v \neq v_{0}$ while $u(p,v_{0})=0$ for all $p$ close to $p_0$. More precisely, there exists $\eta',\eta''\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that the inequalities $\left|v-v_{0}\right|<\eta'$ and $\left|p-p_{0}\right|<\eta''$ give a neighborhood $U_{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ such as $\varphi(U_{\sigma})\cap \mathbf{M}_{sing}$ is reduced to a point, namely the point $(0,v_{0})=\varphi(\sigma)$.
We now show Theorem \[lepremierthéorème\] in the real analytic or holomorphic cases.
Let $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ be a connected real analytic or holomorphic symplectic resolution. By construction $\varphi = (u,v)$ with $u,v$ are two real analytic or holomorphic functions on $\Sigma$ with values in ${\mathbb{R}}$ or ${\mathbb C}$. We recall that $\mathbf{M}_{sing}$ is the set $\left\{x=0\right\}\subset\mathbb{C}^{2}$.
Let $\Gamma$ be the set of the points $\sigma\in\varphi^{-1}(\mathbf{M}_{sing})$ where $v$ is regular (i.e. $d_{\sigma}v\neq 0$). As $\varphi$ is supposed to be surjective, the union of the set of critical values of $v$ with $v(\Gamma)$ is $\mathbf{M}_{sing}\cong \mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. By Sard’s Theorem [@Sard1], applied to the differentiable function $v$, which is surjective because $\varphi$ is surjective, the critical values of $v$ form a set of measure zero in $\mathbf{M}_{sing}\cong{\mathbb{R}}$ or $\mathbb{C}$.
Moreover, for any $\sigma \in \Gamma$, there exists by Lemma \[hch2\] a neighborhood $V_{\sigma}$ of $\sigma\in\Sigma$ such that $\varphi(V_{\sigma})\cap \mathbf{M}_{sing}$ is reduced to a point $(0,v_{0})=\varphi(\sigma)$. The set $\Gamma$ being a closed subset of the open subset of all regular points of $v$, it is a locally compact set and we can extract out of any open cover of $\Gamma$ a finite or countable open cover. In particular, one can extract from the open sets cover $(V_{\sigma})_{{\sigma}\in \Gamma }$ a finite or countable family $\left\{V_{i}\right\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$. This implies that $\varphi(\Gamma)$, just as $v(\Gamma)$, is a finite or countable set.
Now, $\mathbf{M}_{sing}$ is the union of the set of critical values of $v$ with $v(\Gamma)$. But the first set is a set of measure zero (by Sard’s Theorem [@Sard1]) while the second is finite or a countable set. This is impossible. This completes the proof.
We now enlarge the class of Poisson manifolds that do not admit symplectic resolutions, although they are symplectic on a dense open subset. We refer to [@c3] Chapter 5 for the definition of Poisson-Dirac submanifolds of Poisson manifolds and recall that any submanifold $N$ of a Poisson manifold $(M,\pi)$ whose tangent space $T_n N$ is in direct sum with the tangent space of the symplectic leaf ${\mathcal S}_n$ through $n$, namely such that $ T_n N \oplus T_n {\mathcal S}_n = T_n M $, is Poisson-Dirac in a neighborhood of $n$. we also recall that any submanifold $N$ of a Poisson manifold $M$ such that $T_{n}N\oplus \pi^{\#}(T_{n}N^{\perp})=T_{n}M$ is Poisson-Dirac. Recall also that any Poisson-Dirac submanifold admits an unique induce Poisson structure called *reduced Poisson structure*.
\[lem\*\] Let $(M,\pi)$ be a Poisson manifold, $S$ be a symplectic leaf and $N\subset M$ a submanifold transversal at a point $n\in S\cap N$. For every symplectic resolution $(\Sigma,\Pi_\Sigma,\varphi)$ of $(M,\pi)$, there exists a neighborhood $N'$ of $n$ in $N$ such that:
1. $\varphi^{-1}(N')$ is a submanifold of $\Sigma$,
2. this submanifold is Poisson–Dirac,
3. the restriction $\varphi_{N'} : \varphi^{-1}(N')\rightarrow N'$ is a symplectic resolution for the reduced Poisson structures of $\varphi^{-1}(N')$ and $N'$ respectively.
There exists, in a neighborhood $U$ of $n$, Weinstein coordinates $(p,q,z)$ such that the submanifold $N':=N \cap U$ is given by the equations: $ p_1= \dots= p_{r}=q_{1}= \dots = q_r=0$ (see[@c3] Chapter 1 for the definition of Weinstein’s coordinate). The functions $p_{1},...,p_{r},q_{1},...,q_{r}$ having independent Hamiltonian vector fields at all points of $U$, their pull-back $\varphi^{*}p_{1},...,\varphi^{*}p_{r},\varphi^{*}q_{1},...,\varphi^{*}q_{r}$ also have independent Hamiltonians vector fields at all point in $\varphi^{-1}(U)$. Therefore, their pull-backs through $\varphi$ are independent functions. The zero locus that they define is $\varphi^{-1}(N')$ by construction, which is therefore a submanifold that we call $\Sigma_{N}$. This proves the first item.
A function $f$ on $M$ such that the hamiltonian vector field $X_f$ tangent to $N$ satisfies that the hamiltonian vector field $X_{\varphi^*f}$ is tangent to $\Sigma_N$. This is because if $\left\{F,q_i\right\}_{\mid_{N}}=0=\left\{F,p_i\right\}_{\mid_{N}}$ then $\left\{\varphi^*F,\varphi^*q_i\right\}_{\mid_{\Sigma_N}}=0=\left\{\varphi^*F,\varphi^*p_i\right\}_{\mid_{\Sigma_N}}$, since $\varphi$ is a Poisson morphism. Yet, $N$ and $\Sigma_N$ are sub-manifolds of Poisson-Dirac, because they are defined by the functions $(p_{1},...,p_{r},q_{1},...,q_{r})$ and $(\varphi^{*}p_{1},...,\varphi^{*}p_{r},\varphi^{*}q_{1},...,\varphi^{*}q_{r})$ respectively, whose Poisson matrix is invertible. This proves the second item.
Now, for all $F,G\in C^{\infty}(N)$, we have $\left\{\varphi^*F,\varphi^*G\right\}_{\Sigma_N}=\left\{\varphi^*\widetilde{F},\varphi^*\widetilde{G}\right\}_{\mid_{\Sigma_N}}=\varphi^*(\left\{\widetilde{F},\widetilde{G}\right\}_{\mid_{N}})$ where $\widetilde{F}$ and $\widetilde{G}$ are local extensions of $F$ and $G$. This proves that $\varphi$ is a Poisson morphism from $\Sigma_N$ to $N$. A Poisson-Direc sub-manifold of a symplectic manifold being itself symplectic, this proves third item.
\[coro2\] A Poisson manifold $(M,\pi)$ of dimension $2r+2$ symplectic on a dense open subset
1. admits a submanifold $P$ of codimension 1 which included in to the singular locus of $\pi_{M}$,
2. has at least one point $n\in P$ where the rank of $\pi$ is $2r$,
does not admit a proper symplectic resolution. In the real analytic or holomorphic cases, under the same assumptions it does not admit a symplectic connected resolution.
Let $F$ be a local function in a neighborhood of $n$. Let us prove that the Hamiltonian vector field $X_F$ of $F$ is tangent to $P$. Since $P$ has codimension $1$, if there exists a point $n' \in P$ where $X_F$ is not tangent to $P$, every point in a neighborhood of $n'$ in $M$ is obtained from a point of $P$ by following the flow of $X_F$. But since every point in $P$ is a singular point for $\pi_M$, and since the flow of $X_F$ is made of Poisson diffeomorphisms, this would imply that every point in a neighborhood of $n'$ in $M$ is a singular point, which contradicts the assumption on $\pi_M$.
Let $N$ be any submanifold of dimension $2$ transversal to the symplectic leaf ${\mathcal S}_n$ through $n$ where $n\in P$ is a point where the rank of $\pi_{M}$ is $2r$. By the previous point $S$ is a submanifold of $P$. Since $N$ is transversal to $S_{n}$, $P \cap N$ is a curve in $N$, at least in a neighborhood of $n\in N$. We denote by $P_{N}$ this curve.
Suppose that $(M,\pi_M)$ admits a proper symplectic resolution. Then, by Lemma \[lem\*\], there is a neighborhood $N'$ of $n$ in $N$ that does admit a proper symplectic resolution.
But upon shrinking $N'$ if necessary, we can assume that $N'$ is diffeomorphic to an open subset of ${\mathbb R}^2$, isomorphism under which the curve $P_{N}$ is given by the equation $x=0$, with $x,y$ being the canonical coordinates on ${\mathbb R}^2$. The Poisson structure on $N'$ being now of the form (\[laplussimple\]), it does not admit proper symplectic resolutions by Theorem \[lepremierthéorème\], which contradicts the previous statement. Hence $(M,\pi_M)$ does not admit proper symplectic resolutions. The real analytic or holomorphic cases are similar.
\[lem\] Let $(M,\pi)$ be a Poisson manifold of dimension $n\geq 4$, such that the singular locus of $\pi$ contains a submanifold $P\subset M$ of codimension $1$. If a symplectic resolution exists, then the bivector $\pi$ can not be zero at all points in $P$.
Consider a projection $\psi: U\rightarrow P$ where $U$ is a neighborhood of $P$ in $M$. Let $(\Sigma,\Pi,\varphi)$ be a symplectic resolution of $(M,\pi)$. The map $\psi \circ \varphi : \varphi^{-1}(U)\rightarrow P$ is surjective because both $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are surjective. By Sard’s Theorem, there exists regular value for $ \psi \circ \varphi$, i.e. there exists point $ p \in P$ such that for every $\sigma \in \varphi^{-1}(U) \subset \Sigma$, the composition $T_{\varphi (\sigma)} \psi\circ T_\sigma \varphi$ is a surjective linear map. Since $\varphi$ is surjective, there exists $\sigma \in \Sigma$ such that $\varphi ( \sigma) =p $. Such a point belongs to $\varphi^{-1}(U)$ by construction, and satisfies that $T_{\varphi (\sigma)} \psi\circ T_\sigma \varphi$ is a surjective linear map. In turn, this implies that for any choice $x_1, \dots,x_{n-1}$ of local coordinates on $P$ around $M$, the functions $(\psi \circ \varphi)^* x_1, \dots,(\psi \circ \varphi)^* x_{n-1}$ are linearly independent at the point $\sigma \in \varphi^{-1}(U) $.
Let us compute the Poisson brackets of these functions at the point $\sigma$. Since the map $\varphi$ is a Poisson morphism, for all $i,j =1, \dots,n-1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{(\psi \circ \varphi)^* x_i,(\psi \circ \varphi)^* x_j \right\}_{\Sigma}(\sigma) &=&
\left\{\varphi^{*} \psi^* x_{i},\varphi^{*} \psi^* x_{j}\right\}_{\Sigma}(\sigma) \\
&=&
\left\{\psi^* x_{i},\psi^* x_j \right\}_{P}(\varphi(\sigma))= 0 \end{aligned}$$ But it is impossible to have $n-1$ independent functions on a symplectic manifold whose brackets are equal to zero at a given point. This completes the proof.
\[theo:final\] A Poisson manifold $(M,\pi)$ symplectic on an open dense subset which contains a submanifold of codimension $1$ of singular points for $\pi_{M}$, does not admit a proper symplectic resolution. When $(M,\pi_{M})$ is a holomorphic Poisson manifold no connected symplectic resolution exists.
We prove the theorem by induction on $\frac{1}{2}\dim(M)$. If $\frac{1}{2}\dim(M)=1$, the theorem reduces to the statement of Theorem \[lepremierthéorème\] in local coordinates. We assume that the theorem is true until $n=\frac{1}{2}\dim(M)$ and we show it for $n+1=\frac{1}{2}\dim(M)$. We assume that the singular locus of $\pi$ contains a submanifold $P$ of codimension $1$. By Lemma \[lem\], the rank of $\pi_{M}$ on $P$ can not be zero. Let $m$ be a point where in $P$ where $\pi_{m}\neq 0$. If a symplectic resolution $(\Sigma,\pi_{\Sigma},\varphi)$ of $(M,\pi_{M})$ exists, by Lemma \[lem\*\], the inverse image of any submanifold $N$ transverse to the symplectic leaf through $m$ by $\varphi$ is a symplectic submanifold of $\Sigma$ and the restriction $\varphi_{N} : \varphi^{-1}(N)\rightarrow N$ is a symplectic resolution of dimension $2(n+1-r)$ with $2r$ the rank of $\pi_{M}$ at $m$. Since the singular locus of $\pi$ contains a submanifold of codimension $1$, we get a contradiction with the induction hypothesis. This shows the result.
A holomorphic Poisson manifold does not admit connected symplectic resolutions unless it is symplectic.
A Poisson manifold $(M,\pi_{M})$ that admits a symplectic realization must be symplectic on an open dense subset by Proposition \[nari\]. For such a manifold, the multivector field $\pi^n=\pi\wedge\cdots\wedge\pi$ ($n$ times, where $2n$ is the dimension of $M$) is a section of a vector bundle of rank $1$, namely $\wedge^{2n}TM$ which vanishes precisely at critical points. If it vanishes in at least one point, i.e, if $(M,\pi_M)$ is not symplectic, there is also a submanifold of codimension $1$ where it vanishes (by Weierstrass preparation theorem - which implies that the zero locus of any holomorphic function contains regular points, around which it is simply a submanifold of codimenion $1$). Theorem \[theo:final\] allows to conclude that no symplectic realization exist.
[777]{}
Arnaud Beauville, Symplectic singularities, *Invent. Math.*, [**139**]{}, (2000), 541–549.
Travis Schedler, A new linear quotient of ${\bf C}^4$ admitting a symplectic resolution, *Math. Z.*, [**273**]{}, (2013), [753–769]{}.
Damien Broka, Ping Xu, *Symplectic Realizations of Holomorphic Poisson Manifolds*, arXiv. (2015).
Alain Coste, Pierre Dazord, and Alan Weinstein, Groupoïdes symplectiques, *Publications du Département de mathématiques de Lyon*, [**2A**]{},(1987): 1–62.
Jean-Paul Dufour, Nguyen Tien Zung, *Poisson Structures and Their Normal Forms*, Springer Birkhäuser, (2005)
BaoHua Fu, Symplectic Resolutions for Nilpotent Orbits, *Invent. math.*, [**151**]{}, (2003), 157–186.
Camille Laurent-Gengoux, *From Lie groupoids to resolutions of singularities. Applications to sympletic and Poisson resolution* , arXiv. (2007).
Camille Laurent-Gengoux, Anne Pichereau, Pol Vanhaecke, *Poisson Structures*, Spinger, (2013).
André Lichnerowicz, Variété de Poisson et leurs algèbres, *J. Diff Geom.*, [**12**]{}, (1977), 253–300.
John W. Milnor, *Topology from the Differentiable Viewpoint*, Princeton University Press, (1997).
Alan Weinstein, The local structure of Poisson manifolds, *J. Diff Geom.*, [**18**]{}, (1983), 523–557.
John W. Milnor. *Topology from the differential viewpoint*, The University Press of Virginia, (1965).
Caroline Lemarié. *Quelques structures de Poisson et équations de Lax associées au réseau de Toeplitz et au réseau de Schur*, PhD thesis in mathematics under the direction of Pol Vanhaecke, Université de Poitiers, (2012).
[^1]: For us, a symplectic manifold is a Poisson manifold with an invertible bivector field.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Cachazo and Strominger recently proposed an extension of the soft-graviton theorem found by Weinberg. In addition, they proved the validity of their extension at tree level. This was motivated by a Virasoro symmetry of the gravity $S$-matrix related to BMS symmetry. As shown long ago by Weinberg, the leading behavior is not corrected by loops. In contrast, we show that with the standard definition of soft limits in dimensional regularization, the subleading behavior is anomalous and modified by loop effects. We argue that there are no new types of corrections to the first subleading behavior beyond one loop and to the second subleading behavior beyond two loops. To facilitate our investigation, we introduce a new momentum-conservation prescription for defining the subleading terms of the soft limit. We discuss the loop-level subleading soft behavior of gauge-theory amplitudes before turning to gravity amplitudes.'
author:
- 'Zvi Bern, Scott Davies and Josh Nohle'
title: |
On Loop Corrections to Subleading Soft Behavior of Gluons\
and Gravitons\
---
UCLA/14/TEP/102 $\null\hskip 4cm \null$
Introduction
============
Recent years have seen enormous advances in our ability to calculate scattering amplitudes in gauge and gravity theories. These advances allow us to address various fundamental issues in such theories. Some time ago Weinberg presented a theorem for the universal factorization of scattering amplitudes when gravitons become soft [@Weinberg]. Recently Weinberg’s soft-graviton theorem was shown to be a Ward identity [@Strominger] of the Bondi, van der Burg, Metzner and Sachs (BMS) [@BMS] symmetry. Along these lines, Strominger conjectured that an extension of Weinberg’s theorem [@StromingerNotes] for the first subleading terms in the soft limit follows from BMS symmetry. Supporting evidence has been presented recently by Cachazo and Strominger [@CachazoStrominger], proving that it holds at tree level. Interestingly, Cachazo and Strominger also showed that the second-order subleading correction to the tree behavior is also universal. These results are similar to the universal subleading soft-photon behavior proven long ago by Low [@Low]. The first subleading soft-graviton behavior was first discussed by White using eikonal methods [@WhiteGrav]. Very recently, the subleading soft behavior at tree level has also been shown to be universal outside of four dimensions [@Volovich].
One might hope that at least the first subleading soft behavior is a theorem valid to all loop orders, as suggested by its link to BMS symmetry [@CachazoStrominger]. However, symmetries at loop level are delicate because of the need to regularize ultraviolet and infrared divergences. The required regularization can modify Ward identities derived from symmetries. In this paper, we demonstrate in a simple way that graviton infrared singularities imply that there are loop corrections to the subleading behavior of scattering amplitudes as external gravitons become soft, when we use the standard definition of such limits. These corrections are effectively a quantum breaking of the symmetry responsible for the tree-level behavior.
In order to understand the loop-level behavior of soft gravitons, it is useful to first look at the well-studied case of loop corrections to soft gluons in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) [@OneLoopSoftBern; @OneLoopSoftKosower]. The subleading soft-gluon behavior was already discussed using the eikonal approach [@WhiteYM]. A simple proof of the universal subleading soft behavior of gluons at tree level was recently given [@SoftGluonProof], following the corresponding proof for gravitons [@CachazoStrominger]. The connection between the two theories is not surprising. Gravity scattering amplitudes are closely related to gauge-theory ones and can even be constructed directly from them [@KLT; @BGK; @BDDPR; @OneLoopMHVGrav; @BCJ].
At one loop, the modifications to the leading soft-gluon behavior are directly tied to the infrared singularities, and can be used to deduce the complete correction including finite parts [@OneLoopSoftBern]. When a gluon becomes soft, there is a mismatch between the infrared singularities at $n$ points and at $n-1$ points, so loop corrections to the soft function are required to absorb this mismatch. Following the gauge-theory case, we use the infrared singularities of gravity loop amplitudes [@Weinberg; @GravityIR] to deduce the existence of loop corrections to the subleading soft-graviton behavior. As in QCD, discontinuities in the infrared singularities arise as one goes from $n$ points to $n-1$ points by taking a soft limit in the standard way. In gravity, the leading soft-graviton behavior is smooth because the dimensionful coupling ensures that any discontinuity is suppressed by at least one additional factor of the soft momentum [@OneLoopMHVGrav]. However, since there is less suppression in subleading soft pieces, loop corrections survive. This allows us to demonstrate in a simple way that the subleading behavior of gravitons indeed has loop corrections similar to the loop corrections that appear in QCD. As the loop order increases, the suppression increases. Hence, the first subleading behavior is protected against corrections starting at two loops and the second subleading behavior is protected against corrections starting at three loops.
This paper is organized as follows. In , we give preliminaries on the tree-level behavior of soft gluons and gravitons. In , we turn to the main subject of this paper: the behavior of the subleading contributions at loop level, showing that there are nontrivial one-loop corrections to subleading soft-graviton behavior. In , we discuss the all-loop behavior. We give our conclusions in .
Preliminaries {#PreliminariesSection}
=============
.7 cm ![The diagrams where leading and subleading contributions to the tree soft factor arise. Leg $n$ is the soft leg. \[TreeSoftFigure\] ](TreeSoft.eps "fig:")
-.7 cm
In this section, we summarize the soft behavior of gravitons and gluons at tree level, including their subleading behavior.
Soft gravitons
--------------
At tree level, consider the soft scaling of momentum $k_n$ of an $n$-point amplitude, $$k_n^{\alpha\dot \alpha} \rightarrow \cseps k_n^{\alpha\dot \alpha} \,, \hskip 2 cm
\lambda_n^\alpha \rightarrow \sqrt{\cseps} \lambda_n^\alpha\,, \hskip 2 cm
\tlambda_n^{\dot \alpha} \rightarrow \sqrt{\cseps} \tlambda_n^{\dot \alpha}\,,
\label{SoftKinematicsReal}$$ where $k_n^{\alpha\dot \alpha} = \lambda^\alpha_n \tlambda^{\dot
\alpha}_n$ is the standard decomposition of a massless momentum in terms of spinors. (See e.g. Ref. [@LanceTasi] for the spinor-helicity formalism used for scattering amplitudes.) In the limit (\[SoftKinematicsReal\]), an $n$-point graviton tree amplitude behaves as [@CachazoStrominger] $$M_{n}^\tree \rightarrow
\Bigl( \frac{1}{\cseps} \, S_n^{(0)\grav}
+ S_n^{(1)\grav}
+ \cseps \, S_n^{(2)\grav} \Bigr) M_{n-1}^\tree + \Ord(\cseps^2) \,,
\label{GeneralGravSoftLimitReal}$$ where $\cseps$ is taken to be a small parameter. The soft operators are $$\begin{aligned}
&& S_n^{(0)\grav} = \sum_{i = 1}^{n-1} \frac{\pol_{\mu\nu} k_i^\mu k_i^\nu}
{k_n \cdot k_i}\,, \nonumber \\
&& S_{n}^{(1)\grav} = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{\pol_{\mu\nu} k_i^\mu k_{n\rho} J_i^{\rho\nu}}
{k_n \cdot k_i} \,, \nonumber \\
&& S_{n}^{(2)\grav} = \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{\pol_{\mu\nu} k_{n\rho} J_i^{\rho\mu}
k_{n \sigma} J_i^{\sigma\nu}}
{k_n \cdot k_i} \,,
\label{SubleadingSoftGrav}\end{aligned}$$ where $\pol_{\mu\nu}$ is the graviton polarization tensor of the soft leg $n$ and $J_i^{\mu\nu}$ is the angular momentum operator for particle $i$. $S_n^{(0)\grav}$ is the leading term found long ago by Weinberg [@Weinberg]. For simplicity, we suppress powers of the gravitational coupling $\kappa/2$ here and in the remaining part of the paper. In a helicity basis with a plus-helicity soft graviton, the explicit forms of the operators are $$\begin{aligned}
S_n^{(0)\grav} & =& -\sum_{i = 1}^{n-1}
\frac{\spb{n}.i \spa{x}.i \spa{y}.i}{\spa{n}.{i} \spa{x}.{n} \spa{y}.{n}}\,,
\nonumber \\
S_{n}^{(1)\grav} &= &-\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{\spb{n}.{i}} {\spa{n}.{i}}
\biggl(\frac{\spa{x}.i}{\spa{x}.n} + \frac{\spa{y}.i}{\spa{y}.n} \biggr)
\tlambda^{\dot\alpha}_n \frac{\partial}{\partial\tlambda^{\dot\alpha}_i} \,,
\nonumber\\
S_{n}^{(2)\grav} &=& -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{\spb{n}.{i}} {\spa{n}.{i}}
\tlambda^{\dot\alpha}_n\tlambda^{\dot\beta}_n
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tlambda_i^{\dot\alpha}
\partial \tlambda_i^{\dot\beta} } \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_x$ and $\lambda_y$ are arbitrary massless reference spinors, which reflect gauge invariance. We follow the standard conventions of $s_{ab} = \spa{a}.b \spb{b}.a$. The case of a minus-helicity soft graviton follows from parity conjugation. The first subleading behavior was discussed first in Ref. [@WhiteGrav].
It is convenient to present the subleading behavior in terms of a holomorphic scaling of the spinors [@CachazoStrominger]. An advantage is that it makes the factorization channels clearer because the universal subleading behavior appears as poles in the scattering amplitudes. Taking leg $n$ of an $n$-point amplitude to be a soft plus-helicity graviton, we scale the spinors as $$k_n^\mu \rightarrow \cseps k_n^\mu\,, \hskip 2 cm
\lambda_n^\alpha \rightarrow \cseps \lambda_n^\alpha\,, \hskip 2 cm
\tlambda_n^{\dot \alpha} \rightarrow \tlambda_n^{\dot \alpha}\,.
\label{SoftKinematics}$$ Under this rescaling, tree-level graviton amplitudes behave as [@CachazoStrominger] $$M_{n}^\tree \rightarrow
\Bigl( \frac{1}{\cseps^3} S_{n}^{(0)\grav}
+ \frac{1}{\cseps^2} S_{n}^{(1)\grav}
+ \frac{1}{\cseps} S_{n}^{(2)\grav} \Bigr) M_{n-1}^\tree
+ \Ord(\cseps^0)\,,
\label{GeneralGravSoftLimit}$$ where $M_{n}^\tree$ is the $n$-point amplitude and $M_{n-1}^\tree$ is the $(n-1)$-point amplitude obtained by removing the soft leg $n$. The connection of the two scalings is through little-group scaling. The proof of universality [@CachazoStrominger] of the subleading soft behavior (\[SubleadingSoftGrav\]) relies on all contributions arising from factorizations on $1/(k_a + k_n)^2$ propagators in the soft kinematics (\[SoftKinematics\]), as illustrated in .
Some care is needed to interpret the soft behavior in because the $n$-point kinematics of the amplitude on the left-hand side of the equation is not the same as the $(n-1)$-point kinematics normally used to define the amplitude on the right-hand side of the equation. This becomes an issue for the subleading soft terms because of feed down from leading terms to subleading ones, depending on the precise prescription. The prescription chosen by Cachazo and Strominger is to explicitly impose $n$-point momentum conservation on the amplitude on the left-hand side and $(n-1)$-point momentum conservation on the amplitude on the right-hand side. This constraint is conveniently implemented via $$\tlambda_1 = - \sum_{i = 3}^m \frac{\spa2.i}{\spa2.1} \tlambda_i\,, \hskip 3 cm
\tlambda_2 = - \sum_{i = 3}^m \frac{\spa1.i}{\spa1.2} \tlambda_i\,,$$ so that $\sum_{i = 1}^m \lambda_i \tlambda_i = 0$. This constraint is imposed on the amplitudes on the left-hand side of with $m=n$ and on the right-hand side with $m=n-1$.
For our loop-level study, we use a different prescription. We interpret the expressions on both sides of as carrying the [*same*]{} $n$-point kinematics, without needing to apply any additional constraints on the kinematics. The advantage is that this prevents complicated terms from feeding down from higher- to lower-order terms in the soft expansion, which would obscure the structure at loop level. This change in prescription effectively shifts contributions between different orders in the expansion.[^1]
Soft gluons
-----------
Following the same derivation as for gravitons, tree-level Yang-Mills amplitudes also have a universal subleading soft behavior [@SoftGluonProof]. If we scale $\lambda_n \rightarrow
\cseps\lambda_n$, the color-ordered amplitude behaves as $$A_{n}^\tree \rightarrow
\Bigl( \frac{1}{\cseps^2} S^{(0)}_{n\,\glue}
+ \frac{1}{\cseps} S^{(1)}_{n\,\glue} \Bigr) A_{n-1}^\tree\,,
\label{YMSoftTree}$$ where the leading soft factor is $$S_{n\,\glue} ^{(0)} =
-\frac{k_{n-1}\cdot\pol_n}{\sqrt{2}\,k_{n-1} \cdot k_n}
+ \frac{k_{1}\cdot\pol_n}{\sqrt{2}\,k_1 \cdot k_n} \,.$$ The subleading one is $$S_{n\,\glue} ^{(1)}=
\frac{k_{n\mu} \pol_{n\nu} J_{n-1}^{\mu\nu}}{\sqrt{2}\,k_{n-1}\cdot k_n}
- \frac{k_{n\mu} \pol_{n\nu} J_1^{\mu\nu} }{\sqrt{2}\,k_1\cdot k_n}\,.
\label{MsoftSubleading}$$ Again we have suppressed the coupling constants. Using spinor-helicity, the plus-helicity gluon leading soft factor is $$S_{n\,\glue}^{(0)}=\frac{\langle (n-1)\,1\rangle}
{\langle (n-1)\,n\rangle\langle n\,1\rangle}\,,$$ while the subleading operator is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{n\,\glue} ^{(1)}=\frac{1}{\langle(n-1)\,n\rangle}\tilde{\lambda}_n^{\dot{\alpha}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\tilde{\lambda}_{n-1}^{\dot{\alpha}}}
- \frac{1}{\langle 1\,n\rangle}\tilde{\lambda}_n^{\dot{\alpha}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial{\tilde{\lambda}}_1^{\dot{\alpha}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ An earlier description was given in Ref. [@WhiteYM].
One-loop corrections to subleading soft behavior {#LoopSection}
================================================
As shown by Weinberg [@Weinberg], the leading soft-graviton behavior has no higher-loop corrections. In Ref. [@CachazoStrominger], Cachazo and Strominger demonstrated that their proposed theorem for subleading soft-graviton behavior holds at tree level.
Here, we demonstrate that there are nontrivial loop corrections for the subleading soft-graviton behavior analogous to the ones that appear in QCD for the leading soft terms, using the standard definition of soft limits in dimensional regularization. As in QCD, loop corrections linked to infrared divergences necessarily appear because of mismatches in the logarithms of the infrared singularities at $n$ and $n-1$ points. Divergences require a regulator which can break symmetries at the quantum level. In this sense, we can think of the loop corrections as due to an anomaly in the underlying symmetry. Its origin is similar to the twistor-space holomorphic anomaly [@HolomorphicAnomaly], where extra contributions arise in regions of loop integration that are singular.
In general, the structure of the loop corrections to soft behavior is entangled with the infrared divergences. This phenomenon is familiar in QCD [@BernChalmers; @OneLoopSoftBern], so we discuss this case first before turning to gravity. Besides corrections that arise from infrared singularities, we will find that there are other loop corrections due to nontrivial factorization properties [@SingleMinus; @NontrivialFactorization; @DunbarFactorization], even for infrared-finite one-loop amplitudes.
One-loop corrections to soft-gluon behavior {#OneloopGluonSubsection}
-------------------------------------------
.7 cm ![At one loop, the simple tree-level soft behavior (a) is corrected by factorizing (b) and nonfactorizing (c) contributions [@OneLoopSoftBern]. In gravity, the corrections are suppressed by factors of the soft momentum $k_n$, but they affect the subleading behavior. \[LoopSoftFigure\] ](LoopSoft.eps "fig:")
-.7 cm
In general, loop-level factorization properties of gauge theories are surprisingly nontrivial, in part, because of their entanglement with infrared singularities [@BernChalmers]. This causes naive notions of factorization in soft and other kinematic limits to break down; in massless gauge theories, one can obtain kinematic poles also from the loop integration. However, because the infrared singularities have a universal behavior, they offer a simple means for studying soft limits of loop amplitudes with an arbitrary number of external legs.
shows the types of contributions to the one-loop soft behavior when the amplitude is represented in terms of the standard covariant basis of integrals. These consist of “factorizing” contributions, illustrated in (b), and “nonfactorizing” contributions, illustrated in (c).[^2] The nonfactorizing contributions arise from poles in the $S$-matrix coming from loop integration and not directly from propagators, as illustrated in (c).
As a simple example, consider the single-external-mass box integral, displayed in . This is one of the basis integrals for one-loop amplitudes. The infrared-divergent terms of this integral are [@BasisIntegrals] $$I_4^{\rm 1m} =
\frac{2i\,\cg}{s_{n 1} s_{12}} \, \biggl[ \frac{1}{\eps^2} \biggl(
\Bigl(\frac{\mu^2}{-s_{n1}}\Bigr)^{\eps}
+ \Bigl(\frac{\mu^2} {-s_{12}} \Bigr)^{\eps}
- \Bigl(\frac{\mu^2}{-s_{n12}}\Bigr)^{\eps} \biggr)
+ {\rm finite} \Bigr] \,,$$ where the labels correspond to those in . We also have $$\begin{aligned}
\cg=\frac{1}{(4\pi)^{2-\epsilon}}\frac{\Gamma(1+\epsilon)\Gamma^2(1-\epsilon)}{\Gamma(1-2\epsilon)}\,,\hspace{1cm}s_{i_1i_2\cdots i_j}=(k_{i_1}+k_{i_2}+\cdots +k_{i_j})^2\,.
\label{cgdef}\end{aligned}$$ When leg $n$ goes soft, the integral has a $1/s_{n 1}$ kinematic pole from the prefactor. While one might expect such poles to cancel out of amplitudes, they, in fact, remain due to their entanglement with infrared singularities. However, this link ensures that they have a regular pattern. In general, these nonfactorizing contributions need to be accounted for in loop-level soft behavior and other factorization limits in gauge theories. The same holds for the subleading soft behavior of gravity amplitudes.
A one-loop $n$-gluon amplitude in QCD has ultraviolet and infrared singularities given by [@OneLoopDivergence; @BernChalmers] $$A_n^\oneloop(1,2, \cdots, n)\Bigr|_\div = - \frac{1}{\eps^2}
A_n^\tree(1,2, \cdots, n) \sigma^\glue_n \,,
\label{SingularIR}$$ where $$\sigma^\glue_n = \cg\biggl[ \sum_{j=1}^{n}
\biggl( \frac{\mu^{2}}{-s_{j,j+1}} \biggr)^\eps
+ {2}{\eps} \biggl(\frac{11}{6} - \frac{1}{3} \frac{n_{\!f}}{N_c}
- \frac{1}{6} \frac{n_s}{N_c} \biggr) \biggr]\,.
\label{eq:sigmaYM}$$ In this expression, $n_f$ is the number of quark flavors, $n_s$ is the number of scalar flavors (zero in QCD) and $N_{c}$ is the number of colors. Here, $\eps = (4-D)/2$ is the dimensional-regularization parameter, and $\mu^{2}$ is the usual dimensional-regularization scale. It turns out that it is best to work with unrenormalized amplitudes containing also ultraviolet divergences because the mismatch in the number of coupling constants at $n$ and $n-1$ points causes an additional (trivial) discontinuity in the soft behavior. By working with unrenormalized amplitudes, we avoid this. A key property of Eq. is that the terms depending on the number of quark and scalar flavors is independent of the number of external gluons. The terms in the summation arise from soft-gluon singularities in the loop integration. In general, the expression in should be interpreted as being series expanded in $\eps$, since terms beyond $\Ord(\eps^0)$ that are usually not computed can mix nontrivially with these.
.7 cm ![An example of an integral that has a “nonfactorizing” kinematic pole that contributes to the soft behavior. \[Box1mFigure\] ](Box1m.eps "fig:")
-.7 cm
Consider the soft limit of the singular parts of the gauge-theory amplitude (\[SingularIR\]). The tree prefactor obeys the simple soft behavior given in . The infrared singularities, however, have a mismatch between $n$ points and $n-1$ points: $$\sigma^\glue_n = \sigma^\glue _{n-1}
+ \sigma_n^{\prime \glue} + \Ord(\eps^{2})\,,$$ where $$\sigma_n^{\prime\glue} = \cg \biggl(1 +
\eps \log\biggl(\frac{-\mu^2 s_{(n-1) 1}}{s_{(n-1) n} s_{n 1}}
\biggr) \biggr) \,.$$ It turns out that this mismatch can be used to deduce the complete one-loop corrections to the leading soft factor by matching the infrared discontinuities in the basis integrals to the infrared discontinuities in the amplitude [@OneLoopSoftBern].
The leading soft behavior of an $n$-gluon amplitude with any matter content for $\lambda_n \rightarrow \cseps \lambda_{n} $ is then [@OneLoopSoftBern; @OneLoopSoftKosower] $$A_n^\oneloop \rightarrow S_{n\,\glue}^{(0)} A_{n-1}^\oneloop+ S_{n\,\glue}^{(0) \oneloop} A_{n-1}^\tree\,,$$ where the leading one-loop soft correction function is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{n\,\glue}^{(0)\oneloop} &=& -S_{n\,\glue}^{(0)} \frac{\cg}{\eps^2}
\bigg(\frac{-\mu^2 s_{(n-1) 1}}{s_{(n-1)n} s_{n1}} \biggr)^{\eps}
\frac{\pi \eps}{\sin(\pi \eps)}\nonumber \\
&=& -S_{n\,\glue}^{(0)} \cg \biggl( \frac{1}{\eps^2}
+ \frac{1}{\eps} \log\biggl(\frac{-\mu^2 s_{(n-1) 1}}{\cseps^2s_{(n-1) n} s_{n 1}}
\biggr)
+ \frac{1}{2}
\log^2\biggl(\frac{-\mu^2 s_{(n-1) 1}}{\cseps^2 s_{(n-1) n} s_{n 1}}\biggr)
+ \frac{\pi^2}{6} \biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \null \hskip 2 cm
+ \Ord(\eps)\,.
\label{OneLoopLeadingSoftFunction}\end{aligned}$$ The form on the first line is valid to all orders in $\eps$. In applying this equation, it is important to first expand in $\eps$ prior taking the soft limit.
Now consider the subleading soft terms. Taking the divergent part of the one-loop amplitude to have a soft limit of the form, $$A_{n}^\oneloop \Bigr|_{\div} \rightarrow
\Bigl( \frac{1}{\cseps^2} S^{(0)}_{n\,\glue}
+ \frac{1}{\cseps} S^{(1)}_{n\,\glue} \Bigr) A_{n-1}^\oneloop \Bigr|_\div +
\Bigl( \frac{1}{\cseps^2} S^{(0)\oneloop}_{n\,\glue}
+ \frac{1}{\cseps} S^{(1)\oneloop}_{n\,\glue} \Bigr) A_{n-1}^\tree\Bigr|_\div \,,
\label{YMOneloopSoft}$$ we then solve for the divergent parts of the one-loop corrections to the soft operators, denoted by $S^{(i)\,\oneloop}_{n\,\glue}$. We do so by comparing the soft expansion of the left-hand side of to the terms on the right-hand side. Applying $S^{(1)}_{n\,\glue}$ to the infrared singularity of the $(n-1)$-point amplitude gives $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(1)}_{n\,\glue} \sigma^\glue_{n-1} &=&
-\cg \eps
\Bigl(\frac{\spb1.n}{\spb1.{(n-1)} \spa{(n-1)}.n} - \frac{\spb{(n-1)}.n} {\spb{(n-1)}.1\spa{1}.n }
\nonumber \\
&& \null \hskip 3 cm
+ \frac{\spb{(n-2)}.n} {\spb{(n-2)}.{(n-1)}\spa{(n-1)}.n }- \frac{\spb{2}.n} {\spb{2}.{1} \spa{1}.n} \Bigr)\,,
\label{S1YMResult}\end{aligned}$$ where we use the form of $\sigma^\glue_{n-1}$ exactly as it appears in without any additional momentum-conservation relations imposed. Taking the one-loop correction to the subleading soft function to be $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(1)\oneloop}_{n\,\glue} & = &
- \frac{1}{\eps^2} \biggl[
\sigma_n^{\prime \glue} S^{(1)}_{n\,\glue}
- \Big(S^{(1)}_{n\,\glue} \sigma^\glue_{n-1}\Bigr)
\biggr]
+ \Ord(\eps^0) \,,\end{aligned}$$ we find that holds. The simple form of the correction relies on using the specific form for $S^{(1)}\sigma_{n-1}$ in . We also interpret both sides of as having the same $n$-point kinematics.
It would be important to understand the infrared-finite terms as well. These also have nontrivial corrections. For the case of the infrared-finite identical-helicity one-loop amplitudes [@AllPlus], numerical analysis through 30 points shows that the amplitudes behave exactly as tree-level amplitudes with no nontrivial corrections. However, the one-loop amplitudes with a single minus helicity [@SingleMinus] have nontrivial subleading soft behavior. As an example, consider the one-loop five-gluon amplitude [@fivePointOneLoop; @SingleMinus], $$\begin{aligned}
A_5^\oneloop(1^-,2^+,3^+,4^+,5^+)=\frac{i}{48\pi^2}
\frac{1}{\spa3.4^2} \biggl[-\frac{\spb2.5^3}{\spb1.2 \spb5.1}
+ \frac{\spa1.4^3\spb4.5 \spa3.5}{\spa1.2 \spa2.3 \spa4.5^2}
- \frac{\spa1.3^3\spb3.2\spa4.2}{\spa1.5\spa5.4\spa3.2^2} \biggr] \,,
\label{SingleMinusYM}\end{aligned}$$ as the momentum of leg 5 becomes soft. The four-point one-loop single-minus-helicity amplitude is [@FourPointSingleMinus] $$\begin{aligned}
A_4^\oneloop(1^-,2^+,3^+,4^+)=\frac{i}{48\pi^2}\frac{\spa2.4 \spb2.4^3}
{\spb1.2 \spa2.3 \spa3.4 \spb4.1}\,.
\label{SingleMinusYMFourPt}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the tree-level operators to the four-point amplitude, as in Eq. , yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\Bigl( \frac{1}{\cseps^2} S^{(0)}_{n\,\glue}
+ \frac{1}{\cseps} S^{(1)}_{n\,\glue} \Bigr)
A_{4}^\oneloop(1^-,2^+,3^+,4^+) \notag \\
&\hspace{4cm}=\frac{i}{48\pi^2}\frac{\spa1.3^3 \spa2.4 \spb1.2}
{\spa2.3^2\spa3.4^3} \left(\frac{1}{\delta^2}
\frac{\spa4.1}{\spa4.5 \spa5.1}
+\frac{1}{\delta} \frac{\spb5.2}{\spa5.1 \spb1.2} \right)\,.
\label{FourPTOperator}\end{aligned}$$ After applying the operators, we applied five-point momentum conservation to remove the anti-holomorphic spinors $\tilde{\lambda}_3$, $\tilde{\lambda}_4$.[^3] This facilitates comparison with the soft limit of the five-point amplitude . With the same constraints applied, this is given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_5^\oneloop(1^-,2^+,3^+,4^+,5^+)&\rightarrow
\frac{i}{48\pi^2}\bigg[\frac{\spa1.3^3 \spa2.4 \spb1.2}{\spa2.3^2 \spa3.4^3}
\left(\frac{1}{\delta^2} \frac{\spa4.1}{\spa4.5 \spa5.1}
+ \frac{1}{\delta} \frac{\spb5.2}{\spa5.1 \spb1.2}\right) \notag \\
&\hspace{2cm}\null
+\frac{1}{\delta}\frac{\spa1.4^3\spa3.5}
{\spa1.2 \spa2.3 \spa 3.4^3 \spa4.5^2}
(\spa1.3 \spb1.5 + \spa2.3 \spb2.5)\bigg]\,.
\label{FivePointSoft}\end{aligned}$$ While the leading order pieces are identical, the subleading pieces differ in .
The nontrivial behavior of the single-minus-helicity amplitudes is not surprising given that they contain nontrivial complex poles that cannot be interpreted as a straightforward factorization. In general, nonsupersymmetric gauge-theory loop amplitudes contain such nontrivial poles. This phenomenon complicates the construction of gauge and gravity loop amplitudes from their poles and has been described in some detail in Refs. [@NontrivialFactorization; @DunbarFactorization]. We leave the discussion of such infrared-finite contributions to the future.
One-loop corrections to soft-graviton behavior {#OneloopGravitonSubsection}
----------------------------------------------
Applying a similar analysis, it is straightforward to see that one-loop corrections to the subleading soft-graviton behavior do not vanish because of mismatched logarithms in the infrared singularities. At one loop, the $n$-graviton amplitude contains the dimensionally-regularized infrared-singular terms [@DunbarNorridge; @GravityIR], $$M_n^\oneloop\Bigr|_\div = \frac{\sigma_n^\grav}{\epsilon} M_n^\tree\,,
\label{OneLoopIRGrav}$$ where $M_n^\tree$ is the $n$-graviton tree amplitude, and $$\sigma_n= - \cg
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^ns_{ij} \log\Bigl(\frac{\mu^2}{-s_{ij}}\Bigr)\,,
\label{SigmaGrav}$$ where $\cg$ is defined in . As in QCD, the logarithms that appear at $n$ points are not identical to the ones appearing at $(n-1)$ points. The logarithms in the infrared singularity that differ between an $n$- and $(n-1)$-graviton amplitude are $$\sigma'_{n} = - \cg
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} s_{in}
\log\Bigl(\frac{\mu^2}{-s_{in}}\Bigr) \,.
\label{SigmaPrime}$$ While this mismatch does not affect the leading soft behavior because of the suppression from the $s_{in}$ factors, it does affect subleading terms.
By absorbing the mismatches into corrections to the subleading soft operator, we find that in the soft limit $\lambda_n \rightarrow \cseps
\lambda_n$, the infrared singular terms behave as $$M_n^\oneloop \Bigr|_\div \rightarrow \biggl(
\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(0)}}{\cseps^3} + \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)}}{\cseps^2}
+ \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)}}{\cseps}\biggr) M_{n-1}^\oneloop \Bigr|_\div
+\biggl(\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)\,\oneloop}}{\cseps^2} +
\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)\,\oneloop}}{\cseps} \biggr)
M_{n-1}^\tree \Bigr|_\div \,,
\label{OneloopBehavior}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{n\,\grav}^{(0)\,\oneloop} \Bigr|_\div & = 0
\,,\nonumber \\
S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)\,\oneloop} \Bigr|_\div & = \frac{1}{\eps} \biggl[
\sigma_n' S_{n\,\grav}^{(0)}
- \Bigl(S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)} \sigma^\grav_{n-1} \Bigr) \biggr]
\,,\nonumber \\
S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)\,\oneloop}\Bigr|_\div &= \frac{1}{\eps} \biggl[
\sigma_n' S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)}
- \Bigl(S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)} \sigma^\grav_{n-1} \Bigr)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{\spb{n}.{i}}{\spa{n}.{i}} \,
\biggl( \tlambda^{\dot\alpha}_n \frac{\partial\sigma_{n-1}^\grav}
{\partial \tlambda^{\dot\alpha}_i} \biggr)\,{\tlambda^{\dot\beta}_n}
\frac{\partial} {\partial \tlambda^{\dot\beta}_i }
\biggr] \,.
\label{OneLoopSoftFunctions}
\end{aligned}$$ Similar to the gauge-theory case, the simple form of these corrections to the subleading soft operators relies on using the form of $\sigma_{n-1}$ obtained from with no additional momentum-conservation relations imposed. We again also interpret both sides of as having the same $n$-point kinematics. As in QCD, it is important to follow the standard procedure of first series expanding the amplitude in $\eps$ prior to taking soft limits.
We have checked numerically through 10 points that the infrared-finite identical-helicity graviton amplitudes [@AllPlusGrav] satisfy the same subleading soft behavior as the tree amplitudes. However, more generally we expect a more complicated behavior due to the nontrivial factorization properties of loop amplitudes [@SingleMinus; @NontrivialFactorization]. Such nontrivial factorization properties have been discussed for gravity theories in Refs. [@DunbarSingleMinusFive; @DunbarFactorization]. Indeed, by numerically analyzing the infrared-finite one-loop five-graviton amplitude with a single minus helicity from Ref. [@DunbarSingleMinusFive] and the one-loop four-graviton amplitude with a single minus helicity from Ref. [@BernDunbarShimada], we find that the second subleading soft behavior has nontrivial corrections. We leave a discussion of the infrared-finite corrections to the graviton soft behavior to the future.
All loop order behavior of soft gravitons {#AllLoopSection}
=========================================
As we demonstrated in the previous section, the subleading soft behavior has loop corrections. In this section, we argue that the first subleading soft behavior has no corrections beyond one loop and that the second subleading behavior has no corrections beyond two loops.
.7 cm ![Sample factorizing (a) one- and (b) two-loop contributions to the soft behavior. \[FactorizingFigure\] ](Factorizing.eps "fig:")
-.7 cm
.7 cm ![Sample nonfactorizing (a) one- and (b) two-loop contributions to the soft behavior. \[NonFactorizingFigure\] ](NonFactorizing.eps "fig:")
-.7 cm
General considerations
----------------------
The all-loop leading soft-graviton behavior has been discussed in some detail in Section [5.2]{} of Ref. [@OneLoopMHVGrav]. Here we follow this discussion for the subleading behavior. As already noted for gauge theory, potential contributions to the soft behavior can be divided into “factorizing” and “nonfactorizing” contributions [@BernChalmers] when the amplitude is expressed in terms of covariant Feynman integrals. We consider these types of contributions in turn.
The factorizing contributions of the type displayed in depend on the soft momentum $k_n$ and one additional momentum $k_a$. After the Lorentz indices of polarization tensors are contracted, no other Lorentz invariants are present other than $s_{na}$. By dimensional analysis, the $L$-loop correction contains an additional factor $\kappa^{2L}$ of the gravitational coupling relative to the tree-level contribution in , and therefore must contain relative factors of $s_{na}^L$. This gives a suppression of one soft momentum $k_n$ for each additional loop.
The nonfactorizing contributions displayed in have a similar suppression. The nonfactorizing contributions arise in regions where loop momenta become soft in addition to the external soft leg. For example, in the one-loop case displayed in (a), as $k_n
\rightarrow 0$, we must also have the loop momentum go as $l_1
\rightarrow 0$ in order to obtain a nonfactorizing contribution to the soft behavior; otherwise, there would be no large contribution for $k_n \rightarrow 0$, or equivalently for $\lambda_n \rightarrow 0$. In this region, $l_2 = l_1 - k_n$, $l_3 = l_1 - k_n - k_b$ and $l_4 =
l_1 + k_a$ also all become small. After integration, this leads to potential kinematic poles in $s_{an}$ or $s_{bn}$, or equivalently in $\lambda_n$. However, because gravity has an extra power of soft momentum, either $k_n$ or $l_1$ in the vertex attaching leg $n$ to the loop will suppress the pole. Similarly, at two loops, illustrated in (b), potential contributions arise when additional loop momenta become soft, in this case $l_5$. Once again, the dimensionful coupling ensures that there will be additional factors of soft momenta in the numerator. More generally, after integration, we get an additional $L$ factors of $s_{jn}$ compared to the gauge-theory case, where $j$ can be any momentum in the amplitude.
The net affect effect is that there are no loop corrections to the leading soft behavior, no corrections beyond one loop for the first subleading soft behavior, and no corrections beyond two loops for the second subleading soft behavior. We therefore expect the general form of the $L$-loop behavior for a plus-helicity graviton with $\lambda_n \rightarrow \cseps\lambda_n$ to have no loop corrections beyond two loops.
All loop behavior of leading infrared singularities
---------------------------------------------------
Since there should be no corrections beyond two loops, we expect that the $L$-loop leading infrared-divergent terms should behave in the soft limit as $$\begin{aligned}
M_n^\Lloop\Bigr|_{\ldiv} & \hskip -.2 cm\rightarrow & \biggl(
\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(0)}}{\cseps^3} + \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)}}{\cseps^2}
+ \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)}}{\cseps}\biggr) M_{n-1}^\Lloop \Bigr|_{\ldiv} \nonumber\\
&& \null \hskip 2 cm
+\biggl(\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)\,\oneloop}}{\cseps^2} +
\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)\,\oneloop}}{\cseps} \biggr)
M_{n-1}^\Lmoneloop \Bigr|_{\ldiv} \nonumber \\
&& \null \hskip 2 cm
+ \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)\,\twoloop}}{\cseps}
M_{n-1}^\Lmtwoloop \Bigr|_{\ldiv} \,.
\label{LloopBehavior}\end{aligned}$$ We check this using the known all-loop-order form of infrared singularities in gravity theories [@Weinberg; @GravityIR]. The infrared singularities of gravity amplitudes are given by $$M_n = {\cal S}_n {\cal H}_n\,,$$ where $M_n$ is a gravity amplitude valid to all loop orders and ${\cal
H}_n$ is the infrared-finite hard function. The all-loop infrared singularity function is a simple exponentiation of the one-loop function (\[OneLoopIRGrav\]): $${\cal S}_n = \exp\Big( \frac{\sigma_n}{\eps} \Bigr)\,.$$ From this equation, we see that the leading infrared singularity at $L$ loops is simply given in terms of the tree amplitude: $$M_n^\Lloop \Bigr|_{\ldiv} = \frac{1}{L!}
\left(\frac{\sigma_n}{\epsilon}\right)^L M_n^\tree\,.$$
This gives us a simple means for testing and also for finding the leading infrared-singular part of the two-loop operator, $S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)\,\twoloop}$. We do so by taking the difference of the soft expansion on both sides of and using the previously determined operators in . We need the soft expansion of the leading infrared-singular part of $M_n^\Lloop$, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expansion}
\frac{\sigma_{n}^{L}}{L!}M_{n}^{\tree}
&\rightarrow
\frac{\left(\sigma_{n-1}+\cseps\sigma_{n}^{\prime}\right)^{L}}{L!}
\biggl(\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(0)}}{\cseps^3} + \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)}}{\cseps^2}
+ \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)}}{\cseps}\biggr) M_{n-1}^\tree\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_n'$ is defined in . We also need the results of acting on $(\sigma_{n-1}^{L}/L!)M_{n-1}^{\tree}$ with the tree-level soft operators, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{operator}
&\biggl(\frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(0)}}{\cseps^3}
+ \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)}}{\cseps^2}
+ \frac{S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)}}{\cseps}\biggr)
\frac{\sigma^{L}_{n-1}}{L!}M_{n-1}^{\tree} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating these, we deduce the leading infrared-divergent contribution to the two-loop soft operator to be $$S_{n\,\grav}^{(2)\,\twoloop} \Bigr|_\ldiv =
\frac{1}{\eps^{2}}\Biggl[
\frac{1}{2} \left(\sigma_{n}^{\prime}\right)^{2}S_{n\,\grav}^{(0)}
- \sigma_n' \Bigl( S_{n\,\grav}^{(1)} \sigma_{n-1} \Bigr)
-\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{\spb{n}.i}{\spa{n}.i}\,
\left(\tilde{\lambda}^{\dot{\alpha}}_{n}\frac{\partial\sigma_{n-1}}{\partial\tilde{\lambda}^{\dot{\alpha}}_{i}}\right)^{2}\right)
\Biggr] \,.$$ The lack of higher-loop corrections to the soft operators is a consequence of the fact that they are suppressed by additional powers of the soft momentum. As before, the form of $\sigma_{n-1}$ in the correction must be specifically as given in .
Conclusions {#ConclusionSection}
===========
Recently a generalization of Weinberg’s soft-graviton theorem for the subleading behavior was proposed [@StromingerNotes; @CachazoStrominger]. (See also previous work from White [@WhiteGrav].) Here we showed that, unlike the leading soft-graviton behavior, the subleading soft behavior requires loop corrections. In QCD, loop corrections to the leading soft functions make up for mismatches in the infrared singularities of $n$-point and $(n-1)$-point amplitudes. Applying this observation to gravity, we obtained the leading infrared-singular loop contributions to the subleading soft-graviton operators valid to all loop orders. This proves in a simple way that there necessarily are nonvanishing loop corrections to soft-graviton behavior. In addition, in the simple example of a five-graviton amplitude with a single minus helicity, we found additional corrections to the second subleading behavior, not linked to infrared singularities. These come from the nontrivial complex factorization properties of generic loop amplitudes [@BernChalmers; @SingleMinus; @NontrivialFactorization; @DunbarSingleMinusFive; @DunbarFactorization].
Following the discussion for the leading soft-graviton behavior [@Weinberg; @OneLoopMHVGrav], we argued that there are no loop corrections to the first subleading soft behavior beyond one loop and no new corrections to the second subleading behavior beyond two loops. This is connected to the dimensionful coupling of gravity. In the regions contributing to the soft limit, an extra power of the soft momentum is obtained for each additional loop, suppressing the contributions. By the third loop order, there are a sufficient number of powers of the soft momentum to suppress further corrections to the soft operators.
We also discussed the form of subleading corrections to the soft behavior in gauge theory as a warm-up for the gravity case. It is interesting to note that the subleading soft behavior in QCD might be useful for improved soft-gluon approximations.
An important remaining task is to determine the loop corrections to the general subleading soft behavior of the infrared-finite terms in both gauge and gravity theories. While this is simple in special cases, such as for identical-helicity amplitudes [@AllPlus; @AllPlusGrav], in general, the task is complicated by the nontrivial complex factorization properties of loop amplitudes [@BernChalmers; @SingleMinus; @NontrivialFactorization; @DunbarSingleMinusFive; @DunbarFactorization], on top of well understood feed downs from infrared singularities. We leave studies of the soft behavior of infrared-finite terms in gauge and gravity amplitudes to future work.
Added Note {#added-note .unnumbered}
==========
In this paper we have used the standard definition of dimensionally-regularized soft limits where one first series expands in the dimensional-regularization parameter before taking the soft limit. We do so because it matches the one needed for scattering amplitudes and associated physical processes as they are normally computed. After the appearance of the first version of this paper, a new paper appeared [@FreddyNew] showing that in some simple supersymmetric examples, loop corrections to the soft operators can be removed by altering the long-standing standard definition of soft limits. This alteration involves keeping the dimensional-regularization parameter finite before taking the soft limit.
The lack of loop corrections found in the examples of Ref. [@FreddyNew] is not surprising and is a simple consequence of the lack of discontinuities [@BernChalmers; @OneLoopSoftBern] with the reordered limits. This is connected to the well-known fact that with a finite dimensional-regularization parameter $\eps < 0$, or equivalently $D>4$, there are no infrared singularities. One can also view the prescription as equivalent to taking soft limits on integrands instead of the integrated expressions because one can push limits through the integral when they are smooth. (One can apply soft limits directly at the integrand level, but that is a distinct problem from the one for integrated amplitudes.) As an example, we immediately see from the first line of that one-loop corrections to the leading soft function in QCD vanish for $k_n \rightarrow 0$ if we hold $\eps <0$ fixed.
However, there are a number of reasons why it is important to use the standard dimensional-regularization procedure of series expanding in $\eps$ prior to taking soft [@OneLoopSoftBern; @OneLoopSoftKosower] or other limits. To be useful for obtaining cross sections, soft limits must be compatible with cancellations of infrared singularities between real-emission and virtual contributions. One might imagine keeping $\eps$ finite in both contributions in an attempt to treat them on an equal footing. However, the use of four-dimensional helicity states on external legs makes this problematic. Even in the well-understood standard definition of soft limits, one must be careful not to violate unitarity because of the incompatible treatment of real-emission and virtual contributions. (See for example Ref. [@KunsztIR].) Moreover, in QCD the modified prescription disrupts the cancellation of leading infrared singularities when $\eps
\rightarrow 0$ because it alters the real-emission sigularities without changing corresponding virtual ones.
Even if there were a way to avoid difficulties with real-emission contributions, keeping $\eps$ finite in virtual contributions would lead to serious complications as well. In general, loop amplitudes are computed only through a fixed order in $\eps$ because the higher order contributions are rather complicated, except in simple supersymmetric cases, and do not carry useful physical information for the problem at hand. (For an example of the typical forms that loop amplitudes take, see Ref. [@FivePtQCD].)
The single-minus helicity infrared-finite amplitudes are a good example of why it is best to series expand in $\eps$. As noted in Sections \[OneloopGluonSubsection\] and \[OneloopGravitonSubsection\], these amplitudes have another type of loop correction to soft behavior coming from nontrivial complex factorization channels and not from infrared discontinuities. (Since the first version of our paper appeared, He, Huang and Wen thoroughly investigated the single-minus helicity amplitudes [@HeHuang], among other topics, confirming our finding of nontrivial loop corrections.) In general, such amplitudes are known only for $\eps =
0$ [@SingleMinus; @DunbarSingleMinusFive]. It would be highly nontrivial to obtain the higher order in $\eps$ contributions for the purpose of attempting to prevent renormalization of the soft operators. Furthermore, we note that loop corrections to soft behavior are, in fact, quite useful for understanding the analytic structure of amplitudes and their associated physical properties. More generally, experience shows that it is overwhelmingly simpler to absorb complications associated with dimensional regularization into loop corrections of soft limits rather than to deal with higher order in $\eps$ terms in amplitudes.
Consequently, while it may be tempting to change the standard definitions of dimensional regularization and soft limits in order to remove loop corrections to soft operators associated with infrared singularities, we greatly prefer the standard definitions because of their well-understood consistency, simplicity and applicability to problems of physical and theoretical interest.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We thank Guillaume Bossard, John Joseph Carrasco, Yu-tin Huang, Henrik Johansson and Radu Roiban for helpful discussions. We also thank Paolo Di Vecchia, Duff Neill and Chris White for pointing out the earlier work on subleading soft limits, as well as for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the US Department of Energy under Award Number DE-[S]{}C0009937. We also gratefully acknowledge Mani Bhaumik for his generous support.
[99]{}
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**140**]{}, B516 (1965). A. Strominger, arXiv:1312.2229 \[hep-th\];\
T. He, V. Lysov, P. Mitra and A. Strominger, arXiv:1401.7026 \[hep-th\]. H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg and A. W. K. Metzner, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**269**]{}, 21 (1962);\
R. K. Sachs, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**270**]{}, 103 (1962). A. Strominger, unpublished, 2013.
F. Cachazo and A. Strominger, arXiv:1404.4091 \[hep-th\]. F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. [**110**]{}, 974 (1958);\
T. H. Burnett and N. M. Kroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 86 (1968);\
J. S. Bell and R. Van Royen, Nuovo Cim. A [**60**]{}, 62 (1969);\
V. Del Duca, Nucl. Phys. B [**345**]{}, 369 (1990). C. D. White, JHEP [**1105**]{}, 060 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.2981 \[hep-th\]\]. B. U. W. Schwab and A. Volovich, arXiv:1404.7749 \[hep-th\]. Z. Bern, V. Del Duca and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B [**445**]{}, 168 (1998) \[hep-ph/9810409\];\
Z. Bern, V. Del Duca, W. B. Kilgore and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 116001 (1999) \[hep-ph/9903516\]. D. A. Kosower and P. Uwer, Nucl. Phys. B [**563**]{}, 477 (1999) \[hep-ph/9903515\];\
D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 061602 (2003) \[hep-ph/0301069\]. E. Laenen, G. Stavenga and C. D. White, JHEP [**0903**]{}, 054 (2009) \[arXiv:0811.2067 \[hep-ph\]\];\
E. Laenen, L. Magnea, G. Stavenga and C. D. White, JHEP [**1101**]{}, 141 (2011) \[arXiv:1010.1860 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. Casali, arXiv:1404.5551 \[hep-th\]. H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen and S. H. H. Tye, Nucl. Phys. B [**269**]{}, 1 (1986). F. A. Berends, W. T. Giele and H. Kuijf, Phys. Lett. B [**211**]{}, 91 (1988). Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, M. Perelstein and J. S. Rozowsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**530**]{}, 401 (1998) \[hep-th/9802162\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, M. Perelstein and J. S. Rozowsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**546**]{}, 423 (1999) \[hep-th/9811140\]. Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 085011 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.3993 \[hep-ph\]\]; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 061602 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.0476 \[hep-th\]\]. S. G. Naculich and H. J. Schnitzer, JHEP [**1105**]{}, 087 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.1524 \[hep-th\]\]; R. Akhoury, R. Saotome and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 104040 (2011) \[arXiv:1109.0270 \[hep-th\]\]. L. J. Dixon, in Boulder 1995, QCD and beyond, p. 539-582 \[hep-ph/9601359\]. F. Cachazo, P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 077 (2004) \[hep-th/0409245\]. Z. Bern and G. Chalmers, Nucl. Phys. B [**447**]{}, 465 (1995) \[hep-ph/9503236\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 105013 (2005) \[hep-th/0501240\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 125003 (2005) \[hep-ph/0505055\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 065013 (2006) \[hep-ph/0507005\]. S. D. Alston, D. C. Dunbar and W. B. Perkins, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 085022 (2012) \[arXiv:1208.0190 \[hep-th\]\]. J. C. Collins and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B [**185**]{}, 172 (1981);\
J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B [**308**]{}, 833 (1988). Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Lett. B [**302**]{}, 299 (1993) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**318**]{}, 649 (1993)\] \[hep-ph/9212308\]. Z. Kunszt, A. Signer and Z. Trocsanyi, Nucl. Phys. B [**420**]{}, 550 (1994) \[hep-ph/9401294\]. Z. Bern, G. Chalmers, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2134 (1994) \[hep-ph/9312333\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2677 (1993) \[hep-ph/9302280\]. Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower, Nucl. Phys. B [**379**]{}, 451 (1992);\
Z. Bern and A. G. Morgan, Nucl. Phys. B [**467**]{}, 479 (1996) \[hep-ph/9511336\]. D. C. Dunbar and P. S. Norridge, Nucl. Phys. B [**433**]{}, 181 (1995) \[hep-th/9408014\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, M. Perelstein and J. S. Rozowsky, Phys. Lett. B [**444**]{}, 273 (1998) \[hep-th/9809160\]. D. C. Dunbar, J. H. Ettle and W. B. Perkins, JHEP [**1006**]{}, 027 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.3398 \[hep-th\]\]. Z. Bern, D. C. Dunbar and T. Shimada, Phys. Lett. B [**312**]{}, 277 (1993) \[hep-th/9307001\].
F. Cachazo and E. Y. Yuan, arXiv:1405.3413 \[hep-th\]. Z. Kunszt, A. Signer and Z. Trocsanyi, Nucl. Phys. B [**411**]{}, 397 (1994) \[hep-ph/9305239\]. Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon and D. A. Kosower, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2677 (1993) \[hep-ph/9302280\]. S. He, Y.-t. Huang and C. Wen, arXiv:1405.1410 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: We numerically confirmed in many examples that the two prescriptions give identical results through $\Ord(\cseps)$ in .
[^2]: In light-cone gauge or the unitarity approach, by introducing light-cone denominators containing a reference momentum, one can push all contributions into factorizing diagrams [@StermanSoft; @OneLoopSoftKosower].
[^3]: We note that the momentum-conservation prescription of Ref. [@CachazoStrominger] gives the same conclusion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We survey the results and the methods in the theory of universality for various zeta and $L$-functions, obtained in these forty years after the first discovery of the universality for the Riemann zeta-function by Voronin.'
author:
- Kohji Matsumoto
title: 'A survey on the theory of universality for zeta and $L$-functions'
---
Voronin’s universality theorem {#sec-1}
==============================
Let $\mathbb{N}$ be the set of positive integers, $\mathbb{N}_0=\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$, $\mathbb{Z}$ the ring of rational integers, $\mathbb{Q}$ the field of rational numbers, $\mathbb{R}$ the field of real numbers, and $\mathbb{C}$ the field of complex numbers. In the present article, the letter $p$ denotes a prime number.
For any open region $D\subset\mathbb{C}$, denote by $H(D)$ the space of $\mathbb{C}$-valued holomorphic functions defined on $D$, equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets.
For any subset $K\subset\mathbb{C}$, let $H^c(K)$ be the set of continuous functions defined on $K$, and are holomorphic in the interior of $K$, and let $H_0^c(K)$ be the set of all elements of $H^c(K)$ which are non-vanishing on $K$. By ${\rm meas}\;S$ we mean the usual Lebesgue measure of the set $S$, and by $\# S$ the cardinality of $S$.
Let $s=\sigma+it\in\mathbb{C}$ (where $i=\sqrt{-1}$), and $\zeta(s)$ the Riemann zeta-function. This function is defined by the infinite series $\zeta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n^{-s}$ in the half-plane $\sigma=\Re s>1$, and can be continued meromorphically to the whole of $\mathbb{C}$. It is well known that the investigation of $\zeta(s)$ in the strip $0<\sigma<1$ is extremely important in number theory, but its behaviour there is still quite mysterious. A typical example of expressing such mysterious feature of $\zeta(s)$ is Voronin’s [*universality theorem*]{}.
Consider the closed disc $K(r)$ with center $3/4$ and radius $r$, where $0<r<1/4$. Then Voronin [@Vor75] proved that for any $f\in H_0^c(K(r))$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a positive number $\tau$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-1}
\max_{s\in K(r)}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ holds. Roughly speaking, [*any non-vanishing holomorphic function can be approximated uniformly by a certain shift of $\zeta(s)$*]{}.
Actually, Voronin’s proof essentially includes the fact that the set of such $\tau$ has a positive lower density. Moreover, now it is known that the disc can be replaced by more general type of sets. The modern statement of Voronin’s theorem is as follows. Let $$D(a,b)=\{s\in\mathbb{C}\;|\;a<\sigma<b\}.$$
\[thm1-1\] [(Voronin’s universality theorem)]{} Let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement, and $f\in H_0^c(K)$. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-2}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0\end{aligned}$$ holds.
Let $\varphi(s)$ be a Dirichlet series, and let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(a,b)$ with connected complement. If $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-3}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\varphi(s+i\tau)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0\end{aligned}$$ holds for any $f\in H_0^c(K)$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, then we call that the [*universality*]{} holds for $\varphi(s)$ in the region $D(a,b)$. Theorem \[thm1-1\] implies that the universality holds for the Riemann zeta-function in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
The Riemann zeta-function has the Euler product expression $\zeta(s)=\prod_p(1-p^{-s})^{-1}$, where $p$ runs over all prime numbers. This is valid only in the region $\sigma>1$, but even in the region $D(1/2,1)$, it is possible to show that a finite truncation of the Euler product “approximates” $\zeta(s)$ in a certain mean-value sense. On the other hand, since $\{\log p\}_p$ is linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, we can apply the Kronecker-Weyl approximation theorem to obtain that any target function $f(s)$ can be approximated by the above finite truncation. This is the basic structure of the proof of Theorem \[thm1-1\].
\[rem1-0\] Here we recall the statement of the Kronecker-Weyl theorem. For $x\in\mathbb{R}$, the symbol $||x||$ stands for the distance from $x$ to the nearest integer. Let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m$ be real numbers, linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$. Then, for any real numbers $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_m$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1-0}
\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
||\tau\alpha_k-\theta_k||<\varepsilon\; (1\leq k\leq m)\right.\right\}>0\end{aligned}$$ holds.
So far, three proofs are known for this theorem. Needless to say, one of them is Voronin’s original proof, which is also reproduced in [@KarVor92]. This proof is based on, besides the above facts, Pecherski[ĭ]{}’s rearrangement theorem [@Pec73] in Hilbert spaces. The second proof is given by Good [@Goo81], which will be discussed in Section \[sec-16\]. Gonek was inspired by the idea of Good to write his thesis [@Gon79], in which he gave a modified version of Good’s argument. The third is a more probabilistic proof due to Bagchi [@Bag81] [@Bag82]. Bagchi [@Bag81] is an unpublished thesis, but its contents are carefully expounded in [@Lau96]. A common feature of the work of Gonek and Bagchi is that they both used the approximation theorem of Mergelyan [@Mer51][@Mer52].
\[rem1-01\] Mergelyan’s theorem asserts that, when $K$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$, any $f\in H^c(K)$ can be approximated by polynomials uniformly on $K$. This is a complex analogue of the classical approximation theorem of Weierstrass.
Here we mention some pre-history. In 1914, Bohr and Courant [@BohCou14] proved that, for any $\sigma$ satisfying $1/2<\sigma\leq 1$, the set $$\{\zeta(\sigma+i\tau)\;|\;\tau\in\mathbb{R}\}$$ is dense in $\mathbb{C}$. In the next year, Bohr [@Boh15] proved that the same result holds for $\log\zeta(\sigma+i\tau)$. These results are called [*denseness theorems*]{}.
Before obtaining his universality theorem, Voronin [@Vor72] discovered the following multi-dimensional analogue of the theorem of Bohr and Courant.
\[thm1-2\] [(Voronin [@Vor72])]{} For any $\sigma$ satisfying $1/2<\sigma\leq 1$, the set $$\{(\zeta(\sigma+i\tau),\zeta^{\prime}(\sigma+i\tau),\ldots,
\zeta^{(m-1)}(\sigma+i\tau))\;|\;\tau\in\mathbb{R}\}$$ [(]{}where $\zeta^{(k)}$ denotes the $k$-th derivative[)]{} is dense in $\mathbb{C}^m$.
\[rem1-1\] Actually Voronin proved a stronger result. For any $s=\sigma+it$ with $1/2<\sigma\leq 1$ and for any $h>0$, the set $$\{(\zeta(s+inh),\zeta^{\prime}(s+inh),\ldots,
\zeta^{(m-1)}(s+inh))\;|\;n\in\mathbb{N}\}$$ is dense in $\mathbb{C}^m$.
The universality theorem of Voronin may be regarded as a natural next step, bacause it is a kind of infinite-dimensional analogue of the theorem of Bohr and Courant, or a [*denseness theorem in a function space*]{}.
Another refinement of the denseness theorem of Bohr and Courant is the [*limit theorem*]{} on $\mathbb{C}$, due to Bohr and Jessen [@BohJes3032]. Recently, this theorem is usually formulated by probabilistic terminology. Let $\sigma>1/2$. For any Borel subset $A\subset\mathbb{C}$, put $$P_{T,\sigma}(A)=\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;|\;
\zeta(\sigma+i\tau)\in A\right\}.$$ This $P_{T,\sigma}$ is a probability measure on $\mathbb{C}$. Then the modern formulation of the limit theorem of Bohr and Jessen is that there exists a probability measure $P_{\sigma}$, to which $P_{T,\sigma}$ is convergent weakly as $T\to\infty$ (see [@Lau96 Chapter 4]).
Bagchi [@Bag81] proved an analogue of the above theorem of Bohr and Jessen on a certain function space, and used it in his alternative proof of the universality theorem. Therefore, to prove some universality-type theorem by Bagchi’s method, it is necessary to obtain some [*functional limit theorem*]{} similar to that of Bagchi. There are indeed a lot of papers devoted to the proofs of various functional limit theorems, for the purpose of showing various universality theorems. However in the following sections we do not mention explicitly this closely related topic. For the details of functional limit theorems, see Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau96] or J. Steuding [@Ste07]. The connection between the theory of universality and functional limit theorems is also discussed in the author’s survey articles [@Mat04][@Mat06].
After the publication of Voronin’s theorem in 1975, now almost forty years have passed. Voronin’s theorem attracted a lot of mathematicians, and hence, after Voronin, quite many papers on universality theory have been published. The aim of the present article is to survey the developments in this theory in these forty years. The developments in these years can be divided into three stages.
\(I) The first stage: 1975 $\sim$ 1987.
\(II) The second stage: 1996 $\sim$ 2007.
\(III) The third stage: 2007 $\sim$ present.
In the next section we will give a brief discussion what were the main topics in each of these stages.
The author expresses his sincere gratitude to Professors R. Garunk[š]{}tis, R. Ka[č]{}inskait[. e]{}, E. Karikovas, A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, R. Macaitien[. e]{}, H. Mishou, H. Nagoshi, T. Nakamura, [Ł]{}. Pa[' n]{}kowski, D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[= u]{}nas, and J. Steuding for their valuable comments and/or sending relevant articles.
A rough sketch of the history {#sec-2}
=============================
\(I) The first stage.
This is the first decade after Voronin’s paper. The original impact of Voronin’s discovery was still fresh. Mathematicians who were inspired by Voronin’s paper tried to discuss various generalizations, analogies, refinements and so on. Here is the list of main results obtained in this decade.
$\bullet$ Alternative proofs (mentioned in Section \[sec-1\]).
$\bullet$ Generalizations to the case of Dirichlet $L$-functions, Dedekind zeta-functions etc.
$\bullet$ The joint universality.
$\bullet$ The strong universality (for Hurwitz zeta-functions).
$\bullet$ The strong recurrence.
$\bullet$ The discrete universality.
$\bullet$ The $\chi$-universality.
$\bullet$ The hybrid universality.
$\bullet$ A quantitative result.
It is really amazing that many important aspects in universality theory, developed extensively in later decades, had already been introduced and studied in this first decade. Unfortunately, however, many of those results were written only in the theses of Voronin [@Vor77], Gonek [@Gon79] and Bagchi [@Bag81], all of them remain unpublished. This situation is probably one of the reasons why in the next several years there were so few publications on universality.
\(II) The second stage.
During several years around 1990, the number of publications concerning universality is very small. Of course it is not completely empty. For example, the book of Karatsuba and Voronin [@KarVor92] was published in this period. But the author prefers to choose the year 1996 as the starting point of the second stage, because in this year the important book [@Lau96] of Laurin[č]{}ikas was published. This is the first textbook which is mainly devoted to the theory of universality and related topics, and especially, provides the details of unpublished work of Bagchi. Thanks to the existence of this book, many mathematicians of younger generation can now easily go into the theory of universality. In fact, in this second stage, a lot of students of Laurin[č]{}ikas started to publish their papers, and they formed the strong Lithuanian school.
The main topic in this decade was probably the attempt to extend the class of zeta and $L$-functions for which the universality property holds. It is now known that the universality property is valid for a rather wide class of zeta-functions. J. Steuding’s lecture note [@Ste07] includes the exposition of this result, and also of many other results obtained after the publication of the book of Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau96]. Therefore the publication year of this lecture note is appropriate to the end of the second stage.
\(III) The third stage.
Now comes the third, present stage. The theory of universality is now developing into several new directions. The notions of
$\bullet$ the mixed universality,
$\bullet$ the composite universality,
$\bullet$ the ergodic universality,
were introduced recently. Other topics in universality theory have also been discussed extensively.
In the following sections, we will discuss more closely each topic in universality theory.
Generalization to zeta and $L$-functions with Euler products {#sec-3}
============================================================
Is it possible to prove the universality property for other zeta and $L$-functions? This is surely one of the most fundamental question. In Section \[sec-1\] we explained that a key point in the proof of Theorem \[thm1-1\] is the Euler product expression. Therefore we can expect the universality property for other zeta and $L$-functions which have Euler products.
The universality of the following zeta and $L$-functions were proved in the first decade.
$\bullet$ Dirichlet $L$-functions $L(s,\chi)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\chi(n)n^{-s}$ ($\chi$ is a Dirichlet character; see Voronin [@Vor75]) in $D(1/2,1)$,
$\bullet$ certain Dirichlet series with multiplicative coefficients (see Reich [@Rei77], Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau79][@Lau79b][@Lau82][@Lau83][@Lau84]),
$\bullet$ Dedekind zeta-functions $\zeta_F(s)=\sum_{\mathfrak{a}}N(\mathfrak{a})^{-s}$, where $F$ is a number field, $\mathfrak{a}$ denotes a non-zero integral ideal, and $N(\mathfrak{a})$ its norm (see Voronin [@Vor77][@Vor79], Gonek [@Gon79], Reich [@Rei80][@Rei82]). Here, the universality can be proved in $D(1/2,1)$ if $F$ is an Abelian extension of $\mathbb{Q}$ (Gonek [@Gon79]), but for general $F(\neq\mathbb{Q})$, the proof is valid only in the narrower region $D(1-d_F^{-1},1)$, where $d_F=[F:\mathbb{Q}]$. The reason is that the mean value estimate for $\zeta_F(s)$, applicable to the proof of universality, is known at present only in $D(1-d_F^{-1},1)$.
Later, Laurin[č]{}ikas also obtained universality theorems for Matsumoto zeta-functions[^1] ([@Lau98] under a strong assumption), and for the zeta-function attached to Abelian groups ([@Lau01][@Lau03]). Laurin[č]{}ikas and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@LauSia06] proved the universality for the periodic zeta-function $\zeta(s,\mathfrak{A})=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n n^{-s}$ (where $\mathfrak{A}=\{a_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a multiplicative periodic sequence of complex numbers) when the technical condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-0}
\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}|a_{p^m}|p^{-m/2}\leq c\end{aligned}$$ (with a certain constant $c<1$) holds for any prime $p$. Schwarz, R. Steuding and J. Steuding [@SchSteSte07] proved another universality theorem on certain general Euler products with conditions on the asymptotic behaviour of coefficients.
However, there was an obstacle when we try to generalize further. A typical class of $L$-functions with Euler products is that of automorphic $L$-functions. Let $g(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a(n)e^{2\pi inz}$ be a holomorphic normalized Hecke-eigen cusp form of weight $\kappa$ with respect to $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ and let $L(s,g)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a(n)n^{-s}$ be the associated $L$-function. The universality of $L(s,g)$ was first discussed by Ka[č]{}[. e]{}nas and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@KacLau98], but they showed the universality only under a very strong assumption.
What was the obstacle? The asymptotic formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-1}
\sum_{p\leq x}\frac{1}{p}=\log\log x+a_1+O(\exp(-a_2\sqrt{\log x}))\end{aligned}$$ (where $a_1$, $a_2$ are constants) is classically well known, and is used in the proof of Theorem \[thm1-1\]. However the corresponding asymptotic formula for the sum $\sum_{p\leq x}|a(p)|p^{-1}$ is not known. To avoid this obstacle, Laurin[č]{}ikas and the author [@LauMat01] invented a new method of using , combined with the known asymptotic formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-2}
\sum_{p\leq x}|\widetilde{a}(p)|^2=\frac{x}{\log x}(1+o(1)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{a}(p)=a(p)p^{-(\kappa-1)/2}$. This method is called the [*positive density method*]{}. Modifying Bagchi’s argument by virtue of this positive density method, one can show the following unconditional result.
\[thm3-1\] [(Laurin[č]{}ikas and Matsumoto [@LauMat01])]{} The universality holds for $L(s,g)$ in the region $D(\kappa/2,(\kappa+1)/2)$.
The positive density method was then applied to prove the universality for more general class of $L$-functions; certain Dirichlet series with multiplicative coefficients (Laurin[č]{}ikas and [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{} [@LauSle02]), $L$-functions attached to new forms with respect to congruence subgroups (Laurin[č]{}ikas, Matsumoto and J. Steuding [@LauMatSte03]), $L$-functions attached to a cusp form with character (Laurin[č]{}ikas and Macaitien[ė]{} [@LauMac12]), and a certain subclass of the Selberg class[^2] (J. Steuding [@Ste03]). J. Steuding extended his result further in his lecture note [@Ste07]. He introduced a wide class $\widetilde{S}$ of $L$-functions defined axiomatically and proved the universality for elements of $\widetilde{S}$. The class $\widetilde{S}$, now sometimes called the Steuding class, is not included in the Selberg class, but is a subclass of the class of Matsumoto zeta-functions.
Since the Shimura-Taniyama conjecture has been established, we now know that the $L$-function $L(s,E)$ attached to a non-singular elliptic curve $E$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ is an $L$-function attached to a new form. Therefore the universality for $L(s,E)$ is included in [@LauMatSte03]. The universality of positive powers of $L(s,E)$ was studied in Garbaliauskien[ė]{} and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@GarbLau05].
Mishou [@Mis01][@Mis03] used a variant of the positive density method to show the universality for Hecke $L$-functions of algebraic number fields in the region $D(1-d_F^{-1},1)$. Lee [@Lee12] showed that, under the assumption of a certain density estimate of the number of zeros, it is possible to prove the universality for Hecke $L$-functions in the region $D(1/2,1)$. The universality for Artin $L$-functions was proved by Bauer [@Bau03] by a different method, based on Voronin’s original idea.
Let $g_1$ and $g_2$ be cusp forms. The universality for the Rankin-Selberg $L$-function $L(s,g_1\otimes g_1)$ was shown by the author [@Mat01], and for $L(s,g_1\otimes g_2)$ ($g_1\neq g_2$) was by Nagoshi [@Nag09] (both in the narrower region $D(3/4,1)$). The latter proof is based on the above general result of J. Steuding [@Ste03][@Ste07]. The universality of symmetric $m$-th power $L$-functions ($m\leq 4$) and their Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions was studied by Li and Wu [@LiWu07].
Another general result obtained by the positive density method is the following theorem, which is an extension of the result of J. Steuding [@Ste03].
\[thm3-2\] [(Nagoshi and J. Steuding [@NagSte10])]{} Let $\varphi(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a(n)n^{-s}$ be a Dirichlet series belonging to the Selberg class. Denote the degree of $\varphi(s)$ by $d_{\varphi}$, and put $\sigma_{\varphi}=\max\{1/2,1-d_{\varphi}^{-1}\}$. Assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-3}
\sum_{p\leq x}|a(p)|^2=\frac{x}{\log x}(\lambda+o(1))\end{aligned}$$ holds with a certain positive constant $\lambda$. Then the universality holds for $\varphi(s)$ in the region $D(\sigma_{\varphi},1)$.
\[rem3-1\] When $\varphi$ is the Riemann zeta-function, the formula (with $\lambda=1$) is nothing but the prime number theorem. Therefore we may say that the positive density method enables us to prove the universality for zeta-functions with Euler products, provided an asymptotic formula of the prime-number-theorem type is known.
Let $h$ be a Hecke-eigen Maass form, and let $L(s,h)$ be the associated $L$-function. The universality for $L(s,h)$ was proved by Nagoshi [@Nag05][@Nag07]. In the proof of Theorem \[thm3-1\] in [@LauMat01], Deligne’s estimate (Ramanujan’s conjecture) $|\widetilde{a}(p)|\leq 2$ is essentially used. Assumptions of the same type are required in Steuding’s general result [@Ste03][@Ste07] and also in Theorem \[thm3-2\]. Since Ramanujan’s conjecture for Maass forms has not yet been proved, Nagoshi in his first paper [@Nag05] assumed the validity of Ramanujan’s conjecture for $h$ to show the universality. Then in the second paper [@Nag07] he succeeded to remove this assumption, by invoking the asymptotic formula for the fourth power mean of the coefficients due to M. Ram Murty.
\[thm3-3\] [(Nagoshi [@Nag07])]{} The universality holds for $L(s,h)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
Another important class of zeta-functions which have Euler products is the class of Selberg zeta-functions. In this case, instead of the prime-number-theorem type of results, the prime geodesic theorem plays an important role. Let $$\mathcal{D}=\{d\in\mathbb{N}\;|\;d\equiv 0\; {\rm or}\; 1 \;{\rm(mod\; 4)},
d \;{\rm \;is\; not\; a\; square}\}.$$ For each $d\in\mathcal{D}$, let $h^+(d)$ be the number of inequivalent primitive quadratic forms of discriminant $d$, and $\varepsilon(d)=(u(d)+v(d)\sqrt{d})/2$, where $(u(d),v(d))$ is the fundamental solution of the Pell equation $u^2-v^2d=4$. Then, the prime geodesic theorem for $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-4}
\sum_{d\in\mathcal{D}\atop \varepsilon(d)^2\leq x}h^+(d)=\int_0^x\frac{dt}{\log t}
+O(x^{\alpha})\end{aligned}$$ with a certain $\alpha<1$.
\[thm3-4\] [(Drungilas, Garunk[š]{}tis and Ka[č]{}[ė]{}nas [@DruGarKac13])]{} Let $Z(s)$ be the Selberg zeta-function attached to $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$. If holds, then the universality holds for $Z(s)$ in the region $D(1/2+\alpha/2,1)$.
As for the value of $\alpha$, it is known that one can take $\alpha=71/102+\varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ (Cai [@Cai02]). It is conjectured that one could take $\alpha=1/2+\varepsilon$. If the conjecture is true, then Theorem \[thm3-4\] implies that $Z(s)$ has the universality property in $D(3/4,1)$. The paper [@DruGarKac13] includes a discussion which suggests that $D(3/4,1)$ is the widest possible region where the universality for $Z(s)$ holds.
The joint universality for zeta and $L$-functions with Euler products {#sec-4}
=====================================================================
The results presented in the previous sections give approximation properties of some single zeta or $L$-function. Here we discuss simultaneous approximations by several zeta or $L$-functions.
Let $K_1,\ldots,K_r$ be compact subsets of $D(a,b)$ with connected complements, and $f_j\in H_0^c(K_j)$ ($1\leq j\leq r$). If Dirichlet series $\varphi_1(s),\ldots,\varphi_r(s)$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-1}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\Bigl\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K_j}|\varphi_j(s+i\tau)-f_j(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\Bigr.\\
\Bigl.(1\leq j\leq r)\Bigr\}>0\notag\end{aligned}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$, we call the [*joint universality*]{} holds for $\varphi_1(s),\ldots,\varphi_r(s)$ in the region $D(a,b)$. The joint universality for Dirichlet $L$-functions was already obtained in the first decade by Voronin [@Vor75b][@Vor77][@Vor79], Gonek [@Gon79], and Bagchi [@Bag81][@Bag82], independently of each other:
\[thm4-1\] [(Voronin, Gonek, Bagchi)]{} Let $\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_r$ be pairwise non-equivalent Dirichlet characters, and $L(s,\chi_1),\ldots,L(s,\chi_r)$ the corresponding Dirichlet $L$-functions. Then the joint universality holds for $L(s,\chi_1),\ldots,L(s,\chi_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
To prove such a theorem of simultaneous approximations, it is obviously necessary that the behaviour of $L$-functions appearing in the theorem should be “independent” of each other. In the situation of Theorem \[thm4-1\], this is embodied by the orthogonality relation of Dirichlet characters, which is essentially used in the proof.
The joint universality for Dedekind zeta-functions was studied by Voronin [@Vor77][@Vor79]. Bauer’s work [@Bau03] mentioned in the preceding section actually proves a joint universality theorem on Artin $L$-functions, in the region $D(1-(2d_F)^{-1},1)$. Lee [@Lee12b] extended the region to $D(1/2,1)$ under the assumption of a certain density estimate.
Let $g_j$ ($1\leq j\leq r$) be multiplicative arithmetic functions. Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau86] considered the joint universality of the associated Dirichlet series $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}g_j(n)n^{-s}$ ($1\leq j\leq r$). In this case, the “independence” condition is given by the following matrix condition. Let $P_1,\ldots,P_k$ ($k\geq r$) be certain sets of prime numbers, with the condition that $\sum_{p\leq x,p\in P_i}p^{-1}$ satisfies a good asymptotic formula, and assume that $g_j(n)$ is a constant $g_{jl}$ on the set $P_l$ ($1\leq j\leq r$, $1\leq l\leq k$). Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau86] proved a joint universality theorem under the condition that the rank of the matrix $(g_{jl})_{1\leq j\leq r,1\leq l\leq k}$ is equal to $r$.
Laurin[č]{}ikas frequently used various matrix conditions to obtain joint universality theorems. A joint universality theorem on Matsumoto zeta-functions under a certain matrix condition was proved in [@Lau98b]. A joint universality for automorphic $L$-functions under a certain matrix condition was discussed in [@LauMat02].
A matrix condition naturally appears in the joint universality theory of periodic zeta-functions (see [@LauMacSia07][@LauMac09]). Let $\mathfrak{A}_j=\{a_{jn}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a multiplicative periodic sequence (whose least period we denote by $k_j$) of complex numbers, and $\zeta(s,\mathfrak{A}_j)$ the associated periodic zeta-function ($1\leq j\leq r$). Let $k$ be the least common multiple of $k_1,\ldots,k_r$. Define the matrix $A=(a_{jl})_{j,l}$, where $1\leq j\leq r$ and $1\leq l\leq k$, $(l,k)=1$. Then Laurin[č]{}ikas and Macaitien[ė]{} [@LauMac09] proved the joint universality for $\zeta(s,\mathfrak{A}_1),\ldots,\zeta(s,\mathfrak{A}_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$, if we assume ${\rm rank}(A)=r$ and a technical condition similar to .
Using the positive density method, it is possible to prove a joint universality theorem for twisted automorphic $L$-functions. Let $g(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a(n)e^{2\pi inz}$ be a holomorphic normalized Hecke-eigen cusp form, $\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_r$ be pairwise non-equivalent Dirichlet characters, and $L(s,g,\chi_j)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a(n)\chi_j(n)n^{-s}$ the associated $\chi_j$-twisted $L$-function.
\[thm4-2\] [(Laurin[č]{}ikas and Matsumoto [@LauMat04])]{} The joint universality holds for $L(s,g,\chi_1),\ldots,L(s,g,\chi_r)$ in the region $D(\kappa/2,(\kappa+1)/2)$.
To prove this result, we need a prime number theorem for $a(p)$ in arithmetic progressions, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-2}
\sum_{p\leq x\atop p\equiv h ({\rm mod}\; q)}|\widetilde{a}(p)|^2
=\frac{1}{\varphi(q)}\frac{x}{\log x}(1+o(1)),\end{aligned}$$ where $(h,q)=1$ and $\varphi(q)$ is Euler’s totient function.
J. Steuding [@Ste07 Theorem 12.8] generalized Theorem \[thm4-2\] to the Steuding class $\widetilde{S}$. A joint version of [@LauSle02] was given by [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{} [@Sle02]. A joint universality theorem on $L$-functions of elliptic curves, under a certain matrix condition, was given by Garbaliauskien[ė]{}, Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{} and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@GarbKacLau04].
Let $\varphi_j(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_j(n)n^{-s}$ ($j=1,2$) be elements of the Selberg class. The following orthogonality conjecture of Selberg [@Sel92] is well known: if $\varphi_1(s)$, $\varphi_2(s)$ are primitive, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-3}
\sum_{p\leq x}\frac{a_1(p)\overline{a_2(p)}}{p}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\log\log x+O(1) & {\rm if}\quad \varphi_1=\varphi_2,\\
O(1) & {\rm otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Inspired by this conjecture, J. Steuding [@Ste07 Section 12.5] proposed:
\[conj4-1\] [(J. Steuding)]{} Any finite collection of distinct primitive functions in the Selberg class is jointly universal [^3].
Towards this conjecture, recent progress has been mainly due to Mishou. In [@Mis12], Mishou proved the following. Consider two strips $D_1=D(1/2,3/4)$ and $D_2=D(3/4,1)$. Let $K_j$ be a compact subset of $D_j$ and $f_j\in H_0^c(K_j)$ ($j=1,2$). Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-5}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\Bigl\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-f_1(s)|<\varepsilon,\right.\Bigr.\\
\Bigl.|L(s+i\tau,g)-f_2(s)|<\varepsilon\Bigr\}>0\notag \end{aligned}$$ holds, where $L(s,g)$ is the automorphic $L$-functions attached to a certain cusp form $g$. In Mishou [@Mis13], this result was generalized to the case of several $L$-functions belonging to the Selberg class.
The result is weaker than the joint universality, because $K_1$ and $K_2$ are in the strips disjoint to each other. In [@MisMZ], Mishou succeeded in removing this restriction to obtain the following theorem. Let $g, g_1, g_2$ be holomorphic normalized Hecke-eigen cusp forms.
\[thm4-3\] [(Mishou [@MisMZ])]{} [(i)]{} $\zeta(s)$ and $L(s,g)$ are jointly universal in $D(1/2,1)$.
[(ii)]{} If $g_1$ and $g_2$ are distinct, then $L(s,g_1)$ and $L(s,g_2)$ are jointly universal in $D(1/2,1)$.
[(iii)]{} $\zeta(s)$ and $L(s,{\rm sym}^2 g)$ are jointly universal in $D(2/3,1)$.
[(iv)]{} If $g_1$ and $g_2$ are distinct, then $\zeta(s)$ and $L(s,g_1\otimes g_2)$ are jointly universal in $D(3/4,1)$.
[(v)]{} $L(s,g_1)$ and $L(s,g_1\otimes g_2)$ are jointly universal in $D(3/4,1)$.
\[rem4-1\] The universality theorem for $L(s,g\otimes g)$ by the author [@Mat01] (mentioned in Section \[sec-3\]) was proved in $D(3/4,1)$, but the above theorem of Mishou especially implies that the universality for $L(s,g\otimes g)$ is valid in the wider region $D(2/3,1)$.
A remarkable feature of Mishou’s method is that it does not depend on any periodicity of coefficients. His proof is based on orthogonality relations of Fourier coefficients. Theorem \[thm4-3\] is a strong support to Conjecture \[conj4-1\].
The strong universality {#sec-5}
=======================
So far we have talked about universality only for zeta and $L$-functions with Euler products. However already in the first decade, the universality for zeta-functions without Euler products was also studied. Let $0<\alpha\leq 1$. The Hurwitz zeta-function with the parameter $\alpha$ is defined by $\zeta(s,\alpha)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(n+\alpha)^{-s}$, and does not have the Euler product (except for the special cases $\alpha=1, 1/2$). The known universality theorem for $\zeta(s,\alpha)$ is as follows.
\[thm5-1\] [(Bagchi [@Bag81], Gonek [@Gon79])]{} Let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement, and $f\in H^c(K)$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5-1}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau,\alpha)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0\end{aligned}$$ holds, provided $\alpha$ is transcendental or rational $(\neq 1,1/2)$.
To prove this theorem, when $\alpha$ is transcendental, we use the fact that the elements of the set $$\{\log(n+\alpha)\;|\;n\in\mathbb{N}_0\}$$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$. On the other hand, when $\alpha=a/b$ is rational, then in view of the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5-2}
\zeta(s,a/b)=\frac{b^s}{\varphi(b)}\sum_{\chi({\rm mod}\; b)}
\overline{\chi}(a)L(s,\chi),\end{aligned}$$ we can reduce the problem to the joint universality of Dirichlet $L$-functions, so we can apply Theorem \[thm4-1\]. The case of algebraic irrational $\alpha$ is still open.
A remarkable point is that, in the statement of Theorem \[thm5-1\], we do not assume that the target function $f(s)$ is non-vanishing on $K$. This is a big difference from Theorem \[thm1-1\], and when a universality-type theorem holds without the non-vanishing assumption, we call it a [*strong universality theorem*]{}.
Strong universality has an important application to the theory of zero-distribution. Let $a<\sigma_1<\sigma_2<b$, and let $$\begin{aligned}
N(t;\sigma_1,\sigma_2;\varphi)=
\#\{\rho\in\mathbb{C}\;|\;\sigma_1\leq\Re\rho\leq\sigma_2,
0\leq\Im\rho\leq T,\varphi(\rho)=0\}\end{aligned}$$ for a function $\varphi$. (In the above definition, zeros are counted with multiplicity.) Then we have the following consequence.
\[thm5-2\] If $\varphi(s)$ is strongly universal in the region $D(a,b)$, then there exists a positive constant $C$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5-3}
N(T;\sigma_1,\sigma_2;\varphi)\geq C T \end{aligned}$$ holds for any $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ satisfying $a<\sigma_1<\sigma_2<b$.
Let $\delta$ be a small positive number, $0<\varepsilon<\delta$, $\sigma_1<\sigma_0<\sigma_2$, and $K=\{s\in\mathbb{C}\;|\;|s-\sigma_0|<\delta\}$. We choose $\delta$ so small that $K\subset D(a,b)$. We apply the strong universality to this $K$, $f(s)=s-\sigma_0$ and $\varepsilon$ to obtain that the set of real numbers $\tau$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{|s-\sigma_0|\leq\delta}|\varphi(s+i\tau)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ is of positive lower density. Then, for such $\tau$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{|s-\sigma_0|\leq\delta}|\varphi(s+i\tau)-f(s)|<\delta=
\inf_{|s-\sigma_0|=\delta}|f(s)|.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore by Rouch[é]{}’s theorem we see that $f(s)+(\varphi(s+i\tau)-f(s))=\varphi(s+i\tau)$ has the same number of zeros as that of $f(s)$ in the region $|s-\sigma_0|<\delta$, but the latter is obviously 1. That is, for each $\tau$ in the above set, $\varphi(s)$ has one zero in $|s-(\sigma_0+i\tau)|<\delta$.
\[cor5-1\] If $\alpha$ is transcendental or rational $(\neq 1,1/2)$, then $$C_1 T\leq N(T;\sigma_1,\sigma_2;\zeta(s,\alpha))\leq C_2 T$$ holds for any $1/2<\sigma_1<\sigma_2<1$.
As for the upper bound part of this corollary, see [@LauGar02 Chapter 8, Theorem 4.10].
Further topics on the application of universality to the distribution of zeros will be discussed in Section \[sec-9\] and Section \[sec-15\].
Now strong unversality theorems are known for many other zeta-functions. The Estermann zeta-function is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5-4}
E\left(s,\frac{k}{l},\alpha\right)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sigma_{\alpha}(n)
\exp\left(2\pi i\frac{k}{l}n\right)n^{-s},\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ and $l$ are coprime integers and $\sigma_{\alpha}(n)=\sum_{d|n}d^{\alpha}$. The strong universality for $E(s,k/l,\alpha)$ was studied in Garunk[š]{}tis, Laurin[č]{}ikas, [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{} and J. Steuding[@GarLauSleSte02]. The method is to write $E(s,k/l,\alpha)$ as a linear combination of $E(s,\chi,\alpha)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sigma_{\alpha}(n)\chi(n)n^{-s}$, and apply a joint universality theorem for $E(s,\chi,\alpha)$ which follows from [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{} [@Sle02].
The Lerch zeta-function is defined by $$\zeta(s;\alpha,\lambda)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}e^{2\pi i\lambda n}(n+\alpha)^{-s},$$ where $0<\alpha\leq 1$ and $\lambda$ is real. When $\lambda$ is an integer, then $\zeta(s;\alpha,\lambda)$ reduces to the Hurwitz zeta-function, so we may assume $0<\lambda<1$. The strong universality for $\zeta(s;\alpha,\lambda)$ was proved by Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau97] when $\alpha$ is transcendental. The case when $\alpha$ is rational was discussed by Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau98c]. See also the textbook [@LauGar02] of Laurin[č]{}ikas and Garunk[š]{}tis.
Let $\mathfrak{B}=\{b_n\}$ is a periodic sequence, not necessarily multiplicative. The universality for periodic zeta-functions $\zeta(s,\mathfrak{B})=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}b_n n^{-s}$ was first studied by J. Steuding [@Ste03b] (see [@Ste07 Chapter 11]). Kaczorowski [@Kacz09] proved that there exists a constant $c_0=c_0(\mathfrak{B})$ such that the universality holds for $\zeta(s,\mathfrak{B})$, provided that $$\max_{s\in K}\Im(s)-\min_{s\in K}\Im(s)\leq c_0.$$ This result is a consequence of the hybrid joint universality theorem of Kaczorowski and Kulas [@KacKul07] (see Section \[sec-15\]). Javtokas and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@JavLau06][@JavLau06b] studied the strong universality for periodic Hurwitz zeta-function $$\zeta(s,\alpha,\mathfrak{B})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b_n(n+\alpha)^{-s}.$$ They proved that the strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha,\mathfrak{B})$, when $\alpha$ is transcendental.
A more general situation was considered by Laurin[č]{}ikas, Schwarz and J. Steuding [@LauSchSte03]. Let $\{\lambda_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be an increasing sequence of real numbers, linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, and $\lambda_n\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. Define the general Dirichlet series $f(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n \exp(-\lambda_n s)$, which is assumed to be convergent absolutely in the region $\sigma>\sigma_a$. Put $r(x)=\sum_{\lambda_n\leq x}1$ and $c_n=a_n \exp(-\lambda_n\sigma_a)$. We suppose
\(i) $f(s)$ cannot be represented as an Euler product,
\(ii) $f(s)$ can be continued meromorphically to $\sigma>\sigma_1$, and holomorphic in $D(\sigma_1,\sigma_a)$,
\(iii) For $\sigma>\sigma_1$ it holds that $f(s)=O(|t|^{\alpha})$ with some $\alpha>0$,
\(iv) For $\sigma>\sigma_1$ it holds that $$\int_{-T}^T |f(\sigma+it)|^2 dt=O(T),$$
\(v) $r(x)=Cx^{\kappa}+O(1)$ with a $\kappa>1$,
\(vi) $|c_n|$ is bounded and $\sum_{\lambda_n\leq x}|c_n|^2=\theta r(x)(1+o(1))$ with a $\theta>0$.
Then we have
\[thm5-3\] [(Laurin[č]{}ikas, Schwarz and J. Steuding [@LauSchSte03])]{} If $f(s)$ satisfies all the above conditions, then the strong universality holds for $f(s)$ in the region $D(\sigma_1,\sigma_a)$.
In Section \[sec-3\] and Section \[sec-5\], we have seen a lot of examples of zeta and $L$-functions, with or without Euler products, for which the universality property holds. How general is this property expected to hold? The following conjecture predicts that any “reasonable” Dirichlet series would satisfy the universality property.
\[conj5-1\] [(Yu. V. Linnik and I. A. Ibragimov)]{} All functions given by Dirichlet series and meromorphically continuable to the left of the half-plane of absolute convergence are universal in some suitable region.
\[rem5-1\] Actually this conjecture has trivial counter-examples. For example, let $a_n=1$ if $n$ is a power of 2 and $a_n=0$ otherwise. The series $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n n^{-s}$ can be continued to $(2^s-1)^{-1}$, which is obviously not universal. Therefore some additional condition should be added to make the rigorous statement of the above conjecture.
The joint strong universality {#sec-6}
=============================
The joint universality property is also possible to be valid among zeta-functions without Euler products. The first attempt to this direction is a series of papers of Laurin[č]{}ikas and the author [@LauMat00][@LauMat06][@LauMat07] on the joint universality for Lerch zeta-functions. Here, a matrix condition again appears. Let $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r$ be rational numbers. Write $\lambda_j=a_j/q_j$, $(a_j,q_j)=1$, and let $k$ be the least common multiple of $q_1,\ldots,q_r$. Define the matrix $L=(\exp(2l\pi i\lambda_j))_{1\leq l\leq k,1\leq j\leq r}$. Then, by virtue of a variant of the positive density method, we have
\[thm6-1\] [(Laurin[č]{}ikas and Matsumoto [@LauMat00] [@LauMat06])]{} Suppose that $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r$ are algebraically independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, and that ${\rm rank}(L)=r$. Then the joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha_1,\lambda_1),\ldots,\zeta(s,\alpha_r,\lambda_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$[^4] .
The Lerch zeta-function $\zeta(s,\alpha,\lambda)$ with rational $\lambda$ is a special case of periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions. The joint strong universality of periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions was first studied by Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau06][@Lau07]. Let $\mathfrak{B}_j=\{a_{nj}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be periodic sequences with period $k_j$, $k$ be the least common multiple of $k_1,\ldots,k_r$, and define $B=(a_{jl})_{1\leq j\leq r,1\leq l\leq k}$.
\[thm6-2\] [(Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau07])]{} If $\alpha$ is transcendental and ${\rm rank}(B)=r$, then the joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha,\mathfrak{B}_1),\ldots,\zeta(s,\alpha,\mathfrak{B}_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
Next in [@JavLau08][@LauSke09], the joint universality for $\zeta(s,\alpha_j,\mathfrak{B}_j)$ ($1\leq j\leq r$) was discussed. Some matrix conditions were still assumed in [@JavLau08], but finally in [@LauSke09], a joint universality theorem free from any matrix condition was obtained.
\[thm6-3\] [(Laurin[č]{}ikas and Skerstonait[ė]{} [@LauSke09])]{} Assume that the elements of the set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6-1}
\{\log(n+\alpha_j)\;|\;1\leq j\leq r,\; n\in\mathbb{N}_0\} \end{aligned}$$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$. Then the joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha_1,\mathfrak{B}_1),\ldots,\zeta(s,\alpha_r,\mathfrak{B}_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
In the case $\mathfrak{B}_j=\{1\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ for $1\leq j\leq r$ (that is, the case of Hurwitz zeta-functions), the above result was already given in Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau08b].
In [@Lau08][@LauSke09b], a more general joint strong universality for $\zeta(s,\alpha_j,\mathfrak{B}_{jl})$ ($1\leq j\leq r$, $1\leq l\leq l_j$ with $l_j\in\mathbb{N}$) was discussed under certain matrix conditions.
Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau03b][@Lau05] and [@GenLau04] (with Genys) studied the joint strong universality for general Dirichlet series, under the same assumptions as in Theorem \[thm5-3\] and a certain matrix condition.
Now return to the problem of the joint universality for Lerch zeta-functions. Theorem \[thm6-3\] implies, especially, that the assumptions of Theorem \[thm6-1\] can now be replaced by just the linear independence of .
Is the assumption indeed weaker than the assumptions of Theorem \[thm6-1\]? The answer is yes, and the following result of Mishou [@Mis11b] gives an example: Let $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ be two transcendental numbers, $0<\alpha_1,\alpha_2<1$, $\alpha_1\neq\alpha_2$, and $\alpha_2\in{\mathbb Q}(\alpha_1)$. Then Mishou [@Mis11b] proved that the joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha_1)$ and $\zeta(s,\alpha_2)$. Dubickas [@Dub12] extended Mishou’s result to the case of $r$ transcendental numbers, which is also an extension of [@Lau08b].
Let $m_1,m_2,m_3$ be relatively prime positive integers ($\geq 2$), and $\lambda_0=n_3/m_3$ (with another integer $n_3$). Nakamura [@Nak07] proved the joint strong universality for $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6-2}
\left\{\left.\zeta\left(s,\alpha,\lambda_0+\frac{n_1}{m_1}+\frac{n_2}{m_2}\right)
\;\right|\;0\leq n_1<m_1,0\leq n_2<m_2\right\}\end{aligned}$$ when $\alpha$ is transcendental. He pointed out that various other types of joint universality can be deduced from the above.
In [@LauMat07] and in Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau10], the joint universality of $\zeta(s,\alpha_j,\lambda_{j\mu_j})$ ($1\leq j\leq r$, $1\leq \mu_j\leq m_j$, where $m_j$ is some positive integer) is discussed. Write $\lambda_{j\mu_j}=a_{j\mu_j}/q_{j\mu_j}$, $(a_{j\mu_j},q_{j\mu_j})=1$, and let $k_j$ be the least common multiple of $q_{j\mu_j}$ ($1\leq \mu_j\leq m_j$). Define $L_j=(\exp(2l\pi i\lambda_{j\mu_j})_{1\leq l\leq k_j,1\leq \mu_j\leq m_j})$. Then in [@Lau10] it is shown that if the elements of the set are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, and ${\rm rank}(L_j)=k_j$ ($1\leq j\leq r$), then the joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha_j,\lambda_{j\mu_j})$.
How about the joint universality for Lerch zeta-functions when the parameter $\lambda$ is not rational? Nakamura [@Nak07] noted that the joint strong universality for also holds if we replace $\lambda_0$ by any non-rational real number. Also, Nakamura [@Nak07b] extended the idea in [@LauMat06] to obtain the following more general result.
\[thm6-4\] [(Nakamura [@Nak07b])]{} If $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r$ are algebraically independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, then for any real numbers $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r$ the joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha_1,\lambda_1),\ldots,\zeta(s,\alpha_r,\lambda_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
On the other hand, Mishou [@MisJMSJ] proved the following measure-theoretic result.
\[thm6-5\] [(Mishou [@MisJMSJ])]{} There exists a subset $\Lambda\subset [0,1)^r$ whose $r$-dimensional Lebesgue measure is $1$, and for any transcendental real number $\alpha$ and $(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r)\in\Lambda$, the joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha,\lambda_1),\ldots,\zeta(s,\alpha,\lambda_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
Moreover in the same paper Mishou gives the following two explicit descriptions of $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r$ ($0\leq\lambda_j<1$) for which the above joint universality holds;
\(i) $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r$ are algebraic irrational and $1,\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$,
\(ii) $\lambda_1=\exp(u_1),\ldots,\lambda_r=\exp(u_r)$ where $u_1,\ldots,u_r$ are distinct rational numbers.
Mishou’s proof is based on two classical discrepancy estimates due to W. M. Schmidt and H. Niederreiter. These results lead Mishou to propose the following conjecture.
\[conj6-1\] [(Mishou [@MisJMSJ])]{} The joint strong universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha,\lambda_1),\ldots,\zeta(s,\alpha,\lambda_r)$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$, for any transcendental real number $\alpha$ $(0<\alpha<1)$ and any distinct real numbers $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r$ $(0\leq\lambda_j<1)$.
For single zeta or $L$-functions, there is Conjecture \[conj5-1\], which asserts that universality would hold for any “reasonable” Dirichlet series. As for the joint universality, the situation is much more complicated. If there is some relation among several Dirichlet series, then the behaviour of those Dirichlet series cannot be independent of each other, so the joint universality among them cannot be expected. Nakamura [@Nak07b] pointed out that some collections of Lerch zeta-functions cannot be jointly universal, because of the inversion formula among Lerch zeta-functions. In the same paper Nakamura introduced the generalized Lerch zeta-function of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6-3}
\zeta(s,\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\lambda)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{e^{2\pi i\lambda n}}
{(n+\alpha)^{s-\gamma}(n+\beta)^{\gamma}},\end{aligned}$$ and showed that, under suitable choices of parameters the joint strong universality sometimes holds, and sometimes does not hold.
In [@Nak08], Nakamura considered more general series $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6-4}
\zeta(s,\alpha,\mathcal{C})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{c(n)}{(n+\alpha)^s},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{C}=\{c(n)\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a bounded sequence of complex numbers, and using it, constructed some counter-examples to the joint universality. The proof in [@Nak08] is based on a non-denseness property and a limit theorem on a certain function space.
The above results of Nakamura suggest that it is not easy to find a suitable joint version of Conjecture \[conj5-1\].
\[rem6-1\] It is to be noted that there is the following simple principle of producing the joint universality. Let $\varphi\in H(D(\sigma_1,\sigma_2))$, and assume that $\varphi$ is universal. Let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ with connected complement, $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_r$ be complex numbers, and $K_j=\{s+\lambda_j\;|\;s\in K\}$ ($1\leq j\leq r$). Assume these $K_j$’s are disjoint. Then $\varphi_j(s)=\varphi(s+\lambda_j)$ ($1\leq j\leq r$) are jointly universal. If $\varphi$ is strongly universal, then $\varphi_j$’s are jointly strongly universal. This is the [*shifts universality principle*]{} of Kaczorowski, Laurin[č]{}ikas and J. Steuding [@KaczLauSte06].
The universality for multiple zeta-functions {#sec-7}
============================================
An important generalization of the notion of zeta-functions is multiple zeta-functions, defined by certain multiple sums. The history of the theory of multiple zeta-functions goes back to the days of Euler, but extensive studies started only in 1990s.
The problem of searching for universality theorems on multiple zeta-functions was first proposed by the author [@Mat02]. In this paper the author wrote that one accessible problem would be the universality of Barnes multiple zeta-functions $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n_1=0}^{\infty}\cdots\sum_{n_r=0}^{\infty}
(w_1 n_1 +\cdots+w_r n_r+\alpha)^{-s}\end{aligned}$$ (where $w_1,\ldots,w_r,\alpha$ are parameters). Nakamura [@Nak07b] pointed out that his $\zeta(s,\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\lambda)$ (see ) includes the twisted Barnes double zeta-function of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n_1=0}^{\infty}\sum_{n_2=0}^{\infty}\frac{e^{2\pi i\lambda(n_1+n_2)}}
{(n_1+n_2+\alpha)^s}\end{aligned}$$ as a special case. Therefore [@Nak07b] includes a study of universality for Barnes double zeta-functions. More generally, the series $\zeta(s,\alpha,\mathcal{C})$ (see ) studied in Nakamura [@Nak08] includes twisted Barnes $r$-ple zeta-functions (for any $r$).
The Euler-Zagier $r$-ple sum is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7-1}
\sum_{n_1>n_2>\cdots n_r\geq 1}n_1^{-s_1}n_2^{-s_2}
\cdots n_r^{-s_r},\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1,\ldots,s_r$ are complex variables. Nakamura [@Nak09] considered the universality of the following generalization of of Hurwitz-type: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7-2}
\lefteqn{\zeta_r(s_1,\ldots,s_r;\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r)=}\\
&\sum_{n_1>n_2>\cdots n_r\geq 0}(n_1+\alpha_1)^{-s_1}(n_2+\alpha_2)^{-s_2}
\cdots (n_r+\alpha_r)^{-s_r},\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $0<\alpha_j\leq 1$ ($1\leq j\leq r$). Nakamura’s results suggest that universality for the multiple zeta-function is connected with the zero-free region. One of his main results is as follows.
\[thm7-1\] [(Nakamura [@Nak09])]{} Let $\Re s_2>3/2$, $\Re s_j\geq 1$ $(3\leq j\leq r)$. Assume $\alpha_1$ is transcendental, and $\zeta_{r-1}(s_2,\ldots,s_r;\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_r)\neq 0$. Then the strong universality holds for $\zeta_r(s_1,\ldots,s_r;\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r)$ as a function in $s_1$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
In [@Nak11], Nakamura considered a generalization of Tornheim’s double sum of Hurwitz-type and proved the strong universality for it.
The mixed universality {#sec-8}
======================
In Section \[sec-4\] we discussed the joint universality among zeta or $L$-functions with Euler products. Then in Section \[sec-6\] we considered the joint universality for those without Euler products. Is it possible to combine these two directions to obtain certain joint universality results between two (or more) zeta-functions, one of which has Euler products and the other does not? The first affirmative answers are due to Sander and J. Steuding [@SanSte06], and to Mishou [@Mis07]. The work of Sander and J. Steuding will be discussed later in Section \[sec-15\]. Here we state Mishou’s theorem.
\[thm8-1\] [(Mishou [@Mis07])]{} Let $K_1,K_2$ be compact subsets of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complements, and $f_1\in H_0^c(K_1)$, $f_2\in H^c(K_2)$. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8-1}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K_1}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-f_1(s)|<\varepsilon,\right.\right.\\
\left.\sup_{s\in K_2}|\zeta(s+i\tau,\alpha)-f_2(s)|<\varepsilon\right\}>0,\notag\end{aligned}$$ provided $\alpha$ is transcendental.
This type of universality is now called the [*mixed universality*]{}. The essential point of the proof of this theorem is the fact that the elements of the set $$\{\log(n+\alpha)\;|\;n\in\mathbb{N}_0\}\cup\{\log p\;|\;p:{\rm prime}\}$$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$.
Mishou’s theorem was generalized to the periodic case by Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{} and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@KacLau11][^5]. Let $\mathfrak{A}$ be a multiplicative periodic sequence satisfying and $\mathfrak{B}$ a (not necessarily multiplicative) periodic sequence. They proved that if $\alpha$ is transcendental, then the mixed universality holds for $\zeta(s,\mathfrak{A})$ and $\zeta(s,\alpha,\mathfrak{B})$ in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau10b] proved a further generalization. Let $\mathfrak{A}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{A}_{r_1}$ be multiplicative periodic sequences (with inequalities similar to ) and $\mathfrak{B}_1,\ldots,\mathfrak{B}_{r_2}$ be periodic sequences. Then, under certain matrix conditions, the mixed universality for $\zeta(s,\mathfrak{A}_{j_1})$ ($1\leq j_1\leq r_1$) and $\zeta(s,\alpha_{j_2},\mathfrak{B}_{j_2})$ ($1\leq j_2\leq r_2$) holds, provided $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{r_2}$ are algebraically independent over $\mathbb{Q}$.
Now mixed universality theorems are known for many pairs of zeta or $L$-functions.
$\bullet$ The Riemann zeta-function and several periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions (Genys, Macaitien[ė]{}, Ra[č]{}kauskien[ė]{} and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@GenMacRacSia10]),
$\bullet$ The Riemann zeta-function and several Lerch zeta-functions (Laurin[č]{}ikas and Macaitien[ė]{} [@LauMac13]),
$\bullet$ Several Dirichlet $L$-functions and several Hurwitz zeta-functions (Janulis and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@JanLau13]),
$\bullet$ Several Dirichlet $L$-functions and several periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions (Janulis, Laurin[č]{}ikas, Macaitien[ė]{} and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@JanLauMacSia12]),
$\bullet$ An automorphic $L$-function and several periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions (Laurin[č]{}ikas, Macaitien[ė]{} and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@LauMacSia11], Macaitien[ė]{} [@Mac12], Pocevi[č]{}ien[ė]{} and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@PocSia], Laurin[č]{}ikas and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@LauSia12]).
The strong recurrence {#sec-9}
=====================
In Section \[sec-5\] we mentioned that the strong universality implies the existence of many zeros in the region where universality is valid (Theorem \[thm5-2\]). This immediately gives the following corollary:
\[cor9-1\] The Riemann zeta-function $\zeta(s)$ cannot be strongly universal in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
Because if $\zeta(s)$ is strongly universal, then by Theorem \[thm5-2\] we have $N(T;\sigma_1,\sigma_2;\zeta)\geq CT$ for $1/2<\sigma_1<\sigma_2<1$, which contradicts with the known zero-density estimate $N(T;\sigma_1,\sigma_2;\zeta)=o(T)$.
The same conclusion can be shown for many other zeta or $L$-functions, for which some suitable zero-density estimate is known; or, under the assumption of the analogue of the Riemann hypothesis.
On the other hand, if the Riemann hypothesis is true, then $\zeta(s)$ has no zero in the region $D(1/2,1)$. Therefore we can choose $f(s)=\zeta(s)$ in Theorem \[thm1-1\] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9-1}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-\zeta(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0.\end{aligned}$$
This is called the [*strong recurrence*]{} property of $\zeta(s)$. Bagchi discovered that the converse implication is also true.
\[thm9-1\] [(Bagchi [@Bag81])]{} The Riemann hypothesis for $\zeta(s)$ is true if and only if holds in the region $D(1/2,1)$.
Bagchi himself extended this result to the case of Dirichlet $L$-functions in [@Bag82][@Bag87]. The same type of result in terms of Beurling zeta-functions was given by R. Steuding [@RSte06].
\[rem9-1\] It is obvious that the notion of the strong recurrence is closely connected with the notion of almost periodicity. Bohr [@Boh22] proved that the Riemann hypothesis for $L(s,\chi)$ with a non-principal character $\chi$ is equivalent to the almost periodicity of $L(s,\chi)$ in the region $\Re s>1/2$. Recently Mauclaire [@Mau07] [@Mau09] studied the universality in a general framework from the viewpoint of almost periodicity.
Nakamura [@Nak09b] proved that, if $d_1=1,d_2,\ldots,d_r$ are algebraic real numbers which are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, then the joint universality of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9-2}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K_j}|\zeta(s+id_j\tau)-f_j(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right.\\
\Biggl.(1\leq j\leq r)\Biggr\}>0\notag\end{aligned}$$ holds, where $K_j$ are compact subsets of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement and $f_j\in H_0^c(K_j)$. A key point of Nakamura’s proof is the fact that the elements of the set $\{\log p^{d_j}\;|\;p:{\rm prime},1\leq j\leq r\}$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, which follows from Baker’s theorem in transcendental number theory. From the above result it is immediate that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9-3}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-\zeta(s+id\tau)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0\end{aligned}$$ holds if $d$ is algebraic irrational. Nakamura also proved in the same paper that is valid for almost all $d\in\mathbb{R}$. (Note that for $d=0$ is , hence the Riemann hypothesis.)
Nakamura’s paper sparked off the interest in this direction of research; Pa[ń]{}kowski [@Pan09] proved that holds for all (algebraic and transcendental) irrational $d$, using the six exponentials theorem in transcendental number theory. On the other hand, Garunk[š]{}tis [@Gar11] and Nakamura [@Nak10], independently, claimed that holds for all non-zero rational. However their arguments included a gap, which was partially filled by Nakamura and Pa[ń]{}kowski [@NakPan12]. The present situation is:
\[thm9-2\] [(Garunk[š]{}tis, Nakamura, Pa[ń]{}kowski)]{} The inequality holds if $d$ is irrational, or $d=a/b$ is non-zero rational with $(a,b)=1$, $|a-b|\neq 1$.
See also Mauclaire [@Mau13], and Nakamura and Pa[ń]{}kowski [@NakPan13]. It is to be noted that the argument of Garunk[š]{}tis [@Gar11] and Nakamura [@Nak10] is correct for $\log\zeta(s)$, so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9-4}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\log\zeta(s+i\tau)-\log\zeta(s+id\tau)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0 \end{aligned}$$ can be shown for any non-zero $d\in\mathbb{R}$. If would be valid for $d=0$, it would imply the Riemann hypothesis.
The strong recurrence property can be shown for more general zeta and $L$-functions. Some of the aforementioned papers actually consider not only the Riemann zeta-function, but also Dirichlet $L$-functions. A generalization to a subclass of the Selberg class was discussed by Nakamura [@Nak11b]. The case of Hurwitz zeta-functions has been studied by Garunk[š]{}tis and Karikovas [@GarKarpre] and Karikovas and Pa[ń]{}kowski [@KarPanpre].
The weighted universality {#sec-10}
=========================
Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau95] considered a weighted version of the universality for $\zeta(s)$. Let $w(t)$ be a positive-valued function of bounded variation defined on $[T_0,\infty)$ (where $T_0>0$), satisfying that the variation on $[a,b]$ does not exceed $cw(a)$ with a certain $c>0$ for any subinterval $[a,b]\subset[T_0,\infty)$. Define $$U(T,w)=\int_{T_0}^T w(t)dt,$$ and assume that $U(T,w)\to\infty$ as $T\to\infty$.
We further assume the following property of $w(t)$, connected with ergodic theory. Let $X(\tau,\omega)$ be any ergodic process defined on a certain probability space $\Omega$, $\tau\in\mathbb{R}$, $\omega\in\Omega$, $E(|X(\tau,\omega)|)<\infty$, and sample paths are Riemann integrable almost surely on any finite interval. Assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10-1}
\frac{1}{U(T,w)}\int_{T_0}^T w(\tau)X(t+\tau,\omega)d\tau=E(X(0,\omega))
+o((1+|t|)^{\alpha})\end{aligned}$$ almost surely for any $t\in\mathbb{R}$, with an $\alpha>0$, as $T\to\infty$. Denote by $I(A)$ the indicator function of the set $A$.
\[thm10-1\] [(Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau95])]{} Suppose that $w(t)$ satisfies all the above conditions. Let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement, $f\in H_0^c(K)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10-2}
\lefteqn{\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{U(T,w)}\int_{T_0}^T w(\tau)}\\
&\times I\left(\left\{\tau\in[T_0,T]\;\left|\;\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-f(s)|
<\varepsilon\right.\right\}\right)
d\tau >0 \notag\end{aligned}$$ holds for any $\varepsilon>0$.
In the course of Bagchi’s proof of the universality theorem, there is a point where the Birkhoff-Khinchin theorem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10-3}
\lim_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T X(\tau,\omega)d\tau=E(X(0,\omega))\end{aligned}$$ in ergodic theory is used. This is the motivation of Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau95]; clearly is a generalization of .
Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau98] generalized Theorem \[thm10-1\] to the case of Matsumoto zeta-functions. Weighted universality theorems for $L$-functions $L(s,E)$ of elliptic curves over $\mathbb{Q}$ were reported by Garbaliauskien[ė]{} [@Garb04] [@Garb05].
The discrete universality {#sec-11}
=========================
In the previous sections, we discussed the behaviour of zeta or $L$-functions when the imaginary part $\tau$ of the variable is moving continuously. However, we can also obtain a kind of universality theorems when $\tau$ only moves discretely. We already mentioned in Section \[sec-1\] that Voronin’s multi-dimensional denseness theorem is valid in this sense (see Remark \[rem1-1\]).
The first [*discrete universality*]{} theorem is due to Reich [@Rei80] on Dedekind zeta-functions. Let $F$ be a number field and $\zeta_F(s)$ the associated Dedekind zeta-function.
\[thm11-1\] [(Reich [@Rei80])]{} Let $K$ be a compact subset of the region $D(1-\max\{2,d_F\}^{-1},1)$ with connected complement, and $f\in H_0^c(K)$. Then, for any real $h\neq 0$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11-1}
\liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\#\left\{n\leq N\;\left|\;\sup_{s\in K}
|\zeta_F(s+ihn)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0.\end{aligned}$$
The joint discrete universality theorem for Dirichlet $L$-functions was given in Bagchi [@Bag81]. He also obtained the discrete universality for $\zeta(s,\alpha)$ when $\alpha$ is rational, for which Sander and J. Steuding [@SanSte06] gave a different approach.
Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{} [@Kac02] (see also [@Kac12]) proved a discrete universality theorem for Matsumoto zeta-functions under the condition that $\exp(2\pi k/h)$ is irrational for any non-zero integer $k$. Ignatavi[č]{}i[ū]{}t[ė]{} [@Ign02] reported that certain discrete universality and certain joint discrete universality hold for Lerch zeta-functions, provided $\exp(2\pi/h)$ is rational.
As can be seen in the above examples, an interesting point on discrete universality is that the arithmetic nature of the parameter $h$ plays a role.
The discrete universality for $L$-functions $L(s,E)$ of elliptic curves was first studied in [@GarbLau04] under the assumption that $\exp(2\pi k/h)$ is irrational for any non-zero integer $k$. However this condition was then removed:
\[thm11-2\] [(Garbaliauskien[ė]{}, Genys and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@GarbGenLau08])]{} The discrete universality holds for $L(s,E)$ for any real $h\neq 0$ in the region $D(1,3/2)$.
The same type of result can be shown, more generally, for $L$-functions attached to new forms. When $\exp(2\pi k/h)$ is irrational for any non-zero integer $k$, this was done in Laurin[č]{}ikas, Matsumoto and J. Steuding [@LauMatSte05].
The discrete universality for periodic zeta-functions was studied in Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}, Javtokas and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@KacJavSia08] and Laurin[č]{}ikas, Macaitien[ė]{} and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@LauMacSia09], while the case of periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions was discussed by Laurin[č]{}ikas and Macaitien[ė]{} [@LauMac09b]. The result in [@LauMac09b] especially includes the discrete universality of the Hurwitz zeta-function $\zeta(s,\alpha)$ when $\alpha$ is transcendental. Laurin[č]{}ikas [@LauJNT] further proved that if the set $$\{\log(m+\alpha)\;|\;m\in\mathbb{N}_0\}\cup\{2\pi/h\}$$ is linearly independent over ${\mathbb Q}$, then the discrete universality holds for $\zeta(s,\alpha)$. See also [@BuiLauMacRas14]. A joint version is studied in Laurin[č]{}ikas [@LauMS].
Macaitien[ė]{} [@Mac06] obtained a discrete universality theorem for general Dirichlet series.
\[thm11-3\] [(Macaitien[ė]{} [@Mac06])]{} Let $f(s)$ be general Dirichlet series as in Theorem \[thm5-3\], and further suppose that $\lambda_n$ are algebraic numbers and $\exp(2\pi/h)\in\mathbb{Q}$. Then the discrete universality holds for $f(s)$ in the region $D(\sigma_1,\sigma_a)$.
The discrete analogue of mixed universality can also be considered. This direction was first studied by Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{} [@Kac11]. Consider the case $\exp(2\pi/h)\in\mathbb{Q}$. Write $\exp(2\pi/h)=a/b$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb Z}$ and $(a,b)=1$. Denote by $P_h$ the set of all prime numbers appearing as a prime factor of $a$ or $b$. Define the modified Dirichlet $L$-function $L_h(s,\chi)$ by removing all Euler factors corresponding to primes in $P_h$, that is $$L_h(s,\chi)=\prod_{p\notin P_h}\left(1-\frac{\chi(p)}{p^s}\right)^{-1}.$$
\[thm11-4\] [(Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{} [@Kac11])]{} Let $K_1, K_2$ be compact subsets of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complements, and $f_1\in H_0^c(K_1)$, $f_2\in H^c(K_2)$. If $\alpha$ is transcendental, $\mathfrak{B}$ is a periodic sequence and $\exp(2\pi/h)\in\mathbb{Q}$ as above, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11-2}
\liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\#\left\{n\leq N\;\left|\;\sup_{s\in K_1}
|L_h(s+ihn,\chi)-f_1(s)|<\varepsilon,\right.\right.\\
\left.\sup_{s\in K_2}|\zeta(s+ihn,\alpha,\mathfrak{B})-f_2(s)|<\varepsilon\right\}>0
\notag\end{aligned}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ [^6] .
Buivytas and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@BuiLau] proved that if the set $$\{\log p\;|\;p:{\rm prime}\}\cup\{\log(m+\alpha)\;|\;m\in\mathbb{N}_0\}
\cup\{2\pi/h\}$$ is linearly independent over ${\mathbb Q}$, then the discrete mixed universality holds for $\zeta(s)$ and $\zeta(s,\alpha)$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{11-3}
\liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\#\left\{n\leq N\;\left|\;\sup_{s\in K_1}
|\zeta(s+ihn)-f_1(s)|<\varepsilon,\right.\right.\\
\left.\sup_{s\in K_2}|\zeta(s+ihn,\alpha)-f_2(s)|<\varepsilon\right\}>0.
\notag \end{aligned}$$
In and , the shifting parameter $h$ is common to the both of relevant zeta (or $L$)-functions. Buivytas and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@BuiLau2] studied the case when the parameter for $\zeta(s)$ is different from the parameter for $\zeta(s,\alpha)$.
We will encounter a rather different type of discrete universality theorems in Section \[sec-18\].
The $\chi$-universality {#sec-12}
=======================
The main point of Voronin’s universality theorem is the existence of $\tau$, the imaginary part of the complex variable $s$, satisfying a certain approximation condition. This is the common feature of all universality theorems mentioned in the previous sections. However there is another type of universality, which is concerned with the existence of a character satisfying certain approximation conditions.
The first theorem in this direction is as follows.
\[thm12-1\] [(Bagchi [@Bag81], Gonek [@Gon79], Eminyan [@Emi90])]{} Let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement, and $f\in H_0^c(K)$. Let $Q$ be an infinite set of positive integers. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12-1}
\liminf_{q\to\infty\atop q\in Q}\frac{1}{\varphi(q)}
\;\#\left\{\chi {\rm (mod}\;q{\rm )}\;\left|\;\sup_{s\in K}
|L(s,\chi)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0\end{aligned}$$ holds, provided $Q$ is one of the following[^7]:
[(i)]{} $Q$ is the set of all prime numbers;
[(ii)]{} $Q$ is the set of positive integers of the form $q=p_1^{a_1}\cdots p_r^{a_r}$ [(]{}$a_1,\ldots,a_r\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$[)]{}, where $\{p_1,\ldots,p_r\}$ is a fixed finite set of prime numbers.
This type of results is called the [*$\chi$-universality*]{}, or [*the universality in $\chi$-aspect*]{}. The universality for Hecke $L$-functions of number fields in $\chi$-aspect was discussed by Mishou and Koyama [@MisKoy02], and by Mishou [@Mis04] [@Mis05].
Let $\chi_d$ be a real Dirichlet character with discriminant $d$. Another interesting direction of research is the universality for $L(s,\chi_d)$ in $d$-aspect. This direction was studied in a series of papers by Mishou and Nagoshi [@MisNag06] [@MisNag06b] [@MisNag06c] [@MisNag12]. Let $\Lambda^+$ (resp. $\Lambda^-$) be the set of all positive (resp. negative) discriminants, and $\Lambda^+(X)$ (resp. $\Lambda^-(X)$) be the set of discriminants $d$ satisfying $0<d\leq X$ (resp. $-X\leq d<0$).
\[thm12-2\] [(Mishou and Nagoshi [@MisNag06])]{} Let $\Omega$ be a simply connected domain in $D(1/2,1)$ which is symmetric with respect to the real axis. Let $f(s)$ be holomorphic and non-vanishing on $\Omega$, and positive-valued on $\Omega\cap\mathbb{R}$. Let $K$ be a compact subset of $\Omega$. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12-2}
\liminf_{X\to\infty}\frac{1}{\# \Lambda^{\pm}(X)}\#\left\{d\in \Lambda^{\pm}(X)
\;\left|\;\sup_{s\in K}|L(s,\chi_d)-f(s)|<\varepsilon\right.\right\}>0\end{aligned}$$ holds.
This theorem especially implies that for any $s\in D(1/2,1)\setminus\mathbb{R}$, the set $\{L(s,\chi_d)\;|\;d\in\Lambda^{\pm}\}$ is dense in $\mathbb{C}$, and for any real number $\sigma$ with $1/2<\sigma<1$, the set $\{L(\sigma,\chi_d)\;|\;d\in\Lambda^{\pm}\}$ is dense in the set of positive real numbers $\mathbb{R}_+$.
In the same paper Mishou and Nagoshi also studied the situation on the line $\Re s=1$, and proved that the set $\{L(1,\chi_d)\;|\;d\in\Lambda^{\pm}\}$ is dense in $\mathbb{R}_+$. Therefore we can deduce denseness results on class numbers of quadratic fields. Let $h(d)$ be the class number of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$, and when $d>0$, let $\varepsilon(d)$ be the fundamental unit of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{d})$. Then the above result implies that both the sets $$\left\{\frac{h(d)\log\varepsilon(d)}{\sqrt{d}}\;\left|\;d\in\Lambda^+\right.
\right\}, \qquad
\left\{\frac{h(d)}{\sqrt{d}}\;\left|\;d\in\Lambda^-\right.\right\}$$ are dense in $\mathbb{R}_+$.
In [@MisNag06b] [@MisNag12], the same type of problem for prime discriminants are studied. As an application, in [@MisNag12] Mishou and Nagoshi gave a quantitative result on a problem of Ayoub, Chowla and Walum on certain character sums [@AyoChoWal67]. In [@MisNag06c] Mishou and Nagoshi gave some conditions equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis from their viewpoint.
The universality in $d$-aspect for Hecke $L$-functions of class group characters for imaginary quadratic fields are studied by Mishou [@Mis11]. In [@Mis09], Mishou considered cubic characters associated with the field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-3})$, and proved a universality theorem for associated Hecke $L$-functions in cubic character aspect.
Other applications {#sec-13}
==================
So far we mentioned applications of universality to the theory of distribution of zeros (Section \[sec-5\]), to the Riemann hypothesis (Section \[sec-9\]), and to algebraic number theory (Section \[sec-12\]). Those applications, however, do not exhaust the potentiality of universality theory. In this section we discuss other applications of universality.
In Section \[sec-1\] we mentioned that Voronin, before proving his universality theorem, obtained the multi-dimensional denseness theorem (Theorem \[thm1-2\]) of $\zeta(s)$ and its derivatives. However, now, we can say that Theorem \[thm1-2\] is just an immediate consequence of the universality theorem (see [@Lau96 Theorem 6.6.2]). Moreover, from Theorem \[thm1-2\] it is easy to obtain the following functional-independence property of $\zeta(s)$.
\[thm13-1\] Let $f_l:\mathbb{C}^m\to\mathbb{C}$ $(0\leq l\leq n)$ be continuous functions, and assume that the equality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{13-1}
\sum_{l=0}^n s^l f_l(\zeta(s),\zeta^{\prime}(s),\ldots,\zeta^{(m-1)}(s))=0\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $s$. Then $f_l\equiv 0$ for $0\leq l\leq n$.
This type of result was first noticed by Voronin himself ([@Vor75b] [@Vor85]); see also [@Lau96 Theorem 6.6.3].
When $f_l$’s are polynomials, then is an algebraic differential equation. Therefore Theorem \[thm13-1\] in this case implies that $\zeta(s)$ does not satisfy any non-trivial algebraic differential equation. This property was already noticed by Hilbert in his famous address [@Hil00] at the 2nd International Congress of Mathematicians (Paris, 1900). Theorem \[thm13-1\] is a generalization of this algebraic-independence property.
Similarly to the case of $\zeta(s)$, if a Dirichlet series $\varphi(s)$ is universal, it is easy to prove the theorems analogous to Theorem \[thm1-2\] and Theorem \[thm13-1\] for $\varphi(s)$.
An application of the universality to the problem on Dirichlet polynomials was done by Andersson [@And99]. He used the universality theorem to show that several conjectures on lower bounds of certain integrals of Dirichlet polynomials, proposed by Ramachandra [@Ram92] and Balasubramanian and Ramachandra [@BalRam95] are false.
The universality property was applied even in physics; see Gutzwiller [@Gut83], Bitar, Khuri and Ren [@BKR91].
The general notion of universality {#sec-14}
==================================
The main theme of the present article is the universality for zeta and $L$-functions. However, the notion of universality was first introduced in mathematics, under a very different motivation.
The first discovery of the universality phenomenon is usually attributed to M. Fekete (1914/15, reported in [@Pal]), who proved that there exists a real power series $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n x^n$ such that, for any continuous $f:[-1,1]\to\mathbb{R}$ with $f(0)=0$ we can choose positive integers $m_1,m_2,\ldots$ for which $$\sum_{n=1}^{m_k}a_n x^n\to f(x) \qquad(k\to\infty)$$ holds uniformly on $[-1,1]$. The proof is based on Weierstrass’ approximation theorem.
G. D. Birkhoff [@Bir29] proved that there exists an entire function $\psi(z)$ such that, for any entire function $f(z)$, we can choose complex numbers $a_1,a_2,\ldots$ for which $\psi(z+a_k)\to f(z)$ (as $k\to\infty$) uniformly in any compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$.
The terminology “universality” was first used by Marcinkiewicz [@Mar35]. Various functions satisfying some property similar to those discovered by Fekete and Birkhoff are known. However, before the work of Voronin [@Vor75], all of those functions were constructed very artificially. So far the class of zeta and $L$-functions is the only “natural” class of functions for which the universality property can be proved. For the more detailed history of this general notion of universality, see Grosse-Erdmann [@Gro99] and Steuding [@Ste07 Appendix] [^8] .
It is to be noted that the real origin of the whole theory is Riemann’s theorem that a conditionally convergent series can be convergent (or divergent) to any value after some suitable rearrangement. In fact, Fekete’s result may be regarded as an analogue of Riemann’s theorem for continuous functions, while Pecherski[ĭ]{}’s theorem [@Pec73] (mentioned in Section \[sec-1\] as an essential tool in Voronin’s proof) gives an analogue of Riemann’s theorem in Hilbert spaces.
A very general definition of universality was proposed by Grosse-Erdmann [@Gro87][@Gro99].
\[defin14-1\] Let $X$, $Y$ be topological spaces, $W$ be a non-empty closed subset of $Y$, and $T_{\tau}:X\to Y$ ($\tau\in I$) be a family of mappings with the index set $I$. We call $x\in X$ [*universal with respect to $W$*]{} if the closure of the set $\{T_{\tau}(x)\;|\;\tau\in I\}$ contains $W$.
Let $K$ be as in Theorem \[thm1-1\], $X=Y=H(K^{\circ})$, where $K^{\circ}$ is the interior of $K$. Then obviously $H_0^c(K)\subset H(K^{\circ})$. Put $W=\overline{H_0^c(K)}$ (the topological closure of $H_0^c(K)$ in the space $H(K^{\circ})$). Define $T_{\tau}$ by $T_{\tau}(f(z))=f(z+i\tau)$ for $f\in H(K^{\circ})$. Then Theorem \[thm1-1\] implies that any element of $H_0^c(K)$ can be approximated by some suitable element of $\{T_{\tau}(\zeta)\;|\;\tau\in \mathbb{R}\}$. Therefore Theorem \[thm1-1\] asserts that the Riemann zeta-function $\zeta(s)$ is universal with respect to $\overline{H_0^c(K)}$ in the sense of Definition \[defin14-1\].
The notion of joint universality can also be formulated in this general setting.
\[defin14-2\] Let $X,Y_1,\ldots,Y_r$ be topological spaces, and $T_{\tau}^{(j)}:X\to Y_j$ ($\tau\in I$, $1\leq j\leq r$) be families of mappings. We call $x_1,\ldots,x_r\in X$ [*jointly universal*]{} if the set $\{(T_{\tau}^{(1)}(x_1),\ldots,T_{\tau}^{(r)}(x_r)\;|\;\tau\in I\}$ is dense in $Y_1\times\cdots\times Y_r$.
\[rem14-1\] The case $r=1$ of Definition \[defin14-2\] is the case $W=Y$ of Definition \[defin14-1\].
In Section \[sec-1\] we mentioned that the Kronecker-Weyl approximation theorem (see Remark \[rem1-0\]) is used in the proof of Theorem \[thm1-1\]. We can see that the Kronecker-Weyl theorem itself implies a certain universality phenomenon. Let $S^1=\{z\in\mathbb{C}\;|\;|z|=1\}$, and consider the situation when $X=\mathbb{R}$, $Y_1=\cdots=Y_r=S^1$ in Definition \[defin14-2\]. Define $T_{\tau}^{(1)}=\cdots=T_{\tau}^{(r)}=T_{\tau}:\mathbb{R}\to S^1$ by $T_{\tau}(x)=e^{2\pi i\tau x}$. Then the Kronecker-Weyl theorem implies that, if $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\in\mathbb{R}$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, then the orbit of $$(T_{\tau}(\alpha_1),\ldots,T_{\tau}(\alpha_r))
=(e^{2\pi i\tau\alpha_1},\ldots,e^{2\pi i\tau\alpha_r})$$ is dense in $S^1\times\cdots\times S^1$. Therefore $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r$ are jointly universal.
The above observation shows that both the Voronin theorem and the Kronecker-Weyl theorem express certain universality properties. Is it possible to combine these two universality theorems? The answer is yes, and we will discuss this matter in the next section.
The hybrid universality {#sec-15}
=======================
The first affirmative answer to the question raised at the end of Section \[sec-14\] was given by Gonek [@Gon79], and a slightly general result was later obtained by Kaczorowski and Kulas [@KacKul07].
\[thm15-1\] [(Gonek [@Gon79], Kaczorowski and Kulas [@KacKul07])]{} Let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(1/2,1)$, $f_1,\ldots,f_r\in H_0^c(K)$, $\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_r$ be pairwise non-equivalent Dirichlet characters, $z>0$, and $(\theta_p)_{p\leq z}$ be a sequence of real numbers indexed by prime numbers up to $z$. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15-1}
\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;
\max_{1\leq j\leq r}\sup_{s\in K}|L(s+i\tau,\chi_j)-f_j(s)|<\varepsilon,\right.
\right.\\
\left.\max_{p\leq z}\left|\left|\tau\frac{\log p}{2\pi}-\theta_p\right|\right|
<\varepsilon\right\}>0 \notag\end{aligned}$$ holds.
The combination of the universality of Voronin type and of Kronecker-Weyl type is now called the [*hybrid universality*]{}. The above theorem is therefore an example of the hybrid joint universality.
Pa[ń]{}kowski [@Pan10] proved that the second inequality in can be replaced by $\max_{1\leq k\leq m}||\tau\alpha_k-\theta_k||<\varepsilon$, where $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m$ are real numbers which are linearly independent over $\mathbb{Q}$, and $\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_m$ are arbitrary real numbers. This is exactly the same inequality as in the Kronecker-Weyl theorem (see Remark \[rem1-0\]).
In the same paper Pa[ń]{}kowski remarked that the same statement can be shown for more general $L$-functions which have Euler products. The hybrid joint universality for some zeta-functions without Euler products was discussed in Pa[ń]{}kowski [@Pan13].
Hybrid universality theorems are quite useful in applications. Gonek [@Gon79] used his hybrid universality theorem to show the joint universality for Dedekind zeta-functions of Abelian number fields (mentioned in Section \[sec-3\]). The key fact here is that those Dedekind zeta-functions can be written as products of Dirichlet $L$-functions. On the other hand, the aim of Kaczorowski and Kulas [@KacKul07] was to study the distribution of zeros of linear combinations of the form $\sum P_j(s)L(s,\chi_j)$, where $P_j(s)$ are Dirichlet polynomials. Kaczorowski and Kulas applied Theorem \[thm15-1\] to show a theorem[^9], similar to Theorem \[thm5-2\], for such linear combinations.
Sander and J. Steuding [@SanSte06] also considered the universality for sums, or products of Dirichlet $L$-functions. In particular they proved the joint universality for Hurwitz zeta-functions $\zeta(s,a/q)$ ($1\leq a\leq q$) under a certain condition on target functions. Hurwitz zeta-functions usually do not have Euler products, but when $a=q$ (and when $q$ is even and $a=q/2$) the corresponding Hurwitz zeta-function is essentially the Riemann zeta-function and hence has the Euler product. Therefore the result of Sander and J. Steuding is an example of mixed universality (see Section \[sec-8\]).
In the paper of Kaczorowski and Kulas [@KacKul07], the coefficients $P_j(s)$ of linear combinations are Dirichlet polynomials. Nakamura and Pa[ń]{}kowski [@NakPan12b] considered a more general situation when $P_j(s)$ are Dirichlet series. Their general statement is as follows.
\[thm15-2\] [(Nakamura and Pa[ń]{}kowski [@NakPan12b])]{} Let $P_1(s),\ldots,P_r(s)$ ($r\geq 2$) be general Dirichlet series, not identically vanishing, absolutely convergent in $\Re s>1/2$. Moreover assume that at least two of those are non-vanishing in $D(1/2,1)$. Let $L_1(s),\ldots,L_r(s)$ be hybridly jointly universal in the above sense. Then $L(s)=\sum_{j=1}^rP_j(s)L_j(s)$ is strongly universal in $D(1/2,1)$.
As a corollary, by Theorem \[thm5-2\] we find $N(T;\sigma_1,\sigma_2;L)\geq CT$ for the above $L(s)$, for any $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ satisfying $1/2<\sigma_1<\sigma_2<1$.
In the above theorem $L(s)$ is a linear form of $L_j$’s, but in [@NakPan11] [@NakPanpre], Nakamura and Pa[ń]{}kowski obtained more general statements; they considered polynomials of $L_j$’s whose coefficients are general Dirichlet series, and proved results similar to Theorem \[thm15-2\]. Note that when coefficients of polynomials are constants, such a result was already given in Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}, J. Steuding, [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas and [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{} [@KacSteSiaSle04].
Many important zeta and $L$-functions have such polynomial expressions. Consequently, Nakamura and Pa[ń]{}kowski succeeded in proving the inequalities like on the distribution of zeros of those zeta or $L$-functions, such as zeta-functions attached to symmetric matrices (in the theory of prehomogeneous vector spaces), Estermann zeta-functions, Igusa zeta-functions associated with local Diophantine problems, spectral zeta-functions associated with Laplacians on Riemannian manifolds, Epstein zeta-functions (see [@NakPan13b]), and also various multiple zeta-functions (of Euler-Zagier, of Barnes, of Shintani, of Witten and so on).
Quantitative results {#sec-16}
====================
It is an important question how to obtain quantitative information related with universality. For example, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{16-1}
d(\zeta,f,K,\varepsilon)=\liminf_{T\to\infty}\frac{1}{T}{\rm meas}
\left\{\tau\in[0,T]\;\left|\;\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-f(s)|<\varepsilon
\right.\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[thm1-1\] asserts that $d(\zeta,f,K,\varepsilon)$ is positive; but how to evaluate this value? Or, how to find the smallest value of $\tau$ (which we denote by $\tau(\zeta,f,K,\varepsilon)$) satisfying the inequality $\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+i\tau)-f(s)|<\varepsilon$? Voronin’s proof gives no information on these questions, because in the course of the proof Voronin used Pecherski[ĭ]{}’s rearrangement theorem, which is ineffective.
The first attempt to get a quantitative version of the universality theorem is due to Good [@Goo81]. The fundamental idea of Good is to combine the argument of Voronin with the method of Montgomery [@Mon77], in which Montgomery studied large values of $\log\zeta(s)$. Instead of Pecherski[ĭ]{}’s theorem, Good used convexity arguments (Hadamard’s three circles theorem and the Hahn-Banach theorem). Also Koksma’s quantitative version of Weyl’s criterion is invoked. The statements of Good’s main results are quite complicated, but it includes a quantitative version of the discrete universality theorem for $\zeta(s)$.
\[rem16-1\] Actually Good stated the discrete universality for $\log\zeta(s)$. From the universality for $\log\zeta(s)$, the universality for $\zeta(s)$ itself can be immediately deduced by exponentiation. A proof of the universality for $\log\zeta(s)$ by Voronin’s original method is presented in the book of Karatsuba and Voronin [@KarVor92 Chapter VII].
Good’s idea was further pursued by Garunk[š]{}tis [@Gar03], who obtained a more explicit quantitative result when $K$ is small. His main theorem is still rather complicated, but as a typical special case, he showed the following inequalities. Let $K=K(r)$ be as in Section \[sec-1\].
\[thm16-1\] [(Garunk[š]{}tis [@Gar03])]{} Let $0<\varepsilon\leq 1/2$, $f\in H(K(0.05))$, and assume $\max_{s\in K(0.06)}|f(s)|\leq 1$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ll}
d(\log\zeta,f,K(0.0001),\varepsilon)\geq \exp(-1/\varepsilon^{13}),\\
\tau(\log\zeta,f,K(0.0001),\varepsilon)\leq \exp\exp(10/\varepsilon^{13}).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
Besides the above work of Good and Garunk[š]{}tis, there are various different approaches toward quantitative results. Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau00] pointed out that quantitative information on the speed of convergence of a certain functional limit theorem would give a quantitative result on the universality for Lerch zeta-functions. J. Steuding [@Ste03c] [@Ste05] considered the quantity defined by replacing liminf on by limsup, and discussed its upper bounds.
The author pointed out in [@Mat06] that from Theorem \[thm1-2\], by comparing the Taylor expansions of $\zeta(s+i\tau)$ and $f(s)$, it is possible to deduce a certain weaker version of universal approximation. On the other hand, a quantitative version of Theorem \[thm1-2\] was shown by Voronin himself [@Vor88]. Combining these two ideas, a quantitative version of weak universal approximation theorem was obtained in Garunk[š]{}tis, Laurin[č]{}ikas, Matsumoto, J. & R. Steuding [@GarLauMatSteSte10].
A nice survey on the effectivization problem is given in Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau13b].
The universality for derived functions {#sec-17}
======================================
When some function $\varphi(s)$ satisfies the universality property, a natural question is to ask whether functions derived from $\varphi(s)$ by some standard operations, such as $\varphi^{\prime}(s)$, $\varphi(s)^2$, $\exp(\varphi(s))$ etc, also satisfy the universality property, or not.
We already mentioned the universality of $\log\zeta(s)$ (see Remark \[rem16-1\]). Concerning the derivatives, Bagchi [@Bag82] proved that $m$th derivatives of Dirichlet $L$-functions $L^{(m)}(s,\chi)$ ($m\in\mathbb{N}$) are strongly universal. Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau85] studied the universality for $(\zeta'/\zeta)(s)$, and then considered the same problem for $L(s,g)$ (for a cusp form $g$) in [@Lau05b] [@Lau05c]. The universality for derivatives of $L$-functions of elliptic curves was studied by Garbaliauskien[ė]{} and Laurin[č]{}ikas [@GarbLau07], and its discrete analogue was discussed by Belovas, Garbaliauskien[ė]{} and Ivanauskait[ė]{} [@BelGarbIva08].
After these early attempts, Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau10c] (see also [@Lau12c]) formulated a more general framework of [*composite universality*]{}. Let $F$ be an operator $F:H(D(1/2,1))\to H(D(1/2,1))$. Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau10c] considered when $F(\zeta(s))$ has the universality property.
A simple affirmative case is the Lipschitz class ${\rm Lip}(\alpha)$. We call $F$ belongs to ${\rm Lip}(\alpha)$ when
1\) for any polynomial $q=q(s)$ and any compact $K\subset D(1/2,1)$, there exists $q_0\in F^{-1}\{q\}$ such that $q_0(s)\neq 0$ on $K$, and
2\) for any compact $K\subset D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement, there exist $c>0$ and a compact $K_1\subset D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement, for which $$\sup_{s\in K}|F(g_1(s))-F(g_2(s))|\leq c\sup_{s\in K_1}|g_1(s)-g_2(s)|^{\alpha}$$ holds for all $g_1,g_2\in H(D(1/2,1))$.
Then it is pointed out in [@Lau10c] that if $F\in {\rm Lip}(\alpha)$, then $F(\zeta(s))$ has the universality property. This claim especially includes the proof of the universality for $\zeta'(s)$.
To prove other theorems in [@Lau10c], Laurin[č]{}ikas applied the method of functional limit theorems (cf. Mauclaire [@Mau13]). Those results imply, for example, $\zeta'(s)+\zeta''(s)$, $\zeta(s)^m$ ($m$-th power), $\exp(\zeta(s))$, and $\sin(\zeta(s))$ are universal.
Later, Laurin[č]{}ikas and his colleagues generalized the result in [@Lau10c] to various other situations.
$\bullet$ Hurwitz zeta-functions (Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau13] for the single case, Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau12] for the joint case, and Laurin[č]{}ikas and Ra[š]{}yt[ė]{} [@LauRas12] for the discrete case),
$\bullet$ Periodic and periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions (Laurin[č]{}ikas [@Lau12b], Korsakien[ė]{}, Pocevi[č]{}ien[ė]{} and [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas [@KorPocSia13]),
$\bullet$ Automorphic $L$-functions (Laurin[č]{}ikas, Matsumoto and J. Steuding [@LauMatSte13]).
A hybrid version of the joint composite universality for Dirichlet $L$-functions was given by Laurin[č]{}ikas, Matsumoto and J. Steuding [@LauMatSte13b].
An alternative approach to composite universality was done by Meyrath [@Mey11].
Yet another approach is due to Christ, J. Steuding and Vlachou [@ChrSteVla13]. Let $\Omega_0\times\cdots\times\Omega_n$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$, and let $F:\Omega_0\times\cdots\times\Omega_n\to\mathbb{C}$ be continuous. In [@ChrSteVla13], the universality of $F(\zeta(s),\zeta'(s),\ldots,\zeta^{(n)}(s))$ was discussed. First, applying the idea in [@GarLauMatSteSte10], they proved a weaker form of universal approximation. Then, when $F$ is non-constant and analytic, they obtained a kind of universality theorem on a certain small circle. Their proof relies on the implicit function theorem and the Picard-Lindel[ö]{}f theorem on certain differential equations.
Ergodicity and the universality {#sec-18}
===============================
It is quite natural to understand universality from the ergodic viewpoint. In fact, the universality theorem for a certain Dirichlet series $\varphi(s)$ implies that the orbit $\{\varphi(s+i\tau)\;|\;\tau\in\mathbb{R}\}$ is dense in a certain function space, and this orbit comes back to an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of any target function infinitely often. This is really an ergodic phenomenon.
Therefore, we can expect that there are some explicit connections between universality theory and ergodic theory. We mentioned already in Section \[sec-10\] that the Birkhoff-Khinchin theorem in ergodic theory is used in Bagchi’s proof of the universality.
Recently J. Steuding [@Ste13] formulated a kind of universality theorem, whose statement itself is written in terms of ergodic theory.
Let $(X,\mathcal{B},P)$ be a probability space, and let $T:X\to X$ a measure-preserving transformation. We call $T$ ergodic with respect to $P$ if $A\in\mathcal{B}$ satisfies $T^{-1}(A)=A$, then either $P(A)=0$ or $P(A)=1$ holds. In this case we call $(X,\mathcal{B},P,T)$ an ergodic dynamical system. Here we consider the case $X=\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ is the standard Borel $\sigma$-algebra.
Let $D\subset\mathbb{C}$ be a domain, $K_1,\ldots,K_r$ be compact subsets of $D$ with connected complements, and $f_j\in H_0^c(K_j)$ ($1\leq j\leq r$). We call $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_r\in H(D)$ is [*jointly ergodic universal*]{} if for any $K_j$, $f_j$, $T$, $\varepsilon>0$, and for almost all $x\in\mathbb{R}$, there exists an $n\in\mathbb{N}$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\label{18-1}
\max_{1\leq j\leq r}\sup_{s\in K_j}|\varphi_j(s+iT^n x)-f_j(s)|<\varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ holds. Here, $T^n x$ means the $T$-times iteration of $T$. If the above statament holds for $f_j\in H^c(K_j)$ ($1\leq j\leq r$), then we call $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_r\in H(D)$ [*jointly strongly ergodic universal*]{}.
\[thm18-1\] [(J. Steuding [@Ste13])]{} Let $D$, $K_j$, $T$ be as above. Let $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_r$ be a family of $L$-functions. Then, there exists a real number $\tau$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{18-2}
\max_{1\leq j\leq r}\sup_{s\in K_j}|\varphi_j(s+i\tau)-f_j(s)|<\varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ for any $f_j\in H_0^c(K_j)$ $({\rm resp.} \;H^c(K_j))$ and any $\varepsilon>0$, if and only if $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_r$ is jointly [(]{}resp. jointly strongly[)]{} ergodic universal. And in this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{18-3}
\liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\#\left\{n\in\mathbb{N}\;\left|\;
\max_{1\leq j\leq r}\sup_{s\in K_j}|\varphi_j(s+iT^n x)-f_j(s)|<\varepsilon
\right.\right\}>0.\end{aligned}$$
Srichan, R. & J. Steuding [@SriSteSte13] discovered the universality produced by a random walk. They considered a lattice $\Lambda$ on $\mathbb{C}$ and a random walk $(s_n)_{n=0}^{\infty}$ on this lattice, and proved the following result. Let $K$ be a compact subset of $D(1/2,1)$ with connected complement (with a condition given in terms of $\Lambda$), and $f\in H_0^c(K)$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{18-4}
\liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\#\left\{n\in\mathbb{N}\;\left|\;
\sup_{s\in K}|\zeta(s+s_n)-f(s)|<\varepsilon
\right.\right\}>0 \end{aligned}$$ holds almost surely. They also mentioned a result similar to the above for two-dimensional Brownian motions.
The results in this section suggest that universality is a kind of ergodic phenomenon and is to be understood from the viewpoint of dynamical systems. Universality theorems imply that the properties of zeta-functions in the critical strip are quite inaccessible, which is probably the underlying reason of the extreme difficulty of the Riemann hypothesis. Moreover in Section \[sec-9\] we mentioned that the Riemann hypothesis itself can be reformulated in terms of dynamical systems. Therefore the Riemann hypothesis is perhaps to be understood as a phenomenon with dynamical-system flavour[^10]. In order to pursue this viewpoint, it is indispensable to study universality more deeply and extensively.
[99]{} J. Andersson, Disproof of some conjectures of K. Ramachandra, Hardy-Ramanujan J. [**22**]{} (1999), 2-7. R. Ayoub, S. Chowla and H. Walum, On sums involving quadratic characters, J. London Math. Soc. [**42**]{} (1967), 152-154. B. Bagchi, The statistical behaviour and universality properties of the Riemann zeta-function and other allied Dirichlet series, Thesis, Calcutta, Indian Statistical Institute, 1981. B. Bagchi, A joint universality theorem for Dirichlet $L$-functions, Math. Z. [**181**]{} (1982), 319-334. B. Bagchi, Recurrence in topological dynamics and the Riemann hypothesis, Acta Math. Hung. [**50**]{} (1987), 227-240. R. Balasubramanian and K. Ramachandra, On Riemann zeta-function and allied questions II, Hardy-Ramanujan J. [**18**]{} (1995), 10-22. H. Bauer, The value distribution of Artin $L$-series and zeros of zeta-functions, J. Number Theory [**98**]{} (2003), 254-279. I. Belovas, V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{} and R. Ivanauskait[ė]{}, The discrete universality of the derivatives of $L$-functions of elliptic curves, [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**3(11)**]{} (2008), 53-59. G. D. Birkhoff, D[é]{}monstration d’un th[é]{}or[‘e]{}me [é]{}l[é]{}mentaire sur les fonctions enti[è]{}res, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**189**]{} (1929), 473-475. K. M. Bitar, N. N. Khuri and H. C. Ren, Path integrals and Voronin’s theorem on the universality of the Riemann zeta function, Ann. Phys. [**211**]{} (1991), 172-196. H. Bohr, Zur Theorie der Riemann’schen Zetafunktion im kritischen Streifen, Acta Math. [**40**]{} (1915), 67-100. H. Bohr, [Ü]{}ber eine quasi-periodische Eigenschaft Dirichletscher Reihen mit Anwendung auf die Dirichletschen $L$-Funktionen, Math. Ann. [**85**]{} (1922), 115-122. H. Bohr and R. Courant, Neue Anwendungen der Theorie der Diophantischen Approximationen auf die Riemannschen Zetafunktion, J. reine Angew. Math. [**144**]{} (1914), 249-274. H. Bohr and B. Jessen, [Ü]{}ber die Werteverteilung der Riemannschen Zetafunktion, Erste Mitteilung, Acta Math. [**54**]{} (1930), 1-35; Zweite Mitteilung, ibid. [**58**]{} (1932), 1-55. V. Borchsenius and B. Jessen, Mean motions and values of the Riemann zeta function, Acta Math. [**80**]{} (1948), 97-166. E. Buivydas and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, A discrete version of the Mishou theorem, preprint. E. Buivydas and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, A discrete version of the joint universality theorem for the Riemann and Hurwitz zeta-functions, preprint. E. Buivydas, A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, R. Macaitien[ė]{} and J. Ra[š]{}yt[ė]{}, Discrete universality theorems for the Hurwitz zeta-function, J. Approx. Theory [**183**]{} (2014), 1-13. Y. Cai, Prime geodesic theorem, J. Th[é]{}or. Nombr. Bordeaux [**14**]{} (2002), 59-72. T. Christ, J. Steuding and V. Vlachou, Differential universality, Math. Nachr. [**286**]{} (2013), 160-170. C. Deninger, Some analogies between number theory and dynamical systems on foliated spaces, in “Proc. Intern. Congr. Math. Berlin 1998”, Vol. I, Documenta Math. J. DMV Extra Vol., 1998, pp.163-186. C. Deninger, On dynamical systems and their possible significance for arithmetic geometry, in “Regulators in Analysis, Geometry and Number Theory”, A. Reznikov and N. Schappacher (eds.), Progr. in Math. [**171**]{}, Birkh[ä]{}user, 2000, pp.29-87. P. Drungilas, R. Garunk[š]{}tis and A. Ka[č]{}[ė]{}nas, Universality of the Selberg zeta-function for the modular group, Forum Math. [**25**]{} (2013), 533-564. A. Dubickas, On the linear independence of the set of Dirichlet exponents, Kodai Math. J. [**35**]{} (2012), 642-651. K. M. Eminyan, $\chi$-universality of the Dirichlet $L$-function, Mat. Zametki [**47**]{} (1990), 132-137 (in Russian); Math. Notes [**47**]{} (1990), 618-622. V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{}, A weighted universality theorem for zeta-functions of elliptic curves, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**44**]{}, Spec. Issue (2004), 43-47. V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{}, A weighted discrete universality theorem for $L$-functions of elliptic curves, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**45**]{}, Spec. Issue (2005), 25-29. V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{}, J. Genys and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Discrete universality of the $L$-functions of elliptic curves, Sibirski[ĭ]{} Mat. Zh. [**49**]{} (2008), 768-785 (in Russian); Siberian Math. J. [**49**]{} (2008), 612-627. V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{}, R. Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{} and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The joint universality for $L$-functions of elliptic curves, Nonlinear Anal. Modell. Control [**9**]{} (2004), 331-348. V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{} and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Discrete value-distribution of $L$-functions of elliptic curves, Publ. Inst. Math. (Beograd) [**76(90)**]{} (2004), 65-71. V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{} and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Some analytic properties for $L$-functions of elliptic curves, Proc. Inst. Math. NAN Belarus [**13**]{} (2005), 75-82. V. Garbaliauskien[ė]{} and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The universality of the derivatives of $L$-functions of elliptic curves, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Proc. 4th Palanga Conf.), A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and E. Manstavi[č]{}ius (eds.), TEV, 2007, pp.24-29. R. Garunk[š]{}tis, The effective universality theorem for the Riemann zeta function, in “Proc. Session in Analytic Number Theory and Diophantine Equations”, D. R. Heath-Brown and B. Z. Moroz (eds.), Bonner Math. Schriften [**360**]{}, Bonn, 2003, n.16, 21pp. R. Garunk[š]{}tis, Self-approximation of Dirichlet $L$-functions, J. Number Theory [**131**]{} (2011), 1286-1295. R. Garunk[š]{}tis and E. Karikovas, Self-approximation of Hurwitz zeta-functions, Funct. Approx. Comment. Math., to appear. R. Garunk[š]{}tis, A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, R. [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{} and J. Steuding, On the universality of Estermann zeta-functions, Analysis [**22**]{} (2002), 285-296. R. Garunk[š]{}tis, A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, K. Matsumoto, J. Steuding and R. Steuding, Effective uniform approximation by the Riemann zeta-function, Publ. Math. (Barcelona) [**54**]{} (2010), 209-219. J. Genys and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Value distribution of general Dirichlet series V, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**44**]{} (2004), 181-195 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**44**]{} (2004), 145-156. J. Genys, R. Macaitien[ė]{}, S. Ra[č]{}kauskien[ė]{} and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, A mixed joint universality theorem for zeta-functions, Math. Modell. Anal. [**15**]{} (2010), 431-446. S. M. Gonek, Analytic properties of zeta and $L$-functions, Thesis, University of Michigan, 1979. A. Good, On the distribution of the values of Riemann’s zeta-function, Acta Arith. [**38**]{} (1981), 347-388. K.-G. Grosse-Erdmann, Holomorphe Monster und universelle Funktionen, Mitt. Math. Sem. Giessen [**176**]{} (1987), 1-81. K.-G. Grosse-Erdmann, Universal families and hypercyclic operators, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**36**]{} (1999), 345-381. M. C. Gutzwiller, Stochastic behavior in quantum scattering, Physica [**7D**]{} (1983), 341-355. D. Hilbert, Mathematische Probleme, Nachr. K[ö]{}nigl. Ges. Wiss. G[ö]{}ttingen, Math.-phys. Kl. (1900), 253-297; reprinted in Arch. Math. Phys. [**(3)1**]{} (1901), 44-63, 213-237; also in Hilbert’s Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Vol. III, Chelsea, 1965 (originally in 1935), pp.290-329. J. Ignatavi[č]{}i[ū]{}t[ė]{}, Discrete universality of the Lerch zeta-function, in “Abstracts, 8th Vilnius Conf. on Probab. Theory”, TEV, 2002, pp.116-117. K. Janulis and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Joint universality of Dirichlet $L$-functions and Hurwitz zeta-functions, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest., Sect. Comp. [**39**]{} (2013), 203-214. K. Janulis, A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, R. Macaitien[ė]{} and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, Joint universality of Dirichlet $L$-functions and periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions, Math. Modell. Anal. [**17**]{} (2012), 673-685. A. Javtokas and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the periodic Hurwitz zeta-function, Hardy-Ramanujan J. [**29**]{} (2006), 18-36. A. Javtokas and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Universality of the periodic Hurwitz zeta-function, Integr. Transf. Spec. Funct. [**17**]{} (2006), 711-722. A. Javtokas and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, A joint universality theorem for periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**78**]{} (2008), 13-33. B. Jessen and H. Tornehave, Mean motions and zeros of almost periodic functions, Acta Math. [**77**]{} (1945), 137-279. A. Ka[č]{}[ė]{}nas and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On Dirichlet series related to certain cusp forms, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**38**]{} (1998), 82-97 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**38**]{} (1998), 64-76. R. Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}, A discrete universality theorem for the Matsumoto zeta-function, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**42**]{}, Spec. Issue (2002), 55-58. R. Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}, Joint discrete universality of periodic zeta-functions, Integr. Transf. Spec. Funct. [**22**]{} (2011), 593-601. R. Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}, Limit theorems for zeta-functions — with application in universality, [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**7(15)**]{} (2012), 19-40. R. Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}, A. Javtokas and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, On discrete universality of the periodic zeta-function, [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**3(11)**]{} (2008), 141-152. R. Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{} and A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The joint distribution of periodic zeta-functions, Studia Sci. Math. Hung. [**48**]{} (2011), 257-279. R. Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}, J. Steuding, D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas and R. [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{}, On polynomials in Dirichlet series, Fiz. Mat. Fak. Moksl. Sem. Darbai, [Š]{}iauliai Univ. [**7**]{} (2004), 26-32. J. Kaczorowski, Some remarks on the universality of periodic $L$-functions, in “New Directions in Value-Distribution Theory of Zeta and $L$-Functions”, R.& J. Steuding (eds.), Shaker Verlag, 2009, pp.113-120. J. Kaczorowski and M. Kulas, On the non-trivial zeros off the critical line for $L$-functions from the extended Selberg class, Monatsh. Math. [**150**]{} (2007), 217-232. J. Kaczorowski, A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and J. Steuding, On the value distribution of shifts of universal Dirichlet series, Monatsh. Math. [**147**]{} (2006), 309-317. J. Kaczorowski and A. Perelli, The Selberg class: a survey, in “Number Theory in Progress”, Proc. Intern. Conf. on Number Theory in Honor of the 60th Birthday of A. Schinzel at Zakopane, Vol. 2, Elementary and Analytic Number Theory, K. Gy[ö]{}ry et al. (eds.), Walter de Gruyter, 1999, pp.953-992. A. A. Karatsuba and S. M. Voronin, The Riemann Zeta-Function, Walter de Gruyter, 1992. E. Karikovas and [Ł]{}. Pa[ń]{}kowski, Self-approximation of Hurwitz zeta-functions with rational parameter, Lith. Math. J. [**54**]{} (2014), 74-81. H. Ki and Y. Lee, On the zeros of degree one $L$-functions from the extended Selberg class, Acta Arith. [**149**]{} (2011), 23-36. D. Korsakien[ė]{}, V. Pocevi[č]{}ien[ė]{} and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, On universality of periodic zeta-functions, [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**8(16)**]{} (2013), 131-141. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Distribution des valeurs de certaines s[é]{}ries de Dirichlet, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**289**]{} (1979), 43-45. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Sur les s[é]{}ries de Dirichlet et les polyn[ô]{}mes trigonom[é]{}triques, S[é]{}m. Th[é]{}or. Nombr., Univ. de Bordeaux I, [É]{}xpos[é]{} no.24, 1979. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Distribution of values of generating Dirichlet series of multiplicative functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**22**]{} (1982), 101-111 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**22**]{} (1982), 56-63. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The universality theorem, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**23**]{} (1983), 53-62 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**23**]{} (1983), 283-289. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The universality theorem II, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**24**]{} (1984), 113-121 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**24**]{} (1984), 143-149. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Zeros of the derivative of the Riemann zeta-function, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**25**]{} (1985), 111-118 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**25**]{} (1985), 255-260. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Zeros of linear combinations of Dirichlet series, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**26**]{} (1986), 468-477 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**26**]{} (1986), 244-251. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the universality of the Riemann zeta-function, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**35**]{} (1995), 502-507 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**35**]{} (1995), 399-402. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Limit Theorems for the Riemann Zeta-function, Kluwer, 1996. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The universality of the Lerch zeta-function, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**37**]{} (1997), 367-375 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**37**]{} (1997), 275-280. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the Matsumoto zeta-function, Acta Arith. [**84**]{} (1998), 1-16. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the zeros of linear combinations of the Matsumoto zeta-functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**38**]{} (1998), 185-204 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**38**]{} (1998), 144-159. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the Lerch zeta-function with rational parameters, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**38**]{} (1998), 113-124 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**38**]{} (1998), 89-97. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the effectivization of the universality theorem for the Lerch zeta-function, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**40**]{} (2000), 172-178 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. [**40**]{} (2000), 135-139. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The universality of Dirichlet series attached to finite Abelian groups, in “Number Theory”, M. Jutila and T. Mets[ä]{}nkyl[ä]{} (eds.), Walter de Gruyter, 2001, 179-192. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The universality of zeta-functions, Acta Appl. Math. [**78**]{} (2003), 251-271. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The joint universality for general Dirichlet series, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest., Sect. Comp. [**22**]{} (2003), 235-251. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Joint universality of general Dirichlet series, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. [**69**]{} (2005), 133-144 (in Russian); Izv. Math. [**69**]{} (2005), 131-142. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the derivatives of zeta-functions of certain cusp forms, Glasgow Math. J. [**47**]{} (2005), 87-96. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the derivatives of zeta-functions of certain cusp forms II, Glasgow Math. J. [**47**]{} (2005), 505-516. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The joint universality for periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions, Analysis [**26**]{} (2006), 419-428. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Voronin-type theorem for periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions, Mat. Sb. [**198**]{} (2007), 91-102 (in Russian); Sb. Math. [**198**]{} (2007), 231-242. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Joint universality for periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. [**72**]{} (2008), 121-140 (in Russian); Izv. Math. [**72**]{} (2008), 741-760. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, The joint universality of Hurwitz zeta-functions, [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**3(11)**]{} (2008), 169-187. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the joint universality of Lerch zeta functions, Mat. Zametki [**88**]{} (2010), 428-437 (in Russian); Math. Notes [**88**]{} (2010), 386-394. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Joint universality of zeta-functions with periodic coefficients, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. [**74**]{} (2010), 79-102 (in Russian); Izv. Math. [**74**]{} (2010), 515-539. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Universality of the Riemann zeta-function, J. Number Theory [**130**]{} (2010), 2323-2331. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Joint universality of Hurwitz zeta-functions, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**86**]{} (2012), 232-243. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Universality of composite functions of periodic zeta functions, Mat. Sb. [**203**]{} (2012), 105-120 (in Rissian); Sb. Math. [**203**]{} (2012), 1631-1646. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Universality of composite functions, in “Functions in Number Theory and Their Probabilistic Aspects”, K. Matsumoto et al. (eds.), RIMS K[ô]{}ky[û]{}roku Bessatsu [**B34**]{}, RIMS, 2012, pp.191-204. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, On the universality of the Hurwitz zeta-function, Intern. J. Number Theory [**9**]{} (2013), 155-165. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Universality results for the Riemann zeta-function, Moscow J. Combin. Number Theory [**3**]{} (2013), 237-256. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, A discrete universality theorem for the Hurwitz zeta-function, J. Number Theory, to appear. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, Joint discrete universality of Hurwitz zeta-functions, preprint (in Russian). A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and R. Garunk[š]{}tis, The Lerch Zeta-function, Kluwer, 2002. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and R. Macaitien[ė]{}, On the joint universality of periodic zeta functions, Mat. Zametki [**85**]{} (2009), 54-64 (in Russian); Math. Notes [**85**]{} (2009), 51-60. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and R. Macaitien[ė]{}, The discrete universality of the periodic Hurwitz zeta function, Integr. Transf. Spec. Funct. [**20**]{} (2009), 673-686. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and R. Macaitien[ė]{}, On the universality of zeta-functions of certain cusp forms, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Kubilius Memorial Volume), A. Laurin[č]{}ikas et al. (eds.), TEV, 2012, pp.173-183. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and R. Macaitien[ė]{}, Joint universality of the Riemann zeta-function and Lerch zeta-functions, Nonlinear Anal. Modell. Control [**18**]{} (2013), 314-326. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, R. Macaitien[ė]{} and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, The joint universality for periodic zeta-functions, Chebyshevski[ĭ]{} Sb. [**8**]{} (2007), 162-174. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, R. Macaitien[ė]{} and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, On discrete universality of the periodic zeta-function II, in “New Directions in Value-Distribution Theory of Zeta and $L$-Functions”, R.& J. Steuding (eds.), Shaker Verlag, 2009, pp.149-159. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, R. Macaitien[ė]{} and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, Joint universality for zeta-functions of different types, Chebyshevski[ĭ]{} Sb. [**12**]{} (2011), 192-203. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and K. Matsumoto, The joint universality and the functional independence for Lerch zeta-functions, Nagoya Math. J. [**157**]{} (2000), 211-227. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and K. Matsumoto, The universality of zeta-functions attached to certain cusp forms, Acta Arith. [**98**]{} (2001), 345-359. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and K. Matsumoto, The joint universality of zeta-functions attached to certain cusp forms, Fiz. Mat. Fak. Moksl. Sem. Darbai, [Š]{}iauliai Univ. [**5**]{} (2002), 58-75. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and K. Matsumoto, The joint universality of twisted automorphic $L$-functions, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**56**]{} (2004), 923-939. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and K. Matsumoto, Joint value-distribution theorems on Lerch zeta-functions II, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**46**]{} (2006), 332-350; Lith. Math. J. [**46**]{} (2006), 271-286. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and K. Matsumoto, Joint value-distribution theorems on Lerch zeta-functions III, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Proc. 4th Palanga Conf.), A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and E. Manstavi[č]{}ius (eds.), TEV, 2007, pp.87-98. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, K. Matsumoto and J. Steuding, The universality of $L$-functions associated with new forms, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. [**67**]{} (2003), 83-98 (in Russian); Izv. Math. [**67**]{} (2003), 77-90. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, K. Matsumoto and J. Steuding, Discrete universality of $L$-functions for new forms, Mat. Zametki [**78**]{} (2005), 595-603 (in Russian); Math. Notes [**78**]{} (2005), 551-558. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, K. Matsumoto and J. Steuding, Universality of some functions related to zeta-functions of certain cusp forms, Osaka J. Math. [**50**]{} (2013), 1021-1037. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, K. Matsumoto and J. Steuding, On hybrid universality of certain composite functions involving Dirichlet $L$-functions, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest., Sect. Comp. [**41**]{} (2013), 85-96. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and J. Ra[š]{}yt[ė]{}, Generalizations of a discrete universality theorem for Hurwitz zeta-functions, Lith. Math. J. [**52**]{} (2012), 172-180. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas, W. Schwarz and J. Steuding, The universality of general Dirichlet series, Analysis [**23**]{} (2003), 13-26. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, Remarks on the universality of the periodic zeta function, Mat. Zametki [**80**]{} (2006), 561-568 (in Russian); Math. Notes [**80**]{} (2006), 532-538. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, A mixed joint universality theorem for zeta-functions III, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Kubilius Memorial Volume), A. Laurin[č]{}ikas et al. (eds.), TEV, 2012, pp.185-195. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and S. Skerstonait[ė]{}, A joint universality theorem for periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions II[^11], Lith. Math. J. [**49**]{} (2009), 287-296. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and S. Skerstonait[ė]{}, Joint universality for periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions II, in “New Directions in Value-Distribution Theory of Zeta and $L$-Functions”, R.& J. Steuding (eds.), Shaker Verlag, 2009, pp.161-169. A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and R. [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{}, The universality of zeta-functions with multiplicative coefficients, Integr. Transf. Spec. Funct. [**13**]{} (2002), 243-257. Y. Lee, The universality theorem for Hecke $L$-functions, Math. Z. [**271**]{} (2012), 893-909. Y. Lee, Zeros of partial zeta functions off the critical line, in “Functions in Number Theory and Their Probabilistic Aspects”, K. Matsumoto et al. (eds.), RIMS K[ô]{}ky[û]{}roku Bessatsu [**B34**]{}, RIMS, 2012, pp.205-216. H. Li and J. Wu, The universality of symmetric power $L$-functions and their Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**59**]{} (2007), 371-392. R. Macaitien[ė]{}, A discrete universality theorem for general Dirichlet series, Analysis [**26**]{} (2006), 373-381. R. Macaitien[ė]{}, On joint universality for the zeta-functions of newforms and periodic Hurwitz zeta-functions, in “Functions in Number Theory and Their Probabilistic Aspects”, K. Matsumoto et al. (eds.), RIMS K[ô]{}ky[û]{}roku Bessatsu [**B34**]{}, RIMS, 2012, pp.217-233. J. Marcinkiewicz, Sur les nombres d[é]{}riv[é]{}s, Fund. Math. [**24**]{} (1935), 305-308. K. Matsumoto, Value-distribution of zeta-functions, in “Analytic Number Theory”, Proc. Japanese-French Sympos., K. Nagasaka and E. Fouvry (eds.), Lecture Notes in Math. [**1434**]{}, Springer, 1990, pp.178-187. K. Matsumoto, The mean values and the universality of Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions, in “Number Theory”, M. Jutila and T. Mets[ä]{}nkyl[ä]{} (eds.), Walter de Gruyter, 2001, 201-221. K. Matsumoto, Some problems on mean values and the universality of zeta and multiple zeta-functions, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Proc. 3rd Palanga Conf.), A. Dubickas et al (eds.), TEV, 2002, pp.195-199. K. Matsumoto, Probabilistic value-distribution theory of zeta-functions, S[ū]{}gaku [**53**]{} (2001), 279-296 (in Japanese); Sugaku Expositions [**17**]{} (2004), 51-71. K. Matsumoto, An introduction to the value-distribution theory of zeta-functions, [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**1(9)**]{} (2006), 61-83. J.-L. Mauclaire, Almost periodicity and Dirichlet series, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Proc. 4th Palanga Conf.), A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and E. Manstavi[č]{}ius (eds.), TEV, 2007, pp.109-142. J.-L. Mauclaire, On some Dirichlet series, in “New Directions in Value-Distribution Theory of Zeta and $L$-Functions”, R.& J. Steuding (eds.), Shaker Verlag, 2009, pp.171-248. J.-L. Mauclaire, Simple remarks on some Dirichlet series, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest., Sect. Comp. [**41**]{} (2013), 159-172. S. N. Mergelyan, On the representation of functions by series of polynomials on closed sets, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [**78**]{} (1951), 405-408 (in Russian); Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser.1, [**3**]{}, Series and Approximation, Amer. Math. Soc., 1962, pp.287-293. S. N. Mergelyan, Uniform approximation to functions of complex variable, Usp. Mat. Nauk [**7**]{} (1952), 31-122 (in Russian); Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser.1, [**3**]{}, Series and Approximation, Amer. Math. Soc., 1962, pp.294-391. T. Meyrath, On the universality of derived functions of the Riemann zeta-function, J. Approx. Theory [**163**]{} (2011), 1419-1426. H. Mishou, The universality theorem for $L$-functions associated with ideal class characters, Acta Arith. [**98**]{} (2001), 395-410. H. Mishou, The universality theorem for Hecke $L$-functions, Acta Arith. [**110**]{} (2003), 45-71. H. Mishou, On the value distribution of Hecke $L$-functions associated with gr[ö]{}ssencharacters, S[û]{}rikaiseki Kenky[û]{}sho K[ô]{}ky[û]{}roku [**1324**]{} (2003), 174-182 (in Japanese). H. Mishou, The value distribution of Hecke $L$-functions in the gr[ö]{}ssencharacter aspect, Arch. Math. [**82**]{} (2004), 301-310. H. Mishou, The universality theorem for Hecke $L$-functions in the $(m,t)$ aspect, Tokyo J. Math. [**28**]{} (2005), 139-153. H. Mishou, The joint value-distribution of the Riemann zeta function and Hurwitz zeta functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. [**47**]{} (2007), 62-80; Lith. Math. J. [**47**]{} (2007), 32-47. H. Mishou, The universality theorem for cubic $L$-functions, in “New Directions in Value-Distribution Theory of Zeta and $L$-Functions”, R.& J. Steuding (eds.), Shaker Verlag, 2009, pp.265-274. H. Mishou, The universality theorem for class group $L$-functions, Acta Arith. [**147**]{} (2011), 115-128. H. Mishou, The joint universality theorem for a pair of Hurwitz zeta functions, J. Number Theory [**131**]{} (2011), 2352-2367. H. Mishou, On joint universality for derivatives of the Riemann zeta function and automorphic $L$-functions, in “Functions in Number Theory and Their Probabilistic Aspects”, K. Matsumoto et al. (eds.), RIMS K[ô]{}ky[û]{}roku Bessatsu [**B34**]{}, RIMS, 2012, pp.235-246. H. Mishou, Joint value distribution for zeta functions in disjoint strips, Monatsh. Math. [**169**]{} (2013), 219-247. H. Mishou, Functional distribution for a collection of Lerch zeta functions, J. Math. Soc. Japan, to appear. H. Mishou, Joint universality theorems for pairs of automorphic zeta functions, Math. Z., to appear. H. Mishou and S. Koyama, Universality of Hecke $L$-functions in the Grossencharacter-aspect, Proc. Japan Acad. [**78A**]{} (2002), 63-67. H. Mishou and H. Nagoshi, Functional distribution of $L(s,\chi_d)$ with real characters and denseness of quadratic class numbers, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**358**]{} (2006), 4343-4366. H. Mishou and H. Nagoshi, The universality of quadratic $L$-series for prime discriminants, Acta Arith. [**123**]{} (2006), 143-161. H. Mishou and H. Nagoshi, Equivalents of the Riemann hypothesis, Arch. Math. [**86**]{} (2006), 419-424. H. Mishou and H. Nagoshi, On class numbers of quadratic fields with prime discriminant and character sums, Kyushu J. Math. [**66**]{} (2012), 21-34. H. L. Montgomery, Extreme values of the Riemann zeta-function, Comment. Math. Helv. [**52**]{} (1977), 511-518. H. Nagoshi, On the universality for $L$-functions attached to Maass forms, Analysis [**25**]{} (2005), 1-22. H. Nagoshi, The universality of $L$-functions attached to Maass forms, in “Probability and Number Theory — Kanazawa 2005”, S. Akiyama et al. (eds.), Adv. Stud. Pure Math. [**49**]{}, Math. Soc. Japan, 2007, pp.289-306. H. Nagoshi, Value-distribution of Rankin-Selberg $L$-functions, in “New Directions in Value-Distribution Theory of Zeta and $L$-Functions“, R.& J. Steuding (eds.), Shaker Verlag, 2009, pp.275-287. H. Nagoshi and J. Steuding, Universality for $L$-functions in the Selberg class, Lith. Math. J. [**50**]{} (2010), 293-311. T. Nakamura, Applications of inversion formulas to the joint $t$-universality of Lerch zeta functions, J. Number Theory [**123**]{} (2007), 1-9. T. Nakamura, The existence and the non-existence of joint $t$-universality for Lerch zeta functions, J. Number Theory [**125**]{} (2007), 424-441. T. Nakamura, Joint value approximation and joint universality for several types of zeta functions, Acta Arith. [**134**]{} (2008), 67-82. T. Nakamura, Zeros and the universality for the Euler-Zagier-Hurwitz type of multiple zeta-functions, Bull. London Math. Soc. [**41**]{} (2009), 691-700. T. Nakamura, The joint universality and the generalized strong recurrence for Dirichlet $L$-functions, Acta Arith. [**138**]{} (2009), 357-262. T. Nakamura, The generalized strong recurrence for non-zero rational parameters, Arch. Math. [**95**]{} (2010), 549-555. T. Nakamura, The universality for linear combinations of Lerch zeta functions and the Tornheim-Hurwitz type of double zeta functions, Monatsh. Math. [**162**]{} (2011), 167-178. T. Nakamura, Some topics related to universality of $L$-functions with an Euler product, Analysis [**31**]{} (2011), 31-41. T. Nakamura and [Ł]{}. Pa[ń]{}kowski, Applications of hybrid universality to multivariable zeta-functions, J. Number Theory [**131**]{} (2011), 2151-2161. T. Nakamura and [Ł]{}. Pa[ń]{}kowski, Erratum to “The generalized strong recurrence for non-zero rational parameters”, Arch. Math. [**99**]{} (2012), 43-47. T. Nakamura and [Ł]{}. Pa[ń]{}kowski, On universality for linear combinations of $L$-functions, Monatsh. Math. [**165**]{} (2012), 433-446. T. Nakamura and [Ł]{}. Pa[ń]{}kowski, Self-approximation for the Riemann zeta function, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**87**]{} (2013), 452-461. T. Nakamura and [Ł]{}. Pa[ń]{}kowski, On zeros and $c$-values of Epstein zeta-functions, [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**8(16)**]{} (2013), 181-195. T. Nakamura and [Ł]{}. Pa[ń]{}kowski, On complex zeros off the critical line for non-monomial polynomial of zeta-functions, preprint. J. P[á]{}l, Zwei kleine Bemerkungen, T[ô]{}hoku Math. J. [**6**]{} (1914/15), 42-43. . Pa[ń]{}kowski, Some remarks on the generalized strong recurrence for $L$-functions, in “New Directions in Value-Distribution Theory of Zeta and $L$-Functions”, R.& J. Steuding (eds.), Shaker Verlag, 2009, pp.305-315. . Pa[ń]{}kowski, Hybrid universality theorem for Dirichlet $L$-functions, Acta Arith. [**141**]{} (2010), 59-72. . Pa[ń]{}kowski, Hybrid universality theorem for $L$-functions without Euler product, Integr. Transf. Spec. Funct. [**24**]{} (2013), 39-49. D. V. Pecherski[ĭ]{}, On rearrangements of terms in functional series, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [**209**]{} (1973), 1285-1287 (in Russian); Soviet Math. Dokl. [**14**]{} (1973), 633-636. V. Pocevi[č]{}ien[ė]{} and D. [Š]{}iau[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, A mixed joint universality theorem for zeta-functions II, Math. Modell. Anal. [**19**]{} (2014), 52-65. K. Ramachandra, On Riemann zeta-function and allied questions, in “Journ[é]{}es Arithm[é]{}tiques de Gen[è]{}ve”, D. F. Coray and Y.-F. S. P[é]{}termann (eds.), Ast[é]{}risque [**209**]{}, Soc. Math. France, 1992, pp.57-72. A. Reich, Universalle Werteverteilung von Eulerprodukten, Nachr. Akad. Wiss. G[ö]{}ttingen II Math.-Phys. Kl., Nr.1 (1977), 1-17. A. Reich, Werteverteilung von Zetafunktionen, Arch. Math. [**34**]{} (1980), 440-451. A. Reich, Zur Universit[ä]{}t und Hypertranszendenz der Dedekindschen Zetafunktion, Abh. Braunschweig. Wiss. Ges. [**33**]{} (1982), 197-203. J. Sander and J. Steuding, Joint universality for sums and products of Dirichlet $L$-functions, Analysis [**26**]{} (2006), 295-312. W. Schwarz, R. Steuding and J. Steuding, Universality for Euler products, and related arithmetical functions, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Proc. 4th Palanga Conf.), A. Laurin[č]{}ikas and E. Manstavi[č]{}ius (eds.), TEV, 2007, pp.163-189. A. Selberg, Old and new conjectures and results about a class of Dirichlet series, in “Proceedings of the Amalfi Conference on Analytic Number Theory”, E. Bombieri et al. (eds.), Univ. di Salerno, 1992, pp.367-385; also in Selberg’s Collected Papers, Vol. II, Springer, 1991, pp.47-63. R. [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{}[^12], The joint universality for twists of Dirichlet series with multiplicative coefficients by characters, in “Analytic and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory” (Proc. 3rd Palanga Conf.), A. Dubickas et al (eds.), TEV, 2002, pp.303-319. T. Srichan, R. Steuding and J. Steuding, Does a random walker meet universality? [Š]{}iauliai Math. Semin. [**8(16)**]{} (2013), 249-259. J. Steuding, The world of $p$-adic numbers and $p$-adic functions, Fiz. Mat. Fak. Moksl. Sem. Darbai, [Š]{}iauliai Univ. [**5**]{} (2002), 90-107. J. Steuding, On the universality for functions in the Selberg class, in “Proc. Session in Analytic Number Theory and Diophantine Equations”, D. R. Heath-Brown and B. Z. Moroz (eds.), Bonner Math. Schriften [**360**]{}, Bonn, 2003, n.28, 22pp. J. Steuding, Value-distribution of $L$-functions and allied zeta-functions — with an emphasis on aspects of universality, Habilitationsschrift, Frankfurt, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universit[ä]{}t, 2003. J. Steuding, Upper bounds for the density of universality, Acta Arith. [**107**]{} (2003), 195-202. J. Steuding, Upper bounds for the density of universality II, Acta Math. Univ. Ostrav. [**13**]{} (2005), 73-82. J. Steuding, Value-distribution of $L$-functions, Lecture Notes in Math. [**1877**]{}, Springer, 2007. J. Steuding, Ergodic universality theorems for Riemann’s zeta-function and other $L$-functions, J. Th[é]{}or. Nombr. Bordeaux [**25**]{} (2013), 471-476. R. Steuding, Universality for generalized Euler products, Analysis [**26**]{} (2006), 337-345. S. M. Voronin, On the distribution of nonzero values of the Riemann $\zeta$-function, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. [**128**]{} (1972), 131-150 (in Russian); Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. [**128**]{} (1972), 153-175. S. M. Voronin, Theorem on the ”universality’ of the Riemann zeta-function, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. [**39**]{} (1975), 475-486 (in Russian); Math. USSR Izv. [**9**]{} (1975), 443-453. S. M. Voronin, On the functional independence of Dirichlet $L$-functions, Acta Arith. [**27**]{} (1975), 443-453 (in Russian). S. M. Voronin, Analytic properties of Dirichlet generating functions of arithmetic objects, Thesis, Moscow, Steklov Math. Institute, 1977 (in Russian). S. M. Voronin, Analytic properties of Dirichlet generating functions of arithmetic objects, Mat. Zametki [**24**]{} (1978), 879-884 (in Russian); Math. Notes [**24**]{} (1979), 966-969. S. M. Voronin, On the distribution of zeros of some Dirichlet series, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. [**163**]{} (1984), 74-77 (in Russian); Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. (1985), Issue 4, 89-92. S. M. Voronin, On $\Omega$-theorems in the theory of the Riemann zeta-function, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. [**52**]{} (1988), 424-436 (in Russian); Math. USSR Izv. [**32**]{} (1989), 429-442.
Graduate School of Mathematics,\
Nagoya University,\
Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602,\
Japan
[^1]: This notion was first introduced by the author [@Mat90], to which the limit theorem of Bohr and Jessen was generalized. See also Ka[č]{}inskait[ė]{}’s survey article [@Kac12].
[^2]: The notion of Selberg class was introduced by Selberg [@Sel92]. For basic definitions and results in this theory, consult a survey [@KaczPer99] of Kaczorowski and Perelli, or J. Steuding [@Ste07].
[^3]: J. Steuding also mentioned the expectation that any two functions $\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ in the Selberg class would be jointly universal if and only if $
\sum_{p\leq x}\frac{a_1(p)\overline{a_2(p)}}{p}=O(1).
$ However H. Nagoshi, and then H. Mishou, pointed out that there are counter examples to this statement.
[^4]: In [@LauMat00], the theorem is stated under the weaker assumption that $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r$ are transcendental, but (as is pointed out in [@LauMat06]) this assumption should be replaced by the algebraic independence over $\mathbb{Q}$.
[^5]: This paper was published in 2011, but was already completed in 2007.
[^6]: The statement in [@Kac11] is given for $L(s,\chi)$, but her argument is valid not for $L(s,\chi)$, but for $L_h(s,\chi)$.
[^7]: Bagchi [@Bag81 Theorem 5.3.11] proved the case (i). In the statement of Gonek [@Gon79 Theorem 5.1] there is no restriction on $Q$, but Mishou [@Mis03b] pointed out that condition (ii) is necessary to verify Gonek’s proof. Eminyan [@Emi90] studied the special case $r=1$ of (ii).
[^8]: In the same Appendix, Steuding mentioned a $p$-adic version of Fekete’s theorem, which was originally proved in [@Ste02].
[^9]: This theorem was later sharpened by Ki and Lee [@KiLee11] by using the method of mean motions [@JesTor45] [@BorJes48].
[^10]: This argument might remind us the work of Deninger [@Den98] [@Den00] which is in a different context but also with dynamical-system flavour.
[^11]: This “II” is probably to be deleted.
[^12]: R. [Š]{}le[ž]{}evi[č]{}ien[ė]{} = R. Steuding
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Z.-Y. Lin'
- 'I.-L. Lai'
- 'C.-C. Su'
- 'W.-H. Ip'
- 'J.-C. Lee'
- 'J.-S., Wu'
- 'J.-B. Vincent'
- 'F. La Forgia'
- 'H. Sierks'
- 'C. Barbieri'
- 'P. L. Lamy'
- 'R. Rodrigo'
- 'D. Koschny'
- 'H. Rickman'
- 'H. U. Keller'
- 'J. Agarwal'
- 'M. F. A’Hearn'
- 'M. A. Barucci'
- 'J.–L. Bertaux'
- 'I. Bertini'
- 'D. Bodewits'
- 'G. Cremonese'
- 'V. Da Deppo'
- 'B. Davidsson'
- 'S. Debei'
- 'M. De Cecco'
- 'S. Fornasier'
- 'M. Fulle'
- 'O. Groussin'
- 'P. J. Gutiérrez'
- 'C. Güttler'
- 'S. F. Hviid'
- 'L. Jorda'
- 'J. Knollenberg'
- 'G. Kovacs'
- 'J.-R. Kramm'
- 'E. Kührt'
- 'M. Küppers'
- 'L.M. Lara'
- 'M. Lazzarin'
- 'J. J. López-Moreno'
- 'S. Lowry'
- 'F. Marzari'
- 'H. Michalik'
- 'S. Mottola'
- 'G. Naletto'
- 'N. Oklay'
- 'M. Pajola'
- 'A. Rożek'
- 'N. Thomas'
- 'C. Tubiana'
bibliography:
- 'OSIRIS\_CurvedJet.bib'
date: 'Received:...; accepted: ... '
title: 'Observations and analysis of a curved jet in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko'
---
[Analysis of the physical properties and dynamical origin of a curved jet of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that was observed repeatedly in several nucleus rotations starting on May 30 and persisting until the early-August, 2015. ]{} [Simulation of the motion of dust grains ejected from the nucleus surface under the influence of the gravity and viscous drag effect of the expanding gas flow from the rotating nucleus.]{} [The formation of the curved jet is a combination of the size of the dust particles ($\sim$0.1-1 mm) and the location of the source region near the nucleus equator, hence enhancing the spiral feature of the collimated dust stream after being accelerated to a terminal speed of the order of m s$^{-1}$.\
]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
Comets, as the most primitive bodies from the outer region of the solar system, are known to be very abundant in volatile ices and refractory dust grains. For a comet with orbital parameters inside 3-4 au, solar radiation raises the surface temperature to such an extent that ice sublimation initiates, as indicated by the appearance of a coma containing expanding gas and small dust particles. Therefore, the outgassing activity increases as the comet approaches perihelion. The behavior of comet 67P Churymov-Gerasimenko (67P hereafter) follows this pattern closely (; ; ). In addition to the nearly spherically symmetric coma, anisotropic structures in the form of collimated jets have been identified (; ). The identification of the source mechanism and acceleration process of these dust jets are one of the main focus of the Rosetta mission.
The close-up observations of the OSIRIS scientific camera on the Rosetta spacecraft ([@2007SSRv..128..433K]) have provided an unprecedented view of the morphology of the near-nucleus coma ([@Sierks2015]; [@Thomas2015]). The jet feature were visible in the early phases of the rendezvous mission (; ), and their development was closely monitored since then. Due to the orientation of its rotational axis and its complex shape, and a rotation period of 12.4 hours (Mottola et al. 2015), significant diurnal variations and seasonal effect of the gas flow and dust coma structure were detected ([@Gulkis2015]; [@2015Sci...347a0276H]).
![Gradual growth of the dust coma and dust jets of comet 67P: (a) image taken on 5 August, 2014, when the heliocentric distance r$_h$= 3.60 au, only a small dust jet can be seen emanating from the Hapi region; (b) 9 February, 2015 for r$_h$ = 2.35 au, the formation of a main jet is accompanied by a few fainter jets originating from other regions; (c) 10 May, 2015 for r$_h$ = 1.67 au, a system of bright jets appearing on the sunward side of the coma. The image contrast level is adjusted to log scale, ranging from -4 to -7.[]{data-label="JetsTime"}](JetvsTime3e.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Figure 1 shows the time development of the dust coma and jets as 67P approaches the Sun. From August 2014 ($r_h$ $\sim$3.60 au) to May 2015 ($r_h$ $\sim$1.67 au), the dust coma became more dense with the same image contrast level. At the beginning, the Hapi region located in the neck between the two lobes appeared to be the main source of the water gas flow ([@Gulkis2015]; ; [@2015Sci...347a0276H]) and dust jets ([@Sierks2015]; ; ; [@Vincent2015a]). All the dust jets have very straight configurations perpendicular to the surface, suggesting efficient acceleration of the embedded solid grains to radial speeds far exceeding the angular velocity ( $V_r$$\sim$1-2 m s$^{-1}$) of the nucleus due to its rotation. It was therefore surprising that a jet structure with large curvature appeared in late May (Fig. 2). This is the first time that a spiral structure was seen in the near-coma region of a comet made possible because of the close distance of the Rosetta spacecraft to the comet nucleus. Nevertheless, from ground-based observations ([@1991Icar...93..194S], , , [@2013AJ....146....4L]), we did see the repeatability of a curved appearance of the gaseous and dust jets related to the rotation of the nucleus or of the dust jets forming to dust tail due to the solar gravity and radiation pressure. However, these ground-based observations have much larger scales than Rosetta observations and the important physical processes might not be the same as the curved jets observed by ROSETTA. The curved jets persisted about two months and disappeared in early-August, 2015. In this work, we will examine the observed properties and dynamics of the curved jet as well as the localization of its possible source region.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the morphology and time variation of the curved jet in comparison to other collimated dust jet features. The results of a set of computations making use of the gravity field model of the comet nucleus and of the Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) simulation are presented in Section 3. A discussion on the theoretical results and the OSIRIS imaging data is given in Section 4.
Observations and data analysis {#obs}
==============================
Observations on May 30-31
-------------------------
Figure 2 shows the time sequence of the dust coma of 67P in approximately one nucleus rotation on May 30-31, 2015. The sun is towards the top and that is the reason why a clear shadow was cast behind the nucleus. The spin axis was pointing away from the projection plane with the rotation in the clockwise direction. According to the shape model ([@Sierks2015]; ; [@Jorda2015]), the sub-solar point during this observation was close to the equator of comet 67P. We note that three different components can be identified in Fig.2.a. The brightest one (J1) can be traced to the middle of the Hapi region. On its left side an array of jets (e.g., J2) became clearly visible in Fig. 2.b because of the sun-lit effect on Imhotep. Last but not least, on the right-hand side a jet (J3) in the form of a spiral arm came into view in Fig. 2.b. It is less discernable in subsequent images as a result of the orientation of the spacecraft relative to the rotating nucleus and/or decrease of the dust production. The spiral jet reappeared again in Fig. 2.h just one rotation period later.
![Jet structures obtained with the wide-angle camera from 13:03 UT on May 30 to 07:28 UT on May 31, 2015. Sub-panels (a) to (h) are separated by about two hours between two frames. The spatial scales and field of view range from 6.72 m/px,13.75 km (fig. a) to 7.01 m/px, 14.36 km (fig. h). []{data-label="CurvedJetAll"}](CurvedJet_May_All.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Source region of the Curved jet
-------------------------------
In order to find the source region of the curved jet, we both used the method described in Lin et al (2015) and the jet inversion method tracing the orientation of the colliminated beams back to their emission points ([@Vincent2015b], ). The shape model constructed by Jorda et al (2015) and current SPICE kernels have been used for this purpose. Nonetheless, it is difficult to obtain a precise location of the source region from the OSIRIS images taken from late-May to early-June, 2015 because of the diffusive structure of the jet. The most probable source region is located between Nut and Serget (see Figure 3 for a context image of where these regions are located on the nucleus). At closer scrutiny, it can be seen that this region is covered by smooth deposits of fine materials which are likely the result of airfall of low velocity particles, not being able to escape from the nucleus surface ([@Thomas2015], and reference in). However when looking closely at Nut region there is a more granular deposit including boulders with diameters up to a few tens of meters. A part of this area contains “pit-like” features with sub-meter to 4-5 meter diameter (see fig. 7 in ) that might be remnants formed by wind erosion or sublimation of the volatile-rich blocks. The curved jet appeared for two more months since the first detection. As a consequence, the features of the source region surface might have changed. A study of possible changes in localized areas of the identified source region would however be possible only in the later phase of the Rosetta mission, when high resolution images at spatial scales as small as 0.5 m/px will be available again.
![Geological map of 67P observed from the top of the head lobe and nomenclature of the geological regions (modified from Fig. 2 in and the possible source regions, red-circles, of the curved jet. The latitude of the possible source region is about 6 degree at the northern hemisphere. The subsolar point at the time of the present observation (31, May, 2015) is 9 degree at the southern hemisphere and moves toward to higher latitude until the beginning of September, 2015. The right-panel is the NAC image obtained on September 19.5, 2014 with a resolution about 0.53 m/px.[]{data-label="SR_CurvedJet"}](SR_curvedJet2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Numerical Simulation
====================
To examine the origin and dynamical evolution of the curved jet, we need to consider the trajectories of different dust particles with different sizes under the influence of the gravitational attraction of the nucleus. Because of its highly irregular shape, the gravitational field have been computed by dividing the whole object into 33681 elements - according to the shape model with homogeneous structure and a bulk density of 532 kg m$^{-3}$ ([@Jorda2015]). Figure 4.a shows the contour plot of the gravitational field in the vicinity of the nucleus. At distances larger than three nucleus radii ($\sim$6 km) the gravitational field can be reasonably approximated by that from a point mass. However, close to the nucleus surface, the field distribution is far from spherical symmetry.
Figure 4.b shows the flow field of the coma gas expanding from the nucleus surface. To treat the transition from a collisional region close to the central nucleus to the collisionless coma at large distance, the Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method is required ([@Bird1994]). The basic structure of the DSMC code used for obtaining this result has been described in detail in [@Wu2004166], [@Su20101136], [@Lai2016] et al, and [@Liao2015] and will not be repeated here. For this simulation, we assume the water production rate is 10$^{27}$ molecules s$^{-1}$ and the sunlit portion of the nucleus surface at the time of consideration has been assumed to be all active in outgassing. Thus, a uniform gas production rate in sunlit side is Z = 4.8$\times$10$^{19}$ H$_2$O molecules m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The initial velocity distribution of the gas is described by a half-Maxwellian distribution with a thermal temperature of 228 K. The sunlit side is assumed to be free of gas outflow even though we know this is not necessarily true according to both the Rosina measurements ([@2015Sci...347a0276H]) and the recent discovery of the so-called night-side outbursts or Sunset jet activities by the OSIRIS camera team ([@Knollenberg2015] submitted and [@Xian2016]). It is clear that a certain level of weak outgassing activity existed on the nightside of the nucleus. Also, there can be activity driven by other gases (CO$_2$) - as may be the case for both the sunrise jets and for the sunset jets, and as was seen by Haessig (CO$_2$/H$_2$O = 4). However, even under such circumstances, the number distribution of the gas molecules should be highly non-isotropic within 5-10 nucleus radii covered by the simulation box. In a different study ([@Lai2016] et al), it has been demonstrated that the global gas flows tend to follow streamlines perpendicular to the surface of their source regions if the gas emission rate (Z) on the illuminated side is assumed to be proportional to square root $\cos \theta$ where $\theta$ is the solar zenith angle where $\theta$ $>$0. For the whole surface, Z = 0.1$\times$ Z$_0$ where Z$_0$ is the peak sublimation rate at $\theta$= 0. It is interesting to note that, even for localized outburst events, the dust jets appeared to be highly collimated (J-B.Vincent, private communication, 2016).
![ (a) A contour plot of the gravitational field of comet 67P in the XY plane containing the long and short axes. The rotational axis is in the perpendicular direction. The assumed bulk density is $\rho$= 532 kg m$^{-3}$. (b) The flow field of the expanding gas outflow. []{data-label="CurvedJet_GG"}](Gravity_GasFlow1.eps){width="40.00000%"}
In the simulation code, the motion of a dust particle of mass m with initial zero velocity is determined by the viscous drag effect of the expanding gas flow and the gravitational attraction of the nucleus. Note that the effects of solar radiation pressure on curved jet are not considerable in our simulation but will be involved in the future. The used equation of motion is shown below. ([@Gombosi1986]; [@1999Icar..140..173S]; ).\
$$\label{color_measure}
m\frac{dv}{dt} = m\vec{g}+\frac{1}{2}A\rho_gC_dv_r^2$$
where m is the mass of dust particle, and g is the “local” gravity. The second term on the right-hand side represents the gas drag effect. The dust particle of cross section A is assumed to be spherical and its density ($\rho$) is taken to be 1000 kg m$^{-3}$ ([@2015ApJ...802L..12F]). In Equation 1, v$_r$ is the relative velocity between the gas molecules and the dust particle, $\rho$$_g$ is the mass density of gas flow, and C$_d$ is the drag coefficient. Note that C$_d$ = 2 ([@Wallis1982]).
To demonstrate the combined effect of the gas drag and nucleus gravity, a source region is tentatively chosen in the Nut region (see Figure 3) with zero initial velocity. The general idea is to examine the dependence of particle size, gas production rate and emission location on the jet dynamics.
Result and conclusions
======================
Figure 5.a illustrates the obtained velocity profiles of dust grains with radius ranging between 1 $\mu$m and 1 mm for the gas sublimation rate of Z = 4.8$\times$10$^{19}$ H$_2$O molecules m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The bigger dust grains will be accelerated to lower radial velocity as compared with the particles of smaller sizes. This effect can be understood in terms of the size dependence of the gas drag force under the influence of the gravitational attraction of the comet nucleus. In addition, the dust grains are accelerated to their terminal speeds within a distance of the order of 2 km or slightly more in all the considered cases. The small micron-sized dust could reach an outflow speed as high as 30 m s$^{-1}$ while those of mm-size have terminal speed of the order of 0.5 m s$^{-1}$ (or less) which is comparable to the rotational speed of the nucleus at its surface. This immediately suggests that the grains in the curved jet must be relatively large (i.e, d $\sim$0.1-1 mm). The result is consistent with previous findings ([@2015Sci...347a3905R]) that the optically dominant particles in 67P coma are exactly those of size of 0.1-1 mm. In additional to the curved jet, the straight jets (Fig. 2 J1 and J2) might consist of relative smaller particles. The identification of the exact sizes would depend on the characteristics of the surface material and the effective outgassing rate which controls the gas drag acceleration.
![(a)The velocity profiles of dust grains of different sizes with sublimation rate Z = 4.8$\times$10$^{19}$ H$_2$O molecules m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. (b) Trajectories of dust grains of different radii (from 1$\mu$m to 1mm) as the nucleus rotates. []{data-label="CurvedJet_V"}](velocity4.eps){width="40.00000%"}
It is perhaps not an accident that, the curved jet was observed to be emitted near the equatorial region of the head of 67P (Nut, Serqet and Ma’at ), i.e. where the nucleus rotation speed is the largest. As mentioned before in Section 2, the collimated jets of linear configuration seemed to have been all emanated from the Hapi region that is more or less along the spin axis, where the centrifugal force is minimal.
From our data analysis and preliminary numerical simulation, it is now understood that the appearance of a curved jet in May and June 2015 is caused by a combination of the ejection of mm-sized dust grains from the equatorial source region in the vicinity of Nut, Serqet and Ma’at. This unique set of OSIRIS observations provides important information on the physical properties of the dust grains and on the acceleration process.
OSIRIS was built by a consortium led by the Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Göttingen, Germany, in collaboration with CISAS, University of Padova, Italy, the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, France, the Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, CSIC, Granada, Spain, the Scientific Support Office of the European Space Agency, Noordwijk, Netherlands, the Instituto Nacional de Técnica Aeroespacial, Madrid, Spain, the Universidad Politéchnica de Madrid, Spain, the Department of Physics and Astronomy of Uppsala University, Sweden, and the Institut für Datentechnik und Kommunikationsnetze der Technischen Universität Braunschweig, Germany. The support of the national funding agencies of Germany (Deutschen Zentrums für Luft- und Raumfahrt), France (Centre National d’Etudes Spatales), Italy (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana), Spain (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte), Sweden (Swedish National Space Board; grant no. 74/10:2), and the ESA Technical Directorate is gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by grant number NSC 102-2112-M-008-013-MY3 and NSC 101-2111-M-008-016 from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. We are indebted to the whole Rosetta mission team, Science Ground Segment, and Rosetta Mission Operation Control for their hard work making this mission possible.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe a new class of subsampling techniques for CNNs, termed multisampling, that significantly increases the amount of information kept by feature maps through subsampling layers. One version of our method, which we call checkered subsampling, significantly improves the accuracy of state-of-the-art architectures such as DenseNet and ResNet without any additional parameters and, remarkably, improves the accuracy of certain pretrained ImageNet models *without any training or fine-tuning*. We glean new insight into the nature of data augmentations and demonstrate, for the first time, that coarse feature maps are significantly bottlenecking the performance of neural networks in image classification.'
author:
- |
Shayan Sadigh[^1]\
University of California, Santa Barbara\
[email protected] Pradeep Sen[^2]\
University of California, Santa Barbara\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'my\_bib.bib'
title: Improving the Resolution of CNN Feature Maps Efficiently with Multisampling
---
Introduction
============
Many applications of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs), such as image classification and semantic segmentation, require the network to be able to capture the presence of large objects or features over the input. Most architectures add subsampling layers, such as max-poooling layers or convolutional layers where stride > 1, periodically throughout the network to reduce the spatial dimension lengths of feature maps and increase the receptive field of proceeding neurons. By reducing resolution, subsampling layers also reduce the computational complexity of deep layers.
Unfortunately, subsampling layers lose a significant amount of spatial information that could be highly informative to proceeding layers. Tasks that rely on fine-grained spatial information to generate accurate outputs, such as semantic segmentation, often attempt to address this issue with dilated convolutions [@dilated], which increase the receptive field of convolutions without subsampling. However, subsampling is critical to reducing the computational complexity of deep layers, so these models still require the use of regular subsampling layers to make deep layers tractable [@deeplab; @deeplabv3; @deeplabv3plus2018; @semsegreview]. Additionally, the choice of when and where to increase dilation over applying subsampling is fairly arbitrary and adds extra engineering overhead to CNN design.
Furthermore, outside of fine-grained tasks such as semantic segmentation, there has been little progress in improving the resolution of feature maps. Nearly all image classification models use very coarse final feature maps (common sizes include $7\times$7 and $8\times$8) [@pyramidnet; @resnet; @squeezeandexcite; @densenet] which bottlenecks their accuracy. To address this problem, we rethink the representation of feature maps and make the following contributions:
1. We introduce **multisampling**, a technique to increase the number of samples taken from feature maps at subsampling layers, and thereby preserves more information for processing in late stages of the network. Traditional subsampling layers and increasingly dilated layers can be viewed as opposite, extreme types of multisampling.
2. We describe **checkered subsampling**, an instance of multisampling designed for 2D CNNs that use subsampling layers with a stride length of 2. Checkered subsampling, named for the checkerboard patterns it produces, preserves 50% of the spatial resolution of the input feature map as opposed to the 25% preserved with traditional subsampling. Repeated applications of checkered subsampling produce a denser, better-distributed sampling of the input compared to traditional subsampling layers.
3. We extend feature maps with a **submap dimension** to store features produced by multisampling. A feature map can be represented by different **feature submaps** stored across the submap dimension. Operations can be applied across the submap dimension with 3D layers.
We refer to a CNN that use checkered subsampling as a **checkered CNN** or **CCNN**. Many common architectures can be easily converted into CCNNs and show significantly better accuracy than their traditional CNN counterparts across the board. Some pretrained ImageNet models can be converted to CCNNs and immediately show improved accuracy without any training.
Checkered subsampling maintains the core benefits of traditional subsampling while significantly increasing spatial resolution. That is, the spatial dimension lengths and spatial resolution of feature maps are both reduced with each checkered subsampling layer, enabling the network to learn large-scale features and, importantly, *reducing the computational costs of deep layers*. Our complexity over traditional subsampling layers per layer is $\mathcal{O}(n)$, where $n$ is the number of samples taken by multisampling (in traditional subsampling layers, $n$ is always 1). Our technique is simple to implement in deep learning frameworks such as PyTorch, and popular CNN architectures such as ResNet and DenseNet can take advantage of checkered subsampling with minimal code changes.
Related work
============
**Dilated convolutions** [@dilated], also referred to as à-trous convolutions [@deeplab], are commonly used to increase the receptive field of kernels without subsampling. Dilated convolutions are similar to multisampling in that they are both techniques for preserving the spatial resolution of feature maps while increasing the receptive field of neurons. However, a key drawback of dilated convolutions is exactly that *they do not perform any subsampling*, which is important for reducing the complexity of deep layers. Thus, models that use dilation still rely on regular subsampling layers. Dai et al. [@deformable] extend dilation with **deformable convolutions**. 3D kernels that look across the submap dimension can replicate some of the effects of deformable convolutions due to the semi-structured nature of the submap dimension.
The similarly named **multipooling** [@multipool] is used to improve the run-time performance of patch-based CNN methods by avoiding the redundant processing of overlapping patches. Multipooling shares algorithmic similarities to an extreme case of multisampling, *complete multisampling*. However, multipooling is an optimization technique, whereas multisampling is a general technique for improving the capacity of CNNs. Multipooling suffers the same drawbacks as dilated convolutions in that neither technique performs any subsampling, blowing up the complexity of deep layers.
Zeiler and Fergus [@stochpool] use **stochastic pooling** as a regularization method for CNNs. Max-pooling and average-pooling is replaced with a stochastic pooling method that randomly samples an element from the pooling region according to a distribution given by the activities within the pooling region. Graham [@fmp] uses **fractional max-pooling** to randomly specify non-integer ratios between the spatial dimension sizes of the input and the output to pooling layers. Zhai et al. [@s3pool] use **S3Pool** which employs a deterministic pooling method followed by a stochastic downsampling method and is observed to have regularizing affects.
Methods such as stochastic pooling, fractional max-pooling, and S3Pool focus on regularizing CNNs by implicitly increasing the size of the dataset through stochastic pooling methods. Multisampling also has strong regularizing effects during training, but differs fundamentally in that it addresses a different problem (the reduced spatial resolution of downsampled feature maps), and addresses it with a deterministic, algorithmic modification to explicitly increase the spatial resolution of feature maps. While fractional max-pooling may seem to share similarities at a glance, it does not decouple the height and width of feature maps from its spatial resolution and suffers the same fundamental drawbacks of traditional subsampling: The amount of spatial resolution lost in a subsampling layer scales quadratically with stride length.
Problem Description
===================
Periodically throughout a CNN, feature maps pass through subsampling layers such as pooling layers and strided convolutional layers. Subsampling layers scale down the *spatial* dimension lengths of the feature map so that the global receptive field of neurons in proceeding layers is increased. The magnitude of the downscale is determined by the stride length of the subsampling layer. While the spatial lengths scale down *linearly* with stride length, resolution scales down *quadratically* in a 2D CNN. In general, the new spatial resolution $r_t$ of a feature map after passing through a CNN layer is: $$r_{t} = \frac{r_{t-1}}{k^d}
\label{eq:one}$$ where $r_{t-1}$ is the resolution before the layer is applied, $k$ is the stride length, and $d$ is the dimensionality of the CNN. For example, a subsampling layer with a stride length of 2 in a 2D CNN reduces spatial resolution by $4\times$, bottlenecking the capacity of proceeding feature maps.
Our goal is to design a subsampling scheme where the spatial resolution of the output feature map scales better with stride length and dimensionality while preserving the benefits of traditional subsampling layers such as increasing receptive field and reducing computational costs. This would have a number of benefits, including a more informative forward pass producing higher-resolution feature maps, better gradient updates for deep layers during training, and streamlining CNN design by reducing the need for dilated convolutions.
![**Left**: The operation of a traditional CNN layer with stride $k = 2$. Blue highlighted elements represent locations kernels are applied, assume padding is used as necessary. **Middle**: The operation of a checkered subsampling layer. The new set of samples is stored as a separate submap. **Right**: One possible multisampling layer with $n = 3$ for layers with stride $k = 3$. Dimensions are read \# submaps $\times$ height $\times$ width.[]{data-label="fig:one"}](compare2__6_.png){width="90.00000%"}
Solution: Multisampling
-----------------------
One can imagine the operation of a traditional subsampling layer with a stride length of $k$ in a 2D CNN as follows: First, the feature map is split into a grid of $k\times k$ **sampling windows**. Then, in each $k\times k$ sampling window, a pooling or convolutional operation is lined up with the top left element of the window (the blue highlighted elements in \[fig:one\]) and the result of the operation becomes part of a new feature map. Our key insight is that one does not need to limit themselves to sampling only the top left corner of each sampling window. In a 2D CNN, we can choose up to $k^2$ samples, multiplying the resolution of the output feature map by the number of samples taken $n$. With this extension, which generalizes to higher dimensions, the new spatial resolution $r_{t}$ of a feature map after passing through a CNN layer is: $$r_{t} = \frac{n \cdot r_{t-1}}{k^d}
\label{eq:two}$$ Our choice of where to sample from each sampling window is represented by a binary element-selector matrix termed the **sampler**. For example, in checkered subsampling we use a $2\times 2$ sampler that chooses the top left and bottom right element of each sampling window ($n = 2$). As traditional representations of feature maps do not have the capacity to store more than one sample from a sampling window, we extend feature maps with what we term a **submap dimension** and each sample is stored separately in its own feature submap across the submap dimension.
[0.15]{} ![**Left:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled with stride = 2 once, twice, and three times with a traditional layer. **Right:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled once, twice, and three times with a checkered layer, and feature maps are color coded so that elements belonging to the same submap share the same color. Each image is captioned with the dimension lengths of the resulting data structure. Notice *every* row and column with respect to the original feature map is represented after each application of checkered subsampling. See supplementary materials for more illustrations.[]{data-label="fig:two"}](traditional16/traditional_even_16_1.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
[0.15]{} ![**Left:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled with stride = 2 once, twice, and three times with a traditional layer. **Right:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled once, twice, and three times with a checkered layer, and feature maps are color coded so that elements belonging to the same submap share the same color. Each image is captioned with the dimension lengths of the resulting data structure. Notice *every* row and column with respect to the original feature map is represented after each application of checkered subsampling. See supplementary materials for more illustrations.[]{data-label="fig:two"}](traditional16/traditional_even_16_2.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
[0.15]{} ![**Left:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled with stride = 2 once, twice, and three times with a traditional layer. **Right:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled once, twice, and three times with a checkered layer, and feature maps are color coded so that elements belonging to the same submap share the same color. Each image is captioned with the dimension lengths of the resulting data structure. Notice *every* row and column with respect to the original feature map is represented after each application of checkered subsampling. See supplementary materials for more illustrations.[]{data-label="fig:two"}](traditional16/traditional_even_16_3.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
[ ]{}
[0.15]{} ![**Left:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled with stride = 2 once, twice, and three times with a traditional layer. **Right:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled once, twice, and three times with a checkered layer, and feature maps are color coded so that elements belonging to the same submap share the same color. Each image is captioned with the dimension lengths of the resulting data structure. Notice *every* row and column with respect to the original feature map is represented after each application of checkered subsampling. See supplementary materials for more illustrations.[]{data-label="fig:two"}](even16/checkered_even_16_1.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
[0.15]{} ![**Left:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled with stride = 2 once, twice, and three times with a traditional layer. **Right:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled once, twice, and three times with a checkered layer, and feature maps are color coded so that elements belonging to the same submap share the same color. Each image is captioned with the dimension lengths of the resulting data structure. Notice *every* row and column with respect to the original feature map is represented after each application of checkered subsampling. See supplementary materials for more illustrations.[]{data-label="fig:two"}](even16/checkered_even_16_2.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
[0.15]{} ![**Left:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled with stride = 2 once, twice, and three times with a traditional layer. **Right:** A $16\times16$ feature map is downsampled once, twice, and three times with a checkered layer, and feature maps are color coded so that elements belonging to the same submap share the same color. Each image is captioned with the dimension lengths of the resulting data structure. Notice *every* row and column with respect to the original feature map is represented after each application of checkered subsampling. See supplementary materials for more illustrations.[]{data-label="fig:two"}](even16/checkered_even_16_3.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
At each subsampling layer, multisampling is applied separately to each submap so that each submap is subsampled into $n$ (number of samples taken by the sampler) new smaller submaps. Thus, the number of submaps is multiplied by $n$ times each time a multisampling layer that takes $n$ samples is applied. All CNN layers such as convolutional, batch normalization [@batchnorm], and dropout [@dropout], layers are applied separately on each submap. After the final convolution, a CNN using multisampling layers will have generated many different submaps and several choices of post-processing are possible. In image classification, one can use a global 3D pooling layer (treating the submap dimension as a third spatial dimension) to generate a feature vector. If a 2D feature map is required, one may take the average across the submap dimension to generate a single submap which can be treated as a traditional feature map. Note that it is not necessary to process each submap independently of each other. One may use 3D convolutions to learn the best way to combine features across the submap dimension. 3D convolutions used in this way can learn deformed structures due to the semi-structured nature of the submap dimension. However, in most of our experiments, we process each submap independently.
We should be careful about our choice of samplers so that after many subsampling layers we obtain an efficient, well-distributed sampling of the input. One desirable property is for every row and column of the *original image* to be represented by at least 1 sample and by the same number of samples. This is achieved if our sampler takes exactly one sample from each row and column of the *sampling windows*. The minimum number of samples $n$ from each sampling window required to accomplish this is exactly the stride length $k$ and can be naively accomplished by sampling along a diagonal from opposite corners of a sampling window. In general, this can be accomplished by any n-rooks sampling [@nrooks] of the sampling window, which all take $n=k$ samples. This value of $n$ happens to have the very nice property of reducing the degree of the polynomial term in \[eq:two\]. $$r_{t} = \frac{k \cdot r_{t-1}}{k^d} = \frac{r_{t-1}}{k^{d-1}}$$ In fact, in 2D CNNs, the exponent in the denominator is eliminated, resulting in spatial resolution scaling *linearly*, rather than quadratically, with stride length $k$. $$r_{t} = \frac{k \cdot r_{t-1}}{k^2} = \frac{r_{t-1}}{k}$$ Thus, a n-rooks sampling of each sampling window is ideal as it provides the minimum number of samples needed to represent every row and column of each sampling window, and reduces the degree of the polynomial term in \[eq:two\] so that resolution scales better with stride length (less information is lost). Finally, in order to ensure the samples are well-distributed, the same sampler should not be applied on each submap, even if the sampler satisfies the n-rooks property. This is because the final sampling will be biased by the choice of sampler and, after many subsampling steps, samples may aggregate in clumps or line up in diagonals (see supplementary materials). One of two choices is possible: Randomly choose samplers that satisfy the n-rooks property each time a submap is subsampled in order to generate a random sampling of the input, or use a predetermined sequence of samplers to generate a low-discrepancy sampling of the input (we provide one such sequence using checkered subsampling samplers in the supplementary materials).
Checkered subsampling
---------------------
By far, the most popular CNN architecture is a 2D CNN that uses subsampling layers with a stride length of 2. Therefore, we design **checkered subsampling** to replace the traditional subsampling layers of these models without affecting receptive fields. We call these converted models **checkered CNNs** (CCNNs). At each subsampling layer we sample the top left and bottom right element of each $2\times2$ sampling window (the blue and green elements in \[fig:one\] respectively), satisfying the n-rooks property we desire in samplers. Each of the two samples is stored in a separate submap, so each application of checkered subsampling on a submap reduces it to 2 smaller submaps. Since we sample 2 of the 4 elements in a window, we keep 50% of the input as opposed to 25% with a traditional layer.
One may also use the *complement* sampler where the top right and bottom left elements are sampled instead. By carefully applying one sampler to some submaps and the complement sampler to others, a regularly-spaced lattice sampling with respect to the original input can be obtained (see rightmost image of \[fig:two\] and supplementary materials). Alternatively, by *randomly* switching between the checkered sampler and its complement, a random sampling over the feature map can be obtained. Random switching during training may have regularizing properties by implicitly increasing the size of the dataset. However, in our experiments *we do not use a random scheme*. Our goal is to show improvements during training come from the increased spatial capacity of feature maps, not from stochasticity introduced to training by a random subsampling scheme as in previous works [@fmp; @stochpool; @s3pool]. We use the simplest possible scheme in all of our image classification experiments, which is to apply the same sampler on every submap. Although using the same sampler on every submap biases the final samples to line up in diagonals, we find this bias does not have a significant effect on accuracy in current architectures, which use small stride lengths and few subsampling layers.
[0.15]{} ![The two **samplers** used in checkered subsampling.[]{data-label="fig:three"}](check_tri.png "fig:"){width="0.75cm"}
[0.15]{} ![The two **samplers** used in checkered subsampling.[]{data-label="fig:three"}](check_tri__1_.png "fig:"){width="0.75cm"}
#### CNNs versus CCNNs
By \[eq:one\], traditional subsampling layers with stride length $k=2$, in 2D CNNs ($d=2$), reduce the resolution of their input by $4 \times$. Thus, an input image with resolution $r_{input}$, after being processed by $s$ subsampling layers, produces a feature map with resolution $r_{trad}$: $$r_{trad} = \frac{r_{input}}{4^s} = \frac{r_{input}}{2^s \times 2^s}$$ By \[eq:two\], in a 2D CCNN (which has $n=2$ and $k=2$) each subsampling layer reduces the resolution of their input by $2 \times$. This means our advantage over traditional subsampling, in terms of the spatial capacity of resulting feature maps, grows *exponentially* with each subsampling layer: $$r_{checkered} = \frac{r_{input}}{2^s} = r_{trad} \times 2^s$$ Not only does this mean CCNNs produce drastically more informative feature maps than CNNs, but also exponentially increases the number of *gradient updates* deep layers receive during training, as the number of gradient updates a layer receives is determined by the resolution of the input it gets. In our experiments we observe slightly faster convergence on CIFAR due to this.
The features generated by a CNN can be viewed as a subset those generated by a CCNN, thus CCNNs are theoretically guaranteed to offer superior representational capacity over CNNs with subsampling layers. To see this, imagine that an image has been processed by a CCNN, producing a feature map made up of $s$ submaps. If we throw away all but 1 submap and classify only on that 1 submap, we have reduced the capacity of our CCNN exactly to the capacity of a traditional CNN, and reintroducing any 1 additional submap pushes our capacity over that of a CNN. To see this visually, see the $2\times 2$ traditional feature map and $8\times2\times2$ checkered feature map in \[fig:two\]. If we throw away every submap in the checkered feature map except for the black submap, we will be left with exactly the same samples produced by the traditional layers of a CNN.
Relationship to traditional layers and dilation
-----------------------------------------------
A $k\times k$ sampler that selects a single sample ($n=1$), the top left element, is exactly equivalent to a traditional 2D CNN layer with a stride length of $k$. Thus, traditional CNN layers can be viewed as using an extreme version of multisampling where only the minimum number of samples needed to increase receptive field is taken. On the other hand, a $k\times k$ sampler that selects *every* element to sample ($n=k^2$ in a 2D CNN, or $n=k^d$ in general), which we call **complete multisampling**, is functionally equivalent to not performing any subsampling and instead increasing the dilation of all proceeding layers by $n$ times. This is because complete multisampling with a $k\times k$ sampler reduces the spatial lengths of all submaps by $k$ times, and thus the receptive field of all proceeding neurons is increased by $k$ times without performing any subsampling. The same effect is achieved by multiplying the dilation of the current layer and all proceeding layers by $n$ times. This is a common design choice in certain applications such as semantic segmentation [@deeplabv3plus2018; @semsegreview]. Thus, multisampling is a generalization of these techniques that enables finer control over how much information is lost at subsampling layers in-between these two extremes.
Experiments and Discussion {#Experiments}
==========================
We show that checkered subsampling drastically improves CNNs even in image classification, demonstrating for the first time that coarse feature maps are bottlenecking the accuracy of these models. All experiments are performed on a single GTX 1080 Ti GPU. We reduce the memory requirements of large models during training with gradient checkpointing [@checkpointing].
Training current architectures as CCNNs
---------------------------------------
We sample four popular architectures of different designs (VGG, ResNet, DenseNet, and Wide-ResNet) to train on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100. We write a conversion utility that takes 2D neural network layers as input (including convolutional, pooling, batch normalization, and dropout layers) and converts them into CCNN layers that can handle and process submaps. **Note that no parameters are added in this process.** Layers with a stride length of 2 are modified to use checkered subsampling. After the final convolution, all submaps are averaged into a single submap / feature map which is fed into an unmodified classifier. We train our models before and after applying our conversion utility. Our CIFAR models use 2 (DenseNet, Wide-ResNet), 3 (ResNet) or 5 (VGG) subsampling layers, so our CCNNs increase the amount of information in the final feature maps by $2^2$, $2^3$, or $2^5$ times.
CIFAR10 consists of 50,000 training images and 10,000 test images from 10 classes. CIFAR100 consists of 50,000 training images and 10,000 test images from 100 classes. Classes include common objects such as cat, dog, automobile, and airplane. DenseNet for CIFAR is obtained from the implementation of Pleiss et al. [@memoryefficientdensenet]. VGG and ResNet for CIFAR are obtained from [@cifar-pytorch]. Wide-ResNet is obtained from [@wide-resnet-pytorch]. For ResNet and VGG we increase the batch size to 128 and decrease number of epochs to 164 as in their original descriptions [@resnet; @vgg] and use the training script of Pleiss et al. Otherwise all hyperparameters are left at default values - no hyperparameter tuning is performed. We train on all training images and report accuracy on test images. For data augmentations we use the standard scheme: We randomly apply horizontal flips and randomly shift horizontally or vertically by up to 4-pixels.
--------------------------- ------- ----------- ------ ---------- ------- -----------
Architecture
\[-0.8ex\] CNN CCNN CNN CCNN CNN CCNN
\[-0.5ex\] DenseNet-BC-40 9.13 **7.77** 6.73 **6.49** 29.32 **28.55**
DenseNet-BC-121 6.56 **5.37** 4.19 **3.95** 20.32 **19.97**
ResNet-18 12.81 **9.90** 5.49 **4.90** 25.70 **24.95**
ResNet-50 12.11 **10.68** 5.31 **5.17** 24.75 **22.21**
VGG-11-BN 14.62 **11.57** 8.23 **7.47** 29.93 **28.97**
Wide-Resnet-28x10 - - 3.80 **3.60** 18.89 **18.74**
- - - **3.51** - -
--------------------------- ------- ----------- ------ ---------- ------- -----------
: Test error on CIFAR after training as a CNN and as a CCNN. The asterisk (\*) indicates *without* data augmentations. Conversion to a CCNN significantly improves all models we test.
\[table:one\]
We find checkered subsampling gives a significant performance boost to *every* model we train (\[table:one\]). Interestingly, we observe that a ResNet-18 CCNN *outperforms* the deeper ResNet-50 CNN *and* CCNN on CIFAR10, although the ResNet-50 CCNN receives a significant performance boost over the ResNet-18 CCNN on CIFAR100. We also experiment with applying 3D convolutions across the submap dimension. In Wide-ResNet, we replace all $3\times3$ convolutions after the second subsampling layer with $2\times3\times3$ convolutions. We observe that a 28 layer Wide-ResNet CCNN extended with 3D convolutions is competitive with a 164 layer PyramidNet [@pyramidnet] on CIFAR10.
We also notice all models show steeper test curves as CCNNs than as CNNs (\[fig:four\]), with the effect more pronounced on the CIFAR100 dataset. One reason for this may be that CCNNs provide much more gradient updates to deep layers than CNNs. Each subsampling layer in a CNN reduces the number of samples (and thus the number of gradients) proceeding layers will receive by $4\times$, whereas checkered subsampling layers reduce the number of gradients by only $2\times$.
[r]{}[0.42]{}
{width="40.00000%"}
\[fig:four\]
#### Multisampling versus data augmentations
We observe that the benefits of checkered subsampling is amplified when data augmentations are disabled. DenseNet, which was observed in [@densenet] to train exceptionally well without data augmentations, receives a further 1.36% and 1.19% absolute performance boost on CIFAR10.
These results glean new insight into the nature of data augmentations. We argue data augmentations allow deep CNN layers to *see* information that they would not have otherwise seen by giving feature detectors a chance to line up with all image features over many epochs of training. The left 3 images in \[fig:two\] illustrates how after a few traditional subsampling layers, deep convolutions are very limited in where they are allowed to be applied with respect to the original image. Convolutions work best when they are centered on the features they are trying to detect, so it is necessary to feed the same image many times under many different augmentations before deep feature detectors receive a good sampling of the input. Multisampling reduces the need for repeated exposures under different augmentations by explicitly extracting that unseen information within a single forward pass. This is why stochastic subsampling methods [@fmp; @stochpool; @s3pool] are also observed to have strong regularizing effects in the absence of data augmentations: They are able to sample parts of the feature map that would not have otherwise been considered for training over many epochs.
Multisampling pretrained models without any training
----------------------------------------------------
We convert publicly available models pretrained on ImageNet into CCNNs by applying our CCNN conversion utility on each model. We transfer over the parameters of the original CNN into its CCNN counterpart without any modifications. This can be done because checkered subsampling is an algorithmic change in how striding is performed and how feature maps are stored and is compatible with the learned kernels of a traditional CNN. Our converted ImageNet models can be viewed as extracting an ensemble of $2^n$ feature submaps, where $n$ is the number of subsampling layers ($n=5$ in most ImageNet models, $n=4$ in SqueezeNet). Unlike traditional ensembles, this ensemble is produced from a single image by a single model, requires only a single forward pass, and can be produced by any arbitrary CNN with subsampling layers. ImageNet models tend to follow a common pattern: A series of convolutional layers followed by a fully-connected classifier. After the final convolution, the multisampled feature submaps (i.e., the ensemble of feature maps) must be converted into a form that the final pretrained classifier can handle. We simply produce an average feature map by taking the mean across the submap dimension and feed the averaged feature map into the classifier.
We use the ILSVRC2012 validation dataset as in [@densenet], which consists of 50,000 images sampled from ImageNet with 1,000 different classes, to test the performance of pretrained models before and after the conversion. **No training, fine-tuning, or modification of model parameters is performed.** All pretrained models except for FB-ResNet are obtained from torchvision [@torchvision]. FB-ResNet is obtained from [@fbres].
Architecture Top-1 Top-1 (CCNN)
--------------- ------- --------------
AlexNet 43.48 43.97
DenseNet-121 25.57 **25.55**
DenseNet-161 22.86 **22.77**
DenseNet-169 24.40 **24.00**
ResNet-101 22.63 **22.47**
ResNet-152 21.87 **21.57**
FB-ResNet-152 22.61 **22.38**
Architecture Top-1 Top-1 (CCNN)
---------------- ------- --------------
ResNet-18 30.24 30.66
ResNet-34 26.69 26.85
ResNet-50 23.87 23.90
SqueezeNet-1.0 41.91 **41.64**
SqueezeNet-1.1 41.82 **41.28**
VGG-11 30.98 31.39
VGG-19 27.62 28.18
\[table:two\]
We find converting pretrained ImageNet models to CCNNs, without any training or tuning, **significantly improves the top-1 performance of certain models**. Deeper models benefit significantly more than shallower models. This pattern is clear going down the results of the ResNet models, with ResNet-18 showing the worst impact (0.42% worse performance) and ResNet-152 / FB-ResNet-152 showing the best impact (0.30% and 0.23% performance boost respectively). We also observe that smaller models (in terms of parameter count) benefit more than larger models when the depth of the network is similar. For example, both versions of SqueezeNet receive a considerable performance boost, but the lighter SqueezeNet1.1 receives a significantly larger boost of 0.54% compared to the boost of 0.27% for SqueezeNet1.0. The pretrained DenseNet models provided by torchvision use different growth rates. DenseNet-161 uses a growth rate $k=40$, while DenseNet-169 uses a smaller growth rate $k=24$. The result is that DenseNet-169 uses significantly less parameters, and it receives a larger performance boost of 0.40% from checkered subsampling.
Pretrained AlexNet and VGG models are hurt by checkered subsampling in all of our experiments. We believe these models are too fine-tuned to the expected spatial distribution of features to benefit from this technique because they do not use a global pooling layer before their final classifier. In particular, the classification layers in AlexNet and VGG expect the feature maps to have been computed with padding at certain edges, and our technique disturbs the location of padding.
#### Checkered subsampling versus dilation
We describe an alternative strategy for producing denser feature maps from pretrained models by using dilated layers. One can decrease the stride length of all subsampling layers from $k$ to 1, and instead increase the dilation of all proceeding layers by $k$ times, taking care not to lose information at edges by increasing padding correspondingly. Similarly, one may perform complete multisampling at each subsampling layer, which has the same effect as the method using dilation. We find that due to the lack of any subsampling, these methods are extremely computationally expensive. Furthermore, despite producing denser feature maps, dilated layers and complete multisampling **do not** offer a significant accuracy boost over checkered subsampling in this task (extracting more information from pretrained models) due to diminishing returns.
=0.19cm
Type
--------------- --------- -------- ------- -------- --------- ------- -------- --------- -------
Original 0.007 s 0.6 GB 41.82 0.02 s 0.9 GB 21.87 0.02 s 0.8 GB 24.40
Dilated 0.15 s 3.2 GB 41.31 3.60 s 10.1 GB 21.60 1.67 s 10.6 GB 23.98
**Checkered** 0.02 s 0.7 GB 41.28 0.25 s 1.2 GB 21.57 0.11 s 2.2 GB 24.00
: Inference time, memory consumption, and error of pretrained ImageNet models before and after conversion to a checkered CNN or a dilated CNN (with batch size of 4 on a GTX 1080 Ti).
\[table:three\]
Conclusion
==========
We show that there is a significant amount of spatial information that current subsampling layers fail to utilize and show that we can use a simple and efficient implementation of multisampling, checkered subsampling, to extract that information to improve the learning and accuracy of CNNs. We significantly improve the accuracy of every image classification model we train, demonstrating that the limited spatial capacity of coarse feature maps is bottlenecking current architectures. We improve the accuracy of certain classes of pretrained ImageNet models without any training or fine-tuning by simply applying multisampling. We observe that the benefit of checkered subsampling is amplified when no data augmentations are used, leading to our argument that the effectiveness of data augmentations is in major part due to the extra spatial information they extract from images over many epochs. We believe multisampling will find further use in applications where fine-grained information is important, such as semantic segmentation and in generative models, where multisampling-based techniques may generate finer outputs and serve as an efficient alternative to dilation. Our code is public at <https://github.com/ShayanPersonal/checkered-cnn>.
Supplementary Materials {#supplementary-materials .unnumbered}
=======================
#### Implementation
We give a brief description of implementing checkered subsampling here and our code is also available on Github at <https://github.com/ShayanPersonal/checkered-cnn>. The operation of each strided layer needs to be modified to apply a checkered sampler or its complement when stride = 2. For the standard checkered sampler this can be achieved by applying the operation as normal to the input feature map $x$, shifting the input feature map $x$ by one element in both spatial dimensions, and applying the operation again. This generates a total of two output feature maps (in this case, feature *submaps*) which are then concatenated together along the submap dimension to create the output feature map $y$. $$y = Concatenate(Conv(x), Conv(ShiftRight(ShiftDown(x))))$$ Similarly, the function for applying the complement sampler is: $$y = Concatenate(Conv(ShiftRight(x)), Conv(ShiftDown(x)))$$ CNN operations should be applied independently on all submaps. A naive way to achieve this is to apply 2D layers separately on each submap, but in practice this is inefficient as each layer needs to be re-executed for every submap. A more efficient implementation is to replace all 2D layers with their equivalent 3D counterparts and add a submap dimension on the input to the CNN in place of where 3D layers expect the depth dimension to be. That is, all $m\times m$ kernels should be replaced with $1 \times m\times m$ kernels and similarly all stride lengths should be modified from $k\times k$ to $1\times k\times k$. All submaps will then be processed in a single pass through a 3D layer, rather than many passes through a 2D layer. This formulation also enables the use of 3D convolutions if desired.
#### Complexity
Consider a ResNet-style architecture where we start off with a base number of feature channels at the earliest layer (e.g., 32), the number of feature channels is increased by $2\times$ after each subsampling layer, and each subsampling layer increases receptive field by $2\times$. Suppose we design our network using either traditional subsampling, checkered subsampling, or don’t use subsampling and instead increase dilation by $2\times$. We can compute the effect each method has on the complexity of proceeding layers and show checkered subsampling falls in the middle-ground between traditional layers and dilated layers.
=0.19cm
Subsampling layer type Memory complexity Compute complexity
------------------------ ------------------- --------------------
Traditional $0.5^s$ $1$
**Checkered** $1$ $2^s$
Dilated $2^s$ $4^s$
: Complexity of a layer in a ResNet-style model (where the number of channels is increased by $2\times$ at each subsampling step) in terms of the number of subsampling layers, $s$, preceding the layer.
\[table:blah\]
=0.19cm
Subsampling layer type Memory complexity Compute complexity
------------------------ ------------------- --------------------
Traditional $0.25^s$ $0.25^s$
**Checkered** $0.5^s$ $0.5^s$
Dilated 1 1
: Complexity of a layer in an architecture where the number of channels is kept constant after subsampling, in terms of the number of subsampling layers preceding the layer, $s$.
\[table:blah\]
In practice, on CIFAR we observed about $1.1\times$ to $2\times$ increased memory usage and about $2\times$ to $6\times$ increased training time converting current architectures. \[table:three\] shows that inference time on ImageNet models increases anywhere from around $3\times$ to $13\times$. Note these results are obtained with our unoptimized implementation using high-level Pytorch operations.
We suspect that one reason so many channels are required in the late stages of current architectures is to “remember” information that is deleted by subsampling. This would explain why DenseNet performs well with so few parameters compared to other architectures - its skip connections preserve fine-grained details that would otherwise be lost, so it does not need so many channels at every step to remember those details. Architectures built on top of checkered subsampling layers may be able to reduce the number of channels in deep layers of their architecture and still obtain state-of-the-art results. In order to maintain a constant compute complexity with checkered subsampling, the number of channels should be multiplied by $\sqrt{2}$, or \~1.41, after each subsampling layer.
=0.19cm
Subsampling layer type Memory complexity Compute complexity
------------------------ --------------------- --------------------
**Checkered** $\frac{1}{2^{s/2}}$ $1$
: To maintain constant compute costs with checkered subsampling, the number of channels should be multiplied by $\sqrt{2}$ after each subsampling layer to achieve the following complexity:
\[table:blah\]
To test our hypothesis, we modify ResNet to use our $\sqrt{2}$ scaling rule. At each subsampling step, the number of channels is increased by $\sqrt{2}$ (64, 91, 128, 181) rather than by 2 as in the original ResNet (64, 128, 256, 512). For the bottleneck layer of ResNet-50, we reduce the expansion factor from four to two. We find that our tiny ResNet models, trained as a CCNN, are competitive with or better than their full-sized CNN counterparts on CIFAR100 with augmentations.
---------------------- ----------------- ------- -----------
Architecture Parameter count
\[-0.8ex\] CNN CCNN
\[-0.5ex\] ResNet-18 11.2M 25.70 **24.95**
ResNet-18-tiny 2.1M 26.74 **25.68**
ResNet-50 23.5M 24.75 **22.21**
ResNet-50-tiny 3.3M 26.12 **24.17**
---------------------- ----------------- ------- -----------
: Our tiny ResNet CCNNs are competitive with / better than their full-sized CNN counterparts.
\[table:9\]
Next, we create a toy neural network to train on MNIST [@mnist] with 5 convolutional layers of 32, 32, 45, 45, 64 channels followed by a linear classifier. The 3rd layer performs subsampling with a stride length of 2. As a CCNN the layer performs checkered subsampling and outputs 2 submaps. Each layer is followed by batch normalization [@batchnorm]. Dropout [@dropout] with a rate of 0.2 is applied before the linear classifier. We train our network both as a CNN and as a CCNN for 100 epochs with SGD with Nesterov momentum factor of 0.9 and batch size of 16. We report the best single-run accuracy observed after training without data augmentations, with shift-only data augmentations of up to 2 pixels as in [@capsules], and with both shift augmentations and rotational augmentations of up to 15 degrees. As a CCNN we also test $2\times3\times3$ at the 5th layer which learns to combine the two submaps into one.
We observe that checkered subsampling improves accuracy in all cases. For comparison, we include the results of Sabour et al. [@capsules] which claims to be state-of-the-art on MNIST. Our CCNN outperforms the CNN baseline used in [@capsules], which has $553\times$ more parameters, under the same augmentation scheme. Our extended CCNN is competitive with a capsule network unaided by a reconstruction network, which has $73\times$ more parameters. With 15 degree rotational augmentations, our CCNN is competitive with a capsule net with its reconstruction network, which has $88\times$ more parameters. We train our best CCNN 5 times and estimate the mean score and standard deviation. The errors we observed in 5 trials ordered by accuracy are 0.23, 0.23, 0.25, 0.27 and 0.27. To the best of our knowledge, this is the best reported result on MNIST for a single small CNN without ensembling.
Architecture Parameters Error (no aug) Error (shift aug) Error (shift+rot)
-------------------------------- ------------ ---------------- -------------------- -------------------
CNN baseline of [@capsules] 35.4M - 0.39 -
CapsNet w/o reconstruct 6.8M - 0.34 -
CapsNet w/ reconstruct 8.2M - $0.25_{\pm 0.005}$ -
Tiny CNN 67,913 0.44 0.42 0.30
Tiny CCNN 67,913 0.39 0.38 0.28
Tiny CCNN w/ $2\times3\times3$ 93,833 0.39 0.35 $0.25_{\pm 0.02}$
: We create toy CNNs to test on MNIST and report their errors. We include state-of-the-art results from [@capsules] for comparison.
\[table:9\]
#### Low-discrepancy sampling and other patterns
We discuss instances of checkered subsampling and its implementation. Multisampling is not limited to layers with stride = 2. We also depict an algorithm for layers with stride = 3 that preserves 33% of the input map resolution at each subsampling step (in contrast to 11% without multisampling).
First we discuss how to generate a low-discrepancy lattice sampling of the input using checkered subsampling. Consider \[fig:latticesmall\]:
![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), 4, and 5 (bottom row) times with our low-discrepancy lattice sequence. In the first 3 images, features belonging to the same submap are colored identically to help with the intuition.[]{data-label="fig:latticesmall"}](even32/checkered_even_32_1.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), 4, and 5 (bottom row) times with our low-discrepancy lattice sequence. In the first 3 images, features belonging to the same submap are colored identically to help with the intuition.[]{data-label="fig:latticesmall"}](even32/checkered_even_32_2.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), 4, and 5 (bottom row) times with our low-discrepancy lattice sequence. In the first 3 images, features belonging to the same submap are colored identically to help with the intuition.[]{data-label="fig:latticesmall"}](even32/checkered_even_32_3.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), 4, and 5 (bottom row) times with our low-discrepancy lattice sequence. In the first 3 images, features belonging to the same submap are colored identically to help with the intuition.[]{data-label="fig:latticesmall"}](even32/checkered_even_32_4.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), 4, and 5 (bottom row) times with our low-discrepancy lattice sequence. In the first 3 images, features belonging to the same submap are colored identically to help with the intuition.[]{data-label="fig:latticesmall"}](even32/checkered_even_32_5.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
[0.15]{} ![The two samplers used in checkered subsampling can be identified by a binary value.[]{data-label="fig:yo"}](check_tri.png "fig:"){width="1cm"}
[0.15]{} ![The two samplers used in checkered subsampling can be identified by a binary value.[]{data-label="fig:yo"}](check_tri__1_.png "fig:"){width="1cm"}
In order to generate these samplings, a checkered sampler (which samples the top-left and bottom-right sample in a sampling window) had to be applied on certain submaps and the complement checkered sampler (samples the top-right and bottom-left sample in a sampling window) had to be applied on others. Suppose a 0 represents a checkered sampler and a 1 represents the complement sampler. The above images were generated with the following sequence:
0\
0, 0\
0, 1, 0, 1\
0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1\
0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0\
Here’s how to read this sequence. The **first line** says apply a checkered sampler onto the original input (not depicted) to obtain the black and red submaps in the top left image. The **second line** describes how to process the top left image to obtain the sampling in the middle image of the top row, and says apply a checkered sampler to the black submap to obtain the black and green submaps, and a checkered sampler to the red submap to obtain the red and blue submaps. So far we have applied the same sampler to every submap.
The **third line** of the sequence describes how to process the middle image in the top row to obtain the top right image. It says apply a checkered sampler to the black submap to obtain the black and cyan submaps, a *complement* checkered sampler to the red submap to obtain the red and purple submaps, a checkered sampler to the green submap to obtain the green and yellow submaps, and a *complement* checkered sampler to the blue submap to obtain the blue and grey submaps.
The fourth line of the sequence is then used to process the top right sampling into the bottom left sampling, and the fifth line is used to process the bottom left sampling into the bottom right sampling.
In general, the length of each line is the number of submaps represented before applying the samplers listed on the line. Each value indicates which type of sampler to use on that submap at the next subsampling step. The first value corresponds to the submap containing the topmost row of the image and each subsequent value corresponds to the submap containing the next row of the image going down. This works because by our construction of multisampling, every row (and column) is represented by exactly one submap.
We continue the previous low-discrepancy lattice sequence to 10 subsampling steps. See \[fig:256even\] for a higher-resolution depiction of our lattice sequence up to 8 subsampling steps. Those familiar with quasi-Monte Carlo methods may be reminded of tables of parameters for the construction of good lattice points found in the literature on integration lattice techniques (see section 6 of [@quasi], *Quasi-Monte Carlo Sampling* by Owen.)
**(1)** 0\
**(2)** 00\
**(3)** 0101\
**(4)** 01100011\
**(5)** 0010100101001010\
**(6)** 00011000110001100011000110001100\
**(7)**
**(8)**
**(9)**
**(10)**
{width="11cm"}
If one applies the same sampler repeatedly to all submaps, the final sampling will be biased so that samples form into clumps or diagonals. \[fig:naive\] shows what samplings look like if we only use checkered subsampling without its complement (i.e., generate rows of 0’s only).
![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), and 4 (bottom row) times with the same checkered sampler applied to every submap at every step. When checkered subsampling is naively applied this way features begin to line up in diagonals. This method still offers superior resolution over traditional subsampling layers (which would be left with only 4 samples after 4 subsampling layers) and works very well in our experiments, but may not be ideal in applications that need to generate fine images from feature maps such as in semantic segmentation.[]{data-label="fig:naive"}](naive32/checkered_naive_32_1.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), and 4 (bottom row) times with the same checkered sampler applied to every submap at every step. When checkered subsampling is naively applied this way features begin to line up in diagonals. This method still offers superior resolution over traditional subsampling layers (which would be left with only 4 samples after 4 subsampling layers) and works very well in our experiments, but may not be ideal in applications that need to generate fine images from feature maps such as in semantic segmentation.[]{data-label="fig:naive"}](naive32/checkered_naive_32_2.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), and 4 (bottom row) times with the same checkered sampler applied to every submap at every step. When checkered subsampling is naively applied this way features begin to line up in diagonals. This method still offers superior resolution over traditional subsampling layers (which would be left with only 4 samples after 4 subsampling layers) and works very well in our experiments, but may not be ideal in applications that need to generate fine images from feature maps such as in semantic segmentation.[]{data-label="fig:naive"}](naive32/checkered_naive_32_3.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling 1, 2, 3 (top row), and 4 (bottom row) times with the same checkered sampler applied to every submap at every step. When checkered subsampling is naively applied this way features begin to line up in diagonals. This method still offers superior resolution over traditional subsampling layers (which would be left with only 4 samples after 4 subsampling layers) and works very well in our experiments, but may not be ideal in applications that need to generate fine images from feature maps such as in semantic segmentation.[]{data-label="fig:naive"}](naive32/checkered_naive_32_4.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
Alternatively, we can randomly generate sequences of 0’s and 1’s to randomly apply one of the two samplers on each submap. \[fig:rand1\], \[fig:rand2\], and \[fig:randbig\] show how the process of subsampling looks when samplers are randomly applied. Due to the existence of regularly spaced lattice sequences, it is possible to engineer your own sequences to be close to regularly-spaced.
![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling under a random sequence.[]{data-label="fig:rand1"}](random32_1/checkered_random_32_1.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling under a random sequence.[]{data-label="fig:rand1"}](random32_1/checkered_random_32_2.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling under a random sequence.[]{data-label="fig:rand1"}](random32_1/checkered_random_32_3.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling under a random sequence.[]{data-label="fig:rand1"}](random32_1/checkered_random_32_4.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes checkered subsampling under a random sequence.[]{data-label="fig:rand1"}](random32_1/checkered_random_32_5.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
![A 32x32 image undergoes random checkered subsampling using a different seed.[]{data-label="fig:rand2"}](random32_2/checkered_random_32_1.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes random checkered subsampling using a different seed.[]{data-label="fig:rand2"}](random32_2/checkered_random_32_2.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes random checkered subsampling using a different seed.[]{data-label="fig:rand2"}](random32_2/checkered_random_32_3.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes random checkered subsampling using a different seed.[]{data-label="fig:rand2"}](random32_2/checkered_random_32_4.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![A 32x32 image undergoes random checkered subsampling using a different seed.[]{data-label="fig:rand2"}](random32_2/checkered_random_32_5.png "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
![A 256x256 image undergoes our low-discrepancy lattice sequence through 5, 6 (top row), 7, and 8 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers.[]{data-label="fig:256even"}](even256/checkered_even_256_5.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![A 256x256 image undergoes our low-discrepancy lattice sequence through 5, 6 (top row), 7, and 8 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers.[]{data-label="fig:256even"}](even256/checkered_even_256_6.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![A 256x256 image undergoes our low-discrepancy lattice sequence through 5, 6 (top row), 7, and 8 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers.[]{data-label="fig:256even"}](even256/checkered_even_256_7.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![A 256x256 image undergoes our low-discrepancy lattice sequence through 5, 6 (top row), 7, and 8 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers.[]{data-label="fig:256even"}](even256/checkered_even_256_8.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"}
![A 128x128 image is subsampled through 4, 5 (top row), 5, and 6 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers with a randomly generated sequence.[]{data-label="fig:randbig"}](random128/checkered_random_128_4.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![A 128x128 image is subsampled through 4, 5 (top row), 5, and 6 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers with a randomly generated sequence.[]{data-label="fig:randbig"}](random128/checkered_random_128_5.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![A 128x128 image is subsampled through 4, 5 (top row), 5, and 6 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers with a randomly generated sequence.[]{data-label="fig:randbig"}](random128/checkered_random_128_6.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"} ![A 128x128 image is subsampled through 4, 5 (top row), 5, and 6 (bottom row) checkered subsampling layers with a randomly generated sequence.[]{data-label="fig:randbig"}](random128/checkered_random_128_7.png "fig:"){width="6.5cm"}
Some sequences generate interesting patterns over the original image. We depict some patterns observed after 4-5 random steps of checkered subsampling.
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
![Multisampling generalizes to larger stride lengths. This pattern was generated by randomly applying one of three $3\times 3$ samplers with $n=3$.[]{data-label="fig:tri"}](patterns/tri_random_256_4_triangle_wave.png){width="8cm"}
[0.20]{} ![Samplers used to generate \[fig:tri\]. Each sampler satisfies the n-rooks property as no two samples taken share the same row or column. Note that when these samplers are randomly applied, all parts of the sampling window have an equal chance of being chosen because each sampler uniquely selects their elements and in total all 9 elements are represented. However, the final sampling is biased to run in diagonals running from the bottom left to top right of the image due to the layout of the samplers. More samplers are required if one wishes to remove this bias (e.g., include the mirror images of these 3 samplers for a total of 6 samplers.[]{data-label="fig:trisamplers"}](check_tri__2_.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
[0.20]{} ![Samplers used to generate \[fig:tri\]. Each sampler satisfies the n-rooks property as no two samples taken share the same row or column. Note that when these samplers are randomly applied, all parts of the sampling window have an equal chance of being chosen because each sampler uniquely selects their elements and in total all 9 elements are represented. However, the final sampling is biased to run in diagonals running from the bottom left to top right of the image due to the layout of the samplers. More samplers are required if one wishes to remove this bias (e.g., include the mirror images of these 3 samplers for a total of 6 samplers.[]{data-label="fig:trisamplers"}](check_tri__3_.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
[0.20]{} ![Samplers used to generate \[fig:tri\]. Each sampler satisfies the n-rooks property as no two samples taken share the same row or column. Note that when these samplers are randomly applied, all parts of the sampling window have an equal chance of being chosen because each sampler uniquely selects their elements and in total all 9 elements are represented. However, the final sampling is biased to run in diagonals running from the bottom left to top right of the image due to the layout of the samplers. More samplers are required if one wishes to remove this bias (e.g., include the mirror images of these 3 samplers for a total of 6 samplers.[]{data-label="fig:trisamplers"}](check_tri__4_.png "fig:"){width="2cm"}
The sequence that generates \[fig:tri\] using the samplers in \[fig:trisamplers\]:
0\
0, 2, 2\
0, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2\
1, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 2, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2\
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank Benjamin Rhoda and David McCarthy of the University of California, Santa Barbara for the useful discussions.
[^1]: <https://shayanpersonal.github.io>
[^2]: <http://www.ece.ucsb.edu/~psen>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'abstract.tex'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Toronto\
Toronto Ontario M5S 2E4\
Canada
author:
- 'Dror Bar-Natan'
date: 'First edition Nov. 15, 2015, this edition Nov. 17, 2015. Electronic version and related files at [@WKO4], [\\web](\web). The edition may be older'
title: '[Finite Type Invariants of w-Knotted Objects IV: Some Computations]{}'
---
=
[^1]
intro.tex
Group-like elements in $\calA^w$ {#sec:Aw}
================================
A brief review of $\calA^w$ {#subsec:Aw}
---------------------------
Let $\glosm{S}{S} = \{\glosm{a}{a}_1,a_2,\dots\}$ be a finite set of “strand labels”. The space $\glosm{calAw}{\calA^w}(S)$ is the completed graded vector space of diagrams made of (vertical) “strands” labelled by the elements of $S$, and “arrows” as summarized by the following picture: $$\def\comments{{\parbox{2.28in}{\scriptsize
\begin{myitemize}
\item Diagrams are connected.
\item Vertices are 2-in 1-out.
\item Vertices are oriented.
\item Degree is half the number of trivalent vertices.
\item The ``skeleton'' is a union of vertical strands labelled by the
elements of $S$.
\end{myitemize}
}}}
\label{g:wRels}
\PandocStartInclude{figs/AwSummary.pstex_t}\PandocEndInclude{input}{111}{33}$$
When $S=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ we abbreviate $\calA^w(\glosm{uparrow}{\uparrow_n})\coloneqq\calA^w(S)$.
In topology, elements of $\calA^w(S)$ are closely related to (finite type invariants of) simply knotted 2-dimensional tubes in $\bbR^4$ ([@WKO1]–[@WKO3], [@KBH]). In Lie theory, they represent “universal” $\glosm{frakg}{\frakg}$-invariant tensors in $\glosm{calU}{\calU}(I\frakg)^{\otimes S}$, where $\glosm{Ifrakg}{I\frakg}
\coloneqq \frakg\ltimes\frakg^\ast$ and $\frakg$ is some finite dimensional Lie algebra ([@WKO1]–[@WKO3]). Readers of Alekseev and Torossian [@AT] may care about $\calA^w$ because using notation from [@AT], $\calA^w(\uparrow_n)$ is the completed universal enveloping algebra of $(\fraka_n\oplus\attder_n)\ltimes\attr_n$ (see [@WKO2]), and hence much of the [@AT] story can be told within $\calA^w$. Several significant Lie theoretic problems (e.g., the Kashiwara-Vergne problem, [@KashiwaraVergne:Conjecture; @AT; @WKO2]) can be interpreted as problems about $\calA^w(\uparrow_n)$.
\[def:Operations\] A number of operations are defined on elements of the $\calA^w(S)$ spaces:
1. If $S_1$ and $S_2$ are disjoint, then given $D_1\in\calA^w({S_1})$ and $D_2\in\calA^w({S_2})$, their union $D_1D_2=D_1\glosm{sqcup}{\sqcup} D_2\in\calA^w(S)$, where $S=S_1\sqcup S_2$, is obtained by placing them side by side as illustrated on the right.
In topology, $\sqcup$ corresponds to the disjoint union of 2-tangles. In Lie theory, it corresponds to the map $\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes S_1}\otimes\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes
S_2}\to\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes(S_1\sqcup S_2)}$.
2. Given $D_1\in\calA^w(S)$ and $D_2\in\calA^w(S)$, their product $D_1\glosm{ast}{\ast} D_2\in\calA^w(S)$ is obtained by “stacking $D_2$ on top of $D_1$”: $$\label{eq:TubeProduct}
(D_1,D_2)=
\begin{array}{c}\PandocStartInclude{figs/Stacking.pstex_t}\PandocEndInclude{input}{171}{48}\end{array}
=D_1\ast D_2.$$
In topology, the stacking product corresponds to the concatenation operation on knotted tubes, akin to the standard stacking product of tangles. In Lie theory, it comes from the algebra structure of $\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes S}$. In [@AT], it is the product of the completed universal enveloping algebra $\hat{\calU}((\fraka_n\oplus\attder_n)\ltimes\attr_n)$.
Note that below and throughout this paper we use $\glosm{act}{\act}$ for postfix operator application and for “composition done right”. Meaning that $x\act f$ is equivalent to $f(x)$ and $f\act g$ is $g\circ f$ is “do $f$ then do $g$”.
1. Given $D\in\calA^w(S)$ and $a\in S$, $D\act
\glosm{deta}{d\eta}^a$ is the result of deleting strand $a$ from $D$ and mapping it to $0$ if any arrow connects to $a$, as illustrated on the right.
In topology, $d\eta^a$ is the removal of one component from a 2-tangle. In Lie theory it corresponds to the co-unit $\glosm{eta}{\eta}\colon\calU(I\frakg)\to\bbQ$.
<!-- -->
1. Given $D\in\calA^w(S)$ and $a\in S$, $D\act
\glosm{dA}{\dA}^a$ is the result of “flipping over stand $a$ and multiplying by a $(-)$ sign for each arrow whose head connects to $a$”, as illustrated above. We denote by $\dA$ the operation of likewise flipping (with signs) [*all*]{} strands: $\dA=\dA^S\coloneqq\prod_{a\in S}\dA^a$.
In topology, $\dA^a$ is the reversal of the 1D orientation of a knotted tube [@WKO2]. In Lie theory, it is the antipode of $\calU(I\frakg)$ combined with the sign reversal $\varphi\to-\varphi$ acting on the $\frakg^\ast$ factor of $I\frakg$. When elements of $\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes S}$ are interpreted as differential operators acting on functions on $\frakg^S$, $\dA$ corresponds to the $L^2$ adjoint.
<!-- -->
1. Similarly, $D\act \glosm{dS}{\dS}^a$ is the result of “flipping over stand $a$ and multiplying by a $(-)$ sign for each arrow head or tail that connects to $a$”, as illustrated above.
In topology, $\dS^a$ is the reversal of both the 1D and the 2D orientation of a knotted tube [@WKO2]. In Lie theory, it is the antipode of $\calU(I\frakg)$.
2. Given $D\in\calA^w(S)$, given $a,b\in S$, and given $c\not\in S\remove\{a,b\}$, $D\act \glosm{dm}{dm}^{ab}_c$ is the result of “stitching strands $a$ and $b$ and calling the resulting strand $c$”, as illustrated on the right.
In topology, $dm^{ab}_c$ is the “internal stitching” of two tubes within a single 2-link, akin to the “stitching” operation that combines two strands of an ordinary tangle into a single “longer” one. In Lie theory, it is an “internal product” $\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes n}\to\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes(n-1)}$ which “merges” two factors within $\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes n}$.
3. Given $D\in\calA^w(S)$, given $a\in S$, and given $b,c\not\in S\remove a$, $D\act\glosm{dDelta}{d\Delta}^a_{bc}$ is the result of “doubling” strand $a$, calling the resulting “daughter strands” $b$ and $c$, and summing over all ways of lifting the arrows that were connected to $a$ to either $b$ or $c$ (so if there are $k$ arrows connected to $a$, $D\act d\Delta^a_{bc}$ is a sum of $2^k$ diagrams).
In topology, $d\Delta$ is the operation of “doubling” one component in a 2-link. In Lie theory, it is the co-product $\glosm{Delta}{\Delta}\colon\calU(I\frakg)\to\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes 2}$ acting on the $a$ factor in $\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes S}$, extended by the identity acting on all other factors. In [@AT], it is the coface maps of [@AT Example 3.14].
<!-- -->
1. Finally, the operation $\glosm{dsigma}{d\sigma}^a_b\colon
\calA(S)\to \calA({S\remove\{a\}\sqcup\{b\}})$ does nothing but renaming the strand $a$ to $b$ (assuming $a\in S$ and $b\not\in S\remove\{a\}$).
We note that the product operation $(D_1,D_2)\mapsto D_1\ast D_2$ can be implemented using the union operation $\sqcup$, the stitching operation $dm$, and some renaming — namely, if $\bar{S}=\{\bar{a}\colon
a\in S\}$ is some set of “temporary” labels disjoint from $S$ but in a bijection with $S$, then $$\label{eq:multiplem} D_1\ast D_2 =
\left(
D_1\sqcup\left(D_2\act\prod_ad\sigma^a_{\bar{a}}\right)
\right)\act\prod_adm^{a\bar{a}}_a.$$ Therefore below we will sometimes omit the implementation of $(D_1,D_2)\mapsto D_1D_2$ provided all other operations are implemented.
We note that $\calA^w(S)$ is a co-algebra, with the co-product $\glosm{Box}{\Box}(D)$, for a diagram $D$ representing an element of $\calA^w(S)$, being the sum of all ways of dividing $D$ between a “left co-factor” and a “right co-factor” so that connected components of $D\setminus(\uparrow\!\!\times S)$ ($D$ with its skeleton removed) are kept intact (compare with [@Bar-Natan:OnVassiliev Definition 3.7]).
\[def:GroupLike\] An element $Z$ of $\calA^w(S)$ is “group-like” if $\Box(Z)=Z\otimes Z$. We denote the set of group-like elements in $\calA^w(S)$ by $\glosm{calAwexp}{\calA^w_{\exp}}(S)$.
We leave it for the reader to verify that all the operations defined above restrict to operations $\calA^w_{\exp}\to\calA^w_{\exp}$.
In topology, $\Box$ is the operation of “cloning” an entire 2-link. It is not to be confused with $d\Delta$; one dimension down and with just one component, the pictures are: $$\PandocStartInclude{figs/BoxVsDelta.pstex_t}\PandocEndInclude{input}{336}{35}$$
In [@AT], $\Box$ is the co-product of $\hat{\calU}((\fraka\oplus\attder)\ltimes\attr)$ and moding out by wheels, $\calA^w_{\exp}$ is $\TAut$.
In Lie theory, $\Box$ is [*not*]{} the co-product $\Delta\colon\calU(I\frakg)\to\calU(I\frakg)^{\otimes 2}$. Rather, given two finite dimensional Lie algebras $\frakg_1$ and $\frakg_1$, $\Box$ corresponds to the map $$\Box\colon
\calU(I(\frakg_1\oplus\frakg_2))^{\otimes S}
\to \calU(I\frakg_1)^{\otimes S}\otimes\calU(I\frakg_2)^{\otimes S}.$$
\[disc:Primitives\] We seek to have efficient descriptions of the elements of $\calA^w_{\exp}(S)$ and efficient means of computing the above operations on such elements.
Let $\glosm{Aprimw}{\calA_{\text{prim}}^w}(S)$ denote the set of primitives of $\calA^w(S)$: these are the elements $\zeta\in\calA^w(S)$ satisfying $\Box(\zeta)=\zeta\otimes
1+1\otimes\zeta$. Let $\glosm{FL}{\FL}(S)$ denote the degree-completed free Lie algebra with generators $S$, and let $\glosm{CW}{\CW}(S)$ denote the degree-completed vector space spanned by non-empty cyclic words on the alphabet $S$. In [@WKO2 Proposition \[2-prop:Pnses\]] we have shown that there is a short exact sequence of vector spaces $$\label{eq:Primitives}
0\to\CW(S)\to\calA_{\text{prim}}^w(S)\to\FL(S)^S\to 0,$$ where $\FL(S)^S$ denotes the set of all functions $S\to\FL(S)$. Hence $\calA_{\text{prim}}^w(S)\simeq\FL(S)^S\oplus\CW(S)$ (not canonically!). Often in bi-algebras there is a bijection given by $\zeta\mapsto
e^\zeta$ between primitive elements $\zeta$ and group-like elements $e^\zeta$. Hence we may expect to be able to present elements of ${\calA^w_{\exp}(S)}$ as formal exponentials of combinations of “trees” (elements of $\FL(S)^S$) and “wheels” (elements of $\CW(S)$): $$\label{eq:expectation}
\calA^w_{\exp}(S) \sim \yellowm{\TW}(S)
\coloneqq \FL(S)^S\times\CW(S)
=\left\{
(\yellowm{\lambda};\,\yellowm{\omega})\colon\begin{array}{c}
\lambda=\{a\to\lambda_a\}_{a\in S},\,\lambda_a\in\FL(S) \\
\omega\in\CW(S)
\end{array}
\right\}.$$ We implement Equation in a more-or-less straightforward way in Section \[subsec:AT\] and in a less straightforward but somewhat stronger way in Section \[subsec:Ef\].
\[disc:WhyTwo\] Why are there two presentations for elements of $\calA^w_{\exp}$?
Because as we shall see, $\calA^w$ is a bi-algebra in two ways, using two different products, yet with the same co-product $\Box$. In $\calA^w$, the notions “primitive” and “group-like”, whose definition involves only $\Box$, are canonical. Yet the bijection between primitive and group-like elements, $\zeta\leftrightarrow e^\zeta$, depends also on the product used within the power-series interpretation of $e^\zeta$. Thus there are two different ways to describe the group-like elements $\calA^w_{\exp}$ of $\calA^w$ in terms of its primitives $\TW$.
The first product on $\calA^w$ is the stacking product of Equation . The second will be introduced later, in Equations and .
Very roughly speaking, $\calA^w$ is a combinatorial model of “$\pi_1\ltimes\pi_2$” (with homotopies replaced by isotopies; see [@KBH]). The other product on $\calA^w$ is the one coming from the direct product “$\pi_1\times\pi_2$”.
Very roughly speaking, $\calA^w$ is a combinatorial model of (tensor powers of a completion of) $\calU(I\frakg)$. By PBW, $\calU(I\frakg)\simeq\calU(\frakg)\otimes\glosm{calS}{\calS}(\frakg^\ast)$ as co-algebras but not as algebras. The other product on $\calA^w$ is the one corresponding to the natural product on $\calU(\frakg)\otimes\calS(\frakg^\ast)$. The reality is a bit more delicate, though. $\calA^w$ is only a model of (a small part of) the $\frakg$-invariant part of $\calU(I\frakg)$, and the co-product $\Box$ of $\calA^w$ does not correspond to the co-product $\Delta$ of $\calU(I\frakg)$.
Some preliminaries about free Lie algebras and cyclic words {#subsec:FL}
-----------------------------------------------------------
It should be clear from Discussion \[disc:Primitives\] that free Lie algebras and cyclic words play a prominent role in this paper. For the convenience of our readers we collect in this section some preliminaries about about these topics. Almost everything in this section comes either from Alekseev-Torossian’s [@AT], or from [@WKO2; @KBH], and the detailed proofs of the assertions made here can be found in these papers.
Note that Lie algebras appear in two distinct roles in this paper. [*Free*]{} Lie algebras $\FL$ appear along with cyclic words $\CW$ as the primitives of $\calA^w$ (Equation ). [*Finite dimensional*]{} Lie algebras $\frakg$ appear only as motivational comments, always marked with a symbol. As already indicated, elements in $\calA^w$, and hence elements of $\FL$ and of $\CW$ can represent “universal” formulas that make sense in any finite dimensional Lie algebra $\frakg$. Hence part of our discussion of $\FL$ and $\CW$ is a discussion of things that make sense universally for all finite dimensional Lie algebras.
Recall that $\FL(S)$ denotes the graded completion of the free Lie algebra over a set of generators $S$, all considered to have degree $1$. In the case when $S=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$, Alekseev and Torossian [@AT] denote this space $\glosm{lie}{\lie}_n$.
A noteworthy element of $\FL(x,y)$ is the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff series, $$\glosm{BCH}{\BCH}(x,y)\coloneqq\log(e^xe^y)
= x+y+\frac{[x,y]}{2} +\frac{[x,[x,y]] + [[x,y],y]}{12}
+\ldots.$$
Recall also that $\CW(S)$ ($\glosm{attr}{\attr}_n$, in [@AT]) denotes the graded completion of the vector space spanned by non-empty cyclic words in the alphabet $S$. Our convention is to crown cyclic words with an “arch”; thus $\glosm{wideparen}{\wideparen{uvw}} = \wideparen{vwu}$. Note that there is a map $\CW(\FL(S))\to\CW(S)$ by interpreting brackets within elements of $\FL(S)$ as commutators and then mapping “long” words to cyclic words. E.g., $\wideparen{u[v,w]} = \wideparen{uvw} -
\wideparen{uwv}$.
We denote by $\glosm{hdeg}{h^{\deg}}$ the operations $\FL\to\FL$ and $\CW\to\CW$ which multiply any degree $k$ element by $h^k$. In particular, $\glosm{mdeg}{(-1)^{\deg}}$ acts on $\FL/\CW$ as the identity in even degrees and as minus the identity in odd degrees.
Let $\glosm{der}{\der}_S$ denote the Lie algebra of all derivations of $\FL(S)$ ($\glosm{atder}{\atder}_n$ in [@AT]). There is a linear map $\glosm{partial}{\partial}\colon\FL(S)^S\to\der_S$ which assigns to every $\lambda=(\lambda_a)_{a\in
S}\in\FL(S)^S$ the unique derivation $\partial_\lambda$ for which $\partial_\lambda(a)=[a,\lambda_a]$ for every $a\in
S$. The image of $\partial$ is a subalgebra of $\der_S$ denoted $\glosm{tder}{\tder}_S$ ($\glosm{attder}{\attder}_n$ in [@AT]); the elements of $\tder_S$ are called “tangential derivations”. The kernel of $\partial$ can be identified as the Abelian Lie algebra $\glosm{A}{A}_S$ generated by $S$ ($\glosm{fraka}{\fraka}_n$ in [@AT]), which is linearly embedded in $\FL(S)^S$ as the set of all sequences $\lambda\colon S\to\FL(S)$ for which $\lambda_a$ is a scalar multiple of $a$ for every $a\in S$. Thus we have a short exact sequence of vector spaces $$\label{eq:FLisAtder}
0 \rightarrow A_S\rightarrow \FL(S)^S\xrightarrow{\partial}
\tder_S\rightarrow 0.$$ The map $\FL(S)^S\ni\lambda=(\lambda_a)\mapsto\sum_a\langle\lambda_a,
a\rangle a\in A_S$, where $\langle\lambda_a, a\rangle$ is the coefficient of $a$ in $\lambda_a$ is a splitting of the above sequence, and hence $\FL(S)^S\simeq A_S\oplus\tder_S$ in a canonical manner.
There is a unique Lie bracket $\glosm{tb}{[\cdot,\cdot]_{tb}}$ (the “tangential bracket”) on $\FL(S)^S$ which makes a split exact sequence of Lie algebras, and hence $(\FL(S)^S,[,]_{tb})\simeq A_S\oplus\tder_S$ as Lie algebras. With $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denoting the ordinary direct-sum bracket on $\FL(S)^S$ and with the action of $\partial_\lambda$ extended to $\partial_\lambda\colon\FL(S)^S\to\FL(S)^S$ in the obvious manner, we have$$[\lambda_1,\lambda_2]_{tb}
=[\lambda_1,\lambda_2]
+\partial_{\lambda_1}\lambda_2
-\partial_{\lambda_2}\lambda_1.$$
The $\lambda\mapsto\partial_\lambda$ action of $(\FL(S)^S,[,]_{tb})$ on $\FL(S)$ extends to an action on the universal enveloping algebra of $\FL(S)$, the free associative algebra $\FA(S)$ on $S$ generators, and then descends to the vector-space quotient of $\FA(S)$ by commutators, namely to cyclic words. Leaving aside the empty word, we find that $(\FL(S)^S,[,]_{tb})$ acts on $\CW(S)$, and hence also on $\TW(S)$.
There are two ways to assign an automorphism of the free Lie algebra $\FL(S)$ to an element $\lambda\in\FL(S)^S$:
1. One may exponentiate the derivation $\partial_\lambda$ to get $e^{\partial_\lambda}\colon\FL(S)\to\FL(S)$.
2. One may define an automorphism $\glosm{C}{C^\lambda}\colon\FL(S)\to\FL(S)$ by setting its values on the generators by $C^\lambda(a)\coloneqq
e^{\lambda_a}ae^{-\lambda_a}=e^{\ad\lambda_a}a$. We denote the inverse of $C^\lambda$ by $\glosm{RC}{RC^{-\lambda}}$ and note that it is [*not*]{} $C^{-\lambda}$.
In [@AT], (1) corresponds to the presentation of elements of the automorphism group $\glosm{TAut}{\TAut_n}$ as exponentials of elements of its Lie algebra $\tder_n$, while (2) corresponds to its presentation in terms of “basis conjugating automorphisms” $x_i\mapsto g_i^{-1}x_ig_i$ where $g_i=e^{-\lambda_i}$. Compare with [@AT Section 5.1].
The following pair of propositions, which we could not find elsewhere, relates these two automorphisms:
\[prop:Gamma\] Given $\lambda\in\FL(S)^S$, let $t$ be a scalar-valued formal variable and let $\glosm{Gammat}{\Gamma_t(\lambda)}\in\FL(S)^S$ be the (unique) solution of the ordinary differential equation $$\label{eq:GammaODE}
\Gamma_0(\lambda)=0
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\frac{d\Gamma_t(\lambda)}{dt} = \lambda \act e^{-t\partial_\lambda}
\act \frac{\ad\Gamma_t(\lambda)}{e^{\ad\Gamma_t(\lambda)}-1}.$$
\[eq:Gamma\] & & e\^[-t\_]{}=C\^[\_t()]{}.&&
The two sides $L_t$ and $R_t$ of Equation are power-series perturbations of the identity automorphism of $\FL(S)$. More fully, $L_t$ can be written $L_t=\sum_{d\geq 0}t^dL(d)$ where $L(d)\colon\FL(S)\to\FL(S)$ raises degrees by at least $d$ (and so the sum converges), and where $L(0)$ is the identity. $R_t$ can be written in a similar way. We claim that it is enough to prove that $$\label{eq:AB}
A_t\coloneqq(\frac{dL_t}{dt})\act L_t^{-1}
= (\frac{dR_t}{dt})\act R_t^{-1} \eqqcolon B_t.$$ Indeed, if otherwise $L_t\neq R_t$, consider the minimal $d$ for which $L(d)\neq R(d)$. Then $d>0$ and the least-degree term in $A_t-B_t$ is the degree $d-1$ term, which equals $dt^{d-1}L(d)\act L_t^{-1} -
dt^{d-1}R(d)\act R_t^{-1} = dt^{d-1}(L(d)-R(d))\act L_t^{-1} \neq 0$ (the last equality is because $L_t^{-1}=R_t^{-1}$ to degree $d$), contradicting Equation . Note that in fact we have shown that if $A_t=B_t$ to degree $d$ in $t$, then Equation holds to degree $d+1$.
To compute $B_t$ we need the differential of $C^\mu$ (at $\mu=\Gamma_t(\lambda)$) and the chain rule. The differential of $C^\mu$ is quite difficult; fortunately, we have computed it in the case where $\mu=(u\to\gamma)$ is supported on just one $u\in S$, in [@KBH Lemma \[KBH-lem:dC\]]. Both the result and its proof generalize simply, and so we have $$\delta C^\mu = -\partial\left\{
\delta\mu \act \frac{e^{\ad\mu}-1}{\ad\mu} \act RC^{-\mu}
\right\}\act C^\mu,$$ where we have written $\partial\{\text{mess}\}$ instead of $\partial_{\text{mess}}$ because $\text{mess}$ is too big to fit as a subscript. Hence by the chain rule and then by Equation , $$B_t
= -\partial\left.\left\{
\frac{d\Gamma_t(\lambda)}{dt} \act \frac{e^{\ad\mu}-1}{\ad\mu} \act RC^{-\mu}
\right\}\right|_{\mu=\Gamma_t(\lambda)}
= -\partial\left\{
\lambda \act e^{-t\partial_\lambda} \act RC^{-\Gamma_t(\lambda)}
\right\}
= -\partial_{\lambda \act e^{-t\partial_\lambda} \act RC^{-\Gamma_t(\lambda)}}.$$ On the other hand, computing $A_t$ is a simple differentiation, and we get that $A_t=-\partial_\lambda$. Comparing with the line above, we find that if Equation holds to degree $d$, then Equation also holds to degree $d$. But then as we noted, holds to degree $d+1$. As Equation clearly holds at $t=0$, we find that it holds to all orders.
\[prop:Lambda\] As in the previous proposition, let $\glosm{Lambdat}{\Lambda_t(\lambda)}$ be the (unique) solution of $$\label{eq:LambdaODE}
\Lambda_0(\lambda)=0
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\frac{d\Lambda_t(\lambda)}{dt} =
\lambda \act e^{\partial_{\Lambda_t(\lambda)}}
\act \frac{\ad_{tb}\Lambda_t(\lambda)}{e^{\ad_{tb}\Lambda_t(\lambda)}-1}.$$
\[eq:Lambda\] & & C\^[t]{}=e\^[-\_[\_t()]{}]{}. &&
The proof of this proposition is very similar and not even a tiny bit nicer than the proof of the previous one. So we skip it and instead include a computer verification.
As special cases, we denote $\Gamma_1(\lambda)$ by $\glosm{Gamma}{\Gamma(\lambda)}$ and $\Lambda_1(\lambda)$ by $\glosm{Lambda}{\Lambda(\lambda)}$.
One special case of $C^\lambda$ deserves to be named:
\[def:CRC\] (Compare [@KBH Section \[KBH-subsec:FLSuccess\]]) Given $u\in
S$ and $\gamma\in\FL(S)$ let $\glosm{Cu}{C_u^{\gamma}}$ denote the automorphism of $\FL(S)$ defined by mapping the generator $u$ to its “conjugate” $e^{\gamma}ue^{-\gamma}=e^{-\ad\gamma}(u)$ (this is simply $C^\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the length $1$ sequence $(u\to\gamma)$). Let $\glosm{RCu}{RC_u^{-\gamma}}$ be the inverse of $C_u^{\gamma}$ (which is [*not*]{} $C_u^{-\gamma}$).
Last we define/recall a number of functionals $\FL(S)\to\CW(S)$:
\[def:j\] Let $\glosm{atdiv}{\atdiv}\colon\FL(S)\to\CW(S)$ be the Alekseev-Torossian “divergence” functional, as in [@AT Section 5.1], but extended by $0$ on $A_S$. In our language, $\atdiv\lambda=\sum_{u\in
S}\atdiv_u\lambda$. Let $\glosm{j}{j}\colon\FL(S)\to\CW(S)$ is the Alekseev-Torossian “logarithm of the Jacobian”: $j(\lambda) = \frac{e^{\partial_\lambda}-1}{\partial_\lambda}
(\atdiv\lambda)$.
Alekseev and Torossian prove in [@AT] that $j$ is the unique functional $j\colon\FL(S)\to\CW(S)$ satisfying the “cocycle condition” $j\left(\glosm{BCHtb}{\BCH_{tb}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\right) =
j(\lambda_1)+e^{\partial_{\lambda_1}}j(\lambda_2)$, where $\BCH_{tb}$ stands for the $\BCH$ formula using the tangential bracket $[\cdot,\cdot]_{tb}$ on $\FL(S)^S$: $$\BCH_{tb}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)
= \lambda_1+\lambda_1+\frac12[\lambda_1,\lambda_2]_{tb}
+\ldots,$$ and the “initial condition” $\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}j(\epsilon\lambda) =
\atdiv\lambda$.
El.tex
The factored presentation $E_f$ of $\calA^w_{\exp}$ and its stronger precursor $E_s$ {#subsec:Ef}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following [@KBH], in the “factored” presentation $E_f$ of $\calA^w_{\exp}$ arrow heads are treated separately from arrow tails in diagrams such as the one on the right. This presentation of $\calA^w_{\exp}$ is more complicated than the previous one, yet it is also more powerful, and in some sense, it is made of simpler ingredients. We first enlarge the collection of spaces $\{\calA^w(S)\}$ to a somewhat bigger collection $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$ on which a larger class of operations act. The new operations are more “atomic” than the old ones, in the sense that each of the operations of Definition \[def:Operations\] is a composition of 2-3 of the new operations. The advantage is that the new operations all have reasonably simple descriptions as operations on the group-like subsets $\{\calA^w_{\exp}(H;T)\}$ (the “split” presentation $E_s$ below), and hence even the few operations whose description in the $E_l$ presentation was omitted in Definition-Proposition \[dp:ElOps\] can be fully described and computed in the $E_f$ presentation.
A sketch of our route is as follows: In Section \[sssec:Family\], right below, we describe the spaces $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$. In Section \[sssec:AHTOperations\] we describe the zoo of operations acting on $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$. Section \[sssec:AHTExp\] is the tofu of the matter — we describe the operations of the previous section in terms of spaces $\{\TW_s(H;T)\}$ of trees and wheels, whose elements are in a bijection $E_s$ with the group like elements of $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$. Finally in Section \[sssec:Inclusion\] we explain how the system of spaces $\{\calA^w(S)\}$ includes into the system $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$ and how the operations of the former are expressed in terms of the latter, concluding the description of $E_f$.
### The family $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$ {#sssec:Family}
Let $\glosm{H}{H} = \{\glosm{h}{h_1},h_2,\ldots\}$ be some finite set of “head labels” and let $\glosm{T}{T} = \{\glosm{t}{t_1},t_2,\ldots\}$ be some finite set of “tail labels” (these sets need not be of the same cardinality). Let $\glosm{calAwHT}{\calA^w(H;T)}$ be $\calA^w({H\sqcup T})$ moded out by the following further relations:
In topology (see [@KBH]), head strands correspond to “hoops”, or based knotted circles, and tail strands correspond to balloons, or based knotted spheres. The two relations and the isomorphism above are also meaningful [@KBH].
In Lie theory head strands represent $\calU(\frakg)$ and tail strands represent the (right) Verma module $\calU(I\frakg)/\frakg\calU(I\frakg) \simeq \calU(\frakg^\ast) \simeq
\calS(\frakg^\ast)$. The evaluation $\frakg^\ast\to 0$ induces a surjection of $\calU(I\frakg)$ onto the first of these spaces whose kernel is “any word containing a letter in $\frakg^\ast$”, explaining the first relation above. The second relation is the definition of the Verma module.
### Operations on $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$. {#sssec:AHTOperations}
\[def:AHTOperations\] Just as in Definition \[def:Operations\], there are several operations that are defined on $\calA^w(H;T)$. In brief, these are:
1. A union operation $\glosm{htsqcup}{\sqcup}\colon \calA^w(H_1;T_1)
\otimes \calA^w(H_2;T_2) \to \calA^w(H_1\sqcup H_2;T_1\sqcup T_2)$, defined when $H_1\cap H_2=T_1\cap T_2=\emptyset$, with obvious topological (compare with “$\ast$” of [@KBH Figure \[KBH-fig:ConnectedSum\]]) and Lie theoretic meanings. (The symbol $\sqcup$ is sometimes omitted: $D_1D_2\coloneqq D_1\sqcup D_2$).
2. A “stacking” product $\glosm{jail}{\#}$ can be defined on $\calA^w(H;T)$ by stitching all pairs of equally-labelled head strands and then merging all pairs of equally-labelled tail strands in a pair of diagrams $D_1,D_2\in\calA^w(H;T)$. The “merging” of tail strands is described in more detail as the operation $tm$ below. In fact, it may be better to define $\#$ using a formula similar to Equation and the operations $hm$, $tm$, $h\sigma$, and $t\sigma$ defined below: $$\label{eq:AHTStacking}
D_1\#D_2 = \left(
D_1\sqcup\left(D_2
\act\prod_{x\in H}h\sigma^x_{\bar{x}}
\act\prod_{u\in T}t\sigma^u_{\bar{u}}
\right)
\right)
\act\prod_{x\in H}hm^{x\bar{x}}_x
\act\prod_{u\in T}tm^{u\bar{u}}_u.$$
In topology, $\#$ is the stitching of hoops followed by the merging of balloons; this is not the same as the stitching of knotted tubes. In Lie theory, $\#$ corresponds to the componentwise product of $\calU(\frakg)^{\otimes H}\otimes\calS(\frakg^\ast)^{\otimes T}$. Even when $H$ and $T$ are both singletons, this is not the same as the product of $\calU(I\frakg)$, even though linearly $\calU(I\frakg)\simeq\calU(\frakg)\otimes\calS(\frakg^\ast)$.
<!-- -->
1. If $\glosm{xinH}{x}\in H$ and $\glosm{uinT}{u}\in T$, the operations $\glosm{heta}{h\eta}^x$ and $\glosm{teta}{t\eta}^u$ drop the head-strand $x$ or the tail-strand $u$ similarly to the operation $d\eta^a$ of Definition \[def:Operations\].
2. $\glosm{hA}{hA}^x$ reverses the head-strand $x$ while multiplying by a $(-1)$ factor for every arrow head on $x$. $\glosm{tA}{tA}^u$ is the identity.
3. $\glosm{hS}{hS}^x=hA^x$ while $\glosm{tS}{tS}^u$ multiplies by a factor of $(-1)$ for every arrow tail on $u$ (by $TC$, there’s no need to reverse $u$).
4. The operation $\glosm{hm}{hm}^{xy}_z$ is defined similarly to $dm^{ab}_c$ of Definition \[def:Operations\]. Likewise for $\glosm{tm}{tm}^{uv}_w$, except in this case, the tail-strands $u$ and $v$ must first be cleared of all arrow-heads using the process of Comment \[com:PureForm\]. Once $u$ and $v$ carry only arrow-tails, all these tail can be put on a new tail-strand $w$ in some arbitrary order (which doesn’t matter, by $TC$). Note that $tm^{uv}_w=tm^{vu}_w$, so $tm$ is “meta-commutative”.
In topology, $tm^{uv}_w$ is the “merging of balloons” operation of [@KBH Section \[KBH-subsec:MMAOperations\]], which in itself is analogues to the (commutative) multiplication of $\pi_2$.
In Lie theory, $tm^{uv}_w$ is the product of $\calS(\frakg^\ast)$. Note that tail strands more closely represent the Verma module $\calU(I\frakg)/\frakg\calU(I\frakg)$ whose isomorphism with $\calS(\frakg^\ast)$ involves “sliding all $\frakg$-letters in a $\calU(I\frakg)$-word to the left and then cancelling them”. This is analogous to the process of cancelling arrow-heads which is a pre-requisite to the definition of $tm^{uv}_w$.
<!-- -->
1. $\glosm{hDelta}{h\Delta}^x_{yz}$ and $\glosm{tDelta}{t\Delta}^u_{vw}$ are defined similarly to $d\Delta^a_{bc}$.
2. $\glosm{hsigma}{h\sigma}^x_y$ and $\glosm{tsigma}{t\sigma}^u_v$ are defined similarly to $d\sigma^a_b$.
3. **New!** Given a tail $u\in T$, a “new” tail label $v\not\in T\remove u$ and a head $x\in H$ the operation $\glosm{thm}{thm}^{ux}_v\colon\calA^w(H;T)\to\calA^w(H\remove x;(T\remove
u)\sqcup\{v\})$ is the obvious “tail-strand head-strand stitching” — similarly to $dm^{ab}_c$, stitch the strand $u$ to the strand $x$ putting $u$ before $x$, and call the resulting “new” strand $v$. Note that for this to be well defined, $v$ must be a tail strand.
In practise, $thm^{ux}_v$ is never used on its own, but the combination $h\Delta^x_{xx'}\act thm^{ux'}_u$ (where $x'$ is a temporary label) is very useful. Hence we set $\glosm{tha}{tha}^{ux}\colon\calA^w(H;T)\to\calA^w(H;T)$ (“tail by head action on $u$ by $x$”) to be that combination. In words, this is “double the strand $x$ and put one of the copies on top of $u$”.
In topology, $tha$ is the action of hoops on balloons as in [@KBH Section \[KBH-subsec:MMAOperations\]], which is similar to the action of $\pi_1$ on $\pi_2$. In Lie theory, it is the right action of $\calU(\frakg)$ on the Verma module $\calU(I\frakg)/\frakg\calU(I\frakg)$, or better, the action of $\calU(\frakg)$ on $\calS(\frakg^\ast)$ induced from the co-adjoint action of $\frakg$ on $\frakg^\ast$.
In the cases when we did not state the topological or Lie theoretical meaning of an operation in Definition \[def:AHTOperations\], find what it is.
### Group-like elements in $\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$. {#sssec:AHTExp}
For any fixed finite sets $H$ and $T$ there is a co-product $\glosm{htBox}{\Box}\colon\calA^w(H;T)\otimes\calA^w(H;T)$ defined just as in the case of $\calA^w(S)$ (Definition \[def:GroupLike\]), and along with the product $\#$ (and obvious units and co-units), $\calA^w(H;T)$ is a graded connected co-commutative bi-algebra. Hence it makes sense to speak of the group-like elements $\glosm{AwHTexp}{\calA^w_{\exp}(H;T)}$ within $\calA^w(H;T)$, and they are all $\#$-exponentials of primitives in $\calA^w(H;T)$. The primitives $\glosm{AprimwHT}{\calA_{\text{prim}}^w(H;T)}$ in $\calA^w(H;T)$ are connected diagrams and hence they are trees and wheels. As in Comment \[com:PureForm\], the trees must have their roots on head strands and their leafs on tail strands, and the wheels must have all their “legs” on tail strands. As tails commute, we may think of the trees as abstract trees with leafs labelled by labels in $T$ and roots in $H$, and the wheels are abstract cyclic words with letters in $T$. Hence canonically $\calA_{\text{prim}}^w(H;T)\simeq\FL(T)^H\oplus\CW(T)$ and hence there is a bijection (called “the split presentation $E_s$”) $$\label{eq:EsHT}
\yellowm{E_s}\colon\yellowm{\TW_s(H;T)}\coloneqq\FL(T)^H\oplus\CW(T)
\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \calA^w_{\exp}(H;T)$$ defined on an ordered pair $\glosm{parens}{(\lambda;\,\omega)_s}$ in $\TW_s(H;T)$ by $$\label{eq:esHT}
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s\mapsto
\exp_\#\left(e_s(\lambda;\omega)\right),$$
where $\glosm{es}{e_s}(\lambda;\omega)_s$ is the sum over $x\in
H$ of planting $\lambda_x$ with its root on strand $x$ and its leafs on the strands in $T$ so that the labels match but at an arbitrary order on any $T$ strand, plus the result of planting $\omega$ on just the $T$ strands so that the labels match but at an arbitrary order on any $T$ strand. A pictorial representation of $E_s(\lambda;\,\omega)_s$, using the same visual language as in Figure \[fig:El\], appears on the right.
It is easy to verify that the operations in Definition \[def:AHTOperations\] intertwine $\Box$ and hence map group-like elements to group-like elements and hence they induce operations on $\TW_s(H;T)$. These are summarized within the following definition-proposition.
\[dp:EsOps\] The bijection $E_s$ intertwines the operations defined below with the operations in Definition \[def:AHTOperations\]:
1. $\ds
(\lambda_1;\,\omega_1)_s(\lambda_2;\,\omega_2)_s
= (\lambda_1;\,\omega_1)_s\glosm{ssqcup}{\sqcup}(\lambda_2;\,\omega_2)_s
\coloneqq (\lambda_1\sqcup\lambda_2;\,\omega_1+\omega_2)_s
$\[eq:EsCup\]
2. $\ds
(\lambda_1;\,\omega_1)_s\glosm{sjail}{\#}(\lambda_2;\,\omega_2)_s
\coloneqq \left(
(x\to\BCH(\lambda_{1x},\lambda_{2x}))_{x\in H}
;\,
\omega_1+\omega_2
\right)_s
$\[eq:EsProduct\]
3. $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{sheta}{h\eta}^x
\coloneqq (\lambda\remove x;\,\omega)_s
$\[eq:EshEta\] $\ds (\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{steta}{t\eta}^u
\coloneqq (\lambda\act(u\to 0) ;\, \omega\act(u\to 0))_s
$\[eq:EstEta\]
4. $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{shA}{hA}^x
\coloneqq ((\lambda\remove x)\sqcup(x\to-\lambda_x) ;\, \omega)_s
$\[eq:EshA\] $\ds \glosm{stA}{tA}^u \coloneqq I $\[eq:EstA\]
5. $\ds \glosm{shS}{hS}^x\coloneqq hA^x,$\[eq:EshS\] $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{stS}{tS}^u
\coloneqq (\lambda\act(u\to -u) ;\, \omega\act(u\to -u))_s
$\[eq:EstS\]
6. $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{shm}{hm}^{xy}_z
\coloneqq ((\lambda\remove\{x,y\})\sqcup(z\to\BCH(\lambda_x, \lambda_y));\,\omega)_s
$\[eq:Eshm\] $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{stm}{tm}^{uv}_w
\coloneqq (\lambda\act(u,v\to w) ;\, \omega\act(u,v\to w))_s
$\[eq:Estm\]
7. $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{shDelta}{h\Delta}^x_{yz}
\coloneqq ((\lambda\remove x)\sqcup(y\to\lambda_x, z\to\lambda_x);\,\omega)_s
$\[eq:EshDelta\] $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{stDelta}{t\Delta}^u_{vw}
\coloneqq (\lambda\act(u\to v+w) ;\, \omega\act(u\to v+w))_s
$\[eq:EstDelta\]
8. $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{shsigma}{h\sigma}^x_y
\coloneqq ((\lambda\remove x)\sqcup(y\to\lambda_x);\,\omega)_s
$\[eq:EshSigma\] $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{stsigma}{t\sigma}^u_v
\coloneqq (\lambda\act(u\to v) ;\, \omega\act(u\to v))_s
$\[eq:EstSigma\]
9. $\ds
(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act \glosm{stha}{tha}^{ux}
\coloneqq \left(
\lambda \act RC_u^{\lambda_x} ;\,
(\omega+J_u(\lambda_x))\act RC_u^{\lambda_x}
\right)_s.
$\[eq:Estha\]
[*Proof.*]{} The first 8 assertions (14 operations) are very easy. The main challenge to the reader should be to gather her concentration for the 14-times repetitive task of unwrapping definitions. If you are ready to cut corners, only go over , , , , and . Let us turn to the proof of the last assertion, Equation . That proof is in fact in [@KBH], or at least can be assembled from pieces already in [@KBH]. Yet the assembly would be a bit delicate, and hence a proof is reproduced below which refers back to [@KBH] only at one technical point.
By inspecting the definition of $tha^{ux}$, it is clear that there is [*some*]{} assignment $\gamma\mapsto R_u^\gamma$ that assigns an operator $R_u^\gamma\colon\FL(T)\to\FL(T)$ to every $\gamma\in\FL(T)$ and that there is [*some*]{} functional $K_u\colon\FL(T)\to\CW(T)$, for which a version of Equation holds:
$$\label{eq:Esthap}
E_s(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \act tha^{ux}
= E_s\left(
\lambda \act R_u^{\lambda_x} ;\,
(\omega+K_u(\lambda_x))\act R_u^{\lambda_x}
\right)_s$$
Indeed, $tha^{ux}$ acts on $E_s(\lambda;\,\omega)_s$ by placing a copy of $\exp(\lambda_x)$ at the top of the tail strand $u$, and then re-writing the result without having any heads on strand $u$ so as to invert $E_s$ back again. The re-writing is done by sliding the heads of $\exp(\lambda_x)$ down to the bottom of strand $u$, where they cancel by $CP$. Every time a head slides past a tail we get a contribution from $\aSTU_2$. Sometimes a head of a $\lambda_x$ will slide against a tail of another $\lambda_x$, whose head will have to slide down too, leading to a rather complicated iterative process. Nevertheless, these contributions are the same for every tail on strand $u$, namely for every occurrence of the variable $u$ in $\FL(T)^H$ and/or in $\CW(T)$. This explains the terms $\lambda \act R_u^{\lambda_x}$ and $\omega \act R_u^{\lambda_x}$ in Equation . We note that the degree $0$ part of the operator $R_u^{\lambda_x}$ is the identity, and hence it is invertible.
But yet another type of term arises in the process — sometimes a head of some tree will slide against a tail of its own, and then the contribution arising from $\aSTU_2$ will be a wheel. Hence there is an additional contribution to the output, some $L_u(\lambda_x)$ which clearly can depend only on $u$ and $\lambda_x$. Using the invertibility of $R_u^{\lambda_x}$ to write $L_u(\lambda_x)=K_u(\lambda_x)\act R_u^{\lambda_x}$ we completely reproduce Equation .
We now need to show that $R_u^\gamma$ and $K_u(\gamma)$ are $RC_u^\gamma$ and $J_u(\gamma)$ of Definitions \[def:CRC\] and \[def:J\]. Tracing again through the discussion in the previous two paragraphs, we see that at any fixed degree, $R_u^\gamma$ and $K_u(\gamma)$ depend polynomially on the coefficients of $\gamma$, and hence it is legitimate to study their variation with respect to $\gamma$. It is also easy to verify that $R_u^0=RC_u^0=I$ and that $K_u(0)=J_u(0)=0$, and hence it is enough to show that, with an indeterminate scalar $\tau$, $$\label{eq:DerEqns}
\frac{d}{d\tau}R_u^{\tau\gamma}=\frac{d}{d\tau}RC_u^{\tau\gamma}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\frac{d}{d\tau}K_u(\tau\gamma)=\frac{d}{d\tau}J_u(\tau\gamma).$$
Let us compute the left-hand-sides of the above equations. If $\tau$ is an infinitesimal (so $\tau^2=0$), or more precisely, computing the above left-hand-sides at $\tau=0$, we can re-trace the process described in the two paragraphs following Equation keeping in mind that with $\lambda_x=\tau\gamma$ the $\aSTU_2$ relation can only by applied once (or else terms proportional to $\tau^2$ will arise). The result is $$\label{eq:DersAtZero}
\left.\frac{d}{d\tau}R_u^{\tau\gamma}\right|_{\tau=0}
= \ad_u^\gamma
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\left.\frac{d}{d\tau}K_u(\tau\gamma)\right|_{\tau=0}
= \atdiv_u(\gamma),$$ where $\glosm{adugamma}{\ad_u^\gamma}\colon\FL(T)\to\FL(T)$ is the derivation which maps the generator $u$ of $\FL(T)$ to $[\gamma,u]$ and annihilates all other generators of $\FL(T)$ (compare [@KBH Definition \[KBH-def:adu\]]) and where $\atdiv_u(\gamma)$ is the same as in Definition \[def:J\].
Moving on to general $\tau$, we note that the operations $hm$ and $tha$ satisfy $$\label{eq:haction}
hm^{xy}_z\act tha^{uz}=tha^{ux}\act tha^{uy}\act hm^{xy}_z$$ (stitching strands $x$ and $y$ and then stitching a copy of the result to $u$ is the same as stitching a copy of $x$ to $u$, then a copy of $y$, and then stitching $x$ to $y$; compare [@KBH Equation ]). Applying the operators on the two sides of Equation to $E_s(\lambda;\,\omega)$ (assuming $H$ and $T$ are such that it makes sense), then expanding using and , and then ignoring the wheels in the resulting equality, we find that $R_u$ satisfies $$\label{eq:Rh}
R_u^{\BCH(\lambda_x,\lambda_y)}
= R_u^{\lambda_x}\act R_u^{\lambda_y\act R_u^{\lambda_x}}$$ (compare [@KBH Equation ]). Similarly, looking only at the wheel part of we get $$K_u(\BCH(\lambda_x,\lambda_y))\act R_u^{\BCH(\lambda_x,\lambda_y)}
= K_u(\lambda_x)\act
R_u^{\lambda_x}\act R_u^{\lambda_y\act R_u^{\lambda_x}}
+ K_u(\lambda_y\act R_u^{\lambda_x})\act
R_u^{\lambda_y\act R_u^{\lambda_x}},$$ which, composing on the right with $R_u^{\BCH(\lambda_x,\lambda_y)}$ and using , is equivalent to $$\label{eq:Kh}
K_u(\BCH(\lambda_x,\lambda_y))
= K_u(\lambda_x)\act R_u^{\lambda_x}
+ K_u(\lambda_y\act R_u^{\lambda_x})\act C_u^{-\lambda_x}$$ (compare [@KBH Equation ]).
Equations and hold for any $\lambda$, and hence for any $\lambda_x$ and $\lambda_y$. Specializing to $\lambda_x=\tau\gamma$ and $\lambda_y=\epsilon\gamma$, where $\epsilon$ is some new indeterminate scalar, and using the fact that $\BCH(\tau\gamma,\epsilon\gamma) = (\tau+\epsilon)\gamma$, Equations and become $$R_u^{(\tau+\epsilon)\gamma}
= R_u^{\tau\gamma}\act R_u^{\epsilon\gamma\act R_u^{\tau\gamma}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
K_u((\tau+\epsilon)\gamma)
= K_u(\tau\gamma)\act R_u^{\tau\gamma}
+ K_u(\epsilon\gamma\act R_u^{\tau\gamma})\act C_u^{-\tau\gamma}.$$ Now differentiating with respect to $\epsilon$ at $\epsilon=0$ and using Equation with $\tau$ replaced with $\epsilon$, we get $$\frac{d}{d\tau}R_u^{\tau\gamma}
= R_u^{\tau\gamma}\act\ad_u^{\gamma\act R_u^{\tau\gamma}}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\frac{d}{d\tau}K_u(\tau\gamma)
= \atdiv_u(\gamma\act R_u^{\tau\gamma})\act C_u^{-\tau\gamma}.$$
The first of these equations is the same equation that is satisfied by $RC_u$ (see [@KBH Lemma \[KBH-lem:dC\]], with $\delta\gamma$ proportional to $\gamma$), and hence $R_u=RC_u$. By a simple change of variables, $J_u(\tau\gamma)=\int_0^\tau dt\,\atdiv_u\!\left(
\gamma \sslash RC_u^{t\gamma} \right) \sslash C_u^{-t\gamma}$, and hence $\frac{d}{d\tau}J_u(\tau\gamma) = \atdiv_u(\gamma\act
RC_u^{\tau\gamma})\act C_u^{-\tau\gamma}$ (compare with the formula for the full differential of $J$, [@KBH Proposition \[KBH-prop:dJ\]]). Comparing with the above formula for the derivative of $K_u$, we find that $K_u=J_u$.
### The inclusion $\{\calA^w(S)\} \hookrightarrow
\{\calA^w(H;T)\}$. {#sssec:Inclusion}
The following definition and proposition imply that there is no loss in studying the spaces $\calA^w(H;T)$ rather than the spaces $\calA^w(S)$.
Let $\glosm{delta}{\delta}\colon\calA^w(S)\to\calA^w(S;S)$ be the composition of the “double every strand” map $\prod_{a\in S}\Delta^a_{ha,ta} \colon \calA^w(S)
\to \calA^w({hS\sqcup tS})$ with the projection $\calA^w({hS\sqcup tS})\to\calA^w(S;S)$ (as an exception to the rule of Footnote \[foot:BruteDisjoint\] we temporarily highlight the distinction between head and tail labels by affixing them with the prefixes $h$ and $t$).
$\delta$ is a (non-multiplicative) vector space isomorphism. The inverse of $\delta$ on $D\in\calA^w(S;S)$ is given by the process
1. Write $D$ with only arrow heads on the head strands and only arrow tails on the tail strands. By Comment \[com:PureForm\] this produces a well-defined element $D'$ of $\calA^w({hS\sqcup tS})$.
2. Stitch all the head-tail pairs of strands in $D'$ by putting each head ahead of its corresponding tail: $\delta^{-1}D =
D'\act\prod_a dm^{ha,ta}_a$.
$\delta^{-1}\act\delta=I$ by inspection, and $\delta\act\delta^{-1}$ is clearly the identity on diagrams sorted to have heads ahead of tails as in Comment \[com:SortedForm\].
In topology, $\delta$ agrees with the $\delta$ of [@KBH Section \[KBH-subsec:delta\]]. In Lie theory, it agrees with the linear (non-multiplicative) isomorphism $\calU(I\frakg)\simeq\calU(\frakg)\otimes\calS(\frakg^\ast)$ and with similar isomorphisms considered by Etingof and Kazhdan within their work on the quantization of Lie bialgebras [@EtingofKazhdan:BialgebrasI] (albeit only when the Lie bialgebras in question are cocommutative).
The product $\#$ of $\calA^w(S;S)$ induces a new product, also denoted $\glosm{wjail}{\#}$, on $\calA^w(S)$. If $D_1$ and $D_2$ are in $\calA^w(S)$, set $$\label{eq:FProduct}
D_1\#D_2\coloneqq(\delta(D_1)\#\delta(D_2))\act\delta^{-1}.$$
See the comments following Discussion \[disc:WhyTwo\].
The next proposition shows how the operations of defined on the $\calA^w(S)$-spaces in Definition \[def:Operations\] can be written in terms of the “head and tail” operations of Definition \[def:AHTOperations\], thus completing the description of the $E_s$ presentation.
\[prop:dinht\]
\[it:HTsqcup\] If $S_1$ and $S_2$ are disjoint and $D_1\in\calA^w({S_1})$ and $D_2\in\calA^w({S_2})$, then $\delta(D_1\sqcup D_2)=\delta(D_1)\sqcup\delta(D_2)$.
\[it:HTStacking\] Let $D_1,D_2\in\calA^w(S)$. Then $\delta(D_1D_2)$ can be written in terms of $\delta(D_1)$ and $\delta(D_2)$ using its description in terms of $\sqcup$, $d\sigma$, and $dm$ in Equation and using the formulas for $\sqcup$, $d\sigma$, and $dm$ that appear in parts (\[it:HTsqcup\]), (\[it:HTsigma\]), and (\[it:HTdm\]) of this proposition.
[2]{}
$d\eta^a\act\delta = \delta\act h\eta^a\act t\eta^a$.
\[it:HTdA\] $\dA^a \act \delta = \delta \act hA^a \act tA^a\act tha^{aa}$.
\[it:HTdS\] $\dS^a \act \delta = \delta \act hS^a \act tS^a\act tha^{aa}$.
\[it:HTdm\] $dm^{ab}_c \act \delta = \delta \act tha^{ab} \act hm^{ab}_c \act
tm^{ab}_c$.
$d\Delta^a_{bc} \act \delta =
\delta \act h\Delta^a_{bc} \act t\Delta^a_{bc}$.
\[it:HTsigma\] $d\sigma^a_b \act \delta = \delta \act
h\sigma^a_b \act t\sigma^a_b$.
The only difficulty is with items [*(\[it:HTdA\])*]{}–[*(\[it:HTdm\])*]{}. Item [*(\[it:HTdA\])*]{} is easier to understand in the form $\delta^{-1}\act \dA^a= hA^a \act
tA^a\act tha^{aa}\act\delta^{-1}$. Indeed, $\delta^{-1}$ plants heads ahead of tails on strand $a$. Applying $\dA^a$ reverses that strand (and adds some signs). This reversal can be achieved by reversing the head part (with signs), then the tail part (with signs), and then by swapping the two parts across each other. The first reversal is $hA^a$, the second is $tA^a$, and the swap is $tha^{aa}$ followed by $\delta^{-1}$. Item [*(\[it:HTdS\])*]{} is proven in exactly the same way, and item [*(\[it:HTdm\])*]{} is proven in a similar way, where the right hand side traces the schematics $(ha\,ta\,hb\,tb)\xrightarrow{tha}(ha\,hb\,ta\,tb)\xrightarrow{hm\act
tm}((ha\,hb)(ta\,tb))$.
\[disc:coalg\] It is easy to verify that $\delta\colon \calA^w(S) \to \calA^w(S;\,S)$ is a co-algebra morphism, and hence it restricts to an isomorphism $\delta\colon
{\calA^w_{\exp}(S)} \to \calA^w_{\exp}(S;\,S)$. Therefore $E_s\act\delta^{-1}$ is a bijection between $\TW_s(S)\coloneqq\TW_s(S;S)$ and $\calA^w_{\exp}(S)$. Proposition \[prop:dinht\] now tells us how to write all the “$d$” operations of Definition \[def:Operations\] as compositions of “$h$” and “$t$” operations, and Definition-Proposition \[dp:EsOps\] tells us how to write these as operations on $\TW_s(H;T)$ (the $H$ and $T$ label sets that occur here are always $S$ with one or two labels added or removed). Hence overall $E_s\act\delta^{-1}$, acting on $\TW_s(S)$, is a complete presentation of $\calA^w_{\exp}(S)$.
@space@setup[ @preskip=0cm plus 0cm minus 0cm ]{}
The “factored” presentation $\glosm{Ef}{E_f}$ of $\calA^w_{\exp}$ is the composition ${E_f\coloneqq
E_s\act\delta^{-1}}$. Namely, for a set $S$ of strands, we define $
E_f\colon\TW_s(S)
\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \calA^w_{\exp}(S)
$ by $(\lambda;\,\omega)_s\mapsto
E_s(\lambda;\,\omega)_s\act\delta^{-1}
= \exp_\#\left(l\lambda + \iota\omega\right)
$. See the illustration on the right.
Converting between the $E_l$ and the $E_f$ presentations. {#subsec:Conversion}
---------------------------------------------------------
We now have two presentations for elements of $\calA^w_{\exp}(S)$, and we wish to be able to convert between the two. This turns out to involve the maps $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ of Propositions \[prop:Gamma\] and \[prop:Lambda\].
Define a pair of inverse maps $\glosm{TWGamma}{\Gamma}\colon\TW_l(S)\to\TW_s(S)$ and $\glosm{TWLambda}{\Lambda}\colon\TW_s(S)\to\TW_l(S)$ by $$\Gamma\colon(\lambda;\,\omega)_l \mapsto (\Gamma(\lambda);\,\omega)_s
\quad\text{and}\quad
\Lambda\colon(\lambda;\,\omega)_s \mapsto (\Lambda(\lambda);\,\omega)_l.$$
\[thm:GammaLambda\] The left-most triangle in Figure \[fig:diagram\] commutes. Namely, $$\label{eq:convertion}
E_l = \Gamma \act E_f
\quad\text{and}\quad
E_f = \Lambda \act E_l.$$ (All other parts of Figure \[fig:diagram\] commute by definition).
Before we can prove this theorem we need a few preliminaries. For an element $D\in{\calA^w_{\exp}(S)}$, we can define three associated quantities:
The projection of $D$ to the degree 1 part of $\calA^w(S)$, and especially, the projection $\glosm{piA}{\pi_A}(D)$ of the degree $1$ part to its “framing” part $A_S$ (consisting of self-arrows, that begin and end on the same strand and point, say, up).
A conjugation automorphism $C_D$ of $\FL(S)$, defined as follows. First, embed $\FL(S)$ into $\calA^w({S\sqcup\{\infty\}})$ by mapping any generator $a\in S$ to a degree 1 diagram in ${\calA^w({S\sqcup\{\infty\}})}$, the arrow whose tail is on strand $a$ and whose head is on the new “$\infty$” strand and extending in a bracket-preserving way, using the commutator of the stacking product as the bracket on $\calA^w({S\sqcup\{\infty\}})$. Then note that $\FL(S)\subset\calA^w({S\sqcup\{\infty\}})$ is invariant under conjugation by $D$ and let $C_D$ denote this conjugation action.
This is a direct analog of the Artin action of the pure braid groups $\PuB_n$ / $\PwB_n$ on the free group $\FG(n)$.
$\glosm{pidowncap}{\pi_{\!\downcap}}(D)$ is the result of adding a bullet at the bottom of every strand of $D$, in the same sense as in Section \[sssec:Family\]. Equivalently, $\pi_{\!\downcap}=\delta\act\prod_{a\in S}h\eta^a$ is the composition of $\delta$ with “delete all head strands”. The target space of $\pi_{\!\downcap}$ is $\calA^w(\emptyset;S)$, which is the symmetric algebra $\calS(\CW(S))$ generated by wheels.
$D$ is determined by the above three quantities $\pi_A(D)$, $C_D$, and $\pi_{\!\downcap}(D)$.
As in Section \[subsec:AT\], every $D\in\calA^w_{\exp}(S)$ can be written uniquely in the form $D=e^{l\lambda} e^{\iota\omega}$, where $\lambda\in\FL(S)^S$ and $\omega\in\CW(S)$. One may easily verify that $\pi_{\!\downcap}(D)$ is $\omega$, that $C_D$ is the exponential of the derivation in $\tder_S$ corresponding to $\lambda$, and that $\pi_A(D)$ determines the part of $\lambda$ lost by the projection $\FL(S)^S\to\tder_S$.
[*Proof of Theorem \[thm:GammaLambda\].*]{} For $\lambda\in\FL(S)^S$ let $\lambda'=\Gamma(\lambda)$. Comparing Figures \[fig:El\] and \[fig:Ef\], we find that the $\omega$ parts drop out and we need to prove, schematically, that in $\calA^w_{\exp}(S)$, $$\PandocStartInclude{figs/ElEf.pstex_t}\PandocEndInclude{input}{1660}{29}$$ A simple degree 1 calculation shows that $\pi_A(A)=\pi_A(B)=0$. The CP relation of Section \[sssec:Family\] shows that $\pi_{\!\downcap}(A)=\pi_{\!\downcap}(B)=0$. Finally, it is easy to verify that $C_A=e^{-\partial_\lambda}$ while $C_B=C^{\lambda'}$, and hence $C_A=C_B$ follows from Proposition \[prop:Gamma\].
comp.tex
glossary.tex refs.tex
y
Everything below is to be blanked out before the completion of this paper. recycling.tex ToDo.tex
[^1]: This work was partially supported by NSERC grant RGPIN 262178.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Generating text from graph-based data, such as Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR), is a challenging task due to the inherent difficulty in how to properly encode the structure of a graph with labeled edges. To address this difficulty, we propose a novel model that encodes different but complementary perspectives of the structural information contained in the AMR graph. The model learns parallel top-down and bottom-up representations of nodes capturing contrasting views of the graph. We also investigate the use of different node message passing strategies, employing different state-of-the-art graph encoders to compute node representations based on incoming and outgoing perspectives. In our experiments, we demonstrate that the dual graph representation leads to improvements in generation, achieving state-of-the-art results on two AMR datasets[[^1]]{}.'
author:
- |
Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro$^{\dag}$, Claire Gardent$^{\ddag}$ and Iryna Gurevych$^{\dag}$\
\
$^{\dag}$Research Training Group AIPHES and UKP Lab, Technische Universität Darmstadt\
`www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de`\
$^{\ddag}$CNRS/LORIA, Nancy, France\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'emnlp-ijcnlp-2019.bib'
title: 'Enhancing AMR-to-Text Generation with Dual Graph Representations'
---
Introduction
============
Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR; @banarescu-etal-2013-abstract) is a linguistically-grounded semantic formalism that represents the meaning of a sentence as a rooted directed graph, where nodes are concepts and edges are semantic relations. As AMR abstracts away from surface word strings and syntactic structure producing a language neutral representation of meaning, its usage is beneficial in many semantic related NLP tasks, including text summarization [@liao-etal-2018-abstract] and machine translation [@song-etal-2019-semantic].
The purpose of generation is to produce a text which verbalises the meaning encoded by an input AMR graph. This is a challenging task as capturing the complex structural information stored in graph-based data is not trivial, as these are non-Euclidean structures, which implies that properties such as global parametrization, vector space structure, or shift-invariance do not hold [@geometric_deeplearning]. Recently, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have emerged as a powerful class of methods for learning effective graph latent representations [@xu2018how] and models have been applied to the task of generation [@song-etal-acl2018; @beck-etal-2018-acl2018; @damonte_naacl18; @dcgcnforgraph2seq19guo]. In this paper, we propose a novel graph-to-sequence approach to AMR-to-text generation, which is inspired by pre-neural generation algorithms. These approaches explored alternative (top-down, bottom-up and mixed) traversals of the input graph and showed that a hybrid traversal combining both top-down (TD) and bottom-up (BU) information was best as this permits integrating both global constraints top-down from the input and local constraints bottom-up from the semantic heads [@shieber1990semantic; @narayan-gardent-2012-structure].
Similarly, we present an approach where the input graph is represented by two separate structures, each representing a different view of the graph. The nodes of these two structures are encoded using separate graph encoders so that each concept and relation in the input graph is assigned both a TD and a BU representation.
Our approach markedly differs from existing models for MR-to-Text generation [@marcheggiani-icnl18; @beck-etal-2018-acl2018; @damonte_naacl18] in that these approaches aggregate all the immediate neighborhood information of a node in a single representation. By exploiting parallel and complementary vector representations of the AMR graph, our approach eases the burden on the neural model in encoding nodes (concepts) and edges (relations) in a single vector representation. It also eliminates the need for additional positional information [@beck-etal-2018-acl2018] which is required when the same graph is used to encode both TD and BU information, thereby making the edges undirected.
Our main contributions are the following:
- We present a novel architecture for generation which explicitly encodes two separate TD and BU views of the input graph.
- We show that our approach outperforms recent generation models on two datasets, including a model that leverages additional syntactic information [@cao_naacl19].
- We compare the performance of three graph encoders, which have not been studied so far for generation.
Related Work
============
Early works on generation employ statistical methods [@flanigan-etal-2016-generation; @pourdamghani-etal-2016-generating; @castro-ferreira-etal-2017-linguistic] and apply linearization of the graph by means of a depth-first traversal.
Recent neural approaches have exhibited success by linearising the input graph and using a sequence-to-sequence architecture. @konsas_17 achieve promising results on this task. However, they strongly rely on named entities anonymisation. Anonymisation requires an ad hoc procedure for each new corpus. The matching procedure needs to match a rare input item correctly (e.g., “United States of America”) with the corresponding part in the output text (e.g., “USA”) which may be challenging and may result in incorrect or incomplete delexicalisations. In contrast, our approach omits anonymisation. Instead, we use a copy mechanism [@see-etal-2017-get], a generic technique which is easy to integrate in the encoder-decoder framework and can be used independently of the particular domain and application. Our approach further differs from @konsas_17 in that we build a dual TD/BU graph representation and use graph encoders to represent nodes.
@cao_naacl19 factor the generation process leveraging syntactic information to improve the performance. However, they linearize both AMR and constituency graphs, which implies that important parts of the graphs cannot well be represented (e.g., coreference).
Several models have been proposed. @marcheggiani-icnl18 show that explicitly encoding the structure of the graph is beneficial with respect to sequential encoding. They evaluate their model on two tasks, WebNLG [@gardent-etal-2017-webnlg] and SR11Deep [@belz-etal-2011-first], but do not apply it to AMR benchmarks. @song-etal-acl2018 and @beck-etal-2018-acl2018 apply recurrent neural networks to directly encode AMR graphs. @song-etal-acl2018 use a graph LSTM as the graph encoder, whereas @beck-etal-2018-acl2018 develop a model based on GRUs. We go a step further in that direction by developing parallel encodings of graphs which are able to highlight different graph properties.
In a related task, @rik_naacl19 propose an attention-based graph model that generates sentences from knowledge graphs. @Schlichtkrull2018ModelingRD use Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) to tackle the tasks of link prediction and entity classification on knowledge graphs.
@damonte_naacl18 show that off-the-shelf GCNs cannot achieve good performance for generation. To tackle this issue, @dcgcnforgraph2seq19guo introduce dense connectivity to GNNs in order to integrate both local and global features, achieving good results on the task. Our work is related to @damonte_naacl18, that use stacking of GCN and LSTM layers to improve the model capacity and employ anonymization. However, our model is substantially different: (i) we learn dual representations capturing top-down and bottom-up adjuvant views of the graph, (ii) we employ more effective graph encoders (with different neighborhood aggregations) than GCNs and (iii) we employ copy and coverage mechanisms and do not resort to entity anonymization.
{width="100.00000%"}
Graph-to-Sequence Model
=======================
In this section, we describe (i) the representations of the graph adopted as inputs, (ii) the model architecture, including the Dual Graph Encoder and (iii) the GNNs employed as graph encoders.
Graph Preparation
-----------------
Let $G = (V, E, R)$ denote a rooted and directed AMR graph with nodes $v_i \in V$ and labeled edges $ (v_i, r, v_j) \in E$, where $r \in R$ is a relation type. Let $n = |V|$ and $m = |E|$ denote the numbers of nodes and edges, respectively.
We convert each AMR graph into an unlabeled and connected bipartite graph $G_t = (V_t, E_t)$, transforming each labeled edge $(v_i, r, v_j) \in E$ into two unlabeled edges $(v_i, r) , (r, v_j) \in E_t$, with $|V_t| = n + m $ and $|E_t| = 2m $. This process, called Levi Transformation [@beck-etal-2018-acl2018], turns original edges into nodes creating an unlabeled graph. For instance, the edge between [semester]{} and [that]{} with label [:mod]{} in Figure \[fig:rep\_graphs\](b) is replaced by two edges and one node in \[fig:rep\_graphs\](c): an edge between [semester]{}, and the new node [:mod]{} and another one between [:mod]{} and [that]{}. The new graph allows us to directly represent the relationships between nodes using embeddings. This enables us to encode label edge information using distinct message passing schemes employing different GNNs.
$G_t$ captures a TD view of the graph. We also create a BU view of the graph $G_b = (V_t, E_b)$, where each directed edge $e_k = (v_i, v_j) \in E_t$ becomes $e_k = (v_j, v_i) \in E_b$, that is, we reverse the direction of original edges. An example of a sentence, its AMR graph and the two new graphs $G_t$ and $G_b$ is shown in Figure \[fig:rep\_graphs\].
Dual Graph Encoder
------------------
We represent each node $v_i \in V_t$ with a node embedding $\mathbf{e}_i \in \mathbb{R}^d$, generated from the node label. In order to explicitly encode structural information, our encoder starts with two graph encoders, denoted by $GE_{t}$ and $GE_{b}$, that compute representations for nodes in $G_t$ and $G_b$, respectively.
Each $GE$ learns node representations based on the specific view of its particular graph, $G_t$ or $G_b$. Since $G_t$ and $G_b$ capture distinct perspectives of the graph structure, the information flow is propagated throughout TD and BU directions, respectively. In particular, for each node $v_i$, the $GE$ receives the node embeddings of $v_i$ and its neighbors, and computes its node representation: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}^{t}_i = GE_{t}(\{ \mathbf{e}_i, \mathbf{e}_j : j \in \mathcal{N}_t(i) \}), \\
\mathbf{h}^{b}_i = GE_{b}(\{ \mathbf{e}_i, \mathbf{e}_j : j \in \mathcal{N}_b(i) \}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{N}_t(i)$ and $\mathcal{N}_b(i)$ are the immediate incoming neighborhoods of $v_i$ in $G_t$ and $G_b$, respectively. Each node $v_i$ is represented by two different hidden states, $\mathbf{h}^{t}_i$ and $\mathbf{h}^{b}_i$. Note that we learn two representations per relation and node of the original AMR graph. The hidden states $\mathbf{h}^{t}_i$ and $\mathbf{h}^{b}_i$, and embedding $\mathbf{e}_i$ contain different information regarding $v_i$. We concatenate them building a final node representation: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{r}_i = \big[ \, \mathbf{h}^{t}_i \, \Vert \, \mathbf{h}^{b}_i \, \Vert \, \mathbf{e}_i \, \big].\end{aligned}$$ This approach is similar to bidirectional RNNs [@Schuster97bidirectionalrecurrent]. Bidirectional RNNs benefit from left-to-right and right-to-left propagation. They learn the hidden representations separately and concatenate them at the end. We perform a similar encoding: first we learn TD and BU representations independently, and lastly, we concatenate them.
The final representation $\mathbf{r}_i$ is employed in a sequence input of a bidirectional LSTM. For each AMR graph, we generate a node sequence by depth-first traversal order. In particular, given a representation sequence from $\mathbf{r}_1$ to $\mathbf{r}_n$, the hidden forward and backward states of $\mathbf{r}_i$ are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\overrightarrow{\mathbf{h}}_i = \mathit{LSTM}_f(\mathbf{r}_i, \overrightarrow{\mathbf{h}}_{i-1}), \\
\overleftarrow{\mathbf{h}}_i = \mathit{LSTM}_b(\mathbf{r}_i, \overleftarrow{\mathbf{h}}_{i-1}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathit{LSTM}_f$ is a forward LSTM and $\mathit{LSTM}_b$ is a backward LSTM. Note that, for the backward LSTM, we feed the reversed input as the order from $\mathbf{r}_n$ to $\mathbf{r}_1$. Lastly, we obtain the final hidden state by concatenating them as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}_i = [ \overrightarrow{\mathbf{h}}_i \, \Vert \, \overleftarrow{\mathbf{h}}_i ].\end{aligned}$$ The resulting hidden state $\mathbf{h}_i$ encodes the information of both preceding and following nodes.
Stacking layers was demonstrated to be effective in approaches [@marcheggiani-icnl18; @rik_naacl19; @damonte_naacl18] and allows us to test for their contributions to the system performance more easily. We employ different GNNs for both graph encoders (Section \[sec:gnn\]). Figure \[fig:encoder\] shows the proposed encoder architecture.
![Dual Graph Encoder. The encoder receives the two graph views and generates structural node representations that are used by the decoder. Representations in blue, yellow and orange are $\mathbf{e}_i$, $\mathbf{h}^t_i$ and $\mathbf{h}^b_i$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:encoder"}](images/encoder.png){width=".3\textwidth"}
Graph Neural Networks {#sec:gnn}
---------------------
The $GE$s incorporate, in each node representation, structural information based on both views of the graph. We explore distinct strategies for neighborhood aggregation, adopting three GNNs: Gated Graph Neural Networks (GGNN, @Li2016GatedGS), Graph Attention Networks (GAT, @velickovic2018graph) and Graph Isomorphic Networks (GIN, @xu2018how). Each GNN employs a specific message passing scheme which allows capturing different nuances of structural information.
#### Gated Graph Neural Networks
GGNNs employ gated recurrent units to encode node representations, reducing the recurrence to a fixed number of steps. In particular, the $l$-th layer of a GGNN is calculated as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}_i^{(l)} &= \mathit{GRU} \Big(
\mathbf{h}_i^{(l-1)}, \: \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} \mathbf{W_1} \mathbf{h}_j^{(l-1)} \: \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{N}(i)$ is the immediate neighborhood of $v_i$, $\mathbf{W_{1}}$ is a parameter and $\mathit{GRU}$ is a gated recurrent unit [@cho-etal-2014-learning]. Different from other GNNs, GGNNs use back-propagation through time (BPTT) to learn the parameters. GGNNs also do not require to constrain parameters to ensure convergence.
#### Graph Attention Networks
GATs apply attentive mechanisms to improve the exploitation of non-trivial graph structure. They encode node representations by attending over their neighbors, following a self-attention strategy: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}_i^{(l)} &= \alpha_{i,i}\mathbf{W_2}\mathbf{h}_i^{(l-1)} +
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} \alpha_{i,j}\mathbf{W_2}\mathbf{h}_j^{(l-1)},\end{aligned}$$ where attention coefficients $\alpha_{i,j}$ are computed as: [$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{i,j} =
\text{softmax} \left( \sigma\left(\mathbf{a}^{\top}
[\mathbf{W_2}\mathbf{h}_i^{(l-1)} \, \Vert \, \mathbf{W_2}\mathbf{h}_j^{(l-1)}]
\right)\right),\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\sigma$ is the activation function and $\Vert$ denotes concatenation. $\mathbf{W_{2}}$ and $\mathbf{a}$ are model parameters. The virtue of the attention mechanism is its ability to focus on the most important parts of the node neighborhood. In order to learn attention weights in different perspectives, GATs can employ multi-head attentions.
--------------------------------------- -------- ------- ------- -- -------- ------- -------
training, dev and test instances 16,833 1,368 1,371 36,521 1,368 1,371
min, average and max graph diameter 0 6.9 20 0 6.7 20
min, average and max node degree 0 2.1 18 0 2.1 20
min, average and max number of nodes 1 17.7 151 1 16.8 151
min, average and max number of edges 0 18.6 172 0 17.7 172
number of DAG and non-DAG graphs 18,679 893 37,284 1,976
min, average and max length sentences 1 21.3 225 1 20.4 225
--------------------------------------- -------- ------- ------- -- -------- ------- -------
#### Graph Isomorphic Networks
GIN is a GNN as powerful as the Weisfeiler-Lehman (WL) graph isomorphism test [@weisfeiler] in representing isomorphic and non-isomorphic graphs with discrete attributes. Its $l$-th layer is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{h}_i^{(l)} &= h_{\mathbf{W}} \Big( \,
\mathbf{h}_i^{(l-1)} + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{N}(i)} \mathbf{h}_j^{(l-1)} \, \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{\mathbf{W}}$ is a multi-layer perceptron (MLP). In contrast to other GNNs, which combine node feature with its aggregated neighborhood feature, GINs do not apply the combination step and simply aggregate the node along with its neighbors.
Each of these GNNs applies different approaches to learn structural features from graph data and has achieved impressive results on many graph-based tasks [@Li2016GatedGS; @velickovic2018graph; @xu2018how].
Decoder
-------
An attention-based unidirectional LSTM decoder is used to generate sentences, attending to the hidden representations of edges and nodes. In each step $t$, the decoder receives the word embedding of the previous word (during training, this is the previous word of the reference sentence; at test time it is the previously generated word), and has the decoder state $\mathbf{s}_t$. The attention distribution $\mathbf{a}^t$ is calculated as in @see-etal-2017-get: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}^t_{i} &= \mathbf{v} \cdot \text{tanh}(\mathbf{W}_h \mathbf{h}_i + \mathbf{W}_s \mathbf{s}_t + \mathbf{w}_c \mathbf{s}_c + \mathbf{b}), \\
\mathbf{a}^t &= \text{softmax}(\mathbf{e}^t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{s}_c$ is the coverage vector and $\mathbf{v}$, $\mathbf{W}_h$, $\mathbf{W}_s$, $\mathbf{w}_c$ and $\mathbf{b}$ are learnable parameters. The coverage vector is the accumulation of all attention distributions so far.
#### Copy and Coverage Mechanisms
Previous works [@damonte_naacl18; @cao_naacl19] use anonymization to handle names and rare words, alleviating the data sparsity. In contrast, we employ copy and coverage mechanisms to address out-of-vocabulary issues for rare target words and to avoid repetition [@see-etal-2017-get].
The model is trained to optimize the negative log-likelihood: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = - \sum_{t=1}^{|Y|} \log \, p(y_t | y_{1:t-1}, X; \theta),\end{aligned}$$ where $Y = y_1,\dots,y_{|Y|}$ is the sentence, $X$ is the AMR graph and $\theta$ represents the model parameters.
![Distribution of the AMR graph diameter (left) and node degree (right) in the training set for LDC2015E86 (red) and LDC2017T10 (blue) datasets.[]{data-label="fig:distdataset"}](images/ccdf.pdf){width=".5\textwidth"}
Data
====
We use two AMR corpora, LDC2015E86 and LDC2017T10[[^2]]{}. In these datasets, each instance contains an AMR graph and a sentence. Table \[tab:datasets\] shows the statistics for both datasets. Figure \[fig:distdataset\] shows the distribution of the AMR graph diameters and node degrees for both datasets. The AMR graph structures are similar for most examples. Note that 90% of AMR graphs in both datasets have the diameter less than or equal to 11 and 90% of nodes have the degree of 4 or less. Very structurally similar graphs pose difficulty for the graph encoder by making it harder to learn the differences between their similar structures. Therefore, the word embeddings used as additional input play an important role in helping the model to deal with language information. That is one of the reasons why we concatenate this information in the node representation $\mathbf{r}_i$.
Experiments and Discussion
==========================
[@p[3.37cm]{} @l @l@]{} **Model** & **BLEU** & **METEOR**\
\
& 22.00 & -\
[Song et al. (2018)]{} & 23.28 & 30.10\
Cao et al. (2019) & 23.50 & -\
[Damonte et al.(2019)]{} & 24.40 & 23.60\
Guo et al. (2019) & **25.70** & -\
& 22.55 [$\pm$ 0.17]{} & 29.90 [$\pm$ 0.31]{}\
[G2S-GIN]{} & 22.93 [$ \pm$ 0.20]{} & 29.72 [$\pm$ 0.09]{}\
[G2S-GAT]{} & 23.42 [$\pm$ 0.16]{} & 29.87 [$\pm$ 0.14]{}\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & 24.32 [$\pm$ 0.16]{} & **30.53** [$\pm$ 0.30]{}\
\
Back et al. (2018) & 23.30 & -\
Song et al. (2018) & 24.86 & 31.56\
[Damonte et al.(2019)]{} & 24.54 & 24.07\
Cao et al. (2019) & 26.80 & -\
Guo et al. (2019) & 27.60 & -\
[S2S]{} & 22.73 [$\pm$ 0.18]{} & 30.15 [$\pm$ 0.14]{}\
[G2S-GIN]{} & 26.90 [$\pm$ 0.19]{} & 32.62 [$\pm$ 0.04]{}\
[G2S-GAT]{} & 26.72 [$\pm$ 0.20]{} & 32.52 [$\pm$ 0.02]{}\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & **27.87** [$\pm$ 0.15]{} & **33.21** [$\pm$ 0.15]{}\
#### Implementation Details
We extract vocabularies (size of 20,000) from the training sets and initialize the node embeddings from GloVe word embeddings [@pennington-etal-2014-glove] on Common Crawl. Hyperparameters are tuned on the development set of the LDC2015E86 dataset. For GIN, GAT, and GGNN graph encoders, we set the number of layers to 2, 5 and 5, respectively. To regularize the model, during training we apply dropout [@Srivastava:2014:DSW:2627435.2670313] to the graph layers with a rate of 0.3. The graph encoder hidden vector sizes are set to 300 and hidden vector sizes for LSTMs are set to 900.
The models are trained for 30 epochs with early stopping based on the development BLEU score. For our models and the baseline, we used a two-layer LSTM decoder. We use Adam optimization [@kingma:adam] as the optimizer with an initial learning rate of 0.001 and 20 as the batch size. Beam search with the beam size of 5 is used for decoding.
#### Results
We call the models [G2S-GIN]{} (isomorphic encoder), [G2S-GAT]{} (graph-attention encoder), and [G2S-GGNN]{} (gated-graph encoder), according to the graph encoder utilized. As a baseline ([S2S]{}), we train an attention-based encoder-decoder model with copy and coverage mechanisms, and use a linearized version of the graph generated by depth-first traversal order as input. We compare our models against several state-of-the-art results reported on the two datasets [@konsas_17; @song-etal-acl2018; @beck-etal-2018-acl2018; @damonte_naacl18; @cao_naacl19; @dcgcnforgraph2seq19guo].
**Model** **External** **BLEU**
--------------------------- -------------- -----------
[Konstas et al. (2017)]{} 200K 27.40
[Song et al. (2018)]{} 200K 28.20
[Guo et al. (2019)]{} 200K 31.60
[G2S-GGNN]{} 200K **32.23**
: Results on LDC2015E86 test set when models are trained with additional Gigaword data.[]{data-label="tab:testresults-aug"}
We use both BLEU [@Papineni:2002:BMA:1073083.1073135] and METEOR [@Denkowski14meteoruniversal] as evaluation metrics[^3]. In order to mitigate the effects of random seeds, we report the averages for 4 training runs of each model along with their standard deviation. Table \[tab:testresults\] shows the comparison between the proposed models, the baseline and other neural models on the test set of the two datasets.
For both datasets, our approach substantially outperforms the baselines. In LDC2015E86, [G2S-GGNN]{} achieves a BLEU score of 24.32, 4.46% higher than @song-etal-acl2018, who also use the copy mechanism. This indicates that our architecture can learn to generate better signals for text generation. On the same dataset, we have competitive results to @damonte_naacl18. However, we do not rely on preprocessing anonymisation not to lose semantic signals. In LDC2017T10, [G2S-GGNN]{} achieves a BLEU score of 27.87, which is 3.33 points higher than @damonte_naacl18, a state-of-the-art model that does not employ external information. We also have competitive results to @dcgcnforgraph2seq19guo, a very recent state-of-the-art model. We also outperform @cao_naacl19 improving BLEU scores by 3.48% and 4.00%, in LDC2015E86 and LDC2017T10, respectively. In contrast to their work, we do not rely on (i) leveraging supplementary syntactic information and (ii) we do not require an anonymization pre-processing step. [G2S-GIN]{} and [G2S-GAT]{} have comparable performance on both datasets. Interestingly, [G2S-GGNN]{} has better performance among our models. This suggests that graph encoders based on gating mechanisms are very effective in text generation models. We hypothesize that the gating mechanism can better capture long-distance dependencies between nodes far apart in the graph.
[p[3.4cm]{} @c @c @c@]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Model** & [**BLEU**]{} & [**METEOR**]{} & **Size**\
& 22.50 & 30.42 & 57.6M\
$GE_t$ + [biLSTM]{} & 26.33 & 32.62 & 59.6M\
$GE_b$ + [biLSTM]{} & 26.12 & 32.49 & 59.6M\
$GE_t$ + $GE_b$ + [biLSTM]{} & 27.37 & 33.30 & 61.7M\
#### Additional Training Data
Following previous works [@konsas_17; @song-etal-acl2018; @dcgcnforgraph2seq19guo], we also evaluate our models employing additional data from English Gigaword corpus [@Napoles:2012:AG:2391200.2391218]. We sample 200K Gigaword sentences and use JAMR[^4] [@flanigan-etal-2016-cmu] to parse them. We follow the method of @konsas_17, which is fine-tuning the model on the LDC2015E86 training set after every epoch of pretraining on the Gigaword data. [G2S-GGNN]{} outperforms others with the same amount of Gigaword sentences (200K), achieving a 32.23 BLEU score, as shown in Table \[tab:testresults-aug\]. The results demonstrate that pretraining on automatically generated AMR graphs enhances the performance of our model.
#### Ablation Study
In Table \[tab:ablation\], we report the results of an ablation study on the impact of each component of our model on the development set of LDC2017T10 dataset by removing the graph encoders. We also report the number of parameters (including embeddings) used in each model. The first thing we notice is the huge increase in metric scores (17% in BLEU) when applying the graph encoder layer, as the neural model receives signals regarding the graph structure of the input. The dual representation helps the model with a different view of the graph, increasing BLEU and METEOR scores by 1.04 and 0.68 points, respectively. The complete model has slightly more parameters than the model without graph encoders (57.6M vs 61.7M).
[@p[1.85cm]{} @l @l @l@]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Model** &\
& 0-7 [**$\Delta$**]{} & 7-13 [**$\Delta$**]{} & 14-20 [**$\Delta$**]{}\
& 33.2 & 29.7 & 28.8\
[G2S-GIN]{} & 35.2 [+6.0%]{} & 31.8 [+7.4%]{} & 31.5 [+9.2%]{}\
[G2S-GAT]{} & 35.1 [+5.9%]{} & 32.0 [+7.8%]{} & 31.5 [+9.51%]{}\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & 36.2 [+9.0%]{} & 33.0 [+11.4%]{} & 30.7 [+6.7%]{}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&\
& [0-20]{} [**$\Delta$**]{} & [20-50]{} [**$\Delta$**]{} & [50-240]{} [**$\Delta$**]{}\
& 34.9 & 29.9 & 25.1\
[G2S-GIN]{} & 36.7 [+5.2%]{} & 32.2 [+7.8%]{} & 26.5 [+5.8%]{}\
[G2S-GAT]{} & 36.9 [+5.7%]{} & 32.3 [+7.9%]{} & 26.6 [+6.1%]{}\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & 37.9 [+8.5%]{} & 33.3 [+11.2%]{} & 26.9 [+6.8%]{}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&\
& [0-3]{} [**$\Delta$**]{} & [4-8]{} [**$\Delta$**]{} & [9-18]{} [**$\Delta$**]{}\
& 31.7 & 30.0 & 23.9\
[G2S-GIN]{} & 33.9 [+6.9%]{} & 32.1 [+6.9%]{} & 25.4 [+6.2%]{}\
[G2S-GAT]{} & 34.3 [+8.0%]{} & 32.0 [+6.7%]{} & 22.5 [-6.0%]{}\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & 35.0 [+10.3%]{} & 33.1 [+10.4%]{} & 22.2 [-7.3%]{}\
#### Impact of Graph Size, Arity and Sentence Length
The good overall performance on the datasets shows the superiority of using graph encoders and dual representations over the sequential encoder. However, we are also interested in estimating the performance of the models concerning different data properties. In order to evaluate how the models handle graph and sentence features, we perform an inspection based on different sizes of graph diameter, sentence length, and max node out-degree. Table \[tab:stats-meteor\] shows METEOR[^5] scores for the LDC2017T10 dataset.
The performances of all models decrease as the diameters of the graphs increase. [G2S-GGNN]{} has a 17.9% higher METEOR score in graphs with a diameter of at most 7 compared to graphs with diameters higher than 13. This is expected as encoding a bigger graph (containing more information) is harder than encoding smaller graphs. Moreover, 71% of the graphs in the training set have a diameter less than or equal to 7 and only 2% have a diameter bigger than 13 (see Figure \[fig:distdataset\]). Since the models have fewer examples of bigger graphs to learn from, this also leads to worse performance when handling graphs with higher diameters. We also investigate the performance with respect to the sentence length. The models have better results when handling sentences with 20 or fewer tokens. Longer sentences pose additional challenges to the models.
[p[2cm]{} @c @c @c]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&\
**Model** & **ENT** & **CON** & **NEU**\
& 38.45 & 11.17 & 50.38\
[G2S-GIN]{} & 49.78 & 9.80 & 40.42\
[G2S-GAT]{} & 49.48 & 8.09 & 42.43\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & 51.32 & 8.82 & 39.86\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
&\
**Model** & **ENT** & **CON** & **NEU**\
& 73.79 & 12.75 & 13.46\
[G2S-GIN]{} & 76.27 & 10.65 & 13.08\
[G2S-GAT]{} & 77.54 & 8.54 & 13.92\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & 77.64 & 9.64 & 12.72\
[G2S-GIN]{} has a better performance in handling graphs with node out-degrees higher than 9. This indicates that GINs can be employed in tasks where the distribution of node degrees has a long tail. Surprisingly, [S2S]{} has a better performance than [G2S-GGNN]{} and [G2S-GAT]{} when handling graphs that contain high degree nodes.
#### Semantic Equivalence
We perform an entailment experiment using BERT [@devlin2018bert] fine-tuned on the MultiNLI dataset [@williams-etal-2018-broad] as a NLI model. We are interested in exploring whether a generated sentence (hypothesis) is semantically *entailed* by the reference sentence (premise). In a related text generation task, @nli_summaries_acl employ NLI models to rerank alternative predicted abstractive summaries.
Nevertheless, uniquely verifying whether the reference (REF) entails the generated sentence (GEN) or vice-versa (GEN entails REF) is not sufficient. For example, suppose that *“Today Jon walks”* is the REF and *“Jon walks”* is the GEN. Even though REF entails GEN, GEN does not entail REF, that is, GEN is too general (missing information). Furthermore, suppose that *“Jon walks”* is the REF and *“Today Jon walks”* is the GEN, GEN entails REF but REF does not entail GEN, that is, GEN is too specific (added information). Therefore, in addition to verify whether the reference entails the generated sentence, we also verify whether the generated sentence entails the reference.
![Human evaluation of the sentences generated by [S2S]{} and [G2S-GGNN]{} models. Results are statistically significant with $p < 0.05$, using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.[]{data-label="fig:humaneval"}](images/bar.pdf){width=".45\textwidth"}
Table \[tab:ent\] shows the average probabilities for entailment, contradiction and neutral classes on the LDC2017T10 test set. All [G2S]{} models have higher entailment compared to [S2S]{}. [G2S-GGNN]{} has 33.5% and 5.2% better entailment performances than [S2S]{}, when REF entails GEN and GEN entails REF, respectively. [G2S]{} models also generate sentences that contradict the reference sentences less. This suggests that our models are capable of capturing better semantic information from the graph generating outputs semantically related to the reference sentences.
[p[2.75cm]{} p[12.5cm]{}]{}\
& [China and Kyrgyzstan agreed in a joint communique that terrorism, separatism and extremism still pose major threats to regional security and stability.]{}\
[S2S]{} & [In the joint communique, China and Kyrgyzstan still agreed to threaten terrorism, separatism, extremism and regional stability. ]{}\
Song et. al (2018) & [In a joint communique, China and Kyrgyzstan have agreed to still be a major threat to regional security, and regional stability.]{}\
[G2S-GGNN]{} & [At a joint communique, China and Kyrgyzstan agreed that terrorism, separatism and extremism are still a major threat to region security and stability.]{}\
**Model** **ADDED** **MISS**
-------------- ----------- ---------- --
[S2S]{} 47.34 37.14
[G2S-GIN]{} 48.67 33.64
[G2S-GAT]{} 48.24 33.73
[G2S-GGNN]{} 48.66 34.06
[GOLD]{} 50.77 28.35
: Fraction of elements in the output that are not present in the input (ADDED) and the fraction of elements in the input graph that are missing in the generated sentence (MISS), for the test set of LDC2017T10. The token lemmas are used in the comparison. [GOLD]{} refers to the reference sentences.[]{data-label="tab:stats-miss"}
#### Human Evaluation
To further assess the quality of the generated sentences, we conduct a human evaluation. We employ the *Direct Assessment* (DA) method [@graham_baldwin_moffat_zobel_2017] via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Using the DA method inspired by @mille-etal-2018-first, we assess two quality criteria: (i) *meaning similarity*: how close in meaning the generated text is to the gold sentence; and (ii) *readability*: how well the generated sentence reads (Is it good fluent English?).
We randomly select 100 sentences generated by [S2S]{} and [G2S-GGNN]{} and randomly assign them to HITs (following Mechanical Turk terminology). Human workers rate the sentences according to meaning similarity and readability on a 0-100 rating scale. The tasks are executed separately and workers were first given brief instructions. For each sentence, we collect scores from 5 workers and average them. Models are ranked according to the mean of sentence-level scores. We apply a quality control step filtering workers who do not score some faked and known sentences properly. Figure \[fig:humaneval\] shows the results. In both metrics, [G2S-GGNN]{} has better human scores for meaning similarity and readability, suggesting a higher quality of the generated sentences regarding [S2S]{}. The Pearson correlations between meaning similarity and readability scores, and METEOR[^6] scores are 0.50 and 0.22, respectively.
#### Semantic Adequacy
We also evaluate the semantic adequacy of our model (how well does the generated output match the input?) by comparing the number of added and missing tokens that occur in the generated versus reference sentences ([GOLD]{}). An added token is one that appears in the generated sentence but not in the input graph. Conversely, a missing token is one that occurs in the input but not in the output. In [GOLD]{}, added tokens are mostly function words while missing tokens are typically input concepts that differ from the output lemma. For instance, in Figure \[fig:rep\_graphs\], *there* and *of* are added tokens while *person* is a missing token. As shown in Table \[tab:stats-miss\], [G2S]{} approaches outperform the [S2S]{} baseline. [G2S-GIN]{} is closest to [GOLD]{} with respect to both metrics suggesting that this model is better able to generate novel words to construct the sentence and captures a larger range of concepts from the input AMR graph, covering more information.
#### Manual Inspection
Table \[tab:examples\] shows sentences generated by [S2S]{}, @song-etal-acl2018, [G2S-GAT]{}, and the reference sentence. The example shows that our approach correctly verbalises the subject of the embedded clause *“China and ... agreed that $_{ SUBJ}$ ... pose major threats to ...”*, while [S2S]{} and @song-etal-acl2018 are fooled by the fact that *agree* frequently takes an infinitival argument which shares its subject (*“$_{ SUBJ}$ agreed to threaten / have agreed to be a major threat”*). While this is a single example, it suggests that dual encoding enhances the model ability to take into account the dependencies and the graph structure information, rather than the frequency of n-grams.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have studied the problem of generating text from AMR graphs. We introduced a novel architecture that explicitly encodes two parallel and adjuvant representations of the graph (top-down and bottom-up). We showed that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art results in generation. We provided an extensive evaluation of our models and demonstrated that they are able to achieve the best performance. In the future, we will consider integrating deep generative graph models to express probabilistic dependencies among AMR nodes and edges.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been supported by the German Research Foundation as part of the Research Training Group Adaptive Preparation of Information from Heterogeneous Sources (AIPHES) under grant No. GRK 1994/1.
Generated Sentences
===================
Table \[tab:example1\] shows three examples with sentences generated by [S2S]{}, Song et al. (2018), [G2S-GGNN]{}, and the reference sentence ([GOLD]{}).
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GOLD]{} [I don’t want to be miserable anymore and the longer he is around the more miserable I will be. ]{}
[S2S]{} [If he was in longer longer, I don’t want to miserable and more miserable.]{}
Song et. al (2018) [I don’t want to be miserable anymore, and when he is around longer, I’m a miserable miserable.]{}
[G2S-GGNN]{} [I don’t want to be miserable anymore, and would be more miserable if he was around longer.]{}
\[0.2ex\] [Colombia is the source of much of the cocaine and heroin sold in the United States.]{}
[S2S]{} [Colombia is a source of cocaine, much of cocaine and heroin sales in the United States.]{}
Song et. al (2018) [Colombia is a source of much of much of cocaine and heroin in the United States.]{}
[G2S-GGNN]{} [Colombia is a source of much cocaine and heroin and heroin sold in the United States.]{}
[GOLD]{} [Discussions between Lula da Silva and Thabo Mbeki would also address new threats to international security such as terrorism, drugs, illegal weapons trafficking and aids.]{}
[S2S]{} [Thabo da Silva has also addressed Thabo Mbeki to discuss new threats such as terrorism, drugs, illegal weapons trafficking and aids in international security.]{}
Song et. al (2018) [Lula da Silva’s discussion with Thabo also addressed a new threat against Thabo Mbeki and aids, drugs, illegal weapons and illegal weapons of weapon.]{}
[G2S-GGNN]{} [Lula da Silva’s discussion with Thabo da Silva also addressed new threat such as terrorism, drugs, illegal weapons trafficking and aids.]{}
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Evaluation Setup
======================
- For each quality evaluation task (meaning similarity and readability), we independently sampled 100 generated sentences for each model.
- We created separate HITs for meaning similarity and readability evaluations. Each HIT contains 10 sentences.
- We paid \$0.15 per HIT, employing five workers on each. For qualification, workers were required to have over 1000 approved HITs.
- We applied a quality control step. We removed workers who do not achieve a minimum threshold in sentences with known scores.
[^1]: is available at <https://github.com/UKPLab/emnlp2019-dualgraph>
[^2]: datasets can be found at <https://amr.isi.edu/download.html>
[^3]: For BLEU, we use the multi-BLEU script from the MOSES decoder suite [@Koehn:2007:MOS:1557769.1557821]. For METEOR, we use the original `meteor-1.5.jar` script (<https://github.com/cmu-mtlab/meteor>).
[^4]: <https://github.com/jflanigan/jamr>
[^5]: METEOR score is used as it is a sentence-level metric.
[^6]: METEOR score is used as it is a sentence-level metric.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Kondo effect in superconductors is frequently investigated using the local quasiparticle density of states as sole bath characteristics, i.e., the presence of anomalous propagators is ignored. Here we point out that this treatment is [*exact*]{} for a number of situations, including point-like impurities in $d$-wave superconductors. We comment on recent investigations \[M. Matsumoto and M. Koga, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**70**]{}, 2860 (2001) and Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 024508 (2002)\] which reached different conclusions: while their numerical results are likely correct, their interpretation in terms of two-channel Kondo physics and an “orbital effect of Cooper pairs” is incorrect.'
author:
- Lars Fritz and Matthias Vojta
date: 'July 27, 2005'
title: |
Kondo screening in unconventional superconductors:\
The role of anomalous propagators
---
The physics of quantum impurity moments in superconductors, associated with the Kondo effect, has been subject of numerous investigations in recent years. Diverse theoretical techniques have been employed to study Kondo or Anderson models in a superconducting environment [@sakaisc; @withoff; @cassa; @tolya; @MVRB; @MVMK; @koga1; @koga2; @koga3]. Most of these studies effectively neglect the presence of superconducting (sc) fluctuations in the host, i.e., they use the local fermionic density of states (DOS) as the only input quantity characterizing the environment of the Kondo impurity. For $s$-wave superconductors it has been shown [@sakaisc] that this approximation is not justified: here the properties of a Kondo impurity are different from the ones of an impurity embedded in a non-superconducting system with the same DOS. More precisely, the superconducting bath turns out to be equivalent to a non-superconducting bath with additional particle-hole (p-h) asymmetry [@sakaisc]. As a result, for a p-h symmetric conduction band a screened singlet state [*is*]{} realized at large Kondo coupling, in contrast to the non-sc case with a hard gap in the local DOS [@hardgap]. This difference can be understood as caused by the anomalous bath propagators.
In this Brief Report, we address the role of anomalous propagators in unconventional superconductors. We argue below that neglecting sc propagators is [*exact*]{} in many, potentially experimentally relevant, cases, e.g., for point-like impurities in $d$-wave and unitary $p$-wave superconductors. In these situations, the dynamics of the impurity degrees of freedom can be calculated using the normal bath propagators only. We also comment on recent papers by Matsumoto and Koga who argued in favor of a non-trivial “orbital effect of Cooper pairs” for point-like impurities in both $p+ip$ and $d+id$ superconductors [@koga1; @koga2]. While we believe that their numerical results are correct, we point out that such an orbital effect does not exist: in their situation the impurity properties are exclusively determined by the local DOS.
We start from the action of an Anderson impurity in a general interacting host. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S} &=& \frac{1}{\beta\cal{N}}
\sum_{\omega_n} \sum_{k\sigma} \bar{c}_{k\sigma}(i\omega_n)\, [-i\omega_n+\epsilon_k]\, c_{k\sigma}(i\omega_n)
\\
&+& {\cal S}_{\rm int}(\bar{c},c) + {\cal S}_{\rm loc}(f_\sigma)
+ \int_0^\beta \!\! d\tau \sum_{\{i\}\sigma} (V_i \bar{f}_{\sigma} c_{i\sigma} + c.c.)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=1/T$ is the inverse temperature, $c$ are the conduction electrons with dispersion $\epsilon_k$ on a regular lattice with $\cal{N}$ sites, ${\cal S}_{\rm int}$ are the interactions within the conduction band, and ${\cal S}_{\rm loc}$ describes the $f$ electron impurity orbital with on-site energy and repulsion. The sum $\sum_{\{i\}}$ runs over a set of lattice sites in the vicinity of the impurity, and $V_i$ is the hybridization matrix element; for a point-like impurity only a single $V_i$ is non-zero. We can define a linear combination $c_0$ of conduction electron operators to which the impurity couples: $V c_{0\sigma} = \sum_{\{i\}} V_i c_{i\sigma}$ with $[c_0,c_0^\dagger]_+=1$. After decoupling of ${\cal S}_{\rm int}$ and a suitable saddle-point approximation of BCS type, all conduction electrons except $c_0$ can be integrated out. (After the BCS approximation, the remaining integral is Gaussian and can be performed exactly.) To simplify notation we will restrict ourselves to BCS singlet pairing; the arguments apply similarly to unitary triplet states, whereas non-unitary triplet states require an additional coupling between the impurity and the condensate spin moment. Introducing a Nambu spinor $\Psi_0 =
(c_{0\uparrow},c_{0\downarrow}^\dagger)$ we obtain an action of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S} &=& - \frac{1}{\beta}
\sum_{\omega_n} \bar{\Psi}_0(i\omega_n) \, G_0^{-1}(i\omega_n) \, \Psi_{0}(i\omega_n) \nonumber\\
&+& {\cal S}_{\rm loc}(f_\sigma)
+ \int d\tau (V \bar{f}_{\sigma} c_{0\sigma} + c.c.)
\label{impact}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $G_0(i\omega_n)$ is the local conduction electron Green’s function at the impurity location. In principle, a treatment of ${\cal S}_{\rm int}$ beyond mean-field also generates a retarded self-interation for the $c_0$. As we are mainly interested in a BCS-type host we will neglect this here. Then, the properties of the bath are completely contained in $G_0$. Explicitly we have $$\begin{aligned}
G_0(i\omega_n) = \sum_k
\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
|h_k|^{-2}(i\omega_n \!-\!\epsilon_k) & h_k^{-2}\Delta_k \\
{h_k^\ast}^{-2} \Delta_k^\ast & |h_k|^{-2} (i\omega_n\!+\!\epsilon_k) \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1} \!\!\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_k$ is the complex gap function, and the function $h_k$ contains the geometry of the impurity coupling to the host: $$h_k = \sum_{\{i\}} e^{ikR_i} V_i / V \,.
\label{hk}$$
=3.5in
For a point-like impurity $h_k=1$, and the anomalous (off-diagonal) part of $G_0$ is given by $G_0^{\rm a}(i\omega_n) = \sum_k \Delta_k/D_k$ (with $D_k = \omega_n^2 + \epsilon_k^2 + |\Delta_k|^2$), which vanishes for unconventional superconductors with inversion symmetry and Cooper pair angular momentum $l>0$, i.e., $p$-wave, $d$-wave or higher symmetries. (This also applies to $p_x+ip_y$ or $d_{x^2-y^2}+id_{xy}$ pairing states, but not necessarily to $d+is$ states.) Then, only the diagonal part of $G_0$ enters the impurity action (\[impact\]), which is completely determined by the local DOS. For a spatially extended impurity hybridized with more than one site the anomalous piece of $G_0$ is given by $\sum_k h_k^2 \Delta_k / D_k$ which still vanishes for some important situations: Consider a $d$-wave superconductor, $\Delta_k = \Delta_0 (\cos k_x - \cos k_y)$, and an impurity hybridized e.g. with four sites as in Figs. 1a,b,c. In all cases the average over $h_k^2 \Delta_k/D_k$ vanishes for symmetry reasons.
At this point a brief comment on the experimental situation is in order. Point-like impurities can be realized in layered superconductors with out-of-plane impurity moments coupling to a single conduction electron orbital only. In contrast, in-plane impurities will typically couple to a number of sites, see Fig. 1. The signs of the various hybridization matrix elements depend on the involved orbitals of both impurity and host atoms. We note that the situations in Figs. 1b,c were used in Refs. to model the magnetic moment induced by a Zn impurity in a high-temperature superconductor. (There, a Kondo model for a spatially extended impurity was employed, leading to multiple screening channels. In addition, the situation for Zn is complicated by the fact that Zn, having a filled d shell, acts as a vacancy, but induces a magnetic moment in its vicinity – for details see Ref. .)
Returning to the models discussion – what about the behavior of a spatially extended Anderson impurity, where $G_0^{\rm a}$ does [*not*]{} vanish? Formally, we still have a single-channel model (\[impact\]), but now in the presence of both a normal and an anomalous bath – this is similar to a point-like impurity in a $s$-wave superconductor. As explained in Refs. the main effect of the anomalous bath can be understood as a transverse charge pseudospin field which induces an additional particle-hole asymmetry.
So far we have discussed Anderson impurity models. For a single-site impurity the above discussion applies identically to a Kondo model (via Schrieffer-Wolff transformation). Multichannel physics arises only in a spatially extended Kondo impurity model (independent of anomalous propagators), see Refs. .
=3.1in
Now we comment on recent papers by Matsumoto and Koga [@koga1; @koga2] about a non-trivial “orbital effect of Cooper pairs” on the dynamics of point-like impurities in $p+ip$ and $d+id$ superconductors. They argue that, although the impurity only couples to the $s$-wave channel of the conduction band, the $l\neq 0$ Cooper pairs mediate an indirect coupling to higher angular momentum channels, leading eventually to a multichannel Kondo problem. For the cases of $p+ip$ and $d+id$ pairing, where the problem reduces to two angular-momentum channels, they provided a numerical solution utilizing a two-band numerical renormalization group (NRG) method. Their findings show the absence of screening even for large Kondo coupling, in contrast to the $s$-wave situation. We believe that their mapping and results are likely to be correct, but allow for a much simpler interpretation. Specifically: (i) Our above arguments, which are rigorous for a point-like impurity in a $d$-wave or unitary $p$-wave BCS superconductor, show that only the local DOS enters the impurity problem. (ii) The two-band model of Ref. \[their Eq. (2.21)\] is in fact equivalent to a one-band model of the form (\[impact\]) (in that it yields the same partition function and the same observables related to the impurity degrees of freedom). A first indication is that the impurity term in Eq. (2.21) of Ref. mixes the two bands, i.e., contains channel-flip terms (in contrast to true two-band models). Formally, a one-band model can be obtained by integrating out the $a_{k,l=1}$ band in Eq. (2.4) of Ref. exactly – this will generate a [*normal*]{} self-energy for the $a_{k,l=0}$ fermions and induce the quasiparticle gap [@wavef]. (iii) The local DOS of a $p+ip$ or $d+id$ superconductor displays a hard gap, thus we expect the qualitative impurity properties to be those of a hard-gap system [@hardgap]. In particular, for a p-h symmetric band there is no screening even at large Kondo coupling, consistent with the results of Ref. . However, in the presence of p-h asymmetry there will be a first-order transition to a screened phase as the Kondo coupling is increased [@hardgap]. This transition was not found in Refs. , instead the authors claim that their findings persist in the presence of p-h asymmetry (but numerical results are not shown). We believe this claim to be incorrect. (iv) We have performed [*one-band*]{} NRG calculations using the local quasiparticle DOS of a $d+id$ (or $p+ip$) superconductor, and have essentially reproduced the results for the local susceptibility of Ref. , see Fig. 2 [^1]. Taken together, the physics of point-like impurities described in Refs. is completely contained in a Kondo model where the impurity is coupled to a single band with a (fully gapped) local DOS of a non-superconducting host [@wavef], and the “orbital effect of the Cooper pairs” does not exist. (This is different for spatially extended Kondo impurities where true multiband effects obtain [@koga3].) The discussion in Sec. III B of Ref. is formally correct, but misses that the mechanism leading to the doublet ground state of a strongly coupled Kondo impurity is identical for any p-h symmetric hard-gap system [@hardgap].
In summary, we have argued that in unconventional BCS superconductors the properties of a Kondo impurity are not influenced by the presence of anomalous propagators, provided that $\sum_k h_k^2 \Delta_k / D_k = 0$ (\[hk\]) – this is e.g. the case for point-like impurities and a vanishing local superconducting order parameter. Under these conditions, using only the local density of states as bath input quantity for impurity calculations, as done in Refs. , is exact.
We thank R. Bulla, S. Florens, M. Kirćan, and A. Schiller for helpful discussions. This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the Center for Functional Nanostructures Karlsruhe.
K. Satori, H. Shiba, O. Sakai, and Y. Shimizu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**61**]{}, 3239 (1992).
D. Withoff and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1835 (1990). C. R. Cassanello and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 15079 (1996) and [**56**]{}, 11246 (1997).
A. Polkovnikov, S. Sachdev, and M. Vojta, , 296 (2001).
M. Vojta and R. Bulla, , 014511 (2002).
M. Vojta and M. Kirćan, , 157203 (2003).
M. Matsumoto and M. Koga, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**70**]{}, 2860 (2001). M. Matsumoto and M. Koga, , 024508 (2002). M. Koga and M. Matsumoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**71**]{}, 943 (2002) and , 094434 (2002). As our arguments are based on (exactly) integrating out certain conduction electrons, certain observables involving the conduction band cannot be obtained directly from Eq. \[impact\]. From the solution of the local impurity problem \[impact\] one obtains the T matrix, which then allows to directly calculate all conduction electron observables.
K. Chen and C. Jayaprakash, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 5225 (1998).
L. Fritz and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 214427 (2004).
P. Coleman and A. M. Tsvelik, , 12757 (1998).
[^1]: Due to the different truncation schemes in the one-band and two-band NRG codes [*identical*]{} results cannot be obtained.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new geometric flow called the chord shortening flow which is the negative gradient flow for the length functional on the space of chords with end points lying on a fixed submanifold in Euclidean space. As an application, we give a simplified proof of a classical theorem of Lusternik and Schnirelmann (and a generalization by Riede and Hayashi) on the existence of multiple orthogonal geodesic chords. For a compact convex planar domain, we show that any convex chord which is not orthogonal to the boundary would shrink to a point in finite time under the flow.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong'
author:
- 'Martin Man-chun Li'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Chord Shortening Flow and a Theorem of Lusternik and Schnirelmann
---
Introduction {#S:intro}
============
The existence of closed geodesics in a Riemannian manifold is one of the most fundamental questions in geometry that has been studied extensively since the time of Poincaré [@Poincare04]. The critical point theories developed by Morse and Lusternik-Schnirelmann have played an essential role in this problem in the early 20th century (see [@Klingenberg] for a detailed exposition up to 1978). Although there does not exist closed geodesics in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, it is natural to look for geodesics contained in a bounded domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ which meets $\partial \Omega$ orthogonally at its end points. These are called *orthogonal geodesic chords* (see Definition \[D:OGC\] for a precise definition). In [@Lusternik-Schnirelmann], Lusternik and Schnirelmann proved the following celebrated result:
\[T:LS\] Any bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with smooth convex boundary contains at least $n$ distinct orthogonal geodesic chords.
Kuiper [@Kuiper64] showed that the same conclusion holds if the boundary is only $C^{1,1}$. For our convenience, we will assume that all the submanifolds and maps are $C^\infty$. Recall that the boundary of a domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is said to be (locally) *convex* if the second fundamental form $A$ of $\partial \Omega$ with respect to the unit normal $\nu$ (pointing into $\Omega$) is positive semi-definite, i.e. for all $p \in \partial \Omega$, $u \in T_p \partial \Omega$, we have $$\label{E:convex}
A(u,u):=\langle D_u u ,\nu \rangle \geq 0,$$ where $D$ is the standard flat connection in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Notice that Theorem \[T:LS\] gives an optimal lower bound as seen in the example of the convex region bounded by the ellipsoid given by $$\Omega:=\left\{(x_1,\cdots,x_n) \in {\mathbb{R}}^n \; : \; \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{x_i^2}{a_i^2} \leq 1 \right\}$$ where $a_1,\cdots,a_n$ are distinct positive real numbers.
In [@Bos63], Bos generalized Lusternik-Schnirelmann’s result to the setting of Riemannian (or even Finsler) manifolds.
\[T:Bos\] A compact Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ which is homeomorphic to the closed unit ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ with locally convex boundary contains at least $n$ orthogonal geodesic chords.
Moreover, he showed that the convexity assumption cannot be dropped even in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ (see Figure \[F:Bos\]).
![Bos’ example of a non-convex domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ which does not have any orthogonal geodesic chord contained in $\Omega$.[]{data-label="F:Bos"}](Bos.png){height="4cm"}
Nonetheless, one can still ask for the existence of orthogonal geodesic chords, by allowing them to go *outside* the domain. This problem was first introduced by Riede [@Riede68], where he studied the variational calculus of the space $\Gamma$ consisting of piecewise smooth curves in a complete Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ with end points lying on a compact submanifold $\Sigma^k \subset M$. In particular, he estimated the minimum number of critical points, which are orthogonal geodesic chords, in terms of certain topological invariant called the “cup-length” of the equivariant cohomology of $\Gamma$ with respect to the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action reversing the orientation of a curve. In [@Hayashi82], Hayashi computed the cup-length when $\Sigma$ is a compact submanifold in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and hence proved the following result.
\[T:double-normals\] Any $k$-dimensional compact submanifold $\Sigma$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ admits at least $k+1$ orthogonal geodesic chords.
Note that Theorem \[T:double-normals\] generalizes Theorem \[T:LS\] by taking $\Sigma$ to be the boundary of a bounded convex domain. However, we emphasize that if $\Sigma=\partial \Omega$ is the boundary of a non-convex domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, then the orthogonal geodesic chords obtained in Theorem \[T:double-normals\] are not necessarily contained in $\Omega$ (recall Figure \[F:Bos\]).
The original proof of Theorem \[T:LS\], \[T:Bos\] and \[T:double-normals\] all used a discrete curve shortening process similar to the one introduced by Birkhoff [@Birkhoff17] in the study of existence of closed geodesics in Riemannian manifolds. A description of the process can be found in [@Gluck-Ziller83] (see also a modified version in [@Zhou16]). The curve shortening process, denoted by $\Psi$, take a piecewise smooth curve $c:[0,1] \to M$ with end points lying on $\Sigma$ to a piecewise geodesic curve $\Psi(c):[0,1] \to M$ which meets $\Sigma$ orthogonally at its end points. The most important properties of $\Psi$ are summarized below:
- ${\operatorname{Length}}(\Psi(c)) \leq {\operatorname{Length}}(c)$ and equality holds if and only if $c$ is an orthogonal geodesic chord, in which case $\Psi(c)=c$.
- $\Psi(c)$ depends continuously on $c$, with respect to the $C^0$ topology.
- $c$ and $\Psi(c)$ are homotopic in $M$ relative to $\Sigma$, i.e. there exists a continuous family $c_t:[0,1] \to M$, $t \in [0,1]$, with end points on $\Sigma$ such that $c_0=c$ and $c_1=\Psi(c)$. Moreover, the family $c_t$ depends continuously on $c$.
The curve shortening process $\Psi$ involves subdividing the curves and connecting points on the curve by minimizing geodesic segments (additional care has to be taken at the end points). The construction depends on some fixed parameter (which depends on the geometry of $M$, $\Sigma$ and ${\operatorname{Length}}(c)$). However, it can be shown that for curves with uniformly bounded length, the parameters can be chosen uniformly to make (1) - (3) above hold. In fact (1) and (3) follows easily from the constructions, but (2) requires some convexity estimates (see [@Zhou16 Lemma 3.2]). Using (1) - (3), it is not difficult to see that the sequence $\{\Psi^i(c)\}_{i=1}^\infty$ either converges to a point on $\Sigma$ or has a subsequence converging to an orthogonal geodesic chord. Theorem \[T:LS\], \[T:Bos\] and \[T:double-normals\] then follows from the abstract Lusternik-Schnirelmann theory applied to families of curves with end points on $\Sigma$ which represent a non-trivial homology class relative to point curves on $\Sigma$. Interested readers can refer to [@Gluck-Ziller83] or [@Giannoni-Majer97] for more details (for Theorem \[T:LS\] there is a more elementary proof - see [@Kuiper64] for example).
In this paper, we introduce a new curve shortening process called the *chord shortening flow* (see Definition \[D:CSF\]), which evolves a geodesic chord according to the “contact angle” that the chord makes with $\Sigma$ at its end points. It is the negative gradient flow for the length functional on the space of chords. We study the fundamental properties including the short-time existence and uniqueness and long-time convergence of the flow when the ambient space is ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Note that the flow still makes sense in certain Riemannian manifolds but for simplicity we postpone the details to another forthcoming paper. The chord shortening flow, as a negative gradient flow, clearly satisfies all the properties (1) - (3) above; hence provide the most natural curve shortening process required in the proof of Theorem \[T:LS\] and \[T:double-normals\] (but not Theorem \[T:Bos\] in its full generality).
We would like to mention that Lusternik and Schnirelmann used the same ideas to prove the *Theorem of Three Geodesics* which asserts that any Riemannian sphere $(S^2,g)$ contains at least three *geometrically distinct* closed embedded geodesics. Unfortunately, the original proof by Lusternik-Schnirelmann [@Lusternik-Schnirelmann] contains a serious gap and various attempts have been made to fix it (see [@Taimanov92]). The fundamental issue there is *multiplicity*, that one of the geodesics obtained may just be a multiple cover of another geodesic. It is extremely technical (and many false proofs were given) to rule out this situation by modifying the method of Lusternik-Schnirelmann. In [@Grayson89], Grayson gave a rigorous proof of the Theorem of Three Geodesics by a careful analysis of the curve shortening flow on Riemannian surfaces. He proved that under the curve shortening flow, any embedded curve remains embedded and would either converge to a point in finite time or an embedded closed geodesic as time goes to infinity. As a curve which is initially embedded stays embedded throughout the flow, this prevents the multiplicity problem encountered by Lusternik-Schnirelmann’s approach using a discrete curve shortening process of Birkhoff [@Birkhoff17]. On the other hand, the situation in Theorem \[T:LS\] and \[T:double-normals\] are simpler as multiplicity cannot occur (see [@Giannoni-Majer97 Remark 3.2]).
We show that the convergence behavior for the chord shortening flow is similar to that for the curve shortening flow on a closed Riemannian surface [@Grayson89]. In particular, we prove that under the chord shortening flow, any chord would either converge to a point in finite time or to an orthogonal geodesic chord as time goes to infinity. Unlike [@Grayson89], this dichotomy holds in any dimension and codimension, in contrast with the curve shortening flow where an embedded curve may develop self-intersections or singularities after some time when codimension is greater than one [@Altschuler91]. In the special case that $\Sigma=\partial \Omega$ where $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a compact convex planar domain, we give a sufficient condition for an initial chord to converge to a point in finite time. In fact, any “*convex*” chord in $\Omega$ which is not an orthogonal geodesic chord would converge to a point on $\partial \Omega$ in finite time. This can be compared to the famous result of Huisken [@Huisken84] which asserts that any compact embedded convex hypersurface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ converges to a point in finite time under the mean curvature flow. The chord shortening flow is also of independenet interest from the analytic point of view. Since any chord in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is determined uniquely by its end points, we can regard the chord shortening flow as an evolution equation for the two end points lying on $\Sigma$. As a result, the flow is a *non-local* evolution of a pair of points on $\Sigma$ as it depends on the chord joining them. In fact, the chord shortening flow can be regarded as the heat equation for the half-Laplacian (or the *Dirichlet-to-Neumann map*).
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the chord shortening flow, give a few examples, and prove the short time existence and uniqueness of the flow. In Section 3, we derive the evolution equations for some geometric quantities under the chord shortening flow. In Section 4, we prove the long time existence to the flow provided that it does not shrink the chord to a point in finite time. In Section 5, we prove that an initial convex chord inside a compact convex domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ would shrink to a point in finite time under the flow, provided that the initial chord is not an orthogonal geodesic chord.
**Acknowledgement.** The author would like to express his gratitude to Prof. Richard Schoen for his interest in this work. He also want to thank Mario Micallef and Luen-Fai Tam for helpful comments and discussions. These work are partially supported by a research grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China \[Project No.: CUHK 14323516\] and CUHK Direct Grant \[Project Code: 3132705\].
*Notations.* Throughout this paper, we will denote $I:=[0,1]$ with $\partial I=\{0,1\}$. The Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is always equipped with the standard inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ and norm $|\cdot |$. For any subset $S \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, we use $d(\cdot, S)$ to denote the distance function from $S$.
Chord Shortening Flow {#S:CSF}
=====================
In this section, we introduce a new geometric flow called *chord shortening flow*. This flow has some similarities with the classical curve shortening flow. The main result in this section is the short-time existence and uniqueness theorem for the chord shortening flow (Theorem \[T:short-time-existence\]). We also study some basic examples of such a flow. Let $\Sigma$ be a $k$-dimensional smooth submanifold [^1] in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Note that $\Sigma$ can be disconnected in general. For any two points $p,q \in \Sigma$, we can consider the extrinsic chord distance between them in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\[D:chord-distance\] The *chord distance function* $d: \Sigma \times \Sigma \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ is defined to be $$d(p,q):=\textrm{dist}_{\mathbb{R}^n} (p,q)=|p-q|.$$
Since any two distinct points in $\mathbb{R}^n$ are connected by a unique line segment realizing their distance, the chord distance function $d$ is smooth away from the diagonal $\{(p,p) \in \Sigma \times \Sigma \, : \, p \in \Sigma\}$.
\[D:Cpq\] For any two distinct points $p,q$ on $\Sigma$, we will use $C_{p,q}$ to denote the unique oriented chord from $p$ to $q$. The outward unit conormal, denoted by $\eta$, is the unit vector at $\partial C_{p,q}$ tangent to $C_{p,q}$ pointing out of $C_{p,q}$. Note that $\eta(p)=-\eta(q)$. (see Figure \[F:Cpq\])
![A chord $C_{p,q}$ joining $p$ and $q$, the outward unit conormals $\eta$ and their (negative) tangential components along $\Sigma=\partial {\Omega}$[]{data-label="F:Cpq"}](Cpq.png){height="5cm"}
Let $C(t)=C_{p_t,q_t}$ be a smooth family of chords with distinct end points $p_t,q_t \in \Sigma$. If $\ell(t)=d(p_t,q_t)$ is the length of the chord $C(t)$, the first variation formula for arc length (see for example [@Cheeger-Ebin (1.5)]) implies that $$\label{E:1st-var-a}
\frac{d \ell}{dt} =\langle \frac{dp_t}{dt}, \eta(p_t) \rangle + \langle \frac{dq_t}{dt}, \eta(q_t) \rangle.
$$ Note that the interior integral term vanishes as $C(t)$ is a geodesic for every $t$. Since $p_t$ and $q_t$ lies on $\Sigma$ for all $t$, both $dp_t/dt$ and $dq_t/dt$ are tangential to $\Sigma$. Therefore, we can express (\[E:1st-var-a\]) as $$\label{E:1st-var-b}
\frac{d \ell}{dt} = \langle \frac{dp_t}{dt}, \eta^T(p_t) \rangle + \langle \frac{dq_t}{dt}, \eta^T(q_t) \rangle$$ where $(\cdot)^T$ denotes the tangential component of a vector relative to $\Sigma$. More precisely, if $\pi_x:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to T_x\Sigma$ is the orthogonal projection onto the tangent space $T_x \Sigma \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, then $v^T=\pi_x(v)$ for any vector $v \in T_x {\mathbb{R}}^n \cong {\mathbb{R}}^n$.
It is natural to consider the (negative) gradient flow to the chord length functional, which leads to the following definition.
\[D:CSF\] A smooth family of curves $$C(u,t):I \times [0,T) \to \mathbb{R}^n$$ is a solution to the *chord shortening flow* (relative to $\Sigma$) if for all $t \in [0,T)$, we have
- $p_t:=C(0,t)$ and $q_t:=C(1,t)$ lies on $\Sigma$,
- $C(t):=C(\cdot,t):I \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is a constant speed parametrization of $C_{p_t,q_t}$,
- $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial t} (0,t) = - \eta^T(C(0,t)) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \frac{\partial C}{\partial t} (1,t) = - \eta^T(C(1,t)).$$
Let us begin with some basic examples of the chord shortening flow as defined in Definition \[D:CSF\].
\[ex:flat\] Let $\Sigma$ be an affine $k$-dimensional subspace in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The chord shortening flow with respect to $\Sigma$ will contract any initial chord $C(0)=C_{p,q}$ to a point in finite time. The end points would move towards each other with unit speed along the chord $C(0)$ until they meet at the mid-point of $C(0)$ at the “blow-up” time $T=d(p,q)/2$.
\[ex:annulus\] Let $\Sigma$ be a union of two disjoint circles in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. We will see (from Theorem \[T:convergence\]) that any chord joining two distinct connected components of $\Sigma$ would evolve under the chord shortening flow to a limit chord $C_\infty$ orthogonal to $\Sigma$ as $t \to \infty$. The same phenomenon holds for any $\Sigma \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ which is disconnected.
![A limit chord $C_\infty$ which meets $\partial \Omega$ orthogonally but not lying inside $\Omega$.[]{data-label="F:annulus"}](annulus.png){height="5cm"}
Let $\Sigma$ be the ellipse $\{(x,y) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2 \, : \, x^2+4y^2=1\}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. By symmetry it is not difficult to see that for any initial chord passing through the origin (with the exception of the major axis), it would evolve under the chord shortening flow to the minor axis of the ellipse, which is a chord orthogonal to $\Sigma$ and contained inside the region enclosed by the ellipse. See Figure \[F:ellipse\]. This example shows that the number of distinct orthogonal chords guaranteed by the Lyusternik-Schnirelmann Theorem is optimal. If we start with an initial chord that lies completely on one side of the major or minor axis, then the chord will shrink to a point in finite time (by Theorem \[T:contraction\]).
![Any initial chord $C_0$ through the origin (other than the major axis) would converge under the chord shortening flow to the minor axis.[]{data-label="F:ellipse"}](ellipse.png){height="5cm"}
We end this section with a fundamental result on the short time existence and uniqueness for the chord shortening flow.
\[T:short-time-existence\] For any initial chord $C_0:I \to \mathbb{R}^n$ with $C_0(\partial I) \subset \Sigma$, there exists an $\epsilon>0$ and a smooth solution $C(u,t):I \times [0,\epsilon) \to \mathbb{R}^n$ to the chord shortening flow relative to $\Sigma$ as in Definition \[D:CSF\] with initial condition $C(\cdot,0)=C_0$. Moreover, the solution is unique.
Note that for any given $p \neq q \in \Sigma$, the outward unit conormal $\eta$ at the end points $p,q$ of the chord $C_{p,q}$ is given by $$\eta(p)=\frac{p-q}{|p-q|} =-\eta(q).$$ Therefore, Definition \[D:CSF\] (c) is equivalent to the following system of nonlinear system of first order ODEs: $$\label{E:CSF'}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\frac{dp}{dt}=- \frac{\pi_p(p-q)}{|p-q|} \\
\frac{dq}{dt}=- \frac{\pi_q(q-p)}{|q-p|}
\end{array} \right.$$ where $\pi_x:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the orthogonal projection onto $T_x\Sigma$ (which depends smoothly on $x$). Since the right hand side of (\[E:CSF’\]) is a Lipschitz function in $p$ and $q$ as long as $|p-q|$ is bounded away from $0$. Therefore, the existence and uniqueness to the initial value problem follows from the fundamental local existence and uniqueness theorem for first order ODE systems (see for example [@Taylor Theorem 2.1]). Hence, (\[E:CSF’\]) is uniquely solvable on some interval $t \in [0,\epsilon)$ for any initial data $p(0)=p_0$ and $q(0)=q_0$ such that $p_0 \neq q_0 \in \Sigma$. Finally we get a solution $C(u,t):I \times [0,\epsilon) \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ to the chord shortening flow by defining $C(\cdot,t):I \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ to be the constant speed parametrization of the chord $C_{p_t,q_t}$.
Evolution equations {#S:evolution}
===================
In this section, we derive the evolution of some geometric quantities under the chord shortening flow relative to any $k$-dimensional submanifold $\Sigma$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Let $C:I=[0,1] \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a chord joining $p$ to $q$. For any (vector-valued) function $f:\partial I =\{ 0,1\} \to {\mathbb{R}}^m$, we define the *$L^2$-norm* $\|f\|_{L^2}$ and the *sum* $\overline{f}$ of $f$ to be$$\label{E:norm}
\|f\|_{L^2}:=( |f(0)|^2+|f(1)|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \overline{f}:=f(0)+f(1).$$ Also, we define the $\frac{1}{2}$-Laplacian of $f$ relative to the chord $C$ to be the vector-valued function ${\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}f:\partial I=\{0,1\} \to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ defined by $$\label{E:DN}
(\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}} f)(0)= \frac{f(0)-f(1)}{\ell} =- (\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}} f)(1),$$ where $\ell=|p-q|$ is the length of the chord $C$.
\[L:DN\] Given any $f:\partial I \to {\mathbb{R}}^m$, we have $\overline{{\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}f}=0$ and $\overline{{\langle}f, {\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}f {\rangle}}=\frac{\ell}{2} \|{\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}f\|^2_{L^2} \leq \frac{2}{\ell} \|f\|^2_{L^2}$.
It follows directly from (\[E:norm\]) and (\[E:DN\]).
Let $C=C_{p,q}:I \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a chord joining two distinct points $p,q$ on $\Sigma$. We define the tangential outward conormal $\eta^T:\partial I=\{0,1\} \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ to be the tangential component (relative to $\Sigma$) of the outward unit conormal of $C$, i.e. (recall (\[E:1st-var-b\]) and Definition \[D:Cpq\]) $$\label{E:eta-T}
\eta^T(u)=\pi_{C(u)} \eta \qquad \text{for $u=0,1$}.$$
\[L:length-evolution\] Suppose $C(u,t):I \times [0,T) \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a solution to the chord shortening flow relative to $\Sigma$ as in Definition \[D:CSF\]. If we denote the length of the chord $C(t)$ at time $t$ by $$\ell(t):=d(C(0,t),C(1,t)),$$ then $\ell$ is a non-increasing function of $t$ and (recall (\[E:norm\]) and (\[E:eta-T\])) $$\label{E:ell-evolution}
\frac{d \ell}{dt} = - \|\eta^T\|_{L^2}^2 \leq 0 .$$
It follows directly from the first variation formula (\[E:1st-var-b\]).
\[T:eta-T-evolution\] Suppose $C(u,t):I \times [0,T) \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a solution to the chord shortening flow relative to $\Sigma$ as in Definition \[D:CSF\]. Then the tangential outward conormal $\eta^T$ of the chord $C(t)$ satisfies the following evolution equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:eta-T-evolution}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \eta^T &=& - {\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}\eta^T + \frac{1}{\ell} \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \eta^T - \sum_{i=1}^k {\langle}A(\eta^T,e_i),\eta^N {\rangle}e_i \\
&& \phantom{aaaaaaaaa} - \frac{1}{\ell} (\overline{\eta^T}-\eta^T)^N - A(\eta^T,\eta^T), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^k$ is an orthonormal basis of $T\Sigma$ at the end points of $C(t)$. Here, $(\cdot)^N$ denotes the normal component of a vector relative to $\Sigma$ and $A:T\Sigma \times T\Sigma \to N\Sigma$ is the second fundamental form of $\Sigma$ defined by $A(u,v):=(D_u v)^N$.
Let $C(u,t):I \times [0,T) \to \mathbb{R}^n$ be a solution to the chord shortening flow relative to $\Sigma$. Since $C(t)=C( \cdot, t):I \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is a family of chords which are parametrized proportional to arc length, $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ is a Jacobi field (not necessarily normal) along each chord which can be explicitly expressed as $$\frac{\partial }{\partial t} = -(1-u) \, \eta^T(0) - u \, \eta^T(1),$$ where $\eta$ is the outward unit conormal for $C(t)$. Since $[\frac{\partial}{\partial u}, \frac{\partial }{\partial t}]=0$, we have $$\label{E:commutator}
D_{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}} \frac{\partial }{\partial u}=D_{\frac{\partial}{\partial u}} \frac{\partial }{\partial t} = \eta^T(0)-\eta^T(1).$$ Moreover, as $C(t)$ is parametrized with constant speed, we have $\| \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\|= \ell$, thus $$-\eta(0)= \frac{1}{\ell} \left.\frac{\partial }{\partial u} \right|_{u=0} \quad \text{and} \quad \eta(1)=\frac{1}{\ell} \left. \frac{\partial }{\partial u} \right|_{u=1}.$$ Fix $u=0$. Let $p=C(0,t) \in \Sigma$ and $\{e_1,\cdots, e_k\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $T_p \Sigma$ such that $(D_{e_i} e_j(p))^T=0$ for $i,j=1,\cdots,k$. Therefore, we have $$\label{E:A}
D_{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}} e_i = -A(\eta^T,e_i).$$ Using Lemma \[L:length-evolution\], (\[E:commutator\]) and (\[E:A\]), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \eta^T}{\partial t} &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( -\frac{1}{\ell} \right) \sum_{i=1}^k \langle \frac{\partial }{\partial u}, e_i \rangle e_i- \frac{1}{\ell} \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{\partial }{\partial t} \left( \langle \frac{\partial }{\partial u},e_i \rangle e_i \right)\\
&=& \frac{1}{\ell} \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \eta^T - \frac{1}{\ell} \sum_{i=1}^k \left( \langle D_{\frac{\partial}{\partial u}} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}, e_i \rangle e_i+ \langle \frac{\partial}{\partial u}, D_{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}} e_i \rangle e_i + \langle \frac{\partial }{\partial u},e_i \rangle D_{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}} e_i \right) \\
&=& \frac{1}{\ell} \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \eta^T - \frac{\eta^T}{\ell} - A(\eta^T,\eta^T) - \frac{1}{\ell} \sum_{i=1}^k \left( {\langle}-\eta^T(1),e_i {\rangle}e_i + \ell \langle \eta^N, A(\eta^T,e_i) \rangle e_i \right) \\
&=& - {\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}\eta^T + \frac{1}{\ell} \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \eta^T - \sum_{i=1}^k {\langle}A(\eta^T,e_i),\eta^N {\rangle}e_i - \frac{1}{\ell} (\overline{\eta^T}-\eta^T)^N - A(\eta^T,\eta^T).\end{aligned}$$ A similar calculation yields (\[E:eta-T-evolution\]) at $u=1$. This proves the proposition.
Under the same assumptions as in Theorem \[T:eta-T-evolution\], we have $$\label{E:eta-norm-evolution}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2}= - \frac{\ell}{2} \| {\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}\eta^T \|^2_{L^2} + \frac{1}{\ell} \|\eta^T\|^4_{L^2} -\overline{{\langle}A(\eta^T,\eta^T), \eta {\rangle}}.$$
Using (\[E:eta-T-evolution\]) and Lemma \[L:DN\], noting that the last two terms of (\[E:eta-T-evolution\]) are normal to $\Sigma$, we have $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} = \overline{{\langle}\eta^T, \frac{\partial \eta^T}{\partial t} {\rangle}}
= - \frac{\ell}{2} \| {\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}\eta^T \|^2_{L^2} + \frac{1}{\ell} \|\eta^T\|^4_{L^2} -\overline{{\langle}A(\eta^T,\eta^T), \eta^N {\rangle}}.$$
\[ex:flat2\] In the case of Example \[ex:flat\], we have $\eta^T(0)=-\eta^T(1)$ equals to a constant unit vector independent of $t$ and hence both sides are identically zero in (\[E:eta-T-evolution\]) and (\[E:eta-norm-evolution\]).
\[ex:strip\] Consider the vertical strip $\Omega:=\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : 0 \leq x \leq 1\}$ with boundary $\Sigma=\partial \Omega$ consists of two parallel vertical lines. Let $p_0=(0,-h/2)$ and $q_0=(1,h/2)$ for some $h>0$. It is easy to check that the solution to the chord shortening flow with initial chord $C_{p_0,q_0}$ is given by $p_t=(0,-h(t)/2)$, $q_t=(1,h(t)/2)$ where $h(t)$ is the unique solution to the ODE $$h'(t)=-\frac{2h(t)}{\sqrt{1+h^2(t)}}$$ with initial condition $h(0)=h$. From this we can see that the solution $h(t)$ exists for all $t \geq 0$. Moreover, $-h'(t) \leq 2h(t)$ implies $h(t) \leq h e^{-2t}$ and thus $h(t) \to 0$ exponentially as $t \to +\infty$. Therefore, the chord converges to a chord meeting $\partial \Omega$ orthogonally. In this case, we have $$-\eta^T(0)= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+h^2(t)}} (0,h(t)) = \eta^T(1),$$ which satisfies the evolution equation (\[E:eta-T-evolution\]) and $\eta^T \to 0$ as $t \to +\infty$. See Figure \[F:strip\].
![A chord converging to a limit chord orthogonal to $\partial \Omega$.[]{data-label="F:strip"}](strip.png){height="6cm"}
Long time existence {#S:convergence}
===================
In this section, we prove our main convergence result which says that the only two possible convergence scenarios are given in Example \[ex:flat2\] and \[ex:strip\]. One should compare this convergence result with a similar result of Grayson [@Grayson89 Theorem 0.1] for curve shortening flow on surfaces. For simplicity, we assume that $\Sigma$ is compact. However, the same result holds for non-compact $\Sigma$ which satisfies some convexity condition at infinity as in [@Grayson89].
\[T:convergence\] Let $\Sigma \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a compact $k$-dimensional smooth submanifold without boundary. Suppose $C(0):I \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is a chord with distinct end points on $\Sigma$. Then there exists a maximally defined smooth family of chords $C(t):I \to \mathbb{R}^n$ for $t \in [0,T)$ with distinct end points on $\Sigma$, and $C(t)=C(\cdot,t)$ where $C(u,t):I \times [0,T) \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the unique solution to the chord shortening flow (relative to $\Sigma$) as in Definition \[D:CSF\].
Moreover, if $T < + \infty$, then $C(t)$ converges to a point on $\Sigma$ as $t \to T$. If $T$ is infinite, then $C(t)$ converges to an orthogonal geodesic chord with end points on $\Sigma$ as $t \to \infty$.
By the short time existence and uniqueness theorem (Theorem \[T:short-time-existence\]), the chord shortening flow continues to exist and is unique as long as $\ell >0$. Therefore, $C(t)$ is uniquely defined for $t \in [0,T)$ where either $T < +\infty$ or $T=+\infty$.
\[L:ell-limit\] Let $C(t)$, $t \in [0,T)$, be a maximally defined chord shortening flow. Then one of the following holds:
- $T < +\infty$ and $C(t)$ shrinks to a point on $\Sigma$ as $t \to T$;
- $T=+\infty$ and $\ell(t) \to \ell_\infty >0$ as $t \to +\infty$.
As $\ell(t)$ is a non-increasing function of $t$ by Lemma \[L:length-evolution\], it either converges to $0$ or to some positive number $\ell_\infty>0$ as $t \to T$. By short time existence (Theorem \[T:short-time-existence\]), it cannot converge to $\ell_\infty>0$ in finite time. So when $T<+\infty$, $C(t)$ must converge to a point on $\Sigma$ by compactness of $\Sigma$. It remains to show that $\ell(t)$ cannot converge to $0$ if $T=+\infty$. We will prove this by a contradiction argument. Suppose, on the contrary, that $T=+\infty$ and $\ell(t) \to 0$ as $t \to +\infty$. Since $\Sigma$ is compact, there exists some constant $\epsilon_0>0$ such that for any two points $p,q \in \Sigma$ with $d(p,q)<\epsilon_0$, the chord $C_{p,q}$ joining them has $\|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2}$ be bounded from below by a universal positive constant (see, for example, [@Colding-Minicozzi Lemma 5.2]). By Lemma \[L:length-evolution\], $\ell(t)$ must decrease to zero in finite time, which is a contradiction.
Next, we claim that if the flow exists for all time (i.e. $T=+\infty$), then it must converge to an orthogonal geodesic chord to $\Sigma$ as $t \to \infty$. Since $|\eta^T| \leq \|\eta^T\|_{L^2}$, it suffices to prove the following lemma. Theorem \[T:convergence\] clearly follows from Lemma \[L:ell-limit\] and \[L:kto0\].
\[L:kto0\] Under the same assumption as Lemma \[L:ell-limit\] and suppose $T=+\infty$, then $\|\eta^T\|_{L^2} \to 0$ as $t \to +\infty$.
Write $\ell_t=\ell(t)$ for $t \in [0,+\infty]$. By Lemma \[L:length-evolution\] and \[L:ell-limit\], we have $$\label{E:ell-monotone}
\ell_0 \geq \ell_t \geq \ell_\infty>0 \quad \text{ for all $t$}.$$ Moreover, integrating the inequality in Lemma \[L:length-evolution\] we obtain $$\ell_t- \ell_\infty = \int_{t}^\infty \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \; d\tau \geq 0.$$ As a result, $\int_t^\infty \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \; d\tau \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$. In other words, $\|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2}$ is $L^2$-integrable on $t \in [0,+\infty)$. If we can control the time derivative of $\|\eta^T\|_{L^2}^2$, then we can conclude that $\|\eta^T\|_{L^2} \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$. Using (\[E:eta-norm-evolution\]), (\[E:ell-monotone\]), Lemma \[L:DN\] and $\|\eta^T \|^2_{L^2} \leq 2$, we have the following differential inequality $$\label{E:norm-ineq}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \leq \left( C+\frac{4}{\ell_\infty} \right) \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2}$$ where $C=\sup_{\Sigma} |A| > 0$ is a constant depending only on the compact submanifold $\Sigma$. We now combine (\[E:norm-ineq\]) with the fact that $\int_t^\infty \|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \; d\tau \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$ to conclude that $\|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2} \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$.
To simplify notation, let $f(t):=\|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2}$ and $c:=C+\frac{4}{\ell_\infty}$. Then $\int_t^\infty f \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$ and $f' \leq cf$. We argue that $f(t) \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$. Suppose not, then there exists an increasing sequence $t_n \to +\infty$ such that $$\label{E:conv}
f(t_n) > \frac{1}{n} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \int_{t_n/2}^\infty f \leq \frac{1}{n^3}.$$ We claim that there exists $t_n^* \in (t_n -\frac{1}{n},t_n+\frac{1}{n})$ such that $f(t_n^*) \leq 1/n^2$. If not, then by (\[E:conv\]) $$\frac{2}{n^3} \leq \int_{t_n-\frac{1}{n}}^{t_n+\frac{1}{n}} f \leq \int_{t_n/2}^\infty f \leq \frac{1}{n^3},$$ which is a contradiction. Using that $f' \leq c f$, we see that by (\[E:conv\]) $$\frac{1}{n} < f(t_n) \leq f(t_n^*) e^{\frac{c}{n}} \leq \frac{1}{n^2} e^{\frac{c}{n}}.$$ As a result, there is a contradiction when $n$ is sufficiently large. We have thus proved that $f(t) \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$, as claimed.
Existence of Orthogonal Geodesic Chords {#S:applications}
=======================================
In this section, we give several geometric applications of the chord shortening flow concerning the existence of multiple orthogonal geodesic chords. We first give the precise definition.
\[D:OGC\] Let $\Sigma \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a smooth $k$-dimensional submanifold without boundary. An *orthogonal geodesic chord for $\Sigma$* is a geodesic $c:[0,1] \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with endpoint $c(0)$ and $c(1)$ lying on $\Sigma$ such that $c'(0)$ and $c'(1)$ are normal to $\Sigma$ at $c(0)$ and $c(1)$ respectively.
An *orthogonal geodesic chord* is also called a *free boundary geodesic* [@Zhou16] or a *double normal* [@Kuiper64] in the literature. Note that in case $\Sigma \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is an embedded hypersurface which bounds a domain $\Omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, our definition of orthogonal geodesic chords does not require the chord to be contained inside $\overline{\Omega}$ as for example in [@Giambo-Giannoni-Piccione14]. The problem of the existence of multiple orthogonal geodesic chord for submanifolds in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ was first treated by Riede [@Riede68] as follows. Let $\mathcal{C}_\Sigma$ be the space of all piecewise smooth curve $c:[0,1] \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with end points on $\Sigma$, endowed with the compact open topology. There exists a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action on $\mathcal{C}_\Sigma$ by $c(t) \mapsto c(1-t)$ whose fixed point set is denoted by $\Delta'$. Denote by $H^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}_*(\mathcal{C}_\Sigma,\Delta')$ and $H^*_{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}(\mathcal{C}_\Sigma)$ the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-equivariant homology groups (relative to $\Delta'$) and cohomology groups respectively. The following result is taken from [@Riede68 Satz (5.5)].
\[L:Riede\] If there exists $\beta \in H^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}_*(\mathcal{C}_\Sigma,\Delta')$ and $\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_s \in H^*_{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}(\mathcal{C}_\Sigma)$ (not necessarily distinct) with deg $\alpha_i>0$ for all $i$ such that $(\alpha_1 \cup \cdots \cup \alpha_s) \cap \beta \neq 0$, then there exists at least $s+1$ orthogonal geodesic chords for $\Sigma$.
The proof of Lemma \[L:Riede\] involves a discrete curve shortening process $\Psi$ on $\mathcal{C}_\Sigma$ which satisfies properties (1) - (3) as described in the introduction. Since any curve $c \in \mathcal{C}_\Sigma$ can be continuously deformed into the unique chord joining the same end points, we can restrict $\mathcal{C}_\Sigma$ to the subset $\mathcal{C}^0_\Sigma$ consisting of all the chords with end points on $\Sigma$. The chord shortening flow is then a curve shortening process on $\mathcal{C}^0_\Sigma$ which satisfies all the required properties. Moreover, the space of chords $\mathcal{C}^0_\Sigma$ can also be described as the orbit space of $\Sigma \times \Sigma$ under the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action $(p,q) \mapsto (q,p)$. As before, if we let $\Delta \subset \Sigma \times \Sigma$ be the fixed point set of the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-action, and $H^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}_*(\Sigma \times \Sigma, \Delta)$, $H^*_{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}(\Sigma \times \Sigma)$ be the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-equivariant homology and cohomology respectively, we have by naturality $$\label{E:isomorphism}
H^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}_*(\Sigma \times \Sigma,\Delta) \cong H^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}_*(\mathcal{C}_\Sigma,\Delta') \qquad \text{and} \qquad H^*_{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}(\Sigma \times \Sigma) \cong H^*_{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}(\mathcal{C}_\Sigma).$$ In [@Hayashi82], Hayashi studied the equivariant (co)homology of $\Sigma \times \Sigma$ and obtained the following result in [@Hayashi82 Theorem 2].
\[L:Hayashi\] There exists $\beta \in H^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}_{2k}(\Sigma \times \Sigma,\Delta)$ and $\alpha \in H^1_{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}(\Sigma \times \Sigma)$ such that $\alpha^k \cap \beta \neq 0$ in $H^{{\mathbb{Z}}_2}_k(\Sigma \times \Sigma, \Delta)$, where $\alpha^k=\alpha \cup \cdots \cup \alpha$ is the $k$-th power of cup products of $\alpha$ and $k=\dim \Sigma$.
Combining Lemma \[L:Hayashi\], \[L:Riede\] and (\[E:isomorphism\]), we have proved Theorem \[T:double-normals\], which clearly implies Lusternik-Schnirelmann’s theorem (Theorem \[T:LS\]) as a special case since the orthogonal geodesic chords must be contained inside the convex domain by convexity of the domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Shrinking convex chord to a point {#S:convex-chord}
=================================
In this section, we study the evolution of chords inside a convex connected planar domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. In particular, we prove that if an initial chord is *convex*, then it will shrink to a point in finite time under the chord shortening flow. In order to make precise the concept of *convexity*, we need to be consistent with the orientation of a curve in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. For this reason, we restrict our attention to plane curves which bounds a domain in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
\[D:boundary-orientation\] For any smooth domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$, we always orient the boundary $\partial \Omega$ as the boundary of $\Omega$ with the standard orientation inherited from $\mathbb{R}^2$. The orientation determines uniquely a global unit tangent vector field, called the *orientation field*, $\xi:\partial \Omega \to T(\partial \Omega)$ such that $\nu:=J \xi$ is the inward pointing normal of $\partial {\Omega}$ relative to ${\Omega}$. Here, $J:{\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is the counterclockwise rotation by $\pi/2$.
Using Definition \[D:boundary-orientation\], we can define the *boundary angle* $\Theta$ which measures the contact angle between a chord $C$ and the boundary $\partial \Omega$.
\[D:Theta\] For any (oriented) chord $C_{p,q}$ joining $p$ to $q$ with $p \neq q \in \partial \Omega$, we define the *boundary angle* $\Theta:\{p,q\} \to \mathbb{R}$ by $$\Theta(p):={\langle}\eta(p), \xi(p) {\rangle}, \quad \text{and} \quad \Theta(q):=- {\langle}\eta(q), \xi(q) {\rangle},$$ where $\xi$ is the orientation field on $\partial \Omega$ as in Definition \[D:boundary-orientation\].
\[D:convex-chord\] An oriented chord $C_{p,q}$ is *convex* if $\Theta \geq 0$ at both end points.
If we change the orientation of the chord from $C_{p,q}$ to $C_{q,p}$, the boundary angle $\Theta$ changes sign. Since the orientation field $\xi$ is always tangent to $\partial \Omega$, we have $\Theta(p)=\Theta(q)=0$ if and only if $C_{p,q}$ meets $\partial \Omega$ orthogonally at its end points $p$ and $q$.
If we define the “unit normal” $N$ of $\partial C_{p,q}=\{p,q\}$ inside $\partial \Omega$ by setting $$N(p)=-\xi(p) \quad \text{and} \quad N(q)=\xi(q),$$ then a solution to the chord shortening flow (\[E:CSF’\]) can be consider as a smooth $1$-parameter family of pair of points on $\partial {\Omega}$ given by $\gamma:\{0,1\} \times [0,T) \to \partial \Omega$ such that $$\label{E:CSF''}
\frac{\partial \gamma}{dt} (u,t) =\Theta (\gamma(u,t)) N(\gamma(u,t)),$$ where $\Theta$ is the boundary angle for the oriented chord from $\gamma(0,t)$ to $\gamma(1,t)$. Since the value of $\Theta$ at $u=0$ depends also on the other end point $\gamma(1,t)$, this is a non-local function. Therefore, the chord shortening flow can be thought of as a non-local curve shortening flow driven by the boundary angle $\Theta$.
We are now ready to state the main theorem of this section. The readers can compare Theorem \[T:contraction\] with the famous result of Huisken [@Huisken84] which says that any compact embedded convex hypersurface in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ would contract to a point in finite time under the mean curvature flow.
\[T:contraction\] Let $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a compact connected domain with smooth convex boundary. Any convex chord which is not an orthogonal geodesic chord would converge to a point in finite time under the chord shortening flow.
To prove Theorem \[T:contraction\] we need to establish a few propositions, which are of geometric interest. We first state the evolution of the boundary angle $\Theta$ under the chord shortening flow. Note that we always have $|\Theta| \leq 1$ by definition.
\[Evolution of boundary angle\] \[P:Theta-evolution\] Suppose $C(u,t):I \times [0,T) \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a solution to the chord shortening flow as in Definition \[D:CSF\]. Then, the boundary angle $\Theta(u,t): \{0,1\} \times [0,T) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfies the following equation (recall (\[E:norm\]) and (\[E:DN\])) $$\label{E:Theta-evolution}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t} \Theta = -\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}} \Theta+ \frac{1}{\ell} \Big(\|\Theta\|^2_{L^2}+ \ell k \langle -\eta,\nu \rangle \Big) \Theta + \frac{1}{\ell} \Big( 1+ \langle \xi(p),\xi(q)\rangle \Big) (\Theta-\overline{\Theta}),$$ where $k:=\langle \nabla_\xi \xi,\nu \rangle$ is the curvature of $\partial \Omega$ with respect to $\nu$ (recall Definition \[D:boundary-orientation\]), $\ell=\ell(t)$ is the length of the chord $C(\cdot,t):I \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$ with outward unit conormal $\eta$.
It follow directly from Theorem \[T:eta-T-evolution\] and Definition \[D:Theta\]
Using (\[E:Theta-evolution\]), we immediately have the following evolution equations.
Under the same hypothesis as Proposition \[P:Theta-evolution\], we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:Theta-avg-evolution}
\frac{d}{dt} \overline{\Theta} &=& \frac{1}{\ell} \Big( \|\Theta\|^2_{L^2} -1-\langle \xi(p),\xi(q) \rangle \Big) \overline{\Theta} + \overline{k \langle -\eta, \nu \rangle \Theta}, \\
\label{E:Theta-norm-evolution}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \|\Theta\|^2_{L^2} &=& \frac{\ell}{2} {\langle}\xi(p),\xi(q) {\rangle}\|{\Delta^{\frac{1}{2}}}\Theta\|^2_{L^2} + \overline{k \langle -\eta,\nu \rangle \Theta^2} \\
&& \hspace{2cm} + \frac{1}{\ell} \Big( \|\Theta\|^2_{L^2}-1-\langle \xi(p),\xi(q) \rangle \Big) \|\Theta\|^2_{L^2}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Both equation follows from (\[E:Theta-evolution\]) and Lemma \[L:DN\].
Our first lemma is that convexity is preserved under the chord shortening flow. From now on, we will use $C(t)$ to denote the unique solution to the chord shortening flow with initial chord $C(0)$ defined on the maximal time interval $t \in [0,T)$ (where $T$ could be infinite).
\[L:convex\] Let $C(0)$ be a convex chord inside a compact domain $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ with convex boundary $\partial \Omega$. Then, $C(t)$ remains convex for all $t \in [0,T)$.
Let $\Theta_{min}$ and $\Theta_{max}$ be the minimum and maximum of $\Theta$, both of which is a Lipschitz function of $t$. By (\[E:Theta-evolution\]), we have the following equality $$\label{E:Theta-min-1}
\frac{d}{dt} \Theta_{min} = \frac{1}{\ell} \Big( (\|\Theta\|^2_{L^2}-1) \Theta_{min} + \ell k \langle -\eta,\nu \rangle \Theta_{min} - \langle \xi(p),\xi(q)\rangle \Theta_{max} \Big)$$ As $\partial \Omega$ is convex, we have $k \geq 0$ and $\langle -\eta,\nu \rangle \geq 0$. Moreover, if the chord is convex, then $\Theta_{min} \geq 0$. Therefore, (\[E:Theta-min-1\]) implies the following differential inequality $$\label{E:Theta-min-2}
\frac{d}{dt} \Theta_{min} \geq \frac{1}{\ell} \Big( (\|\Theta\|^2_{L^2}-1) \Theta_{min} - \langle \xi(p),\xi(q)\rangle \Theta_{max} \Big).$$ By elementary geometry (see Figure \[F:xi\]), we can express the term involving the orientation field as $$\label{E:xi}
\langle \xi(p),\xi(q) \rangle = \Theta_p \Theta_q - \sqrt{(1-\Theta_p^2)(1-\Theta_q^2)}.$$
Combining (\[E:Theta-min-2\]) with (\[E:ell-evolution\]), noting that $\|\eta^T\|^2_{L^2}=\|\Theta\|^2_{L^2}$ and using (\[E:xi\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\Theta_{min}}{\ell} \right) &\geq& \frac{1}{\ell^2} \Big( (2\|\Theta\|^2_{L^2}-1) \Theta_{min} - \langle \xi(p),\xi(q)\rangle \Theta_{max} \Big) \\
&=& \frac{1}{\ell^2} \Big( 2\Theta^3_{min} -(1-\Theta_{max}^2)\Theta_{min} + \sqrt{(1-\Theta_{min}^2)(1-\Theta_{max}^2)} \Theta_{max} \Big) \\
& \geq & \frac{1}{\ell^2} \Big( 2 \Theta_{min}^3 + (1-\Theta_{max}^2) (\Theta_{max} -\Theta_{min}) \Big) \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, if $\Theta_{min} \geq 0$ at $t=0$, then $\Theta_{min} /\ell$ is a non-decreasing function of $t$, hence is non-negative for all $t \in [0,T)$. This proves that $C(t)$ remains convex for all $t \in [0,T)$.
![The convex region cut out by a convex chord in $\Omega$. Note that $\langle \xi(p) ,\xi(q) \rangle =\cos (\theta_p+\theta_q)$.[]{data-label="F:xi"}](xi.png){height="5cm"}
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section.
By Theorem \[T:convergence\], it suffices to show that the chord shortening flow $C(t)$ exists only on a maximal time interval $t \in [0,T)$ with $T<+\infty$. First of all, $\Theta \geq 0$ for all $t \in [0,T)$ by Lemma \[L:convex\]. Using (\[E:Theta-avg-evolution\]) and (\[E:ell-evolution\]), notice that $2\|\Theta\|^2_{L^2} \geq \overline{\Theta}^2$, a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \[L:convex\] gives$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{\overline{\Theta}}{\ell} \right) &\geq & \frac{1}{\ell^2} \Big(\overline{\Theta}^2-1-\langle \xi, \xi \rangle \Big) \overline{\Theta} \\
& \geq & \frac{1}{\ell^2} \Big( \Theta_{min}^2 + \Theta_{min} \Theta_{max} \Big) \overline{\Theta} \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\overline{\Theta}/\ell$ is a non-decreasing function of $t$. Since $\overline{\Theta}/\ell >0$ at $t=0$, it remains bounded away from zero for all $t \in [0,T)$. Therefore, if $T=+\infty$, by Theorem \[T:convergence\] we must have $C(t)$ converges to an orthogonal geodesic chord and thus $\overline{\Theta}/\ell \to 0$, which is a contradiction.
[^1]: In fact all the following discussions make sense for *immersed* submanifolds. However, for simplicity, we will assume that all submanifolds are *embedded*.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the inverse problem for the $2$-dimensional weighted local Radon transform $R_m[f]$, where $f$ is supported in $y\geq x^2$ and $R_m[f](\xi,\eta)=\int f(x, \xi x + \eta) m(\xi, \eta, x){\,\text{d}}x$ is defined near $(\xi,\eta)=(0,0)$. For weight functions satisfying a certain differential equation we give weak estimates of $f$ in terms of $R_m[f]$ for functions $f$ that satisfies an a priori bound.'
author:
- 'Joel Andersson[^1]'
- 'Jan Boman[^2]'
title: Stability estimates with a priori bound for the inverse local Radon transform
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Radon transform, weighted Radon transform, local injectivity, stability estimates
Introduction
============
The means $\mathcal{M}_{{\varepsilon},\gamma}$
==============================================
Estimate for the standard Radon transform
=========================================
Estimate for the weighted Radon transform
=========================================
*The authors would like to thank Institut Mittag-Leffler for providing an excellent working environment during the time when this research was conducted. We would also like to thank Professor Jan-Olov Strömberg and Professor Mikko Salo for valuable discussions regarding this work.*
Appendix
========
[10]{}
G. Alexits. . Translated from the German by I. Földer. International Series of Monographs in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 20. Pergamon Press, New York, 1961.
. V. Arbuzov, A. L. Bukhge[ĭ]{}m, and S. G. Kazantsev. Two-dimensional tomography problems and the theory of [$A$]{}-analytic functions \[translation of [*Algebra, geometry, analysis and mathematical physics (Russian) (Novosibirsk, 1996)*]{}, 6–20, 189, [I]{}zdat. [R]{}oss.kad. [N]{}auk [S]{}ibirsk. [O]{}tdel. [I]{}nst. [M]{}at., [N]{}ovosibirsk, 1997; [MR]{}1624170 (99m:44003)\]. , 8(4):1–20, 1998.
Guillaume Bal. On the attenuated [R]{}adon transform with full and partial measurements. , 20(2):399–418, 2004.
Guillaume Bal and Alexandru Tamasan. Inverse source problems in transport equations. , 39(1):57–76, 2007.
Jan Boman. An example of nonuniqueness for a generalized [R]{}adon transform. , 61:395–401, 1993.
Jan Boman. A local uniqueness theorem for weighted [R]{}adon transforms. , 4(4):631–637, 2010.
Jan Boman. Local non-injectivity for weighted [R]{}adon transforms. In [*Tomography and inverse transport theory*]{}, volume 559 of [ *Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 39–47. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011.
Jan Boman. On local injectivity for weighted radon transforms. In [*The mathematical legacy of Leon Ehrenpreis*]{}, Springer proceedings in mathematics, pages 45–60. 2012.
Jan Boman and Eric Todd Quinto. Support theorems for real-analytic [R]{}adon transforms. , 55(4):943–948, 1987.
Jan Boman and Jan-Olov Str[ö]{}mberg. Novikov’s inversion formula for the attenuated [R]{}adon transform—a new approach. , 14(2):185–198, 2004.
Pedro Caro, David Dos Santos Ferreira, and Alberto Ruiz. Stability estimates for the radon transform with restricted data and applications, 2012.
David V. Finch. The attenuated x-ray transform: recent developments. In [*Inside out: inverse problems and applications*]{}, volume 47 of [*Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ.*]{}, pages 47–66. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003.
A. S. Fokas. Generalized [F]{}ourier transforms, inverse problems, and integrability in [$4+2$]{}. In [*Mathematical methods for imaging and inverse problems*]{}, volume 26 of [*ESAIM Proc.*]{}, pages 55–64. EDP Sci., Les Ulis, 2009.
Simon Gindikin. A remark on the weighted [R]{}adon transform on the plane. , 4(4):649–653, 2010.
Alexander [Hertle]{}. , 92:201–205, 1984.
Lars H[ö]{}rmander. . Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. Distribution theory and Fourier analysis, Reprint of the second (1990) edition \[Springer, Berlin; MR1065993 (91m:35001a)\].
Fritz John. Continuous dependence on data for solutions of partial differential equations with a presribed bound. , 13:551–585, 1960.
S. G. Kazantsev and A. A. Bukhgeim. Inversion of the scalar and vector attenuated [X]{}-ray transforms in a unit disc. , 15(7):735–765, 2007.
M. M. Lavrentev and L. Ya. Savelev. . Consultants Bureau, New York, 1995. With a supplement by A. L. Bukhgeim, Translated from the Russian.
J.-L. Lions and E. Magenes. . Dunod, Paris, 1970. Travaux et Recherches Math[é]{}matiques, No. 20.
Andrew Markoe and Eric Todd Quinto. An elementary proof of local invertibility for generalized and attenuated [R]{}adon transforms. , 16(5):1114–1119, 1985.
F. Natterer. Inversion of the attenuated [R]{}adon transform. , 17(1):113–119, 2001.
Roman G. Novikov. An inversion formula for the attenuated [X]{}-ray transformation. , 40(1):145–167, 2002.
J.-P. Ramis. Dévissage [G]{}evrey. In [*Journées [S]{}ingulières de [D]{}ijon ([U]{}niv. [D]{}ijon, [D]{}ijon, 1978)*]{}, volume 59 of [*Astérisque*]{}, pages 4, 173–204. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1978.
Luigi Rodino. . World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1993.
Hans Rullg[å]{}rd and Eric Todd Quinto. Local [S]{}obolev estimates of a function by means of its [R]{}adon transform. , 4(4):721–734, 2010.
G. Sansone. . Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1991. Translated from the Italian by Ainsley H. Diamond, With a foreword by Einar Hille, Reprint of the 1959 edition.
Robert S. Strichartz. Radon inversion—variations on a theme. , 89(6):377–384, 420–423, 1982.
Jan-Olov Str[ö]{}mberg and Joel Andersson. An identity for triplets of double [H]{}ilbert transforms, with applications to the attenuated [R]{}adon transform. , 28(12):125007, 25, 2012.
G. Szeg[ő]{}. . Number v. 23 in American Mathematical Society. American Mathematical Society, 1967.
[^1]: Email: [[email protected]]([email protected])
[^2]: Email: [[email protected]]([email protected])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We provide a new way to bound the security of quantum key distribution using only two high-level, diagrammatic features of quantum processes: the compositional behavior of complementary measurements and the essential uniqueness of purification. We begin by demonstrating a proof in the simplest case, where the eavesdropper doesn’t noticeably disturb the channel at all and has no quantum memory. We then show how this approach extends straightforwardly to account for an eavesdropper with quantum memory and the presence of noise.'
author:
- Aleks Kissinger
- Sean Tull
- Bas Westerbaan
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Picture-perfect Quantum Key Distribution'
---
Introduction
============
Traditionally in cryptography, parties use pre-shared keys to communicate securely. In 1976 Diffie and Hellman introduced the first *key agreement protocol* that allows two parties, say Alice and Bob, to securely establish a key over an insecure channel [@nd]. There are two caveats to its security. First, it’s an unauthenticated key agreement protocol,[^1] and second, its security hinges on the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms. Famously, Shor showed in 1994 [@Shor] that a (large-scale stable) quantum computer is able to calculate discrete logarithms with ease, breaking Diffie and Hellman’s original scheme.
There are other key agreement protocols whose security is based on mathematical problems which are believed to be difficult, even for quantum computers. An example is <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NewHope</span> [@newhope; @googlenh]. Such schemes form part of the program of *post-quantum cryptography* [@pqcrypto].
On the other hand Bennett and Brassard proposed a completely different unauthenticated key agreement protocol, now called BB84 [@BB84], whose security is not based on a mathematical problem, but on physical assumptions on quantum mechanical systems. In this protocol Alice needs to be able to send Bob qubits. In most implementations, like [@idq], this is done by sending photons over a fiber optic cable, where the qubits are encoded in the polarization of the photons. After BB84 other variations have been proposed, notably E91 [@Ekert91], and they are all indiscriminately referred to as Quantum Key Distribution (QKD).
In their original paper, Bennett and Brassard give a short argument for the security of BB84. Feeling this proof was not satisfactory, subsequent authors have proposed more meticulous proofs, for instance [@mayers]. However, this added rigor came at the cost of complexity, prompting Shor and Preskill to publish a ‘simple proof’ [@simpleproof]. This did not settle the matter: many subsequent publications have appeared on the security of BB84 and its variants, differing not only in levels of rigor vs. simplicity, but also in the physical assumptions and the efficiency of the protocol itself (e.g. qubits required per bit of shared key) [@renner; @qkdsec1; @qkdsec2; @qkdsec3; @qkdsec4; @qkdsec5; @qkdsec6; @qkdsec7; @qkdsec8; @qkdsec9]. The present paper contributes another proof to the mix, whose primary aim is simplicity. It is quite different from those that came before, in that we adopt a purely graphical notation and rely on techniques which arose in categorical quantum mechanics [@AC1] and the diagrammatic approach to quantum theory [@CKbook]. We will show that two high-level features of quantum processes–namely the behavior of complementary measurements under composition [@CD2] and the essential uniqueness of purification of quantum channels [@QuantumFromPrinciples]–suffice to show that there exists no quantum process with which an eavesdropper can undetectably extract information about Alice and Bob’s shared key.
We begin by briefly reviewing the graphical notation for quantum processes, including depictions of purification and complementary measurements. In Section \[sec:qkd\], we describe a version of BB84 in this notation and give a one-line version of a proof of correctness which already appears in the literature [@BWWWZ; @CKbook], but makes the (unreasonably) strong assumption that Eve is only allowed to measure and re-prepare in the $Z$ and $X$ bases. Our first main result removes this assumption, allowing Eve to perform any quantum process to (attempt to) extract information from Alice and Bob’s channel: We then formulate the condition that Eve’s channel remains undetected by means of two equations, corresponding to the cases where Alice and Bob’s measurement choices agree: $$\tikzfig{exact-req1}\qquad \qquad
\tikzfig{exact-req2}$$ Using the behavior of complementary measurements, we show that this implies that Eve’s channel separates:
While already much more general than previous graphical proofs, this still makes two very strong assumptions. First, it assumes that Eve performs the same process each time Alice and Bob use their channel. Second, it assumes all equalities are exact, so it offers no guarantees in the presence of noise.
We remove the first limitation in Section \[sec:memory\] by allowing Eve to maintain an arbitrarily large quantum memory between usages of the channel, and show that the separation argument still holds. We remove the second limitation in Section \[sec:noise\] by showing the same graphical proof from Section \[sec:qkd\] goes through, thanks to the continuity properties of purification and diagram rewriting, if we replace equality by $\epsilon$-closeness in the completely bounded norm (written ‘$\,\cdots \underset{\mathrm{cb}}{\overset{\varepsilon}{=}} \cdots\,$’). This enables us to give a security bound for the QKD protocol comparable to the one suggested in [@contstinespring]. In particular, the fact that Eve’s process disturbs the channel very little can be formulated as: $$\tikzfig{approx-req1}\qquad\qquad
\tikzfig{approx-req2}$$ This implies that Eve’s process is within $N\sqrt{\epsilon}$ of a separable one: $$\tikzfig{separates-approx}$$ for some constant $N$ depending only on the dimension of Alice and Bob’s system.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelims}
=============
Throughout the paper, we will use *string diagram* notation for linear maps and channels. [@CKbook] Systems are depicted as wires and maps as boxes. To make it clear whether we are working with linear maps between Hilbert spaces or completely positive maps (CP-maps), we will depict finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces $H, K, \ldots$ as thin wires and the associated spaces of operators $\mathcal B(H), \mathcal B(K), \ldots$ as thick wires.
A linear map $V \colon H \to K$ and CP-map $\Phi \colon \mathcal B(H) \to \mathcal B(K)$ (for Hilbert spaces $H,K$) are depicted respectively as: $$\tikzfig{lin-map}
\qquad\qquad
\tikzfig{cp-map}$$ We omit wire labels if they are irrelevant or clear from context. Compositions of maps is depicted by plugging boxes together vertically: $$V \circ U \ =:\ \tikzfig{lin-map-comp}
\qquad\qquad
\Psi \circ \Phi \ =:\ \tikzfig{cp-map-comp}$$ and tensor products by putting boxes side-by-side: $$U \otimes V \ =:\ \tikzfig{lin-map-tensor}
\qquad
\Phi \otimes \Psi \ =:\ \tikzfig{cp-map-tensor}$$ Similarly, maps between tensor products such as $U \colon H \to K \otimes L$ or $\Phi \colon \mathcal B(H ) \to \mathcal B(K) \otimes \mathcal B (L)$ are depicted as boxes with multiple input/output wires: $$\tikzfig{lin-map-multi}
\qquad\qquad
\tikzfig{cp-map-multi}$$ where we identify $\mathcal B(H) \otimes \mathcal B(K) \cong \mathcal B(H \otimes K)$. Identity linear maps/CP-maps are represented as ‘plain wires’: $$1_H\ =:\ \tikzfig{wire}
\qquad\qquad
1_{\mathcal B(H)} \ =:\ \tikzfig{dwire}$$ since $U \circ 1_H = 1_K \circ U = U$ and similarly for CP-maps. The trivial system $\mathbb C$ is depicted as ‘no wire’, since $H \otimes \mathbb C \cong H$ and $\mathcal B(H) \otimes \mathbb C \cong \mathcal B(H)$. Regarding vectors as linear maps $v \colon \mathbb C \to H$ and positive operators as CP-maps $\rho : \mathbb C \to \mathcal B(H)$, we can depict vectors $\ket{\psi} \in H$ and quantum states in $\rho \in \mathcal B(H)$ respectively as maps from 0 to 1 wire: $$\tikzfig{lin-map-state}
\qquad\qquad
\tikzfig{cp-map-state}$$ Similarly, we can depict linear functionals $\bra{\psi} \colon H \to \mathbb C$ and CP-maps of the form $\bm e \colon \mathcal B(H) \to \mathbb C$ as maps from 1 to 0 wires: $$\tikzfig{lin-map-effect}
\qquad\qquad
\tikzfig{cp-map-effect}$$
Purification
------------
The linear map that sends $\rho \in \mathcal B(H)$ to its trace is a CP-map $\Tr \colon \mathcal B(H) \to \mathbb C$, which we draw as a ‘ground’ symbol: $$%1_H\ =\ \maxmix \qquad\qquad
\Tr\ =\ \discard$$ Using this notation, we can express the property of a CP-map being trace-preserving as follows:
Furthermore, any linear map $U \colon H \to K$ induces a CP-map $\widehat U \colon \mathcal B(H) \to \mathcal B(K)$ via: $$\label{eq:pure}
\widehat U(\rho) = U \,\rho \,U^{\dagger}$$ We call a CP-map *pure* if it is of the form of . We call this method of turning a linear map into a pure CP-map *doubling*.
An important theorem about CP-maps is that any CP-map can be represented in an essentially unique manner, by means of a pure CP-map and the trace.
For any completely positive map $\Phi \colon \mathcal B (H)\to \mathcal B (K)$ there is a Hilbert space $L$ and linear map $V \colon H \to K \otimes L$ with $$\label{eq:purification}
\tikzfig{purification}$$ Moreover, for any (other) linear map $V' \colon H \to K \otimes L$ satisfying , there is a unitary $U \colon L \to L$ such that:
Spiders and decoherence
-----------------------
To each orthonormal basis (ONB) $\{ \ket i \} $ of a (finite-dimensional) Hilbert space $H$, we associate a family of linear maps called *spiders* as follows: $$\whitedot_m^n :=\ \tikzfig{spider-mn}\ =\ \sum_i \underbrace{\ket{i\ldots i}}_n\underbrace{\bra{i\ldots i}}_m$$ where a spider with zero legs is a complex number $D$, the dimension of the Hilbert space.
Different ONBs induce different spiders, and furthermore an ONB is uniquely fixed by its family of spiders [@CPV]. Adjacent spiders associated with the same ONB fuse together. That is, for $k \geq 1$, we have: $$\label{eq:spider1}
\tikzfig{spidercompcount}\ =\
\tikzfig{spidernnmm}$$ We write the doubled spiders as follows: $$\whitedot_m^n := \tikzfig{spider} \quad\mapsto\quad
\widehat{\whitedot_m^n} := \tikzfig{qspider}$$ These CP-maps, which satisfy the same fusion law, are called *quantum spiders*. Examining the concrete expression: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\whitedot_m^n}(\rho) \ :=\ & (\whitedot_m^n) \, \rho\, (\whitedot_m^n)^\dagger \\
\ =\ &\
\sum_{ij} \underbrace{\ket{i\ldots i}}_n\underbrace{\bra{i\ldots i}}_m\, \rho\, \underbrace{\ket{j\ldots j}}_m\underbrace{\bra{j\ldots j}}_n
\end{aligned}$$ we see that: $$\Tr(\widehat{\whitedot_m^n}(\rho)) \ =\
\sum_{i} \underbrace{\bra{i\ldots i}}_m\, \rho\, \underbrace{\ket{i\ldots i}}_m$$ Hence, such a map is trace-preserving whenever it has exactly one input: $$\label{eq:tp-one-input}
\tikzfig{tp-one-input}$$
One derived map which will be particularly important in the sequel is the *decoherence map*, which arises from tracing out one output of $\widehat{\whitedot_1^2}$: $$\bm d_{\whitedot} \ =\ \tikzfig{decoh-def}$$ Concretely: $$\bm d_{\whitedot}(\rho) =
\sum_i \ketbra{i}{i}\, \rho\, \ketbra{i}{i}$$ That is, it projects a positive matrix written with respect to the ONB $\{ \ket i \} \subset H$ to its diagonal entries: $$\rho_{ij} \mapsto \delta_{ij} \rho_{ii}$$ The fact that this CP-map is trace-preserving follows from : and idempotence from spider-fusion and :
If $\dim(H) = n$, decoherence gives a rank-$n$ projector in the $n^2$-dimensional space $\mathcal B(H)$, hence we can split this projector using the following linear maps: $$\bm m_{\whitedot} \ =\ \tikzfig{meas-types} \qquad\qquad
\bm e_{\whitedot} \ =\ \tikzfig{enc-types}$$ where: $$\bm m_{\whitedot}(\ketbra{i}{j}) := \delta_{ij} \ket{i}
\qquad\qquad
\bm e_{\whitedot}(\ket{i}) := \ketbra{i}{i}$$ Then we have: $$\label{eq:decoh-split}
\tikzfig{decoh-split} \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
\tikzfig{decoh-split2}$$
Treating $\mathcal B(H)$ itself as a Hilbert space using the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product $\braket{U}{V} := \Tr(U^\dagger V)$, one can easily verify that $\bm m_{\whitedot} = (\bm e_{\whitedot})^\dagger$.
These maps have a straightforward operational interpretation which will play a role in the following sections. The first, $\bm m_{\whitedot}$, sends a quantum state to a classical probability distribution, whose entries are the Born rule probabilities associated with an ONB measurement of $\{\ket{i}\}$: $$\bm m_{\whitedot}(\rho) = \left(
\begin{matrix}
\bra{1}\rho\ket{1} \\
\vdots \\
\bra{n}\rho\ket{n}
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ Hence, we can think of it as a map from a quantum space $\mathcal B(H)$ to a classical space of probability distributions in $H$ (treated simply as a vector space), representing the act measuring in the given basis.
Conversely, $\bm e_{\whitedot}$ sends a classical value (or distribution over classical values) to an encoding of that value as a quantum state: Hence, it represents the act of *encoding* a classical value with respect to an ONB of quantum states.
With these interpretations in mind, the left equation in gives an operational reading for decoherence. Namely, it arises from measuring a quantum system, followed by re-preparing it in the same basis.
Furthermore, certain spiders take on a special meaning as operations on classical systems. Namely, $$\label{eq:copy}
\tikzfig{copy}\ =\ \sum_i \ketbra{ii}{i}$$ is the process which *copies* a classical value, $$\label{eq:delete}
\tikzfig{delete}\ =\ \sum_i \bra{i}$$ is *deleting* (a.k.a. marginalisation), and $$\label{eq:uniform}
\oneoverD\ \tikzfig{uniform}\ =\ \oneoverD\ \sum_i \ket{i}$$ is the *uniform probability distribution*. Note that and are the classical analogue to the trace and the maximally mixed state, respectively. Since is a cloning (i.e. broadcasting) operation, it has no quantum analogue.
The final spider-derived map we will use is a *non-demolition measurement*: This map captures the process where we perform an ONB measurement (which produces classical data) but also leave the quantum system intact. Alternatively, we can read the RHS above literally as performing a (demolition) measurement, copying the measurement outcome, and using one of the copies to re-prepare the quantum system.
Complementary spiders
---------------------
We can study the interaction of distinct ONBs on the same Hilbert space by introducing distinct families of spiders. From hence forth, we will fix two ONBs $\{ \ket{z_i} \}$, $\{ \ket{x_i} \}$ of a Hilbert space $H$ of dimension $D$, and let: $$\begin{aligned}
\whitedot_m^n & :=\ \tikzfig{spider-mn}\ =\ \sum_i \underbrace{\ket{z_i\ldots z_i}}_n\underbrace{\bra{z_i\ldots z_i}}_m \\[4mm]
\graydot_m^n & :=\ \tikzfig{gray-spider-mn}\ =\ \sum_i \underbrace{\ket{x_i\ldots x_i}}_n\underbrace{\bra{x_i\ldots x_i}}_m\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we let: $$\begin{aligned}
\bm m_{\whitedot}(\ketbra{z_i}{z_j}) & := \delta_{ij} \ket{z_i}
&
\bm e_{\whitedot}(\ket{z_i}) & := \ketbra{z_i}{z_i} \\
\bm m_{\graydot}(\ketbra{x_i}{x_j}) & := \delta_{ij} \ket{x_i}
&
\bm e_{\graydot}(\ket{x_i}) & := \ketbra{x_i}{x_i}\end{aligned}$$
Two ONBs are said to be *mutually unbiased* or *complementary* whenever any member of one basis gives equal probabilities to all outcomes of a measurement with respect to the other, i.e. we have $|\braket{z_i}{x_j}|^2 = \frac{1}{D}$, for all $i, j$. We can also express this property succinctly in terms of the measurement/encoding maps associated with a pair of spiders.
\[thm:complementary1\] Two ONBs are mutually unbiased if and only if their measurement/encoding maps satisfy the following equation: $$\label{eq:complementaritythick}
\tikzfig{complementaritythick}$$
Precomposing the LHS of with $\ket{z_i}$ and post-composing with $\bra{x_j}$ yields: $$\bra{x_j} \bm m_{\graydot} \bm e_{\whitedot} \ket{z_i} =
(\bm e_{\graydot} \ket{x_j})^\dagger (\bm e_{\whitedot} \ket{z_i})$$ $$= \Tr(\ketbra{x_j}{x_j}\ketbra{z_i}{z_i}) = |\braket{z_i}{x_j}|^2$$ By definition of spiders, performing the same pre- and post-composition on the RHS yields , which completes the proof.
Rather than resorting to measurement and encoding maps, we can also express mutual unbiasedness directly in terms of spiders with the help of an additional linear map, called the *antipode* associated with a pair of spiders: $$\tikzfig{dualiser-def} \ = \ \sum_{ij} \braket{z_i}{x_j} \ketbra{x_j}{z_i}$$
\[thm:complementary2\] Two ONBs are mutually unbiased if and only if their associated spiders satisfy the following equation: $$\label{eq:complementarity}
\tikzfig{complementarity}$$
Follows similarly to the proof of Theorem \[thm:complementary1\]. Pre-composing the LHS of with $\ket{z_i}$ and post-composing with $\bra{x_j}$ yields: $$\bra{x_j}s\ket{z_i} \braket{x_j}{z_i} = \braket{z_i}{x_j} \braket{x_j}{z_i} = |\braket{x_j}{z_i}|^2$$ Whereas pre- and post-composing on the RHS again yields $\oneoverD$.
The two conditions for unbiasedness given by Theorems \[thm:complementary1\] and \[thm:complementary2\] are related to each other via the (basis-dependent) isomorphism $\mathcal B(H) \cong H \otimes H$: $$\sum_{ij} \rho_{ij} \ketbra{z_j}{z_i}
\ \ \overset{\sim}{\longleftrightarrow} \ \
\sum_{ij} \rho_{ij} \ket{z_i} \otimes \ket{z_j}$$ Since the above isomorphism is defined with respect to the -basis, the map $s$ corrects the -spider to account for this basis-dependence: $$\tikzfig{white-enc}
\ \overset{\sim}{\longleftrightarrow}\
\tikzfig{copy}
\qquad\qquad
\tikzfig{gray-meas}
\ \overset{\sim}{\longleftrightarrow}\
\tikzfig{graymult-correct}$$
The map $s$ is called an antipode because equation is the antipode law for a Hopf algebra. If the spiders associated with a pair of mutually unbiased bases satisfy the other three Hopf algebra laws, they are called *strongly complementary bases*, which are special mutually unbiased bases which always arise from finite abelian groups via Fourier transform [@CKbook].
Key Distribution Protocol {#sec:qkd}
=========================
Alice chooses a random bit and encodes this bit as a qubit using either the Z $\whitedot$ or X $\graydot$ basis with equal probability. She sends the qubit to Bob. Independently, Bob chooses to perform either a Z or X basis measurement on the qubit he received, again with equal probability. With probability 1/2 their choices agree and the bit is perfectly transmitted: $$\tikzfig{encode1}
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\tikzfig{encode1a}$$ Otherwise, Bob receives a random bit, with no information conveyed: $$\tikzfig{encode2}
\qquad \qquad \qquad
\tikzfig{encode3}$$ To agree on a shared key with average size $n$, Alice and Bob go through the previous routine $4n$ times. Then Alice and Bob announce the bases they used for encoding and measuring respectively and discard those bits where the bases disagree. On average $2n$ bits remain. To check for trouble, Alice randomly picks $n$ of the remaining bits and announces their value to Bob. If there is any mismatch on these check-bits, Alice and Bob abort. If not, Alice and Bob are left with (on average) $n$ bits.
Suppose that an eavesdropper Eve intercepts a transmitted qubit in attempt to extract information. Eve does not know which basis Alice used to encode her bit, so let us first assume Eve adopts a naive strategy whereby she randomly decides to perform a non-demolition measurement with respect to Z or X.
Alice and Bob will ignore any bits for which their basis choices differ, so we need only consider the case where they match. If Alice and Bob both choose Z, and Eve chooses (correctly) to also measure in Z: $$% \label{eq:Eve_requirements_exact}
\tikzfig{outcomes1}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/pic22}$$ she indeed receives a perfect copy of Alice’s bit. On the other hand, if she guesses wrong, and measures X: $$% \label{eq:Eve_requirements_exact}
\tikzfig{outcomes2}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/pic22}$$ Eve and Bob both receive a random bit, completely uncorrelated to Alice’s original bit. Alice and Bob’s communication will be similarly disrupted when they both measure X but Eve measures Z. In a longer run, these disruptions will be detected by Alice and Bob using the check-bits, giving away Eve’s presence.
Now let us consider the case where Eve can apply any operation to attempt to extract some information about Alice’s bit. That is, show applies some quantum channel $\Phi \colon \mathcal{B}(\ahilb) \to \mathcal{B}(\ahilb \otimes \ehilb)$, where $\ahilb$ is the Hilbert space of the qubit and $\ehilb$ is that of some other system possessed by Eve:
In order for Eve’s intervention to remain undetected in either case where Alice and Bob’s measurements agree, Eve’s channel must satisfy the following equations: $$\label{eq:eve-secret}
\tikzfig{exact-req1-enc}\qquad \qquad
\tikzfig{exact-req2-enc}$$ We now prove that, in this scenario, Eve cannot possibly extract any information. That is, her channel separates.
\[thm:exact\_security\_QKD\] For any $\Phi$ satisfying for complementary ONBs /we have: $$%\tikzfig{separates}
\tikzfig{separateslabels}$$ for some state $\rho$ of $\mathcal{B}(\ehilb)$.
By precomposing measurement maps and postcomposing encoding maps, we find $$\label{eq:Eve_requirements_exact}
\tikzfig{exact-req1}\qquad \qquad
\tikzfig{exact-req2}$$ By purifying $\Phi$, we can without loss of generality assume that Eve’s map $\Phi$ is pure, say with $\Phi = \widehat \evepure$. The left-hand side of states that: $$\label{eq:addpurestate}
\tikzfig{proof1}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/pic6}$$ for any normalized pure state $\psi$ of $\ehilb \otimes \ahilb$. By essential uniqueness of purification, we conclude that: $$\label{eq:unitaryappearsinproof}
\tikzfig{proof3}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/pic7}$$ for some unitary $U$ on $\ahilb \otimes \ehilb \otimes \ahilb$. Hence: $$\label{eq:counitsontopinproof}
\tikzfig{proof4}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/pic8}$$ Using the spider laws , it follows that: $$\label{eq:phaseproofstep}
\tikzfig{proof5}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/pic9}$$ The same equations also hold for the gray spiders with the same reasoning starting with the right-hand side of . But together these imply that $\evepure$ separates, since: $$\tikzfig{proof8p}$$ $$\tikzfig{proof9p}$$ (where for a qubit we have $D = 2$). Hence $\Phi$ separates as well.
The simple nature of the graphical proof makes clear several immediate generalizations. Firstly, the same protocol and proof may be applied apply whether Alice and Bob are sharing a qubit or a *qudit* for arbitrary (finite) Hilbert space dimension $D$, on which Alice and Bob must simply choose any pair of complementary orthonormal bases.
Eavesdroppers with memory {#sec:memory}
=========================
A very strong assumption in the previous derivation was that Eve performs the *same* channel every time in attempts to extra information from Alice’s string of bits. Suppose now that Eve may now vary her behavior depending on the qubits she has received previously. That is, she may now make use of a *quantum memory* that persists between individual steps of the protocol. Her channel is now of the form $\Phi \colon \mathcal{B}(\ahilb \otimes \ehilb) \to \mathcal{B}(\ahilb \otimes \ehilb)$, with an extra input into which is passed the output from the previous intercepted qubit. She initially prepares her auxiliary system in some state $\rho$. Then Eve’s procedure, during $n$ transmissions between Alice and Bob, amounts to the channel $\Phi' \colon \mathcal{B}(\ahilb^{\otimes n}) \to \mathcal{B}(\ahilb^{\otimes n} \otimes \ehilb)$ given by: $$% \label{eq:quantummemory}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/pic_mem3}
%\tikzfig{memory1'}
\tikzfig{memory1labels}$$ (As Eve can keep a counter in $E$, this setting is as general as if we would allow Eve a different $\Phi_n\colon \mathcal B(H \otimes E) \to \mathcal B (H \otimes E)$ for each transmitted qubit.)
As before, for Eve’s interference to remain completely undetected, we must have that: $$\label{eq:quantummemoryreq}
\tikzfig{memory2half}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/pic_mem4}$$ along with analogous equations for all of the remaining $2n-1$ variations of basis and position. In particular the one for the first bit becomes:
$$%\label{eq:Eve_requirements_exact}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/pic_mem5}
\tikzfig{memory3}$$
The same equation holds for the gray spiders also. From cancellativity of the tensor product, we conclude that $\Phi \circ (\id{} \otimes \rho)$ satisfies the requirements of Theorem \[thm:exact\_security\_QKD\], and so separates as: $$%\label{eq:Eve_requirements_exact}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/pic_mem5}
\tikzfig{memory4}$$ for some state $\rho'$ of $\mathcal{B}(\ehilb)$. Returning to the requirement , the same argument again with ${n-1}$ instances of $\Phi$ and $\rho'$ replacing $\rho$ shows that $\Phi \circ (\id{} \otimes \rho')$ itself separates. Repeating this argument inductively reveals that $\Phi$ itself separates, and thus Eve again receives no information.
Noise-tolerance {#sec:noise}
===============
The proofs we have just seen might be pleasing, but they do not give us *a priori* confidence in the security of QKD: it might be the case that with only a minute disturbance, Eve might extract a lot of information. We will see in this section that this is not the case: the equational proof also leads to a polynomial bound on the distance of Eve’s channel from a separable one by the amount of disturbance. The key is an approximate version of essential uniqueness of purifications due to Kretschmann, Schlingemann and Werner [@kretschmann2008continuity; @contstinespring]:
[@contstinespring Theorem 1] \[thm:continousstinespring\] Let $V_1, V_2 \colon A \to B \otimes E$ be linear maps. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:continuitystinespring}
&\inf_U \,\Biggl\|\ \tikzfig{v1-minus-v2}\ \Biggr\|^2_\infty \ \\
&\qquad\leq\ \Biggl\| \ \tikzfig{v1-minus-v2-dbl} \ \Biggr\|_{\mathrm{cb}} \\ \
&\qquad\leq \ 2\inf_U \,\Biggl\|\ \tikzfig{v1-minus-v2}\ \Biggr\|_\infty
%\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{figures/pic21}\end{aligned}$$ where the infima are taken over all unitaries $U \colon E \to E$.
Here $\|\,\cdot\,\|_\infty$ denotes the usual *operator norm* and ${\|\,\cdot\,\|_\cb}$ the *completely bounded norm* of super operators which is defined via the sup-norm on super-operators: $$\|V \|_\infty := \sup_{\|\psi\|\leq 1} \|V \psi\|
\qquad \|\Phi\|_\infty := \sup_{\| T \| \leq 1} \| \Phi(T) \|_\infty$$ $$\|\Phi\|_\cb := \sup_{n \in \N} \| \id_{M_n}\otimes \Phi\|_\infty$$
The operator norm (on operators) and cb-norm (on super operators) satisfy the following rules. $$%\label{eq:opnormrules}
\| f \circ g \| \leq \| f \| \, \|g \|
\quad \| f \otimes g \| = \| f \| \, \|g \|
\quad \| \id \| = 1$$ The regular sup-norm on super operators does not satisfy the middle rule. For brevity, we will write $$\begin{aligned}
V \mathrel{\overset{\varepsilon}{=}} V'
&\ \Leftrightarrow\
\| V - V' \|_{\infty}\ \leq \ \varepsilon \\
T \mathrel{\underset{\cb}{\overset{\varepsilon}{=}}} T' &\ \Leftrightarrow \
\|T - T'\|_{\cb} \ \leq \ \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$
The compositional rules for the operator norm allow us to lift approximate equations between sub-diagrams to those between full diagrams, using the rule: $$\label{eq:diagreasoning}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}
\node [style=small box] (0) at (0, 0) {$V$};
\node [style=none] (1) at (0, -1.25) {};
\node [style=none] (2) at (0, 1.25) {};
\node [style=right label] (3) at (0.25, -1) {};
\node [style=right label] (4) at (0.25, 1) {};
\end{pgfonlayer}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{edgelayer}
\draw (1.center) to (0);
\draw (0) to (2.center);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
\overset{\varepsilon}{=}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{nodelayer}
\node [style=small box] (0) at (0, 0) {$W$};
\node [style=none] (1) at (0, -1.25) {};
\node [style=none] (2) at (0, 1.25) {};
\node [style=right label] (3) at (0.25, -1) {};
\node [style=right label] (4) at (0.25, 1) {};
\end{pgfonlayer}
\begin{pgfonlayer}{edgelayer}
\draw (1.center) to (0);
\draw (0) to (2.center);
\end{pgfonlayer}
\end{tikzpicture}
\implies
\tikzfig{diag-reason}$$
\[thm:noise\_tolerance\] There is a constant ${\noiseconst}$, depending only on the dimension of Alice and Bob’s system, such that whenever $$\label{eq:Evenoise}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/pic16}
\tikzfig{approx-req1}\qquad\qquad
\tikzfig{approx-req2}$$ we have that $$\label{eq:conclusionnoise}
\tikzfig{separates-approx}$$ for some state $\rho$ of $\mathcal{B}(\ehilb)$.
From the upper bound of Theorem \[thm:continousstinespring\], it suffices to prove that there is such a constant $\noiseconst$ for which any purification $\widehat \evepure$ of Eve’s channel satisfies: $$\label{eq:sep_noise}
\tikzfig{separates-approx-pure}
%\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/pic17}$$ This follows from the proof of Theorem \[thm:exact\_security\_QKD\], by repeatedly applying the rule to replace each strict equation in the proof by an approximate one. At each step one only picks up linear factors from the norms of other maps featuring in each diagram. Inspecting the proof, one can see that these are independent of Eve’s system or channel. In more detail, let $\widehat \evepure$ be a purification of Eve’s channel. Then the left hand side of says precisely that the two sides of are within $\varepsilon$ in the completely bounded norm, for any such pure state $\psi$. By Theorem \[thm:continousstinespring\], there is then a unitary $U$ such that the two sides of are within $2 \sqrt{\varepsilon}$. Applying two copies of $\whitedot^1_0$ as in , we obtain equation up to $2 \sqrt{\varepsilon}||\whitedot^1_0||^2$. This ensures that holds up to a constant factor in $\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ dependent only on the norms of the $\whitedot^n_m$ maps. Similarly so does the same equation for the gray spider.
The final steps of the proof now follow just as before. Again at each step we simply replace a strict equation by one up to a constant factor in $\sqrt\varepsilon$, dependent only on the white and gray spiders, using the rule .
Taking the distance of Eve’s channel from a separable channel as a measure of how much information she can extra from Alice’s bit, we see that, as expected, the amount of information is bounded by how much Eve disturbs the communication between Alice and Bob.
We conclude this section with a few caveats:
1. The bound applies if the systems of Alice, Bob and Eve can be modeled by finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and their interaction as a completely positive map between their tensor products. For other applications these assumptions are untenable, see e.g. [@yngvason2005role] and [@shaji2005s]. There is, however, no clear indication that for quantum information arguments these assumptions are invalid. Nonetheless it’s of interest how far these arguments generalize. Interactions between arbitrary (possibly infinite-dimensional) von Neumann algebras admit a Stinespring-like dilation [@westerbaan2017paschke], but no continuity result is known.
2. Like the proof in Section \[sec:qkd\], the proof above assumes Eve performs the same operation every time. This should be extended to incorporate memory as in Section \[sec:memory\].
3. The random sampling (check-bits) on its own does not guarantee the bound . Renner solves the analogous problem with some effort by showing the resulting combined state of Alice, Bob and Eve may be assumed to be approximately symmetric under permutations of the bits in the run [@renner]. A similar method may apply here.
Outlook
=======
We saw how to derive a bound on the security of QKD using the diagrammatic behavior of complementary observables and continuity of Stinespring. Whether the protocol ensures the assumed bound *and* how the conclusion is related to the more common quantities like mutual information and the secret-key rate, we leave open to future research.
In closing we note that, in the current literature, diagrammatic arguments have typically only been used for exact reasoning about quantum processes. Our proof of Theorem \[thm:noise\_tolerance\] suggests a general strategy of using the rule to extend such exact diagrammatic arguments to approximate ones. We call this technique *$\varepsilon$-bounded diagrammatic reasoning*. It should be applicable to many further quantum protocols, allowing the intuitive diagrammatic approach to quantum information theory developed in [@CKbook] to be used to make physically reasonable and robust arguments, such as required for security protocols.
#### Acknowledgments
We thank Hans Maassen, Sam Staton, Bram Westerbaan and John van de Wetering for insightful discussion. We would also like to thank the anonymous QPL referees for their useful feedback on a short abstract summarising this work.
This work is supported by the ERC under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant n^o^ 320571 and an EPSRC Studentship OUCL/2014/SET.
[^1]: An attacker Eve that can intercept and modify all communication between Alice and Bob, can simply impersonate Bob and perform all the steps Bob would. Now Alice thinks she established a shared key with Bob, where in reality she established a shared key with Eve.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Subhabrata Majumdar[^1]\
and\
Snigdhansu Chatterjee[^2]\
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
bibliography:
- 'arxiv-main.bib'
title: On Weighted Multivariate Sign Functions
---
**Abstract**: Multivariate sign functions are often used for robust estimation and inference. We propose using data dependent weights in association with such functions. These weighted sign functions retain desirable robustness properties, while significantly improving efficiency in estimation and inference compared to unweighted multivariate sign-based methods. We demonstrate methods of robust principal component analysis using weighted signs, and extend the scope of using robust multivariate methods to include robust sufficient dimension reduction and functional outlier detection.
**Keywords**: Multivariate sign, Principal component analysis, Data depth, Sufficient dimension reduction
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The research of SC is partially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants \# DMS-1622483, \# DMS-1737918.
[^1]: Currently at AT&T Labs Research. Email: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Corresponding author. Email: [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Nanophotonics offers a promising range of applications spanning from the development of efficient solar cells to quantum communications and biosensing. However, the ability to efficiently couple fluorescent emitters with nanostructured materials requires to probe light-matter interactions at subwavelength resolution, which remains experimentally challenging. Here, we introduce an approach to perform super-resolved fluorescence lifetime measurements on samples that are densely labelled with photo-activatable fluorescent molecules. The simultaneous measurement of the position and the decay rate of the molecules provides a direct access to the local density of states (LDOS) at the nanoscale. We experimentally demonstrate the performance of the technique by studying the LDOS variations induced in the near field of a silver nanowire, and we show via a Cramér-Rao analysis that the proposed experimental setup enables a single-molecule localisation precision of 6 nm.'
author:
- 'D. Bouchet'
- 'J. Scholler'
- 'G. Blanquer'
- 'Y. De Wilde'
- 'I. Izeddin'
- 'V. Krachmalnicoff'
title: 'Probing near-field light-matter interactions with single-molecule lifetime imaging'
---
Single fluorescent emitters constitute an excellent probe to access the evanescent near-field of a nanostructure with far-field measurements. Indeed, the advent of super-resolution microscopy in the field of biophotonics has uncapped an unprecedented detail of observation of subcellular structures revealing structural features of tens of nanometres [@betzig_imaging_2006; @hess_ultra-high_2006; @rust_sub-diffraction-limit_2006], one order of magnitude below the resolution limit imposed by the diffraction of light. While the main super-resolution approaches are based on fluorescence intensity measurements, there exists a strong interest in developing techniques capable of probing lifetime variations at the nanoscale by associating fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy (FLIM) with subwavelength spatial information. The far-reaching potential of fluorescence lifetime imaging with nanometre resolution is straightforward not only for biological studies [@berezin_fluorescence_2010; @becker_fluorescence_2012] but also for nanophotonics applications [@koenderink_nanophotonics:_2015; @fabrizio_roadmap_2016], as the lifetime of fluorescent emitters is inversely proportional to the LDOS [@carminati_electromagnetic_2015].
In the last few years, different experimental approaches have been proposed to achieve lifetime measurements at the nanoscale. Super-resolution lifetime imaging was first demonstrated in combination with stimulated emission-depletion (STED) microscopy [@auksorius_stimulated_2008], mostly used for biological applications, and more recently by making use of scanning-probe microscopy to characterise the response of nanostructured plasmonic [@frimmer_scanning_2011; @krachmalnicoff_towards_2013; @beams_nanoscale_2013; @schell_scanning_2014; @singh_vectorial_2014] or dielectric [@bouchet_enhancement_2016] materials to light. Despite the contribution of these methods to nanoscale imaging, a wide-field scheme rather than a scanning approach is essential in order to study dynamic phenomena and to reach molecular resolution. Several groups have recently proposed wide-field approaches to obtain super-resolved LDOS measurements. The association of wide-field localisation with a scanning scheme was used to probe lifetime variations induced by periodic structures [@guo_superresolution_2016]. Elegant techniques (although arduous to master) were implemented to measure the lifetime of single quantum dots positioned with microfluidic flow control [@ropp_nanoscale_2013; @ropp_nanoscale_2015] or using surface-bound motor proteins [@gros_parallel_2018], allowing one to image LDOS variations induced by plasmonic nanostructures. Other methods based on point accumulation for imaging in nanoscale topography (PAINT) [@wertz_single-molecule_2015; @mack_decoupling_2017] and photo-activated localisation microscopy (PALM) [@johlin_super-resolution_2016] need numerical simulations to estimate the LDOS from intensity-based measurements.
{width="\linewidth"}
In this Letter, we introduce a novel approach that overpasses these limitations and combines lifetime and super-resolved spatial information based on stochastic optical reconstruction microscopy (STORM) [@rust_sub-diffraction-limit_2006], a stochastic imaging technique widely used in biological imaging [@huang_breaking_2010]. This method allows to map the lifetime $\tau$ of stochastically photo-activated single molecules in close vicinity of a densely-labelled nanostructure. It can be readily implemented with a standard microscope and can be applied to biological samples or artificially fabricated nanostructures, either dielectric, metallic, or hybrid metallo/dielectric. Here, we demonstrate the performance of the technique by mapping the LDOS variations induced by a silver nanowire on single molecules located a few nanometers apart. Plasmonic nanowires are an ideal playground to demonstrate the ability of a super-resolved technique to measure light-matter interactions on the nanometer range. They induce strong variations of the lifetime of nearby emitters on the nanometre scale, highlighting the large dynamic range in terms of lifetime modification explorable with our technique. Moreover, due to their geometric simplicity, they enable handleable theoretical studies easily comparable to experimental results.
The sample consists of silver nanowires on a glass coverslip, the whole covered with photo-activatable fluorescent molecules, and is illuminated in wide field with a pulsed laser through an oil immersion objective mounted on an inverted microscope. The studied nanowires have a diameter of $\sim$115 nm and a length of several tens of microns. Their large longitudinal dimension ensures that they weakly radiate to the far-field, therefore strongly limiting the shift in the apparent position of the emitters that has been observed for resonant nanostructures [@ropp_nanoscale_2015; @wertz_single-molecule_2015; @raab_shifting_2017]. The specificity of our method relies on the simultaneous detection of fluorescence photons, through the same microscope objective as the one used for the excitation, on an electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EM-CCD) camera for super-localisation and on a single-photon avalanche diode (SPAD) coupled to a time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) system for lifetime measurements (see Supplementary Section 1). The EM-CCD camera records wide-field images of the sample with a field of view of tens of micrometers on the sample plane. In contrast, the SPAD, which is a single-channel detector, is conjugated with the center of the camera image via a 50 $\mu$m confocal pinhole and covers an area on the sample plane of $\sim$1 $\mu$m$^2$. By setting the excitation and photoactivation laser power so that no more than one molecule is active at a given time on the area conjugated to the SPAD, the decay rate $\Gamma=1/\tau$ can be properly estimated for each individual molecule and can be associated to its position.
This approach is illustrated in Fig. \[f2\]. A single fluorescent molecule is identified on a sequence of wide-field images (Fig. \[f2\]a), and the position of this molecule is estimated by fitting a two-dimensional Gaussian function to the measured point spread function (Fig. \[f2\]b). At the same time, the detection of a fluorescent molecule appears as a burst on the signal of the SPAD time trace (Fig. \[f2\]c). For each SPAD burst, we build the associated decay histogram with a time resolution of 16 ps ( Fig. \[f2\]d,e). To estimate the decay rate, the convolution of the instrument response function (IRF) and a decreasing mono-exponential function is fitted to the decay histogram. Based on the time correlation between the events detected by the camera and the SPAD (see Supplementary Section 2), we can associate position and decay rate for a large number of photo-activated molecules detected in a single experiment and obtain the super-resolved decay rate map shown in Fig. \[f2\]f. This map is reconstructed from simultaneous position and decay rate measurements of 3119 molecules, located in a sample region of 1 $\mu$m$^2$ containing one silver nanowire. The typical localisation precision, calculated via a Cramer-Rao lower bound analysis as explained below, is of the order of 6 nm. Spatial variations of the decay rate are observed well below the diffraction limit, demonstrating the ability of the technique to obtain super-resolved LDOS images in a wide-field optical configuration.
A unique insight as allowed by this new approach is revealed by the study of the density of detected molecules along the center of the nanowire axis (see also Supplementary Section 3). Fig. \[f3\]a shows that, on average, twice as many molecules are detected for a distance to the nanowire axis $d = \pm50$ nm than for $d = 0$ nm. Indeed, the interaction between the excitation field and the nanowire results in a non-uniform excitation intensity distribution, as shown in Fig. \[f3\]b by finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations (see Supplementary Section 4). A local enhancement of the excitation intensity is observed on the sides of the nanowire, with a lateral extension of about 20 nm, as well as an extinction of the excitation intensity on the top of the wire. Therefore, the molecules located in the higher excitation intensity regions have a larger probability to be detected, supporting the observed variations of the density of detected molecules. Furthermore, the image is formed by a two-dimensional projection of fluorescent events around a cylindrical nano-object. This also affects the apparent density of detected molecules.
![(a) Number of detected molecules as a function of the distance to the nanowire axis. (b) Time-averaged intensity of the excitation field in the vicinity of the silver nanowire calculated from the results of a FDTD simulation. On these figures, dashed lines represent the estimated position of the nanowire edges. (c) Distribution of decay rate versus distance to the wire axis. The highest decay rate that can be measured, limited by the IRF of the setup, is $10$ ns$^{-1}$. (d) Decay rate enhancement as a function of the distance to the nanowire for the three orientations of the dipole moment. The inset shows a cross-section of the system numerically studied. []{data-label="f3"}](figure2){width="8cm"}
In order to get a deeper insight into the observed decay rate variations, we further studied the dependence of the decay rate on the distance $d$ to the nanowire axis (Fig. \[f3\]c). Molecules detected far from the nanowire axis ($d > 200$ nm) show an average value of the decay rate of 0.68 ns$^{-1}$ with a standard deviation of 0.17 ns$^{-1}$. In contrast, the decay rate is higher than 10 ns$^{-1}$ for many molecules detected at distances $d < 60$ nm from the nanowire axis. This leads to a decay rate enhancement of a factor 15, only limited by the IRF of the setup (see Supplementary Section 5). This measurement confirms that molecules with the largest decay rates are those attached to the nanowire or in its closest vicinity. We further numerically simulated the enhancement of the decay rate induced by the presence of the nanowire for three orthogonal dipole moment orientations (Fig. \[f3\]d). Experimental and numerical results are in good qualitative agreement, supporting the validity of the experimental technique. Different dipole moment orientations can explain the lifetime dispersion observed in the vicinity of the nanowire.
The performance of the proposed method ultimately relies on the precision at which we can estimate both the position and the decay rate of the detected single fluorophores. We can assess a lower bound on these parameters by calculating the Cramér-Rao lower bound [@kay_fundamentals_1993] on the standard error of the position and lifetime estimators, respectively noted $\sigma_{x,y}$ and $\sigma_{\Gamma}$ (see Supplementary Sections 6 and 7). Such analysis is standard in localisation microscopy to assess the localisation precision [@deschout_precisely_2014; @chao_fisher_2016]. Fig. \[f4\]a shows the dependence of $\sigma_{x,y}$ upon the number of fluorescence photons detected by the EM-CCD camera. The fundamental limit (red curve) is set by the shot noise and the finite pixel size as sources of error on the measurement. The instrumental limit (green curve) also accounts for the readout noise of the camera and the noise introduced by the electron multiplying process. The actual limit of our experiment (blue curve) is calculated by considering additional sources of noise such as substrate luminescence. The number of fluorescence photons experimentally detected by the camera from each molecule ranges from 150 to more than $10^4$ fluorescence photons with a median value of 1228 photons (\[f4\]a, bottom). With this value the Cramér-Rao bound for position estimations is 6 nm.
![(a) Top: Cramér-Rao bound on the standard error on the position estimates as a function of the number of fluorescence photons detected by the camera. Bottom: Distribution of the number of fluorescence photons detected by the camera from the single molecules. (b) Top: Cramér-Rao bound on the standard error on the decay rate estimates as a function of the number of fluorescence photons detected by the SPAD. Bottom: Distribution of the number of fluorescence photons detected by the SPAD from the single molecules. On these figures, dashed lines represent the threshold condition $N>150$ used for data analysis.[]{data-label="f4"}](figure3){width="\linewidth"}
A similar analysis can also be performed for lifetime estimations [@kollner_how_1992; @bouchet_Fisher_2018]. The fundamental limit on the relative standard error of decay rate estimators $\sigma_{\Gamma}/\Gamma$ is simply given by $1/\sqrt{N}$, where $N$ is the number of detected photons (Fig. \[f4\]b, red curve). We calculated the Cramér-Rao bound for $\Gamma = 0.7$ ns$^{-1}$ (molecules on glass) and $\Gamma = 7$ ns$^{-1}$ (molecules close to the nanowire), which corresponds to a lifetime of 140 ps, comparable to the FWHM of the IRF (240 ps). As expected, $\sigma_{\Gamma}/\Gamma$ deviates from the fundamental limit when the number of measured fluorescence photons is smaller than 1000 due to the influence of background noise. In the experiment, the median value of detected photons is 367 photons (Fig. \[f4\]b, bottom). For this value, $\sigma_{\Gamma}/\Gamma$ ranges from 8% to 10% depending on the value of $\Gamma$. The Cramér-Rao analysis thus demonstrates that the proposed experimental setup enables state-of-the-art measurements of light-matter interactions with a localisation precision of 6 nm together with a relative error of 10% for lifetime estimations. Future prospects will include accessing the axial position of the detected molecules with the implementation of three-dimensional localisation methods [@hajj_accessing_2014; @chizhik_metal-induced_2014; @bourg_direct_2015; @isbaner_axial_2018]. The technique can notably be adapted to perform three-dimensional imaging using metal-induced energy transfer, as suggested by a recent article reporting three-dimensional localisation for sparsely distributed single molecules [@karedla_three-dimensional_2018]. Additionally, by taking advantage of SPAD arrays constituted of several independent channels [@cuccato_complete_2013], a field of view of tens of micrometres in the sample plane could be reached, opening a wide range of interesting opportunities for imaging and sensing applications. The acquisition time could also be reduced by actively optimising the number of molecules simultaneously photo-activated on the region conjugated to the SPAD. Multiple simultaneous detections could be treated with an improved detection, fitting, and reconstruction algorithm.
The readiness of the technique to be implemented with a standard microscope suggests a great potential to rapidly expand into a wide variety of applications, ranging from nanophotonics and plasmonics to biophotonics. Topical applications in nanophotonics include the direct characterisation of samples presenting rich LDOS patterns and strongly-confined electromagnetic fields, with concrete perspectives for the study of light localisation in strongly scattering media [@sapienza_long-tail_2011; @riboli_engineering_2014]. The technique is not constrained to the fluorphores used in the present realisation, but can be extended to photoactivatable fluorophores of different wavelengths and to DNA-PAINT for an *a priori* knowledge of the fluorophore position. Thanks to these extensions, it will be possible to characterise the resonant and non-resonant behavior of a nanostructure and to tackle the mislocalisation of resonant fluorophores with fluorescence lifetime measurements. In the field of biophotonics, wide-field FLIM images with nanometre resolution will allow to probe local dynamic phenomena in living cells. We also foresee that, by associating our approach with techniques based on Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET), *in cellulo* nanoscale imaging of molecule-molecule interactions will soon become within reach.
Funding information {#funding-information .unnumbered}
===================
This work was supported by LABEX WIFI (Laboratory of Excellence ANR-10-LABX-24) within the French Program Investments for the Future under reference ANR-10- IDEX-0001-02 PSL\*, by the Programme Emergences 2015 of the City of Paris, and by ANR-17-CE09-0006 SimpleLife.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank S. Bidault for helping in sample preparation, A. C. Boccara for sharing his insights about the manuscript and I. Rech, A. Gulinatti and A. Giudice for providing the PMD-R detector.
[37]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , (), .
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
**Probing near-field light-matter interactions with single-molecule lifetime imaging: supplementary material**
D. Bouchet, J. Scholler, G. Blanquer, Y. De Wilde, I. Izeddin, and V. Krachmalnicoff\
*Institut Langevin, ESPCI Paris, CNRS, PSL University, 1 rue Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France*
Experimental setup
==================
Sample preparation
------------------
To prepare the sample, we spin-coat a dilute solution of silver nanowires in isopropyl alcohol on a glass coverslip. A microfluidic chamber is then prepared as follows [@lermusiaux_widefield_2015]: we cover the sample with a ring made of parafilm, we place two micro-pipettes on opposite sides of the parafilm ring and we cover them with another glass coverslip before heating the sample up to 70$^{\circ}$C in order to melt the parafilm. We let the microfluidic chamber cool down for a few minutes before using the micro-pipettes to inject biotin diluted in a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution at a concentration of 1 g/L. We leave this solution incubate for 2 hours. Then, we inject streptavidin-conjugated fluorescent molecules (Alexa 647) diluted in a PBS solution at a concentration of 0.005 g/L, and we leave this new solution incubate for 2 hours. We add a PBS solution containing a few polystyrene fluorescent beads 100 nm in diameter (Red FluoSpheres, ThermoFisher Scientific) which we use as fiducial markers, and we then fill the chamber with an oxygen-reducing buffer [@heilemann_subdiffraction-resolution_2008]. This buffer is prepared according to the following protocol [@van_de_linde_direct_2011]: we use a PBS solution in which we dilute dextrose (100 mg/mL), cysteamine (3.86 mg/mL), glucose oxidase (0.5 mg/mL) and catalase (1.18 $\mu$L of an aqueous solution concentrated at 20-50 mg/mL).
Optical setup
-------------
Before the experiment, we select an area on the sample in which a silver nanowire can be identified by basic transmission imaging, thus ensuring that only one nanowire is present in the detection volume. Then, we place the area of interest in the middle of the field of view of the camera by using a piezoelectric stage (PXY 200SG, Piezosystem Jena). Photo-activatable molecules (Alexa Fluor 647) are excited by a pulsed laser diode emitting at $\lambda=640$ nm (LDH Series P-C-640B, PicoQuant) at a repetition rate of 80 MHz. The intensity incident on the sample averaged over a repetition period is 10 $\mu$W/$\mu$m$^2$. The laser polarisation is set perpendicular to the nanowire axis in order to minimise the backscattering of the laser light by the nanowire. The molecules are photo-activated with a laser diode emitting at $\lambda=405$ nm (LDH Series P-C-640B, Picoquant). During the acquisition, the density of activatable molecules decreases in time since several molecules are photobleached by the excitation laser. To compensate for this effect, we progressively turn on the photo-activation laser, with an average intensity on the sample up to 50 nW/$\mu$m$^2$. A third laser (Fianium SC450) filtered at $\lambda=568$ nm is required for the excitation of fiducial markers that are used for real-time drift correction. These three lasers illuminate the sample through an oil immersion objective (UPLSAPO 100XO, NA=1.4, Olympus) mounted on an inverted microscope ([Fig. \[f1\]]{}). Wide-field illumination over an area of approximately 200 $\mu$m$^2$ is achieved by placing a lens ($f=300$ mm) before the objective. Fluorescence from the sample is then collected by the objective and filtered by a dichroic mirror as well as two long-pass filters. Then, a 50:50 beamsplitter splits the signal towards two paths. On the first path, fluorescence photons are directed towards an EM-CCD camera (iXon 897, Andor). On the second path, a SPAD (PDM-R, Micro Photon Devices [@gulinatti_new_2012]) is connected to a time-correlated single-photon counting (TCSPC) system (HydraHarp400, Picoquant).
![Optical setup. The excitation laser ($\lambda=640$ nm), together with the photo-activation laser ($\lambda=405$ nm) and the laser used for sample stabilisation ($\lambda=568$ nm), illuminate the sample via a high numerical aperture oil objective (NA=1.4). A lens (f=300 mm) is located on the excitation path to ensure wide-field illumination. Fluorescence from the sample is filtered with a dichroic mirror (DM) and passes through a tube lens (TL). A 50:50 beamsplitter (BS) splits the light towards an EM-CCD camera and a SPAD. The sample under study contains photo-activated single molecules in the near-field of a silver nanowire (NW).[]{data-label="f1"}](figure1_si){width="8cm"}
Drift correction
----------------
To determine and correct the drift in the sample plane, we estimate the position of a fiducial marker from the wide-field images acquired by the camera and we use a feedback loop to maintain the marker at a fixed position. Every 5 s, the drift is estimated by fitting a two-dimensional Gaussian function to the image of the marker. A feedback signal is then applied on the piezoelectric stage (PXY 200SG, Piezosystem Jena) controlling the in-plane position of the sample in order to compensate for the drift. In order to estimate the drift of the sample in the axial direction with respect to the focal plane, we analyse images of the fiducial marker accumulated over several seconds. The defocus-correction system is based on a real-time maximisation of the power spectral density of the measured images, and the axial position of the objective with respect to the sample is corrected in real time with a piezoelectric positioning system (MIPOS 20SG, Piezosystem Jena) located between the objective and the microscope turret.
Position and decay rate association
===================================
Position estimations
--------------------
The EM-CCD camera acquires 31 frames per second with an acquisition time of 30 ms per frame. The full sequence of wide-field images saved by the camera (over a subset of 13$\times$13 pixels, pixel size $=160$ nm) is imported by ImageJ [@schneider_nih_2012] and the positions of the photo-activated molecules are estimated using ThunderSTORM [@ovesny_thunderstorm:_2014]. First of all, each frame is filtered using a wavelet filter, as proposed by Izeddin *et al.* [@izeddin_wavelet_2012]. For each frame, approximate localisation of the molecules is then performed by applying a threshold that depends on the signal-to-noise ratio of the camera data. For this acquisition, we set it to 2.7 times the standard deviation of the intensity values obtained in the filtered image. Finally, sub-pixel localisation of the molecules is performed by fitting a two-dimensional Gaussian function to the data using the weighted least squares method on a restricted domain around the molecule (7$\times$7 pixels). As some molecules can be identified over consecutive frames, we perform a merging of the data acquired by the camera if the estimated distance between successive detections is less than 40 nm. Then, the position of the molecule is determined by using the average value of the positions estimated from the different frames. Using this strategy, we obtain approximately 24,000 different detections for the whole experiment. This number is limited by the weak activation power required to ensure that no more than one molecule is typically active at a single time on the area conjugated to the SPAD.
Decay rate estimations
----------------------
In addition to EM-CCD images, we also record the arrival time of each photon detected by the SPAD. To deal with the large size of the resulting file ($\sim$15 GB), the 10-hour-long acquisition is split into several sequences of approximately 50 minutes. Then, we compute the number of detected photons as a function of time with a resolution of 500 $\mu$s. The intensity of background noise associated with this signal usually decreases during the experiment due to a decreasing number of activated molecules in the periphery of the detection area. Hence, the intensity time trace is Fourier filtered in order to remove low frequency components associated with temporal fluctuations longer than 30 s. Then, we consider that a molecule is potentially detected for each burst surpassing a given threshold that depends on the signal-to-noise ratio of the SPAD data. For each 50-minutes-long sequence, we set it to 2.6 times the standard deviation of the filtered signal. If another burst occurs within the typical blinking time scale (20 ms), it is attributed to the same molecule. In total, we identify approximately 14,000 events over the 10-hour-long acquisition. This value is small in comparison to the number of detections obtained from camera data. Indeed, the area of the sample conjugated to the SPAD (see [Fig. \[ch5\_hole\_fig1A\]]{}b) is smaller than the area over which the localisation is performed ($\sim 1100\times1100$ nm). For each SPAD event, we build the associated decay histogram with a resolution of 16 ps in order to estimate the decay rate. To do so, the contribution of background noise is estimated by using close-by time intervals in which no burst can be identified. Then, the convolution of the instrument response function (IRF) and a decreasing mono-exponential function is fitted to the decay histogram using the least-squares method. The value of the decay rate is set to 10 ns$^{-1}$ if the fit yields a value higher than this limit. Indeed, the IRF of the setup is characterised by a FWHM of approximately 240 ps (corresponding to 4 ns$^{-1}$) and we consider that estimates above 10 ns$^{-1}$ are not meaningful even after the deconvolution process. While sample heterogeneities could induce multi-exponential decays, the small number of photons detected by the SPAD from each molecule does not allow to resolve different lifetimes. For this reason, we restrict the analysis to a mono-exponential decay, which would therefore correspond to an average over different decays.
Temporal and spatial correlations
---------------------------------
It is important to keep in mind that the SPAD does not include information about the position of the molecules. We therefore need to ensure that the lifetime information provided by the SPAD is properly associated with the position of the molecules provided by the EM-CCD camera. At the beginning of the experiment, the acquisition of both camera and SPAD data is started by using an in-house software, and we can expect a time offset of several milliseconds between the two different channels. In order to precisely determine this time offset, we build two binary representations respectively associated with the SPAD events and the camera detections (1 for a SPAD event or a camera detection, 0 otherwise). We then calculate the time correlation of these binary representations with a resolution of 500 $\mu$s, as shown in [Fig. \[ch5\_hole\_fig1A\]]{}a for a typical sequence of 50 minutes. The maximum of this correlation coefficient gives an accurate estimate of the time offset between the camera and the SPAD. This delay is typically around 20 ms, which is consistent with the data acquisition procedure. Note that the correlation coefficient does not reach unity but is typically between 0.3 and 0.5. Indeed, the conditions required for the detection of a molecule by the camera and by the SPAD are different. In comparison to the SPAD, the camera is characterised by a larger field of view and a larger quantum efficiency. However, its lower temporal resolution makes the identification process less efficient for molecules characterised by fast temporal fluctuations. Hence we can expect some molecules to be detected by only one of the two detectors, resulting in a value smaller than unity for the maximum of the correlation coefficient.
![(a) Correlation coefficient calculated from binary representations of the SPAD events and the camera detections. A dashed line represents the estimated time offset between the two channels. (b) Measured response of the SPAD while scanning a fluorescent bead in the sample plane.[]{data-label="ch5_hole_fig1A"}](figure2a_si)
![(a) Correlation coefficient calculated from binary representations of the SPAD events and the camera detections. A dashed line represents the estimated time offset between the two channels. (b) Measured response of the SPAD while scanning a fluorescent bead in the sample plane.[]{data-label="ch5_hole_fig1A"}](figure2b_si)
In order to characterise the spatial correlation between SPAD events and camera detections, we must identify the pixels of the camera that are conjugated to the area of the sample seen by the SPAD. Hence, we measure the response of the SPAD by scanning a fluorescent bead with a diameter of 100 nm over a large area in the sample plane. [Figure \[ch5\_hole\_fig1A\]]{}b shows the number of photons detected by the SPAD as a function of the bead position. The FWHM value of the measured profile is of the order of 500 nm, as expected from the diameter of the confocal pinhole (50 $\mu$m) and the magnification of the optical system ($\times 100$). This response can be modelled by a function $h(x,y)$ which is the convolution of a 500 nm gate and a two-dimensional Gaussian function.
Association conditions
----------------------
Once the time offset between the camera and the SPAD is estimated and compensated, we can quantify the time overlap between a camera detection and a SPAD event. To do so, we simply calculate the ratio of the time overlap $\Delta t_{ij}$ to the time interval $\Delta t_{j}$ corresponding to the SPAD event. The camera detection and the SPAD event are likely to be associated to the same molecule whenever this ratio is close to unity. We can then associate position and decay rate in the following situations:
- In 77% of the cases, the association between position and decay rate is straightforward. In such cases, only one camera detection is identified in the emission time $\Delta t_j$ corresponding to a SPAD event. In addition, this SPAD event is the only one identified in the emission time $\Delta t_i$ corresponding to the camera detection. Therefore, the camera detection $i$ and the SPAD event $j$ can be associated.
- In 18% of the cases, several camera detections at different positions are identified in $\Delta t_j$. In such cases, we can estimate the number of photons to be detected by the SPAD from a given camera detection. Let $x_i$ and $y_i$ be the coordinates in the sample plane corresponding to a detection and $N_i$ the number of fluorescence photons measured by the camera, we can simply assume that the number of photons to be detected by the SPAD is proportional to $N_i \, h(x_i,y_i)$. An association condition can thus be set on the base of the value taken by $T_{ij} = N_i \, h(x_i,y_i) \Delta t_{ij}/\Delta t_j$. After the identification of the detection $k$ on the camera associated with the maximum value of $T_{ij}$, we consider that the association between position and decay rate can be performed only if $T_{kj}> \alpha_{a} \, \sum_{i=1}^n T_{ij}$ where $n$ is the number of camera detections in $\Delta t_j$ and $\alpha_a$ is a threshold characterising the association condition. If $\alpha_a$ is low, camera detections are more frequently associated to SPAD events. However, this increases the number of cases in which the measured decay histograms are the sum of different decay histograms that cannot be properly separated by a post-processing analysis. As a trade-off, we use $\alpha_a=80$% in the experiment.
- In 5% of the cases, several SPAD events are identified in $\Delta t_i$. Then, if the difference between these decay rates is smaller than 30%, we merge the SPAD events and we calculate the average decay rate. Otherwise, we evaluate the likelihood of each event to be the one corresponding to the camera detection, based on the number of fluorescence photons measured by the SPAD. To do so, we identify the event $k$ associated with the highest number of photons $N_k$ and we perform the association between position and decay rate only if $N_k> \alpha_{a} \, \sum_{i=1}^n N_i$ where $N_i$ is the number of photons associated with the overlapping SPAD events and $\alpha_a$ is the threshold previously mentioned ($\alpha_a=80$%).
#### Post-process filtering
Two additional conditions are required in order to correctly perform the association between position and decay rate. For each molecule, at least 150 fluorescence photons must be detected on each detector. Moreover, the standard deviation of the Gaussian function fitted to the camera data must be smaller than 190 nm. These two conditions avoid the occurrence of false detections that would be due to noise. Using this procedure, we associate the position of 3,581 camera detections with their decay rate. We then perform post-processing filtering to account for the few remaining loopholes of the procedure. To do so, we compare each decay rate to the decay rate of the 10 closest detections. On average, this corresponds to a distance of 19 nm between the detection and its neighbours. Then, we perform an outlier identification based on the median absolute deviation (MAD). A decay rate $\Gamma$ is rejected if the decay rates $\Gamma_k$ of the closest neighbours satisfy the following condition: $$| \Gamma - {\operatorname{Med}}(\Gamma_k) | > \alpha_r \; {\operatorname{Med}}\left[ \cfrac{| \Gamma_k - {\operatorname{Med}}(\Gamma_k) |}{0.675} \right] \; ,
\label{ch5_equation1}$$ where ${\operatorname{Med}}$ is the median operator and $\alpha_r$ is a rejection threshold. The factor 0.675 is used so that MAD and standard deviation are approximately equal for large normal samples [@maronna_dispersion_2006]. It should be noted that no outlier identification is performed if more than 50% of the neighbours have a decay rate equal to the upper limit previously mentioned (10 ns$^{-1}$) since the right-hand side of [Eq. ]{} equals zero in this case. With the approach expressed by [Eq. ]{}, using a small threshold $\alpha_r$ allows the identification of many outliers but may also identify actual detections as outliers. As a trade-off, we use $\alpha_r=5$ resulting in the identification of 6% of outliers. By removing them, the number of actual detections reduces to 3,352.
Density and intensity maps
==========================
From data acquired by the EM-CCD camera, we can render a density map of the detected molecules ([Fig. \[maps\]]{}a), as for a usual single-molecule localisation-based super-resolution image reconstruction. In [Fig. \[maps\]]{}a, we observe strong density fluctuations due to an inhomogeneous labelling of our sample. However, note that for the purpose of obtaining a map of the LDOS, inhomogeneous labeling is not a limitation given a high enough spatial sampling, which underlines the robustness of our fluorescence lifetime measuring technique. It is important to underline that, in the image reconstruction in [Fig. \[maps\]]{}a, the strong density differences renders an image where black regions do not necessarily represent a lack of detections. In the case of biological applications, the labelling is specific to the protein of interest and thus density fluctuations represent structural changes of the sample which is not the case in our LDOS nanocartography.
![(a) Density and (b) intensity maps reconstructed from the 14,546 molecules detected by the EM-CCD camera.[]{data-label="maps"}](figure3a_si)
![(a) Density and (b) intensity maps reconstructed from the 14,546 molecules detected by the EM-CCD camera.[]{data-label="maps"}](figure3b_si)
Additionally, we can also reconstruct a color map coding the measured fluorescence intensity for each detection ([Fig. \[maps\]]{}b). Note that, if several molecules are detected within the same area, we plot the average intensity. While the density of detected molecules is higher along the sides of the nanowire than on the substrate, we observe that the collected intensity is lower for the molecules on the nanowire. Indeed, although the excitation field is larger for the molecules on the sides of the nanowire, their radiative quantum yield is reduced due to coupling to non-radiative modes (surface plasmon modes and quenching).
Numerical simulations
=====================
Simulations are performed using the FDTD simulation software MEEP [@oskooi_meep:_2010]. The relative permittivity of silver is modelled with a Lorentz–Drude model, the relative permittivity of the buffer solution is set to 1.77 and the relative permittivity of glass is set to 2.25. In order to estimate the influence of the excitation field on the observed density variations, we model the system in two dimensions, with a mesh resolution of 0.5 nm. The nanowire, located on a glass substrate, is illuminated by a plane wave at $\lambda=640$ nm polarised perpendicularly to the nanowire, as in the experiment. In this configuration, a two-dimensional simulation gives the exact solution due to the invariance of the structure and the source along the longitudinal dimension. In contrast, in order to study the decay rate enhancement due to the nanowire, we model the system in three dimensions, with a mesh resolution of 1 nm. As the effect of the substrate on the decay rate is small due to the low contrast between the relative permittivities of the buffer solution and the glass coverslip, we perform the simulations without the substrate to limit the computational time. In each simulation, the emitter is modelled as an electric dipole source that generates a Gaussian pulse at $\lambda=670$ nm, and the decay rate is estimated from the value of the electric field at the source position. We assume that the intrinsic quantum yield of Alexa Fluor 647 dyes is 0.33, as specified by the provider, in order to calculate the total decay rate enhancement.
Decay histograms of single molecules
====================================
In this section, we show decay histograms for different molecules far from the nanowire and in its close vicinity, providing clear evidence of the decay rate enhancement. [Figure \[lifetime3\]]{} (a) to (f) shows the signal measured by the camera and by the SPAD during the experiment for three molecules characterised by different decay rate. [Figure \[lifetime3\]]{} (g) shows the associated decay histograms, together with mono-exponential fits. While the decay rate of the molecule far from the nanowire is not enhanced (molecule 1), the decay rate of the two molecules in the close vicinity of the nanowire show a strong decay rate enhancement (molecules 2 and 3). For the third molecule considered, the decay rate cannot be resolved by the current experimental setup as the decay histogram and the IRF are superimposed.
Cramér-Rao analysis: position estimations
=========================================
To estimate the Cramér-Rao lower bound on the standard error of position estimators $\sigma_{\bar{x},\bar{y}}$, we follow the approach described in [@chao_fisher_2016_2]. The data acquired by the EM-CCD camera are modeled using the Airy function to describe the fluorescence signal, as well as a uniform background noise originating from the luminescence of the substrate. Then, we consider that the probability density function describing the number of photoelectrons per pixel is given by the convolution of the amplified signal and the Gaussian readout noise. The information matrix is calculated from this probability density function, and numerically inverted in order to compute the Cramér-Rao bound.
#### Point spread function
We consider the simple situation in which a far-field microscope is used to collect the photons emitted by a single molecule located in the object plane. We assume that the 2-dimensional probability density function (PDF) describing the intensity distribution in the image plane can be expressed from the coordinates in the image plane noted $(x',y')$ and the coordinates of the molecule in the object plane noted $(x_0,y_0)$ as follows: $$q(x',y') = \cfrac{J_1^2 \left( \cfrac{2 \pi \mathrm{NA} \sqrt{(x'-Mx_0)^2+(y'-My_0)^2}}{M \lambda_0} \right)}{\pi \left[(x'-Mx_0)^2+(y'-My_0)^2 \right]} \; ,
\label{ch6_equation20}$$ where $J_1$ is the first-order Bessel function of the first kind, NA is the numerical aperture of the objective, $M$ is the magnification and $\lambda_0$ is the free-space emission wavelength. The expectation of each data item – that is, the expectation of the value measured on each pixel by the camera – is then expressed as follows: $$\begin{split}
f_i =& N \int\limits_{(x',y') \in pixel} q(x',y') {\operatorname{d}}x' {\operatorname{d}}y' \\ &+ N_b \int\limits_{(x',y') \in pixel} q_b(x',y') {\operatorname{d}}x' {\operatorname{d}}y' \; ,
\label{ch6_equation7}
\end{split}$$ where $N$ is the total number of photons emitted by the molecule and detected by the camera and $N_b$ is the number of photons due to background noise which follows a PDF noted $q_b(x',y')$. In [Eq. ]{}, the integration is performed over the area that defines the considered pixel. Note that a dedicated study of the point spread function in our geometry could improve the prediction of position of the dipoles along the nanowire [@su_visualization_2015].
#### EM-CCD data model
We can now derive a functional form for the likelihood function that describes the number of events measured on each pixel by the camera. Assuming that fluorescence photons detected by the camera are statistically independent, the number of photons impinging on each pixel during a given time interval follows a Poisson distribution of expectation $f_i$. If we do not consider the additional noise arising from the detection process, the PDF associated with the observation of $X$ photoelectrons on a given pixel is $$p_i^{p}(X; \boldsymbol{\theta}) = \frac{f_i^{X}}{X!} \, e^{-f_i} \; ,
\label{ch6_equation8}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ are the parameters that must be estimated from the data (here, the parameters are the coordinates of the molecule). This sets the fundamental limit achievable by a perfect camera. However, the multiplication register of an EM-CCD camera enhances the number of generated photoelectrons in order to beat the readout noise of the camera, and the PDF followed by the number of photoelectrons generated by the process depends on the gain $g$. As shown in [Ref. [@chao_fisher_2012]]{}, this PDF noted $p_i^e(X; \boldsymbol{\theta})$ can be approximated, for large gain values, by
$$p_i^e(X; \boldsymbol{\theta}) =
\begin{cases}
e^{-f_i} , & \text{for } X=0 , \\
\cfrac{e^{(-X/g-f_i) } \, \sqrt{\cfrac{f_i X}{g}} \; I_1 \left( 2 \sqrt{\cfrac{f_i X}{g}} \right)}{X} , & \text{for } X>0 ,
\end{cases}
\label{ch6_equation6}$$
where $I_1$ is the first-order modified Bessel function of the first kind. In addition, the readout process induces a Gaussian noise on each pixel characterised by an expectation $\eta_g$ and a standard deviation $\sigma_g$. This Gaussian noise can be described by the following PDF: $$p^g(X; \boldsymbol{\theta}) = \frac{1}{\sigma_g \sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp \left(-\frac{(X-\eta_g)^2}{2 \sigma_g^2} \right) \; .
\label{ch6_equation9}$$ The PDF describing the readout noise of the camera is the same for all the pixels. Therefore, we can consider that the PDF describing the number of photoelectrons per pixel for a real EM-CCD camera is given by $$p_i(X; \boldsymbol{\theta}) = \left[ p_i^e(X; \boldsymbol{\theta}) \right] \ast \left[ p^g(X; \boldsymbol{\theta}) \right] \; ,
\label{ch6_equation10}$$ where the asterisk ($\ast$) represents the convolution product. Then, the information matrix can be numerically evaluated from its general expression given by [@kay_fundamentals_1993_2] $$\begin{split}
\left[{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\mathcal{I}}}}(\boldsymbol{\theta})\right]_{jk} =& \sum_{i=1}^n {\operatorname{E}}\left[ \frac{1}{[p_i(X ; \boldsymbol{\theta})]^2} \right. \\
& \left. \times \left( \frac{\partial p_i(X ; \boldsymbol{\theta}) }{\partial \theta_j} \right) \left( \frac{\partial p_i(X ; \boldsymbol{\theta}) }{\partial \theta_k} \right) \right] \; .
\end{split}
\label{ch6_equation4}$$
#### Cramér-Rao bound
After having experimentally measured the value of the parameters involved in the model, we can compute the Cramér-Rao bound on the variance of position estimators in order to evaluate a lower bound on the standard error $\sigma_{x,y}$ on the position estimates performed using one frame. Assuming that there is no preferred direction in space – this is not exactly true because of the shape of the pixels, but is a good approximation for squared pixels – the Cramér-Rao inequality reads $$\sigma_{x,y} \geq \sqrt{\frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_{xx}}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{\mathcal{I}_{yy}}} \; .$$ In the experiment, a molecule is typically detected on two successive frames. Its position is then estimated by the mean of the individual estimates, so that the standard error on the resulting position estimate is $\sigma_{\bar{x},\bar{y}}=\sigma_{x,y}/\sqrt{2}$. Different situations can then be compared: the fundamental is calculated using [Eq. ]{} with $N_b=0$, the instrumental limit is calculated using [Eq. ]{} with $N_b=0$, and the experimental limit is calculated using [Eq. ]{} with the value of $N_b$ measured in the experiment.
Cramér-Rao analysis: decay rate estimations
===========================================
To estimate the Cramér-Rao lower bound on the relative standard error of decay rate estimators $\sigma_{\Gamma}/\Gamma$, we adopt a similar approach, described in [@bouchet_fisher_2018_2]. In order to estimate the Cramér-Rao bound for our experiment, we model the fluorescence decay by the convolution of the IRF and an exponential distribution. After proper inclusion of time-dependent background noise in the model, it can then be considered that each point of the decay histogram follows a Poisson distribution. Thus, we can compute the information matrix from this distribution and numerically invert it in order to obtain the Cramér-Rao bound.
#### SPAD data model
By modelling a molecule by a two-level system, the PDF that describes the photon emission time $t$ is given by an exponential distribution. Since the agreement between experimental data and the mono-exponential model is satisfactory, we consider here that this model is relevant. Then, the PDF followed by the photon detection time measured by the experimental system is $$q(t) = q_{irf}(t) \ast \left[ \Gamma e^{- \Gamma t} \right] \; ,
\label{ch6_equation15}$$ where $q_{irf}(t)$ is the PDF describing the IRF of the setup. From this expression, we can find the expectation of each data item; that is, the expectation of each data point of the decay histogram. We obtain $$f_i = N \sum_{l=0}^{+ \infty} \int\limits_{t_i+lT}^{t_{i+1}+lT} q(t) {\operatorname{d}}t +N_b \int\limits_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} q_b(t) {\operatorname{d}}t \; ,
\label{ch6_equation14}$$ where $N$ is the number of photons emitted by the molecule and detected by the system, $N_b$ is the number of detected photons due to background noise which follows a PDF noted $q_b(t)$, and $T$ is the repetition period of the laser. If the fluorescence lifetime of the molecule is much smaller than the repetition period, only the first term of the sum in [Eq. ]{} is significant.
In general, SPADs have negligible readout noise and the dark count rate contributes to the background noise. Thus, we can model the distribution of photons detected for each data point by a Poisson distribution of expectation $f_i$. The PDF associated with the observation of $X$ events on a given data point is then expressed by $$p_i(X; \boldsymbol{\theta}) = \frac{f_i^{X}}{X!}e^{-f_i} \; .
\label{ch6_equation25}$$ The set of parameters that must be estimated from the data is $\boldsymbol{\theta}=(N,\Gamma)$, while we estimate $q_{irf}(t)$, $q_b(t)$ and $N_b$ with independent measurements. Then, the information matrix can be calculated from [Eq. ]{}.
#### Cramér-Rao bound
After having experimentally measured the value of the parameters involved in the model, we can compute the Cramér-Rao bound on the standard error $\sigma_\Gamma$ on the decay rate estimates. The Cramér-Rao inequality can be expressed as $$\frac{\sigma_{\Gamma}}{\Gamma} \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \times F \left(T,N_b,q_{irf},q_{b},n \right) \; ,
\label{eq_ch6_0}$$ where $n$ is the number of data points and $F$ is calculated by numerically inverting the information matrix [@bouchet_fisher_2018_2].
[14]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , in ** (, , ), pp. .
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, , , (), .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite will conduct a 2-year long wide-field survey searching for transiting planets around bright stars. Many TESS discoveries will be amenable to mass characterization via ground-based radial velocity measurements with any of a growing suite of existing and anticipated velocimeters in the optical and near-infrared. In this study we present an analytical formalism to compute the number of radial velocity measurements—and hence the total observing time—required to characterize RV planet masses with the inclusion of either a white or correlated noise activity model. We use our model to calculate the total observing time required to measure all TESS planet masses from the expected TESS planet yield while relying on our current understanding of the targeted stars, stellar activity, and populations of unseen planets which inform the expected radial velocity precision. We also present specialized calculations applicable to a variety of interesting TESS planet subsets including the characterization of 50 planets smaller than 4 Earth radii which is expected to take as little as 60 nights of observation. Although, the efficient RV characterization of such planets requires a-priori knowledge of the ‘best’ targets which we argue can be identified prior to the conclusion of the TESS planet search based on our calculations. Our results highlight the comparable performance of optical and near-IR spectrographs for most planet populations except for Earths and temperate TESS planets which are more efficiently characterized in the near-IR. Lastly, we present an online tool to the community to compute the total observing times required to detect any transiting planet using a user-defined spectrograph ([`RVFC`](http://maestria.astro.umontreal.ca/rvfc)).'
author:
- Ryan Cloutier
- René Doyon
- François Bouchy
- Guillaume Hébrard
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Quantifying the Observational Effort Required for the Radial Velocity Characterization of TESS Planets
---
Introduction
============
NASA’s *Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite* [TESS; @ricker15] launched in April 2018, is conducting a wide-field survey over at least a 2-year long period and is expected to discover approximately 1700 new transiting exoplanet candidates at a 2-minute cadence around nearby stars over nearly the entire sky [@sullivan15 hereafter ]. Due to their proximity, many candidate TESS planetary systems, or TESS objects-of-interest (TOIs), will be amenable to precision radial velocity (RV) observations using ground-based velocimeters to establish their planetary nature and to measure the masses of identified planets. The population of TESS planets to-be discovered are on average systematically closer than the 2342 validated Kepler planets[^1] of which only 243 ($\sim 10$%) have been characterized with RVs.
The growing number of precision velocimeters—and their variety—is vast and includes both optical and near-infrared spectrographs (APF; @vogt14, CARMENES; @quirrenbach14, CORALIE; ESPRESSO; @pepe10, EXPRES; @jurgenson16, G-CLEF; @szentgyorgyi16, GIANO; @oliva06, GIARPS; @claudi16, HARPS; @mayor03, HARPS-N; @costentino12, HARPS-3, HDS; @noguchi98; HIRES; @vogt94, HPF; @mahadevan12, IRD; @kotani14, iLocater; @crepp16, iSHELL, @rayner12, KPF; @gibson16, MAROON-X; @seifahrt16, MINERVA; @swift15, MINERVA-Red; @sliski17, NEID; @allen18, NIRPS; @bouchy17, NRES; @siverd16, PARAS; @chakraborty08, PARVI, PEPSI; @strassmeier15, PFS; @crane10, SALT HRS; @crause14, SOPHIE; @perruchot11, SPIRou; @artigau14, TOU; @ge16, Veloce, WISDOM; @fzresz16). Given the large number of velocimeters that can be used for RV characterization of TESS planet masses it is useful to understand the observational effort required to do so. That is, how many radial velocity measurements—and total observing time—are required to detect the masses of the TESS planets at a given significance. Furthermore, it is critical to access which spectrographs are best-suited to the efficient mass characterization of each transiting planet found with TESS. To address these questions, here we present an analytical formalism to compute the number of RV measurements required to detect a transiting planet’s mass and apply it to the expected TESS planet yield from . Combining these calculations with an exposure time calculator provides estimates of the total observing time required to measure all TESS planet masses and to complete a variety of interesting science cases that will be addressed by TESS.
This paper is structured as follows: Sect. \[sect:model\] describes our model used to compute the total observing time for all TESS objects-of-interest, Sect. \[sect:accuracy\] compares our model to results from existing RV follow-up campaigns of known transiting planetary systems, Sect. \[sect:simulation\] describes the application of our model to the expected TESS planet population, and Sect. \[sect:results\] reports the results for all TESS planets and for various science cases. We conclude with a discussion and conclusions in Sect. \[sect:disc\]. Lastly, in the Appendix \[app:rvfc\] we describe our freely available web-tool that utilizes the model from Sect. \[sect:model\] to calculate the total observing time required to detect any transiting planet with a user-defined spectrograph.
Modelling the total observing time required to measure a transiting planet’s mass {#sect:model}
=================================================================================
Here we derive equations to calculate the number of RV measurements [$N_{\text{RV}}$,]{} of an arbitrary star—in our case a TESS object-of-interest (TOI)—required to measure the mass of its transiting planet at a given detection significance; i.e. with a particular RV semi-amplitude measurement uncertainty [$\sigma_{K}$.]{} Together with calculations of the exposure time, [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} can be used to compute the total observing time required to detect each TESS planet with RVs.
Calculating [$\sigma_{K}$]{} from the Fisher Information {#sect:fisher}
--------------------------------------------------------
Given an RV time-series of a TOI $\mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t})$ taken a times $\mathbf{t}$, the amount of information present in the data with regards to the value of the planet’s RV semi-amplitude $K$ is contained in the Fisher information. The amount of information regarding $K$ is the $K$ measurement uncertainty [$\sigma_{K}$,]{} that is calculated by evaluating the Fisher information given a model of the observed stellar RV variations due to the planet.
The Fisher information matrix $B$ is defined as the Hessian matrix of the lnlikelihood of the data given a model where the model is parameterized by a set of $n$ parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_n\}$. Explicitly,
$$B_{ij} = - \frac{\partial^2 \ln{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j}
\label{eq:fisher}$$
where the indices $i,j=1,\dots,n$ and
$$\begin{split}
\ln{\mathcal{L}} = -\frac{1}{2} &\left[(\mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t})-\boldsymbol{\mu}(\mathbf{t}))^T C^{-1} \right.
(\mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t})-\boldsymbol{\mu}(\mathbf{t})) + \ln{\text{det} C} \\
&+ \left.N_{\text{RV}} \ln{2\pi} \right]
\end{split}
\label{eq:lnl}$$
is the generalized lnlikelihood of $\mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t})$ given a model $\boldsymbol{\mu}(\mathbf{t})$. The RV time-series and model are each 1D vectors containing [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} measurements. The matrix $C$ is the [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} $\times$ [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} covariance matrix of the residual time-series $\mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t})-\boldsymbol{\mu}(\mathbf{t})$. Once constructed, the Fisher information matrix can be inverted to return a new covariance matrix; the covariance matrix of the $n$ model parameters and whose diagonal elements are equal to the measurement variances in the model parameters.
The model of observed stellar RV variations due to a single orbiting planet is a keplerian solution. Its general form is written as
$$\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{\mu}(\mathbf{t},P,T_0,K,e,\omega) = K [&\cos{(\boldsymbol{\nu}(\mathbf{t},P,T_0,e,\omega)+\omega)} \\
&+ e\cos{\omega}],
\end{split}$$
in terms of the star’s orbital period $P$, time of inferior conjunction $T_0$, RV semi-amplitude $K$, orbital eccentricity $e$, argument of periapsis $\omega$, and true anomaly $\boldsymbol{\nu}$. If we assume that the planet’s orbit is circular—as was done in —then our keplerian model reduces to
$$\boldsymbol{\mu}(\mathbf{t},P,T_0,K) = -K \sin{\boldsymbol{\nu}(\mathbf{t},P,T_0)}
\label{eq:kep}$$
where the true anomaly can be expressed as $\boldsymbol{\nu}(\mathbf{t},P,T_0) =2\pi(\mathbf{t}-T_0)/P$.
### Calculating [$\sigma_{K}$]{} with white RV noise {#sect:fisherwhite}
Using the keplerian model given in Eq. \[eq:kep\] we can derive a simple analytical expression for [$\sigma_{K}$]{} in terms of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} from the Fisher information under a few more simplifying assumptions. From the resulting expression one can fix [$\sigma_{K}$]{} to a desired measurement value and calculate [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} required to measure $K$ at that precision. As a initial assumption, where we will assume that the observed RV noise is Gaussian distributed, or white. This assumption is used in the majority of RV analyses in the literature and is especially applicable to planets with semi-amplitudes much greater than the measured point-to-point RV rms. Assuming white noise, the covariance matrix $C$ in Eq. \[eq:lnl\] is diagonal with RV measurement variances $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\text{RV}}^2(\mathbf{t})$ along the diagonal. The resulting lnlikelihood reduces to
$$\ln{\mathcal{L}} = -\frac{1}{2} \sum^{n_{\text{RV}}}_{i=1} \left( \frac{y(t_i)-\mu(t_i)}{\sigma_{\text{RV}}(t_i)} \right)^2,
\label{eq:lnl2}$$
modulo a constant offset that is independent of the model parameters.
The second simplifying assumption is rather than considering the full measurement uncertainty time-series $\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\mathbf{t})$, we will assume that the RV measurement uncertainty is well-characterized over time by a scalar value [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$;]{} a common assumption when deriving model parameter uncertainties from time-series observations [e.g. @gaudi07; @carter08]. Thirdly, in our keplerian model we will assume that the values of $P$ and $T_0$ are known a-priori with absolute certainty from the planet’s TESS transit light curve. Although this is not strictly true, $P$ and $T_0$ are often measured at high precision—compared to $K$—when multiple transit events are detected. Thus we can treat $P$ and $T_0$ as constants rather than as model parameters such that the set of model parameters in our keplerian RV solution reduces to a single value; $\boldsymbol{\theta}=\{K\}$. The Fisher information matrix then reduces to the scalar value
$$\begin{aligned}
B &= - \frac{\partial^2 \ln{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial K^2}, \\
&= \frac{1}{\sigma_{\text{RV}}^2} \sum^{N_{\text{RV}}}_{i=1} \sin^2{\nu(t_i,P,T_0)}, \label{eq:fisher2} \\
&= \frac{N_{\text{RV}}}{2\sigma^2_{\text{RV}}}, \label{eq:fisher3}\end{aligned}$$
where in the final step we have assumed that the [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} measurements are uniformly sampled over the planet’s orbital phases such that the summation term in Eq. \[eq:fisher2\] averages to one half of [$N_{\text{RV}}$.]{} The inverse of the expression in Eq. \[eq:fisher3\] is the K measurement variance or
$$\sigma_{\text{K}} = \sigma_{\text{RV}} \sqrt{\frac{2}{N_{\text{RV}}}}.
\label{eq:sigK}$$
This remarkably simple expression for [$\sigma_{K}$]{} as a function of the RV measurement uncertainty and number of RV measurements can be rearranged to calculate the value of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} that is required to detect $K$ of any transiting planet, with a precision of [$\sigma_{K}$,]{} when the RV noise can be accurately treated as white.
### Calculating [$\sigma_{K}$]{} when relaxing the white RV noise approximation {#sect:fisherGP}
In deriving Eq. \[eq:sigK\] we must assume that the RV time-series noise was Gaussian distributed. However, numerous analyses of transiting systems have shown that there exist cases in which this is a poor assumption. Instead the RV residuals—after the removal of planetary models—can be temporally correlated often owing to the presence of RV signals arising from stellar activity [e.g. @haywood14; @grunblatt15; @lopezmorales16; @cloutier17b; @dittmann17]. In such cases, a correlated ‘noise’[^2] model must be fit simultaneously with the planetary models to account for all suspected RV signals and any potential correlations between model parameters. One popular choice of correlated noise activity model is a Gaussian process (GP) regression model with a quasi-periodic covariance kernel of the form
$$k(t_i,t_j) = a^2 \exp{\left[ -\frac{(t_i-t_j)^2}{2 \lambda^2}
-\Gamma^2 \sin^2{\left(\frac{\pi |t_i-t_j|}{P_{\text{GP}}} \right)} \right]},
\label{eq:kernel}$$
and covariance matrix elements
$$C_{ij} = k(t_i,t_j) + \delta_{ij} \sqrt{\sigma_{\text{RV}}^2(t_i) + \sigma_{\text{jitter}}^2},
\label{eq:cov}$$
where $t_i$ is the $i^{\text{th}}$ observation epoch in $\mathbf{t}$ and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta function. The covariance of the GP model function is parameterized by five hyperparameters: the amplitude of the correlations $a$, the exponential timescale $\lambda$, the coherence parameter $\Gamma$, the periodic timescale $P_{\text{GP}}$, and an additive scalar jitter $\sigma_{\text{jitter}}$. When attempting to measure the semi-amplitude of a known transiting planet, along with a quasi-periodic GP activity model, the full set of model parameters becomes $\boldsymbol{\theta} = \{K, a, \lambda, \Gamma, P_{\text{GP}}, \sigma_{\text{jitter}} \}$. Hence our new Fisher information matrix will be $6 \times 6$ and takes into account the dependence of the $K$ measurement precision on the remaining hyperparameters. The elements of the Fisher information matrix are computed identically as before from Eqs. \[eq:fisher\] and \[eq:lnl\] but now using a non-diagonal covariance matrix $C$ (Eq. \[eq:cov\]). The derivation of the elements of $B$ are provided in Appendix \[app:fishergp\]. The general effect of computing [$\sigma_{K}$]{} from this new Fisher information matrix is to decrease its expected value given a time-series of fixed [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} compared to the value obtained when using Eq. \[eq:sigK\]. The resulting [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} is typically larger than in the white noise limit. However unlike computing [$\sigma_{K}$]{} in the white noise limit, the value of [$\sigma_{K}$]{} when including a GP correlated noise activity model is dependent on the values of the model parameters themselves and on the time-series due to the $t_i-t_j$ terms in the covariance kernel (Eq. \[eq:kernel\]) and the appearance of $\mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t})$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}(\mathbf{t})$ in the lnlikelihood such that
$$B \to B(\mathbf{t}, \mathbf{y}, \boldsymbol{\sigma_{\text{RV}}}, \boldsymbol{\theta}).$$
Therefore estimating [$\sigma_{K}$]{} from the Fisher information including correlated noise requires time-series as input and numerical values for all model parameters in $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.
We note that when including a GP correlated noise activity model, a simple analytical expression for [$\sigma_{K}$]{} in terms of $\sigma_{\text{RV}}$ and [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} cannot be derived. In this case [$\sigma_{K}$]{} must be derived as a function of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} from time-series of varying [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} used to compute the full Fisher information using Eq. \[eq:fisher\] before calculating the covariance matrix of the model parameters $C'=B^{-1}$ and ultimately [$\sigma_{K}$]{} from its corresponding diagonal matrix element:
$$\sigma_{\text{K}} = \sqrt{C_{11}'}.
\label{eq:sigKGP}$$
Calculating [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} for TOIs in the photon-noise limit {#sect:sigrv}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculating [$\sigma_{K}$]{} from RV time-series with either white noise or correlated noise is dependent in-part on the RV measurement uncertainty. Here we estimate the photon-noise limited RV measurement precision [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} following the formalism from [@bouchy01]. Their formalism is used to calculate [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} given the RV information content contained within a stellar spectrum over a particular wavelength range of interest.
From [@bouchy01] the RV measurement precision [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} is shown to be
$$\sigma_{\text{RV}} = \frac{c}{Q \cdot \text{S/N}},
\label{eq:sigrv}$$
where $c$ is the speed of light, $Q$ is known as the quality factor of the spectrum, and S/N is the signal-to-noise ratio achieved over the full spectral range considered. The S/N contains contributions from the total number of photoelectrons $N_{\text{e}^-}$ obtained from the source and a contribution from readout noise that begins to dominate the noise budget for the faintest TESS stars. Our S/N prescription is
$$\text{S/N} = \frac{N_{\text{e}^-}}{\sqrt{N_{\text{e}^-} + N_{\text{ron}}^2}}.$$
Throughout this study we assume a fixed readout noise per pixel of 5 e$^-$ and a 4 pixel PSF sampling in each orthogonal direction on the detector. The corresponding readout noise is therefore $N_{\text{ron}} = 20$ e$^1$. The quality factor
$$Q = \frac{\sqrt{\sum_i{W_i}}}{\sqrt{\sum_i{A_i}}}$$
is calculated from the noise-free stellar spectrum $A_i$—given in photoelectrons and evaluated at the wavelengths $\lambda_i$—and from the optimum weighting function given by
$$W_i = \left( \frac{\lambda_i^2}{A_i} \right) \left( \frac{\partial A_i}{\partial \lambda_i} \right)^2.$$
The quality factor represents the density of the RV information content in the spectrum $A_i$.
When computing [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} from Eq. \[eq:sigrv\] we use model stellar spectra from the PHOENIX-ACES library [@husser13]. The spectrum for each TOI is retrieved based on the star’s effective temperature $T_{\text{eff}}$ and surface gravity assuming solar metallicity. The native cgs units of flux density for each model spectrum are converted to photoelectrons using the photon energy over the wavelength range provided by the PHOENIX models ($\lambda \in [0.05,5.5]$ and assuming a fixed nominal instrumental throughput of 5%. The spectrum is then segregated into the spectrograph’s various spectral bands whose central wavelengths and spectral coverage are summarized in Table \[table:bands\]. In each spectral band we mask wavelengths at which the telluric transmission is $< 98$%, where the spectral telluric absorption model is calculated at an airmass of 1 from Maunakea at $R=100,000$. The aforementioned model is obtained from the `TAPAS` web-tool [@bertaux14]. The remaining spectrum in each band that is largely uncontaminated by telluric absorption is resampled assuming a fixed 3 pixel PSF sampling of each resolution element. This spectrum is then convolved with a Gaussian kernel whose full width at half maximum is $\text{FWHM} = \lambda_0 / R$ where $R$ is the spectral resolution of the spectrograph. After convolving each spectrum with a Gaussian instrumental profile the spectrum is convolved with the rotation kernel presented in [@gray08] (c.f. Eq. 17.12) that emulates the effect of rotational broadening for stars with a non-zero projected rotation velocity [$v\sin{i_s}$.]{} When computing the rotation kernel we adopt a linear limb-darkening coefficient of $\epsilon=0.6$. For each star we compute [$v\sin{i_s}$]{} from the known stellar radius , the inclination of the stellar spin-axis to the line-of-sight $i_s$—drawn from a narrow geometric distribution centered on $90^{\circ}$—and the stellar rotation period [$P_{\text{rot}}$,]{} that we sample following the methodology described in Sect. \[sect:act\].
After the aforementioned convolutions the PHOENIX model’s wavelength grid is resampled to a constant $\delta \lambda = \lambda_0 / R$ whose value is specified at the center of a reference band. For the optical spectrograph that will be considered in this study we fix the reference band to be the $V$ band ($\lambda_0 = 0.55$ whereas the reference band is fixed to the $J$ band ($\lambda_0 = 1.25$ with the near-IR spectrograph considered.
[@artigau18] compared the value of [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} derived from stellar spectra—as we do here—to the value derived from empirical spectra from HARPS, ESPaDOnS, and CRIRES. They find small discrepancies between these values at optical wavelengths but claim that the RV precision derived from model spectra can be over-estimated in the near-IR YJ bands by $\sim 2$ and under-estimated in the HK bands by $\sim 0.5$. In deriving our own RV measurement precisions from spectral models in the optical or near-IR, we apply the multiplicative correct factors derived in [@artigau18]. We note that these corrections were derived based on observations of a single star (i.e. Barnard’s star) whereas the correction factors for other star’s with unique effective temperatures and metallicities may differ from those used here. Despite that, there exists a clear discrepancy between RV measurement precisions derived from model and empirical spectra. This is at least true in a subset of spectral bands. Precise disagreements between model and observationally-derived [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} in various bands for *all* spectral types is beyond the scope of this paper but may affect the photon-noise limited RV precision by a factor $\mathcal{O}(2)$—depending on the spectrograph—as it does for Barnard’s star from the $\sim J$ to $K$ band. Note that the corresponding effect on total observing times will be $\mathcal{O}(<2)$ due to the other contributors to the RV uncertainty in addition to the photon-noise limit (see Sect. \[sect:noise\]).
Additional sources of RV noise {#sect:noise}
------------------------------
Often when searching for transiting planets in radial velocity the residual rms following the removal of the maximum a-posteriori keplerian planet solution exceeds the characteristic RV measurement uncertainty. This implies the existence of additional sources of RV noise. The effect of these additional noise sources is detrimental to our ability to precisely measure planet masses if not properly modelled. Therefore this excess noise should be taken into account when attempting to estimate [$\sigma_{K}$]{} using either Eq. \[eq:sigK\] or \[eq:sigKGP\]. These additional sources of noise may be attributed to stellar activity arising from dark spots, plages, and/or faculae, whose corresponding RV signals are modulated by the stellar rotation period and its harmonics, modulo the amplitude of any differential rotation [e.g. @forveille09; @bonfils13; @delfosse13b]. Another source of dispersion in observed RVs may be from additional planets not seen in-transit [e.g. @christiansen17; @cloutier17b Bonfils et al. in prep.]; an effect that is especially pertinent when searching for small planets whose RV semi-amplitudes are less than the characteristic RV uncertainty of the time-series [e.g. @astudillodefru17a].
In order to compute [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} for each TOI using our white noise model we will absorb the aforementioned additional noise sources into an effective RV uncertainty [$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$]{} rather than the previously assumed measurement uncertainty derived in the photon-noise limit. The effective RV uncertainty is written as the quadrature sum of the systematic RV noise floor of the spectrograph [$\sigma_{\text{floor}}$]{} (see Table \[table:spectrographs\]), the photon-noise limited RV precision, and the RV jitter arising from additional sources of RV noise such as activity and unknown planets: [$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$]{} $=\sqrt{\sigma_{\text{floor}}^2+\sigma_{\text{RV}}^2+\sigma_{\text{act}}^2 + \sigma_{\text{planets}}^2}$. Eq. \[eq:sigK\] can then be rearranged for [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} in terms of the effective RV uncertainty:
$$N_{\text{RV}} = 2 \left( \frac{\sigma_{\text{eff}}}{\sigma_{\text{K}}} \right)^2.
\label{eq:nrv}$$
In empirical time-series with white RV residuals [$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$]{} can be estimated from the rms of the residual dispersion following the removal of all modelled planets. Eq. \[eq:nrv\] is not applicable to empirical time-series that require a GP correlated noise activity model.
In Sect. \[sect:accuracy\] we will compare the results from real RV campaigns to our analytic estimates as a test of their validity. However unlike in actual RV time-series, the RV jitter rms resulting from activity and unknown planets is not known a-priori for any of the TOIs in the synthetic catalog. We therefore need to employ generalized statistical arguments to estimate the expected RV jitter from activity and unknown planets for each TOI. These estimates are described in Sects. \[sect:act\] and \[sect:planets\] and are based on the empirical distributions of RV jitter from each of these two physical effects.
Estimating RV noise due to stellar activity {#sect:act}
-------------------------------------------
Here we will consider estimates of the expected RV jitter due to rotationally modulated stellar activity; [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$.]{} The arguments presented here are intended to be representative of field stars in the solar neighbourhood. Firstly, for each TOI we draw a rotation period [$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} as a function of the stellar mass from either the [@pizzolato03] empirical distribution for FGK dwarfs ($T_{\text{eff}} > 3800$ K) or from the [@newton16a] empirical distribution for M dwarfs ($T_{\text{eff}} \leq 3800$ K). The corresponding stellar equatorial velocity is calculated using the stellar radius from . The projected stellar rotation velocity [$v\sin{i_s}$]{} is then calculated after drawing the inclination of the stellar spin–axis from a geometrical distribution. The value of [$v\sin{i_s}$]{} acts as a first-order estimate of the star’s activity level [e.g. @west15; @moutou17].
For active stars ([$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} $\lesssim 10$ days), [@oshagh17] showed through simultaneous K2 photometry and HARPS spectroscopy that monotonic correlations exist between the measured RVs and numerous spectroscopic activity indicators (e.g. [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$,]{} FWHM, BIS). Meanwhile quiet stars ([$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} $\gtrsim 10$ days) appear to lack such strong correlations with spectroscopic activity indicators yet do correlate strongly with $F_8$, the photometric flicker or photometric RMS on timescales $<8$ hours [@bastien13]. The $F_8$ parameter has been shown to correlate with asteroseismic stellar surface gravity measurements [@bastien13] that itself correlates with RV jitter [@bastien14]. Thus for inactive FGK stars ([$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} $\geq 10$ days) we adopt the following temperature dependent relation from [@cegla14] for the expected RV dispersion due to stellar activity:
$$\sigma_{\text{act}} = 1 \text{ m} \text{s}^{-1} \times
\begin{cases}
84.23 F_8 - 3.35, & T_{\text{eff}} \geq 6000 \text{ K}, \\
18.04 F_8 - 0.98, & T_{\text{eff}} < 6000 \text{ K}.
\end{cases} \label{eq:cegla}$$
Typical values of [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} used to derive Eq. \[eq:cegla\] from [@saar03] range from $\sim 0.5-10$ [m s$^{-1}$]{} but with a relatively small median value of $\lesssim 2$ [m s$^{-1}$.]{} We sample $F_8$ values—measured in parts-per-thousand—from the empirical *Kepler* distribution that has been corrected for their intrinsic *Kepler* magnitude [@bastien13]. After sampling $F_8$ and its uncertainty we use Eq. \[eq:cegla\] to map to the distribution of [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} for the inactive FGK stars in the sample of planet-hosting TOIs.
For active FGK stars ([$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} $<10$ days) we revert to the [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} activity indicator [@noyes84] whose distribution among nearby field FGK stars has been well-characterized [@henry96; @santos00; @wright04; @hall07; @isaacson10; @lovis11]. To estimate [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} for active FGK stars we compute the corresponding [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} from [$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} and $B-V$ using the formalism from [@noyes84]. The following formulation from [@santos00] is then used to map [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} $\to$ [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$:]{}
$$\sigma_{\text{act}} = 1 \text{ m} \text{s}^{-1} \times
\begin{cases}
9.2 R_5^{0.75} & \text{for F dwarfs} \\
7.9 R_5^{0.55} & \text{for G dwarfs} \\
7.8 R_5^{0.13} & \text{for K dwarfs},
\end{cases} \label{eq:santos}$$
where $R_5 = 10^5 R_{\text{HK}}'$. The rms of the fits in Eq. \[eq:santos\] are 0.17, 0.18, and 0.19 dex for FGK stars respectively. In deriving Eq. \[eq:santos\] as a function of spectral type, [@santos00] computed spectral types for each star in their sample based on their CORALIE spectra. However we lack such spectra and instead define the boundaries between FGK stars based on $T_{\text{eff}}$ given the limited information available for the TOIs. The assumed ranges are $T_{\text{eff,F}} \in (6000,7500]$ K, $T_{\text{eff,G}} \in (5200,6000]$ K, and $T_{\text{eff,K}} \in (3800,5200]$ K. By computing [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} and its uncertainty from sampled values of [$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} and $B-V$, we can map from [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} to the distribution of [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} for the active FGK stars in the sample of planet-hosting TOIs.
Lastly, for M dwarfs there exists a clean relation between [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} and [$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} [@astudillodefru17b]. The correlation saturates at a maximum mean value of [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} $=-4.045$ for rapid rotators with [$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} $< 10$ days and falls off with rotation period out to the slowest rotating observed M dwarfs with [$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} $\gtrsim 100$ days. Explicitly, [@astudillodefru17b] find the best-fit step-wise powerlaw to the correlation:
$$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'} =
\begin{cases}
-1.509 \log{P_{\text{rot}}} -2.550, & P_{\text{rot}} > 10 \text{ days} \\
-4.045, & P_{\text{rot}} \leq 10 \text{ days}.
\end{cases} \label{eq:astudillo}$$
The dispersion in the relation for slow rotators is characterized by the uncertainty in the slope and intercept of 0.007 and 0.020 respectively whereas the dispersion in [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} for rapid rotators is 0.093. Sampled values of [$P_{\text{rot}}$]{} for M dwarfs are used to map to [$\log{R_{\text{HK}}'}$]{} using Eq. \[eq:astudillo\] from which [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} values are estimated using a relation similar to Eq. \[eq:santos\] but extrapolated to M dwarfs with $T_{\text{eff}} \leq 3800$ K. The adopted coefficient and powerlaw index for M dwarfs (2 [m s$^{-1}$]{} and 0.1 respectively) were derived from the set of 23 M dwarfs with $2 \lesssim P_{\text{rot}} \lesssim 150$ days (c.f. Fig. 3 @cloutier18) whose RV activity rms was characterized with HARPS (X. Delfosse private communication). Additional empirical data to further calibrate these models for M dwarfs are part of an on-going study with HARPS (Delfosse et al. in prep.) and with a subset of active M dwarfs from CARMENES recently reported [@tal-or18].
We note that the empirical distributions of RV activity used in this study were derived from observations using optical spectrographs. However, RV activity signals are known to be chromatic as they largely depend on the temperature contrast between an active region and the stellar photosphere where the contrast effect is known decrease from the optical to the near-IR [e.g. @martin06; @huelamo08; @prato08; @reiners10; @mahmud11]. Meanwhile, Zeeman broadening of spectral features increases with wavelength [@reiners13]. The dominant source for RV activity as a function of wavelength and spectral type is not yet fully understood [@moutou17] and so we choose to remain agnostic and set the near-IR RV activity equal to that which is derived in the optical.
Estimating RV noise due to unseen planets {#sect:planets}
-----------------------------------------
The occurrence rates of planets of various sizes around FGKM stars was well studied with the primary *Kepler* mission [e.g. @fressin13; @dressing15a]. For example, the cumulative occurrence rate of planets with radii $r_p \in [0.8,22]$ R$_{\oplus}$ around FGK stars out to 418 days is $\gtrsim 0.87$ planets [@fressin13]. For M dwarfs, small planets with $r_p \in [0.5,4]$ R$_{\oplus}$ with $P \leq 200$ days appear to be more common with at least 2.5 such planets per M dwarf. In the TESS simulations of up to one transiting planet is detected although the multiplicity of each simulated planetary system is reported. Here we use the number of additional planets around each TOI—along with the known occurrence rates of planets—to estimate the RV contribution due to these planets whose transits are not characterized with TESS.
For TOIs with a reported multiplicity $N_p>1$, we sample the radius $r_p$ and orbital period $P$ of the $N_p-1$ additional planets from the *Kepler*-derived occurrence rates from [@fressin13] for FGK dwarfs or from [@dressing15a] for M dwarfs. Because at most only one planet is detected in transit for each TOI and the transit probability $\propto P^{-2/3}$, we draw the orbital periods of additional planets from values greater than the reported orbital period of the known TESS planet. In this way the TESS planet is always the innermost planet in the system and therefore most likely to transit. However, inner non-transiting planets have been detected in known transiting systems as a result of a potentially small mutual inclination [$\Delta i \sim 1^{\circ}$; @cloutier17b].
When sampling the planet occurrence rates as a function of $P$ and $r_p$, $f(P,r_p)$, a few caveats arise. Firstly, $f(P,r_p)$ are reported over a coarse grid. Therefore when drawing a planet with a range of potential orbital periods and radii we sample the exact value of $P$ and $r_p$ each from a uniform distribution bounded by the edges of that bin. Secondly, due to the poor detection sensitivity to the smallest planets at large orbital periods, $f(P,r_p)$ is poorly constrained there. To quantify the values of $f(P,r_p)$ in this regime we assume that $f(P,r_p)$ evolves smoothly such that in bins where $f(P,r_p)$ is poorly constrained, we can average the measured values in surrounding bins to populate the previously vacant bin. We restrict all pairs of planets in multi-planet systems to remain Lagrange stable according to the analytic condition from [@barnes06] while assuming circular orbits for all planets. Lastly, the sampled radii for all additional planets are converted to a planetary mass $m_p$ according to the empirically derived mean mass-radius relations from [@weiss13] or [@weiss14],
$$\frac{m_p}{\text{M}_{\oplus}} =
\begin{cases}
0.440 \left(\frac{r_p}{\text{R}_{\oplus}} \right)^3 + 0.614 \left( \frac{r_p}{\text{R}_{\oplus}} \right)^4, & r_p < 1.5 \text{ R}_{\oplus} \\
2.69 \left( \frac{r_p}{\text{R}_{\oplus}} \right)^{0.93}, & 1.5 \leq r_p/\text{R}_{\oplus} < 4 \\
\left( 0.56 \left( \frac{r_p}{\text{R}_{\oplus}} \right) \left( \frac{S}{336.5 S_{\oplus}} \right)^{0.03} \right)^{1.89}, & 4 \leq r_p/\text{R}_{\oplus} < 13.7 \\
\mathcal{U}(150,2000), & r_p \geq 13.7 \text{ R}_{\oplus}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:MR}$$
where $S$ is the irradiance received by the planet. By adopting the mean mass-radius relation this formalism neglects to reflect the diversity of exoplanet masses for a given planet radius.
The sinusoidal keplerian solution with unit amplitude has an rms value of $\sqrt{2}/2 \sim 0.707$. Therefore for each additional planet $i=1,\dots,N_p-1$, we can calculate $\sigma_{\text{planets},i}=0.707K_i$ where $K_i$ is the planet’s semi-amplitude computed from its sampled $P_i$, $m_{p,i}$, and host stellar mass. The total value of [$\sigma_{\text{planets}}$]{} is calculated by the quadrature addition of $\sigma_{\text{planets},i}$ from each additional planet whose $K_i >$ [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$.]{} This latest condition is imposed assuming that additional planets not seen in-transit but whose semi-amplitudes are large compared to the RV measurement precision will be accurately modelled in the RV analysis and therefore not contribute to the residual RV rms.
Exposure time calculator {#sect:etc}
------------------------
Together with estimates of [$N_{\text{RV}}$,]{} the exposure time [$t_{\text{exp}}$]{} per TOI can be used to calculate the total observing time required to detect a TESS planet in radial velocity. For a given star, the exposure time required to achieve a desired S/N per resolution element will depend on the properties of the spectrograph and telescope used as well as on the star’s magnitude in the spectral bands spanned by the spectrograph. For each TOI in this study we calculate the exposure time that is required to reach a S/N of at least $100$ at the center of a reference band; $V$ ($\lambda=0.55$ or $J$ ($\lambda=1.25$ for optical and near-IR spectrographs respectively. The zero point flux densities in each spectral band used to calculate the S/N $=\sqrt{N_{e^-}}$ per resolution element are reported in Table \[table:bands\].
The benefit of integrating longer is only to achieve a photon-noise limited RV precision less than a few [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$,]{} is one of diminishing returns because the effective RV precision becomes dominated by activity and cannot be reduced by increasing [$t_{\text{exp}}$.]{} Although, it is important to note that increasing [$t_{\text{exp}}$]{} permits a better sampling for the spectral CCF thus improving one’s ability to accurately characterize the activity and mitigate its effects. In cases for which the calculated [$t_{\text{exp}}$]{} results in [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} $>$ [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} or $>$ the expected $K$, we claim that the exposure time is under-estimated. To remedy this we scale-up [$t_{\text{exp}}$]{} to achieve [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} $\lesssim$ [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} and $\lesssim$ the expected $K$. In our exposure time calculator we do impose restrictions on the range of [$t_{\text{exp}}$]{} that can be considered. Specifically, we restrict [$t_{\text{exp}}$]{} $\in [10,60]$ minutes. The shortest permissible exposure time is required to help mitigate the effects of stellar pulsations and surface granulation which evolve on timescales $\lesssim 10$ minutes [@lovis05; @dumusque11]. The upper limit of 60 minutes is applied in order to limit the total observing time dedicated to a single star. In practice, the majority of stars requiring $>60$ minutes to achieve the target S/N per resolution element and beat the RV activity rms, will result in a correspondingly low [$\sigma_{K}$]{} and will therefore not be amenable to RV characterization within a reasonable timespan. We do note that this upper limit is chosen somewhat arbitrarily and some observers may wish to increase the maximum exposure time to accommodate certain high-value targets such as temperate Earth-like planets within or near their host star’s habitable zone[^3].
Model Comparison to Observations {#sect:accuracy}
================================
In Sect. \[sect:model\] we derived Eq. \[eq:nrv\] for the number of RV observations required to measure $K$ of a transiting planet with a precision of [$\sigma_{K}$]{} in an RV time-series with white noise and an effective RV uncertainty [$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$.]{} Similar calculations can be made of [$\sigma_{K}$(]{}[$N_{\text{RV}}$)]{} in the presence of correlated noise using the formalism discussed in Sect. \[sect:fisherGP\] and Eq. \[eq:sigKGP\]. Here we compare our analytic estimates of [$N_{\text{RV}}$-]{}–under the applicable noise condition—to observational results from existing RV time-series to ensure that our model provides an accurate approximation to [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} when applied to the TOIs. We consider two sets of RV time-series of transiting planetary systems featuring either a white or correlated noise model. The latter models being restricted to a quasi-periodic GP treatment of correlated RV residuals as was assumed in Sect. \[sect:fisherGP\]. All systems considered must also obey the assumptions imposed when deriving [$\sigma_{K}$.]{} To recapitulate, those assumptions are:
1. the planet’s orbital solution is well-approximated as circular.
2. The value of the TESS planet’s $P$ and $T_0$ are known to ultra-high precision compared to $K$ such that correlations between the measured values of $P$, $T_0$, and $K$ are unimportant.
3. The window function of the RV time-series is (approximately) sampled uniformly over the planet’s full orbital phase.
4. The white RV time-series have a characteristic scalar RV uncertainty equal to the rms of the RV residuals.
To make the analytic estimates of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} for each observed planetary system featuring a white noise model, we use the $1\sigma$ value of [$\sigma_{K}$]{} for one planet in the system. By the nature of the Fisher information the value of [$\sigma_{K}$]{} for each modelled planet in a multi-planet system should be equal so long as all ephemerides are well-constrained and planet semi-amplitudes are not correlated. Indeed, the measured planet semi-amplitudes should be uncorrelated when all planets’ are weakly interacting with distinct orbital periods. For each RV time-series we set the value of [$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$]{} to the rms of the RV residuals following the removal of all RV signals modelled by the authors. Some authors report their residual rms values explicitly whilst others treat the stellar activity signal as white by fitting an additive scalar jitter parameter that we add in quadrature to the median RV measurement uncertainty of the time-series to estimate [$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$.]{} The planetary systems with white noise models considered in this analysis are summarized in Table \[table:compare\_white\].
To compare our formalism in the presence of correlated noise to observed systems we consider five cases analyzed with a quasi-periodic GP correlated noise activity model. Namely CoRoT-7 [@haywood14], K2-18 [@cloutier17b], Kepler-21 [@lopezmorales16], Kepler-78 [@grunblatt15], and LHS 1140 [@dittmann17]. The calculated value of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} for these systems is obtained by evaluating [$\sigma_{K}$]{} from Eq. \[eq:sigKGP\] using each systems’ unique RV time-series $\mathbf{t},\mathbf{y},$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\text{RV}}$ from their respective papers along with the semi-amplitude and GP hyperparameter values plus uncertainties. The maximum likelihood parameter values are reported in Table \[table:compare\_red\]. Because the model parameters are known to a finite precision we Monte-Carlo sample each model parameter from a Gaussian distribution whose mean is equal to its best-fit value and standard deviation equal to the parameter’s measured $1\sigma$ uncertainty. Evaluating the Fisher information matrix with $10^3$ model parameter draws results in a distribution of [$\sigma_{K}$]{} for each planet from which the distribution of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} can be calculated using Eq. \[eq:nrv\] after [$\sigma_{\text{eff}}$]{} is derived identically to as in the white noise scenario.
Analytic estimates of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} are compared to observed values for known planetary systems in Fig. \[fig:compare\]. As evidenced in Fig. \[fig:compare\], the majority of planetary systems have calculated [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} values in close agreement with observed values for both the white and correlated noise scenarios. This demonstrates that our analytical models for [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} are valid for the majority of cases with one notable exception. Quantitatively, the rms of the O-C [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} values is 2.6 for the white noise cases alone and 5.2 for all planetary systems included in Fig. \[fig:compare\] with the exception of the curious outlier LHS 1140. Our calculated value of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} for LHS 1140 is overestimated relative to the size of the RV time-series presented in [@dittmann17] from which $K$ is measured to be $5.34 \pm 1.1$ [m s$^{-1}$.]{} After Monte-Carlo sampling $K$ and the GP hyperparameters from their measurement uncertainties we calculate a median [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{}$=265 \pm 64$ which is $\sim 1.8$ times greater than the actual time-series size ([$N_{\text{RV}}$]{}$=144$) at $1.9\sigma$. The exact cause of this anomalous discrepancy is not known but may be related to how the GP covariance function is implemented although this investigation is beyond the scope of this paper.
![Observed values of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} compared to the calculated values including either white or correlated RV noise for a suite of known transiting planetary systems. The colorbar indicates each planet’s RV semi-amplitude. The *dashed line* depicts the line $y=x$ wherein calculated [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} correspond exactly to the observed [$N_{\text{RV}}$.]{} The region above the line depicts where the observed [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{}—for a given $K$ measurement precision—are less than the value predicted by the Fisher information and would be considered anomalous. The region below the line depicts where the observed [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} are larger than the value predicted by the Fisher information implying that the $K$ measurement uncertainty may be under-estimated.[]{data-label="fig:compare"}](Nrvcomparison.png){width="\hsize"}
Overview of computing [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} for the expected TESS planet population {#sect:simulation}
=================================================================================
predicted the population of planets that will be discovered with TESS in its 2-minute cadence observing mode. Their results are provided for one realization of their simulations and contains 1984 TOIs, each with a single transiting planet. The properties of their stellar sample is copied in Table \[table:stars\] for easy reference. This realization contains more detected planets than the average of their simulations; $\sim 1700$. We treat each TOI in the sample as a bona-fide exoplanet and not as a false positive. However, some number of TOIs will ultimately be identified as false positives as historically the false positive rate of transit surveys like Kepler have yielded higher false positive rates than initially anticipated [@sliski14; @morton16]. The properties of the adopted planet population were derived from planet occurrence rates measured with Kepler circa 2015. Some planetary properties, particularly the planetary radii, have since been modified slightly following the reanalysis of Kepler-planet host star properties [e.g. @fulton17].
Here we compute analytical estimates of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} required to measure a planet’s RV semi-amplitude—at a given precision—for the entire synthetic catalog of TESS planets from . Together with the exposure time calculator described in Sect. \[sect:etc\] we calculate the total observing time required to detect each planet. These calculations require estimates of RV noise sources from the RV noise floor of the employed spectrograph, photon noise, activity, and additional unseen planets. Photon noise is dependent on the RV information content contained within the stellar spectrum and varies across spectral bands. Therefore we consider RV follow-up observations taken with either a fiducial optical spectrograph or a fiducial near-IR spectrograph. The specifications corresponding to our adopted optical spectrograph are modelled after the HARPS spectrograph on the 3.6m ESO telescope at La Silla observatory [@mayor03]. The specifications corresponding to our adopted near-IR spectrograph are modelled after the up-coming NIRPS spectrograph that will join HARPS at the 3.6m ESO telescope at La Silla observatory in 2019 [@bouchy17]. The adopted specifications for our two fiducial spectrographs are given in Table \[table:spectrographs\]. Using the formalism discussed in Sect. \[sect:sigrv\] we calculate [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} for each TOI with both spectrographs. For reference, the distributions of TOI [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} for both spectrographs are shown in Fig. \[fig:sigRV\].
![The distributions of the TOI photon-noise limited RV measurement precisions derived from PHOENIX stellar models and using the formalism discussed in Sect. \[sect:sigrv\]. The values of [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} are computed for each of our fiducial spectrographs in the optical and near-IR with spectral bands $BVR$ and $YJH$ respectively (see Table \[table:spectrographs\]).[]{data-label="fig:sigRV"}](sigRVhist.png){width="\hsize"}
In Sect. \[app:rvfc\] we will present a web-based [$N_{\text{RV}}$(]{}[$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$)]{} calculator that can be used to repeat these calculations but using *any* spectrograph defined by the user.
As discussed in Sects. \[sect:noise\], \[sect:act\], and \[sect:planets\], estimates of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} are also sensitive to additive RV noise sources such as stellar activity and unseen planets. However, these astrophysical noise sources are not known a-priori for the TOIs and therefore must be sampled from known distributions of applicable values of [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$]{} and [$\sigma_{\text{planets}}$.]{} A Monte-Carlo sampling routine is used for each TOI to sample the aforementioned quantities from the distributions discussed in Sects. \[sect:act\] and \[sect:planets\]. The value of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} for each TOI also depends on the desired $K$ measurement uncertainty that is set by the nature of the follow-up science that one wishes to conduct once the planet’s mass has been characterized with RVs. For example, conventionally the *detection* of a planet’s $K$ requires a $3\sigma$ detection significance; $3 = K/$ [$\sigma_{K}$]{}. Conversely, targets that will be amenable to atmospheric characterization via transmission spectroscopy will benefit from a more precise measurement of the planet’s bulk density that in-turn requires a mass detection significance $>3\sigma$.
In the following Sect. \[sect:results\] we present results of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} for the full TESS sample in the limit of correlated RV noise (see Sect. \[sect:fisherGP\]). We also consider four subsamples of TESS planets each pertaining to a unique science case that will be addressed by TESS. Each science case merits a unique choice of [$\sigma_{K}$]{} for a particular subset of TOIs. Total observing times are then calculated as [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{}$\cdot (t_{\text{exp}}+t_{\text{overhead}})$. Because the exact value of $t_{\text{overhead}}$ varies between observatories, we will set $t_{\text{overhead}}=0$ such that its effect can easily be added to the total observing times later-on for non-zero values. To estimate [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} in the presence of correlated RV noise we construct time-series of increasing [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} from $10-10^3$ in steps of 90. For our time-series we adopt a simple uniform window function $\mathbf{t}$ spanning 100 days which is sufficient to sample the full orbit of $\sim 99$% of TOIs. Such simplistic time sampling is admittedly unrealistic given the expected number and frequency of nights lost due to poor observing conditions (clouds, poor seeing, etc). To that end we tested more complex window functions which included longer baselines and gaps due to observing seasons. We found results roughly consistent with the uniform window functions although this need not be true for *any* window function with arbitrary complexity such as those which are often obtained in practice over many observing seasons. For each of the 12 time-series with a unique [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} we compute [$\sigma_{K}$]{} before interpolating [$N_{\text{RV}}$(]{}[$\sigma_{K}$)]{} to the desired value of [$\sigma_{K}$.]{} The initial guesses of the GP hyperparameters $\{\lambda, \Gamma, P_{\text{GP}} \}$ are adopted from from [@dittmann17] (see Methods section *Radial-velocity analysis with Gaussian process regression.*) with the remaining GP hyperparameters set to $a=\sqrt{2}\sigma_{\text{act}}$ and $\sigma_{\text{jitter}}=\sigma_{\text{planets}}$. The RV time-series $\mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t})$ contains keplerian contribution from the TESS planet and other sampled planets if applicable, plus correlated noise from a sample of the GP prior distribution, and white noise featuring contributions from the RV noise floor of the spectrograph (Table \[table:spectrographs\]) and the photon-noise limited measurement precision: $\sqrt{\sigma_{\text{floor}}^2 + \sigma_{\text{RV}}^2}$. The RV measurement uncertainty time-series $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{\text{RV}}(\mathbf{t})$ contains the aforementioned value repeated [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} times.
Results for the TESS sample {#sect:results}
===========================
Detecting all TESS planet masses at $3\sigma$ {#sect:all}
---------------------------------------------
Here we present the results of attempting to detect the masses of *all* TESS planets at $3\sigma$ using either the optical or near-IR spectrograph. As such, we do not make a cut in declination and restrict targets to half of the sky. Our fiducial spectrographs are intended to be representative of suites of spectrographs—with comparable on-sky performance—thus providing full sky coverage. Realistically not all TESS planets will be characterized with RVs due to either their small RV semi-amplitude, certain intrinsic stellar host properties that deter RV observations (e.g. a low apparent magnitude, rapid projected stellar rotation, or high levels of stellar activity), or simply due to a lack of available observing time. Despite this fact we present the results for *all* TESS planets.
Detecting a planet’s mass at $3\sigma$ requires a $K$ detection significance that is slightly larger than three because the calculation of $m_p$ from $K$ is also dependent on other observables such as the orbital period and stellar mass whose measurement uncertainties contribute to the $m_p$ measurement uncertainty. To calculate the value of [$\sigma_{K}$]{} required to achieve $m_p / \sigma_{\text{m}_\text{p}}=3$ we first assume that the orbital period of the planet is known to a sufficiently high fractional precision relative to the other parameters of interest (i.e. $\sigma_{\text{P}}/P \ll 1$) such that its contribution to $\sigma_{m_p}$ can be effectively ignored. Secondly, we assume throughout this study that all stellar masses are measured with a conservative precision of 10% as many field dwarfs in the solar neighbourhood have their masses measured with a precision of $\lesssim 10$% from mass-luminosity relations [@delfosse00; @torres10]. However, this assumed fractional precision will not hold for all TOIs as a subset will have their masses characterized more precisely using other advanced techniques such as asteroseismology or spectroscopy coupled with precision parallaxes [e.g. @vaneylen17; @fulton18]. We note that the calculations presented here represent conservative values if TOI stellar masses can be determined to a precision higher than 10%. Nevertheless, under our current assumptions a $3.06\sigma$ detection of $K$ (i.e. [$\sigma_{K}$]{} $=0.327 K$) is required to detect $m_p$ at $3\sigma$.
The median results—over Monte-Carlo realizations—of our calculations are reported in Table \[table:results\] for each TOI. Specifically, we report the median photon noise-limited RV precision in both the optical and near-IR spectrographs, [$\sigma_{\text{act}}$,]{} [$\sigma_{\text{planets}}$,]{} [$N_{\text{RV}}$,]{} and total observing times in each spectrograph; $t_{\text{obs,opt}}$ and $t_{\text{obs,nIR}}$. The values of [$N_{\text{RV}}$—]{}and the corresponding $t_{\text{obs}}$—are derived from the general case which includes a GP treatment of correlated RV noise.
In Fig. \[fig:ratio\] we compare $t_{\text{obs,opt}}$ and $t_{\text{obs,nIR}}$ as a function of TOI effective temperature to ascertain which flavor of spectrograph is favorable for efficient RV planet mass characterization. A clear trend is discernible with the ratio of the median optical to the near-IR total observing times decreasing towards earlier spectral types. Efficient characterization of planets around late TOIs with $T_{\text{eff}} \lesssim 3800$ K is significantly favoured by the use of near-IR spectrographs due to the reduced photon noise exhibited by those stars in the near-IR. Conversely for TOIs with $T_{\text{eff}} \gtrsim 5500$ K, the optical spectrograph is preferred. For intermediate TOIs the two spectrographs offer nearly consistent performance.
![Point estimates of the ratio of the median total observing times with an optical spectrograph to with a near-IR spectrograph as a function of TOI effective temperature. Colors are indicative of the ratio of the photon-noise limited RV precision in the optical to the near-IR. Near-IR RV observations are a more efficient means of planet mass characterization when this ratio is a few times unity. Conversely, optical RV observations are a more efficient means of planet mass characterization when this ratio is a few time smaller than unity. The shaded region spanning the ordinate $\in [1/2,2]$ approximately depicts where the use of either an optical or near-IR spectrograph offer nearly consistent performance.[]{data-label="fig:ratio"}](optnIRratio.png){width="\hsize"}
Modulo the effects of rotation and stellar activity the observing time required to detect a transiting planet with RVs is dependent on the host star’s brightness and spectral type which directly effect [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$.]{} Recall that our derived values of [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} for each TOI are based on stellar spectral models rather than on empirical spectra such as the M dwarfs observed at high resolution ($R > 80,000$) with the CARMENES visible and near-IR channels [@reiners17]. [@reiners17] claim that the RV information content peaks in the RI bands between 700-900 nm for all M dwarfs. This empirical evidence somewhat contradicts theoretical calculations based on model spectra (e.g. @figueira16, this study), especially for late M dwarfs whose RV information content is theorized to peak in the HK bands from 1.4-2.4 $\mu$m. Convergence towards a more precise scaling of [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} with wavelength—for stars of various spectral types—will be achieved in the near future with the onset of multiple new spectrographs from the optical to the near-IR.
### Detecting TESS planet masses versus TOI spectral type
The cumulative median observing time required to detect TESS planets as a function of TOI spectral type is shown in Fig. \[fig:cumulativeTeff\] up to $10^3$ hours. The results are also given in terms of the cumulative number of observing nights assuming a notional value of 7 observing hours per night. We consider spectral type bins with the following adopted definitions: mid-late M dwarfs: $2500 \leq T_{\text{eff}}/K < 3200$, early-mid M dwarfs: $3200 \leq T_{\text{eff}}/K < 3800$, FGK dwarfs: $3800 \leq T_{\text{eff}}/K < 7600$, and BA dwarfs: $7600 \leq T_{\text{eff}}/K < 12000$. Spectral type bins are considered separately because of the clear trend exhibited in total observing times with either an optical or near-IR spectrograph with $T_{\text{eff}}$ as seen in Fig. \[fig:ratio\]. For example, it is clear that all 39 TESS planets around BA stars can be detected with our optical spectrograph in $\sim 140$ nights whereas only $\sim 12$ of those planets can be detected with the near-IR spectrograph in a thousand hours (i.e. $\sim 143$ nights). Planet detections around Sun-like stars (i.e. FGK) are obtained more efficiently with the optical spectrograph with $\sim 251$/964 optical detections compared to $\sim 198$/964 near-IR detections in a thousand hours. Efficient M dwarf planet detections favor the near-IR spectrograph wherein a thousand hours of observing time yields $\sim 165$/927 early-mid M dwarf planets or nearly all $\sim 54$ mid-late M dwarf planets. These numbers are reduced to $\sim 60$/927 and $\sim 21$/54 in a thousand hours with our optical spectrograph.
{width="\hsize"}
[fig:optoff]{}[fig:optoff]{}[0]{}
[fig:opton]{}[fig:opton]{}[1]{} {width="\hsize"}
[fig:niroff]{}[fig:niroff]{}[0]{}
[fig:niron]{}[fig:niron]{}[1]{} {width="\hsize"}
Further demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:cumulativeTeff\] is the first derivative of the total number of planet detections with cumulative observing time; $\text{d}N/\text{d}t$. This quantity describes the efficiency of detecting planets over time as large values of the derivative highlight when planet masses may be detected in a short amount of observing time. We will continue by referring to this quantity as the *detection efficiency*. The detection efficiency can be used to identify after how much total observing time further planet detections become too observationally expensive. That is that when the detection efficiency drops below a set threshold value, any additional planet detections will require too much observing time that may otherwise be spent on potentially more feasible targets. For reference in Fig. \[fig:cumulativeTeff\] we highlight the value of the inverse time derivative—which is still a measure of detection efficiency—equal to 20 hours per detection. We suggest this value as a minimum derivative value. With this threshold value planets around BA stars should be observed for up to $\sim 29$ nights with an optical spectrograph before the detection efficiency drops below this threshold value. Similarly, planets around mid-late M dwarf TOIs should be observed for $\sim 43$ nights with a near-IR spectrograph . Observing Sun-like and early-mid M dwarf stars can mostly proceed efficiently beyond $10^3$ hours when using either spectrograph however observing early-mid M dwarfs slowly approaches 20 hours per detection after $\sim 110$ nights. Observing all TOIs with the optical spectrograph—or with a network of optical spectrographs of comparable performance—until we reach a detection efficiency of 20 hours per detection would require $\sim 800$ nights of cumulative observing time. In that time, $\sim 620$ planets could be detected around TOIs of any spectral type with $V \leq 15$. Repeating this observing campaign with the near-IR spectrograph—or with a network of near-IR spectrographs of comparable performance—would require $\sim 1600$ nights of cumulative observing time. In that time $\sim 1030$ planets could be detected around TOIs of any spectral type with $J \leq 13.6$.
### Detecting TESS planet masses versus planet type
The cumulative median observing times required to detect TESS planets as a function of planet type are shown in Fig. \[fig:cumulativerp\] up to $10^3$ hours. We consider four types of planet defined by their radii to be Earths ($<1.25$ R$_{\oplus}$), super-Earths ($1.25-2$ R$_{\oplus}$), Neptunes ($2-4$ R$_{\oplus}$), and giants ($>4$ R$_{\oplus}$).
Of the 1984 planets in the TESS sample, 66 are classified as Earths with 26 around stars with $V \leq \text{median}(V) = 13.5$ and 36 around stars with $J \leq \text{median}(J)=10.7$. Most Earths will be detected in-transit around M dwarfs ($T_{\text{eff}} \leq 3800$ K) due to their favorable transit depths. With a thousand hours of total observing time we expect $\sim 26$/66 Earths to be detected with the near-IR spectrograph compared to $\sim 15$ detections in the optical. We note that detections of the smallest planets can be expensive as the detection efficiency exceeds 20 hours per detection after $\sim 11$ nights or after just $\sim 8$ detections in the near-IR. The detection efficiency drops more rapidly in the optical to greater than 20 hours per detection after just $\sim 6$ nights or $\sim 4$ detections.
Super-Earths can be detected rather efficiently in the near-IR to beyond $10^3$ hours and with an optical detection efficiency better than 20 hours per detection up to $\sim 100$ nights. We expect to yield $\sim 100$/509 super-Earths with either the optical or near-IR spectrographs after $10^3$ observing hours. Neptunes are the most efficiently detected class of planet and with similar detection efficiencies between the two spectrographs. $\sim 220$/1258 Neptune detections are expected in a thousand hours in the optical compared to $\sim 180$/1258 in the near-IR. For Neptunes the detection efficiency remains $<20$ hours per detection for up to after $\sim 510$ nights or $\sim 370$ detections in the optical and after $\sim 960$ nights or $\sim 660$ detections in the near-IR. Lastly, $\sim 130$/151 giant planets are detected in the optical in $\sim 80$ nights at which point the optical detection efficiency begins to exceed 20 hours per detection. Similarly in the near-IR, $\sim 110$/151 giants planets are detected in $\sim 85$ nights.
{width="\hsize"}
[fig:optoffr]{}[fig:optoffr]{}[0]{}
[fig:optonr]{}[fig:optonr]{}[1]{} {width="\hsize"}
[fig:niroffr]{}[fig:niroffr]{}[0]{}
[fig:nironr]{}[fig:nironr]{}[1]{} {width="\hsize"}
Science Case 1: mass characterization of 50 TESS planets with $r_p < 4$ R$_{\oplus}$ {#sect:lvl1}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TESS level one science requirement is to measure the masses of 50 small transiting planets with $r_p < 4$ Earth radii.[^4] To date, the vast majority of masses for planets with $r_p <4$ R$_{\oplus}$ have been obtained with HARPS, HARPS-N, and HIRES. The onset of many up-coming precision velocimeters will provide many more instruments capable of characterizing such planets. Similarly to Sect. \[sect:all\], we define a planet mass measurement requirement for the completion of the TESS level one science requirement of $5\sigma$. Given our previous assumptions regarding the measurement precision on $P$ and $M_s$ (see Sect. \[sect:all\]), a $5\sigma$ mass detection requires a $5.29\sigma$ $K$ detection (i.e. [$\sigma_{K}$]{} $=0.189 K$). According to our analytic model for [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} in the white noise limit, a $5\sigma$ mass detection requires $(0.327/0.189)^2 = 2.99$ more observing time than a $3\sigma$ mass detection.
The cumulative median observing time required to complete the TESS level one science requirement is shown in Fig. \[fig:50\]. Here we calculate the cumulative median observing times from various planet samples: i) the 50 small TESS planets sorted in ascending order by total observing times (i.e. the most efficient characterization of 50 small planet masses possible) and ii) for random subsets of the small TESS planets. The latter cases correspond to attempting to conduct RV follow-up observations of *any* subset of small TESS planet up to 50 such planets. In total there are 1833 TESS planets with $r_p < 4$ R$_{\oplus}$ which causes the cumulative observing time to vary drastically depending on whether the input planet set is sorted or random. This is evidenced in Fig. \[fig:50\] wherein it is clear that selecting an optimized set—in terms of shortest median observing times—of 50 small TESS planets is by far the most efficient means of characterizing their masses. Optimized target selection results in the rapid completion of the TESS level one science requirement in only $\sim 60$ nights with either spectrograph. The performance of the optical and near-IR spectrographs in completing the TESS level one science requirement are seen to be comparable when the ‘best’ TOIs are targeted with 31/50 being most efficiently characterized in the optical and with the remaining 19/50 being done in the near-IR. Selecting the ‘best’ 50 small planets naturally biases the sample towards larger planets with their larger $K$ values, thus making their mass characterization faster with RVs. Despite this, the set of the ‘best’ small TESS planets with either spectrograph contains 9 super-Earths and 41 Neptunes with the average radius being 2.8 R$_{\oplus}$ and the smallest planet being likely terrestrial at 1.37 R$_{\oplus}$ (c.f. inset of Fig. \[fig:50\]).
We note that identifying the ‘best’ small TESS planets cannot be done exactly until the conclusion of the full TESS planet search. By not focusing on the ‘best’ 50 small TESS planets and instead opting to obtain RV measurements of any small planet, the total observing time required to complete the TESS level one science requirement will be longer by more than an order of magnitude on average with either spectrograph. Although the exact time allotment will depend on the exact planet sample. However the ‘best’ curves for each spectrograph in Fig. \[fig:50\] are nearly indistinguishable indicating that together optical and near-IR spectrographs will readily complete the TESS level one science requirement and possibly within weeks of relevant TOIs being announced due to the low number of required RV measurements, typically [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{}$=32$. Given the efficiency of measuring the ‘best’ small TESS planets at $5\sigma$ ($\sim 5$ hours per detection), the community may opt to focus on a larger subsample of Earth-like planets or to even increase the required mass detection significance to $> 5\sigma$ thus enhancing the TESS return of planets smaller than 4 R$_{\oplus}$.
![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to achieve the TESS level one science requirement of measuring the masses of 50 planets with $r_p <4$ R$_{\oplus}$ at $5\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:opton50,fig:optoff50”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:niron50,fig:niroff50”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. The latter curves for each spectrograph lie almost exactly on top of each other. *Inset*: a histogram showing the joint planet radii distribution of the ‘best’ 50 TESS planets for each spectrograph. *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:50"}](cumulativetobsGP_50random4_bkgd.png){width="\hsize"}
[fig:optoff50]{}[fig:optoff50]{}[0]{}
[fig:opton50]{}[fig:opton50]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to achieve the TESS level one science requirement of measuring the masses of 50 planets with $r_p <4$ R$_{\oplus}$ at $5\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:opton50,fig:optoff50”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:niron50,fig:niroff50”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. The latter curves for each spectrograph lie almost exactly on top of each other. *Inset*: a histogram showing the joint planet radii distribution of the ‘best’ 50 TESS planets for each spectrograph. *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:50"}](cumulativetobsGP_50random4_opt.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
[fig:niroff50]{}[fig:niroff50]{}[0]{}
[fig:niron50]{}[fig:niron50]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to achieve the TESS level one science requirement of measuring the masses of 50 planets with $r_p <4$ R$_{\oplus}$ at $5\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:opton50,fig:optoff50”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:niron50,fig:niroff50”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. The latter curves for each spectrograph lie almost exactly on top of each other. *Inset*: a histogram showing the joint planet radii distribution of the ‘best’ 50 TESS planets for each spectrograph. *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:50"}](cumulativetobsGP_50random4_nir.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
### A-priori estimate of the ‘best’ targets
Recall that identifying the optimum targets to achieve the TESS level one science requirement in the most efficient manner requires observers either to wait until the conclusion of the 2-year long TESS planet search or to select targets based on a-priori knowledge of the population of the ‘best’ small planets. The latter scenario is favorable as it allows targets to be observed with RVs almost concurrently with reported TESS detections thus leading to the shortest completion time of the TESS level one science requirement; i.e. $\sim 60$ nights or $\sim 400$ hours. Based on the predicted TESS planet population and the results of our study, we can predict the properties of the ‘best’ 50 small TESS planets and search for trends that will inform their selection throughout the actual TESS planet search. Here we suggest that identification of these planets can be done in an approximate way given some combination of intuitively crucial transit observables: the stellar magnitude, $r_p$, and $P$. The stellar magnitude constrains the photon-noise limited RV measurement precision while the latter two quantities have a direct effect on $K$ assuming that the mass-radius relation has a positive, non-zero slope everywhere for planets smaller than 4 R$_{\oplus}$. After considering numerous combinations of these parameters we find that the stellar magnitude and the value of the derived-from-transit quantity $\Omega \equiv r_p^{\alpha}/P^{1/3}$—for some value of $\alpha$—are good diagnostics for the total observing time required to detect a transiting planet’s mass. The definition of $\Omega$ was selected to resemble the expected RV semi-amplitude $K$ assuming a positive scaling between $r_p$ and $m_p$ (i.e. $\alpha > 0$) and noting that $K \propto P^{-1/3}$. In this way, large values of $\Omega$ should correspond to large $K$ values which directly effects the observing time required to achieve a given mass detection significance as larger signals are more easily detected with a given Rv measurement precision. We considered various values of $\alpha \in (0,3]$ and found little discrepancy between these values with regards to where in the region of the corresponding magnitude-$\Omega$ parameter space the ‘best’ 50 small planets sit. Given uncertainties and possible discontinuities in the mass-radius relation for small planets we opt for $\alpha =1$.
In Fig. \[fig:identify50\] we compare the location of the 50 ‘best’ small planets to the remaining 1833 small planets in the apparent magnitude-$\Omega$ parameter space. For considerations with our optical and near-IR spectrographs we use the $V$ and $J$ band magnitudes respectively. We note that in what follows we are marginalizing over stellar rotation and the level of stellar activity, both of which have a direct effect on our ability to detect planets in RV.
![The total observing time per TOI required to detect the planet’s mass at $5\sigma$ with the optical spectrograph (*upper panel*) and the near-IR spectrograph (*lower panel*) as a function of the stellar apparent magnitude and the derived quantity from transit observables: $\Omega \equiv r_p/P^{1/3}$. The relevant apparent magnitudes for the optical and near-IR spectrographs are $V$ and $J$ respectively. The 50 ‘best’ TOIs with each spectrograph are designated by [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:beston,fig:bestoff”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:regionon,fig:regionoff”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} bounded by the *black dashed lines* approximate the regions of each parameter space with the highest likelihood of hosting planets amenable to the most efficient RV mass detections. TOIs within the shaded regions and known not to orbit an active host star should be strongly considered for rapid RV follow-up campaigns.[]{data-label="fig:identify50"}](identify50_bkgd.png){width="\hsize"}
[fig:bestoff]{}[fig:bestoff]{}[0]{}
[fig:beston]{}[fig:beston]{}[1]{} ![The total observing time per TOI required to detect the planet’s mass at $5\sigma$ with the optical spectrograph (*upper panel*) and the near-IR spectrograph (*lower panel*) as a function of the stellar apparent magnitude and the derived quantity from transit observables: $\Omega \equiv r_p/P^{1/3}$. The relevant apparent magnitudes for the optical and near-IR spectrographs are $V$ and $J$ respectively. The 50 ‘best’ TOIs with each spectrograph are designated by [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:beston,fig:bestoff”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:regionon,fig:regionoff”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} bounded by the *black dashed lines* approximate the regions of each parameter space with the highest likelihood of hosting planets amenable to the most efficient RV mass detections. TOIs within the shaded regions and known not to orbit an active host star should be strongly considered for rapid RV follow-up campaigns.[]{data-label="fig:identify50"}](identify50_best.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
[fig:regionoff]{}[fig:regionoff]{}[0]{}
[fig:regionon]{}[fig:regionon]{}[1]{} ![The total observing time per TOI required to detect the planet’s mass at $5\sigma$ with the optical spectrograph (*upper panel*) and the near-IR spectrograph (*lower panel*) as a function of the stellar apparent magnitude and the derived quantity from transit observables: $\Omega \equiv r_p/P^{1/3}$. The relevant apparent magnitudes for the optical and near-IR spectrographs are $V$ and $J$ respectively. The 50 ‘best’ TOIs with each spectrograph are designated by [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:beston,fig:bestoff”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:regionon,fig:regionoff”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} bounded by the *black dashed lines* approximate the regions of each parameter space with the highest likelihood of hosting planets amenable to the most efficient RV mass detections. TOIs within the shaded regions and known not to orbit an active host star should be strongly considered for rapid RV follow-up campaigns.[]{data-label="fig:identify50"}](identify50_region.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
Unsurprisingly, the 50 ‘best’ small TESS planets are localized around bright TOIs and exhibit an increasing value of $\Omega$ with stellar magnitude. That is, as the TOIs become dimmer, a larger $\Omega$ is required for a rapid RV mass detection. To encapsulate the region of the parameter space with the highest likelihood of yielding the most efficient RV planet detections (i.e. the shortest total observing times), we truncate the outer edge of the region at a ‘maximum’ apparent magnitude and derive a lower boundary by fitting a linear function to $\Omega$ as a function of magnitude for the 50 ‘best’ small TESS planets before translating the lower boundary downwards to encapsulate 96% (i.e. 48 out of 50) of the ‘best’ small TESS planets. The resulting sets of the ‘best’ TOIs are
$$\{ \text{TOIs } | V < 10.7, \Omega > 0.09 V + 0.28 \}
\label{eq:bestopt}$$
for follow-up with our fiducial optical spectrograph and
$$\{ \text{TOIs } | J < 11.7, \Omega > 0.14 J - 0.35 \}
\label{eq:bestnIR}$$
for follow-up with our fiducial near-IR spectrograph. These sets approximately represent the TOIs with the shortest total observing times and should be seriously considered for rapid RV follow-up observations if they are known to not orbit a rapid rotator or an overly active star. Recall that stellar rotation and activity have been marginalized over in the derivation of Eqs. \[eq:bestopt\] and \[eq:bestnIR\].
Science Case 2: informing the mass-radius relation of planets across the radius valley {#sect:mr}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate characterization of the empirical mass-radius relation for exoplanets [e.g. @weiss13; @rogers15; @wolfgang16] is an important step towards understanding the diversity of exoplanet compositions as well as its use as a tool in predictive studies (e.g. ; @cloutier17a, @cloutier18). For example, consideration of small exoplanets ($r_p \leq 4$ R$_{\oplus}$) with masses measured to better than 20% revealed that a large fraction of planets with $r_p \lesssim 1.6$ R$_{\oplus}$ are rocky with bulk compositions consistent with that of the Earth and Venus [@dressing15b]. The transition from bulk rocky compositions to less dense planets with a significant size fraction of volatile-rich envelope gas has also been shown to occur between $\sim 1.5-2.5$ R$_{\oplus}$ where a paucity of planets exists [@fulton17; @vaneylen17]. The precise characterization of the mass-radius relation in the vicinity of this so-called *radius valley* will elucidate as to whether or not the valley persists in terms of planet bulk densities as the peaks in the bi-modal radius distribution are posited to harbour terrestrial and volatile-rich planets on opposing sides of the radius valley. Characterizing the mass-radius relation in this regime will greatly benefit from the inclusion of relevant TESS planets.
In order to accurately inform the mass-radius relation of planets across the radius valley with TESS planets, we seek a 20% fractional mass uncertainty (i.e. $5\sigma$ mass detection) following [@dressing15b]. We define TESS planets of interest as those spanning the radius valley using the period-dependent locus of planet radii—and its upper and lower bounds—as defined by the powerlaw in [@vaneylen17] from asteroseismology.
The cumulative median observing time required to detect relevant TESS planets at $5\sigma$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:cumulativeMR\]. To avoid the bias that the most efficiently observed targets have towards larger planets and correspondingly larger $K$ on average, the ‘best’ planets in this science case are selected equally from two bins on either side of the radius valley with $r_p \leq 2$ and $>2$ R$_{\oplus}$. There are 542 TESS planets that span the radius valley. RV mass characterization of all such planets will require $\gtrsim 5 \times 10^4$ and $\gtrsim 7000$ observing nights in the optical and near-IR respectively. Evidently, the cumulative observing time for all TESS planet across the radius valley is likely too large to complete even with all available spectrographs. Fortunately, not all 542 planets are required to be measured in order to resolve the radius valley in planet bulk density. If instead we focus on the ‘best’ TESS planets then our detection efficiency with either spectrograph remains less than 20 hours per detection up to $\sim 80-130$ nights. In that time we expect to detect $\sim 55$ planets that span the radius valley with either spectrograph, if those planets are optimally chosen (c.f. Fig. \[fig:identify50\]). This implies that optical and near-IR spectrographs are equally well-suited to characterizing the ‘best’ TESS planets across the radius valley with near-IR observations only becoming more efficient after $\sim 60$ planet detections. With this sample of TESS planets, the hypothesized rocky/volatile-rich transition can be resolved and will help in progressing towards potentially resolving the radius/bulk density valley as a function of host spectral type.
![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the $5\sigma$ RV masses of TESS planets spanning the radius valley ($1.5 \lesssim r_p/\text{R}_{\oplus} \lesssim 2.6$) with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonMR,fig:optoffMR”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironMR,fig:niroffMR”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs—with an equal number of planets less than and greater than 2 R$_{oplus}$—thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *inset*: focusing on the region up to $900$ cumulative observing hours (i.e. $\sim 130$ nights). *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:cumulativeMR"}](cumulativetobsGP_radvalley_bkgd.png){width="\hsize"}
[fig:optoffMR]{}[fig:optoffMR]{}[0]{}
[fig:optonMR]{}[fig:optonMR]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the $5\sigma$ RV masses of TESS planets spanning the radius valley ($1.5 \lesssim r_p/\text{R}_{\oplus} \lesssim 2.6$) with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonMR,fig:optoffMR”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironMR,fig:niroffMR”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs—with an equal number of planets less than and greater than 2 R$_{oplus}$—thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *inset*: focusing on the region up to $900$ cumulative observing hours (i.e. $\sim 130$ nights). *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:cumulativeMR"}](cumulativetobsGP_radvalley_opt.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
[fig:niroffMR]{}[fig:niroffMR]{}[0]{}
[fig:nironMR]{}[fig:nironMR]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the $5\sigma$ RV masses of TESS planets spanning the radius valley ($1.5 \lesssim r_p/\text{R}_{\oplus} \lesssim 2.6$) with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonMR,fig:optoffMR”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironMR,fig:niroffMR”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs—with an equal number of planets less than and greater than 2 R$_{oplus}$—thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *inset*: focusing on the region up to $900$ cumulative observing hours (i.e. $\sim 130$ nights). *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:cumulativeMR"}](cumulativetobsGP_radvalley_nir.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
Science Case 3: characterization of temperate Earths & super-Earths
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperate planets that orbit close to or within their host star’s habitable zone are of particular interest for the search for life. Here we aim to scrutinize the masses of potentially habitable planets that we define herein as Earths and super-Earths ($r_p \leq 2$ R$_{\oplus}$) orbiting within the habitable zone (HZ). To define the HZ we adopt the ‘water-loss’ and ‘maximum-greenhouse’ HZ limits from [@kopparapu13]. There are just 17 such planets in the synthetic catalog, three of which are smaller than 1.5 R$_{\oplus}$ and are likely to be rocky. Fig. \[fig:cumulativeHZ\] depicts the cumulative median observing time required to detect the masses of potentially habitable TESS planets at $3\sigma$. Due to TESS’s limited observational baselines, the majority of HZ TESS planets—including the full set of 17 potentially habitable TESS planets—orbit M dwarfs and thus favor near-IR RV follow-up. The cumulative observing time required to measure all potentially habitable TESS planet masses at $3\sigma$ is $\sim 150$ nights with the near-IR spectrograph. This is about fifteen times shorter than the total time required to complete the same task with the optical spectrograph. Regardless of the spectrograph used, RV follow-up of potentially habitable TESS planets will be an expensive task with just $\sim 2$ planets detected in $\sim 2.5$ nights after which the detection efficiency begins to require more than 20 hours per detection.
![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the RV masses of potentially habitable TESS planets at $3\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonHZ,fig:optoffHZ”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironHZ,fig:niroffHZ”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. Potentially habitable planets are defined as either Earths or super-Earths with $r_p \leq 2 \text{R}_{\oplus}$ and orbit within their host star’s habitable zone as defined by [@kopparapu13]. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:cumulativeHZ"}](cumulativetobsGP_HZ_bkgd.png){width="\hsize"}
[fig:optoffHZ]{}[fig:optoffHZ]{}[0]{}
[fig:optonHZ]{}[fig:optonHZ]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the RV masses of potentially habitable TESS planets at $3\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonHZ,fig:optoffHZ”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironHZ,fig:niroffHZ”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. Potentially habitable planets are defined as either Earths or super-Earths with $r_p \leq 2 \text{R}_{\oplus}$ and orbit within their host star’s habitable zone as defined by [@kopparapu13]. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:cumulativeHZ"}](cumulativetobsGP_HZ_opt.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
[fig:niroffHZ]{}[fig:niroffHZ]{}[0]{}
[fig:nironHZ]{}[fig:nironHZ]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the RV masses of potentially habitable TESS planets at $3\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonHZ,fig:optoffHZ”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironHZ,fig:niroffHZ”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. Potentially habitable planets are defined as either Earths or super-Earths with $r_p \leq 2 \text{R}_{\oplus}$ and orbit within their host star’s habitable zone as defined by [@kopparapu13]. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:cumulativeHZ"}](cumulativetobsGP_HZ_nir.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
We caution that with such a small sample of potentially habitable TESS planets that the numbers presented here regarding the cumulative observing time required to detect such planets may be misleading. Due to the small number statistics the results for temperate Earths and super-Earths are highly sensitive to the true properties of those planetary systems. For example, a potentially habitable TESS planet may be detected around an M dwarf with $J<10.15$—the brightest TOI with a potentially habitable planet from —thus resulting in a shorter total observing time required to detect one such planet with RVs.
Science Case 4: characterization of favorable JWST follow-up targets {#sect:jwst}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The *James Webb Space Telescope* (JWST) to-be launched in May 2020 will revolutionize our understanding of transiting exoplanet atmospheres (see @beichman14 for a summary of science cases). Many TOIs will represent some of the most interesting targets for atmospheric characterization with JWST through transmission spectroscopy observations in particular. To quantify the RV requirement needed to understand the bulk densities of these planets we will consider TOIs that are most amenable to efficient JWST observations. Specifically, TOIs with their expected S/N of transmission features $\geq 10$.
For each TOI we calculate the expected S/N in transmission from the expected differential transmission depth $\Delta D$ of the planet and the photon-noise per spectral bin $\sigma_{\text{ppm}}$; S/N = $\Delta D / \sigma_{\text{ppm}}$. The value of $\sigma_{\text{ppm}}$ is measured in the $J$-band with spectral resolution $R=50$ (i.e. $\delta \lambda = 25$ nm), an instrumental throughput of 50%, and an integration time equal to the planet’s full transit duration. Values of $\Delta D$ for each TESS planet are computed up to five scale heights in a cloud-free atmosphere using the standard equation
$$\begin{split}
\Delta D = & 15 \text{ ppm } \left( \frac{T_p}{250 \text{ K}} \right)
\left( \frac{\rho}{5.55 \text{ g/cm}^3} \right)^{-1} \\
&\left( \frac{\mu}{29 \text{ u}} \right)^{-1}
\left( \frac{R_s}{0.25 \text{ R}_{\odot}} \right)^{-2},
\end{split}
\label{eq:transm}$$
where $T_p$ is the planet’s isothermal atmospheric temperature (calculated assuming uniform heat redistribution over the planetary surface and zero albedo), $\rho$ is the planet’s bulk density, $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight of the atmosphere, and $R_s$ is the stellar radius. The atmospheric mean molecular weights of the TESS planets are not given in so we adopt a very simplistic prescription of $\mu$ using a step-wise function of H/He-dominated atmospheres ($\mu=2$) to Earth-like atmospheres ($\mu=29$) for planets $\leq 2$ R$_{\oplus}$. However, this simple prescription is known to be inaccurate but an approximation is necessary to facilitate the exercise of estimating $\Delta D$ for planets yet to be studied in transmission.
According to Eq. \[eq:transm\] the interpretation of planetary transmission spectra heavily relies on a-priori knowledge of the planet’s bulk density. The $\rho$ measurement precision is derived from the measurement precision on both the planet’s radius [$\sigma_{r_p}$-]{}–from its TESS light curve—and on its mass measured from RVs. Due to the cubic dependence of $\rho$ on $r_p$ compared to its linear dependence on $m_p$, improving a planet’s bulk density measurement precision is most effectively done by reducing [$\sigma_{r_p}$]{} either through more complete transit data or more precise characterization of the host stellar radius. Because of this, it is not worthwhile to sit on any TESS planet with RVs to achieve the typical mass detection significance required to precisely measure the planet’s bulk density. For example, given the photometric precision for each TOI from and a notional stellar radius uncertainty of 10% [@carter08], achieving a $3\sigma$ bulk density detection detection would require a $\sim 6.9\sigma$ mass detection on average. Such a precise RV mass measurement would require a $\sim 7.8\sigma$ $K$ measurement or $(0.327/0.129)^2 = 6.4$ more observing time than a $3\sigma$ mass detection. We therefore opt for a more reasonable mass detection of $5\sigma$, similarly to what was pursued when characterizing 50 TESS planets smaller than 4 R$_{\oplus}$ and planets across the radius gap in Sects. \[sect:lvl1\] and \[sect:mr\].
Fig. \[fig:trans\] depicts the cumulative median observing time required to detect the $5\sigma$ masses of TESS planets that are favorable for JWST follow-up with an expected transmission S/N $\geq 10$. There are 1169 such TESS planets. By our simple prescription for $\Delta D$ for planets smaller than 2 R$_{\oplus}$ and by imposing a minimum expected transmission S/N $\leq 10$, the sample of 1169 favourable JWST targets has been restricted to planets larger than 2 R$_{\oplus}$—with a median value of $r_p = 2.9$ R$_{\oplus}$—due to their systematically larger scale heights compared to Earths and super-Earths. Detecting all 1018 Neptunes and all 151 giant planets would require $\sim 10^8$ nights with the near-IR spectrograph which is $\sim 40$ times shorter than the total time required using the optical spectrograph. If follow-up observations are focused on the ‘best’ subset of favorable TESS planets for JWST follow-up, then the detection efficiency of these planets remains less than 20 hours per detection for up to $\sim 400$ nights wherein $\sim 220$ planets are measured with the near-IR spectrograph. Conversely, the detection efficiency in the optical drops to 20 hours per detection slightly sooner—after $\sim 360$ nights but with a similar number of planet detections. Yet again spectrographs in the optical and near-IR demonstrate a comparable performance when characterizing the ‘best’ planets favorable for JWST follow-up with some slight improvement in the optical before its detection efficiency begins to drop off after $\sim 360$ nights. It is clear that many interesting TESS planets will be readily characterized with RVs thus providing a large sample of TESS planets with precisely characterized masses and bulk densities prior to the launch of JWST.
![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the RV masses of TESS planets favorable for follow-up transmission spectroscopy observations with JWST (i.e. transmission S/N $\geq 10$) at $5\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonjwst,fig:optoffjwst”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironjwst,fig:niroffjwst”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *inset*: focusing on the region up to $\sim 2800$ cumulative observing hours (i.e. $\sim 400$ nights). *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:trans"}](cumulativetobsGP_transmission_bkgd.png){width="\hsize"}
[fig:optoffjwst]{}[fig:optoffjwst]{}[0]{}
[fig:optonjwst]{}[fig:optonjwst]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the RV masses of TESS planets favorable for follow-up transmission spectroscopy observations with JWST (i.e. transmission S/N $\geq 10$) at $5\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonjwst,fig:optoffjwst”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironjwst,fig:niroffjwst”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *inset*: focusing on the region up to $\sim 2800$ cumulative observing hours (i.e. $\sim 400$ nights). *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:trans"}](cumulativetobsGP_transmission_opt.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
[fig:niroffjwst]{}[fig:niroffjwst]{}[0]{}
[fig:nironjwst]{}[fig:nironjwst]{}[1]{} ![*Top panel*: the cumulative median observing time required to measure the RV masses of TESS planets favorable for follow-up transmission spectroscopy observations with JWST (i.e. transmission S/N $\geq 10$) at $5\sigma$ with either the optical spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:optonjwst,fig:optoffjwst”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{} or our near-IR spectrograph [ user [ /Subtype /Link /Border \[0 0 0\] /A << /S/JavaScript /JS ( var aOCGs = this.getOCGs(), Layer; var Layers = “fig:nironjwst,fig:niroffjwst”.split(“,”), Active = -1, i, l; for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ Layer = Layers\[l\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].state && aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) [ Active = l; aOCGs\[i\].state = false; ]{} ]{} if (Active >= 0) break; ]{} if (Active == -1) [ for (l=0; l<Layers.length; l++) [ if (Layers\[l\] == “”) Active = l; ]{} ]{} Active = Active + 1; if (Active == Layers.length) Active = 0; Layer = Layers\[Active\]; for (i=0; aOCGs && i<aOCGs.length; i++) [ if (aOCGs\[i\].name == Layer) aOCGs\[i\].state = true; ]{} ) >> ]{} ]{}. The set of thin curves are calculated from randomly ordered TOI samples whereas the thick curves are calculated from the sorted TOIs thus resulting in the most observationally efficient planet detections. *inset*: focusing on the region up to $\sim 2800$ cumulative observing hours (i.e. $\sim 400$ nights). *Lower panel*: the time derivative of the thick curves shown in the upper panel. The value of the detection efficiency equal to 20 hours per detection is highlighted by the *horizontal dashed line*.[]{data-label="fig:trans"}](cumulativetobsGP_transmission_nir.png "fig:"){width="\hsize"}
Discussion and Conclusions {#sect:disc}
==========================
We have presented calculations of the observing time required to measure the masses of the expected TESS planet population using ground-based precision radial velocities. Our calculations are based on analytical estimates (see Sect. \[sect:model\]) of the number of RV measurements required to detect a transiting planet’s RV semi-amplitude $K$ at a given precision. When coupled to an exposure time calculator this yields the total observing time per target. Our main conclusions are summarized below.
1. The number of RV measurements required to detect a transiting planet’s mass is dependent on the desired $K$ measurement precision, the rms of the RVs observations (this includes contributions from photon-noise, stellar activity, additional unseen planets, and systematic effects), and whether or not the residual RV noise is correlated or not. Eq. \[eq:nrv\] can be used to calculate the number of required RV measurements if the RV residuals are uncorrelated, otherwise the formalism presented in Sect. \[sect:fisherGP\] must be used.
2. Efficient characterization of transiting planet masses for a given planet type (e.g. super-Earths) favors targets with small photon-noise limited RV measurement precisions. High precision measurements are most readily achieved with optical spectral coverage (i.e. BVR bands in this study) for Sun-like stars with $T_{\text{eff}} \gtrsim 5500$ K whereas M dwarfs with $T_{\text{eff}} \lesssim 3800$ K are favored by near-IR spectrographs (i.e. YJH bands in this study).
3. Overall, the relative merits of obtaining precise RVs in the optical compared to in the near-IR are nearly equivalent. That is that RV campaigns aiming to characterize TESS planets can largely be done as effectively in either wavelength domain with the exception of the characterization of Earths ($r_p < 1.25$ R$_{\oplus}$) and temperate TESS planets that are preferentially found around M dwarfs.
4. Not all TESS planets will be amenable to RV follow-up observations and selecting random TOIs for follow-up is an incredibly inefficient method of target selection. Instead, targets should be selected based on their apparent magnitude—to minimize the photon-noise limited RV precision—and the transit-derived quantity $\Omega = r_p / P^{1/3}$. The subset of TOIs belonging to either optimal set defined by Eqs. \[eq:bestopt\] and \[eq:bestnIR\] should be strongly considered for immediate RV follow-up.
5. The TESS level one science requirement of measuring the masses of 50 planets with $r_P<4$ R$_{\oplus}$ at the 20% level (i.e. $5\sigma$ mass detection) can be achieved in as little as $\sim 400$ hours or $\sim 60$ nights of observation.
6. $\sim 55$ TESS planets spanning the radius gap for small planets (i.e. $1.5 \lesssim r_P/\text{R}_{\oplus} \lesssim 2.6$) can be detected efficiently at $5\sigma$ in $\sim 130$ nights before the detection efficiency drops below 0.05 detections per hour (i.e. 20 hours per detection).
7. Only $\sim 2$ temperate super-Earths can be detected efficiently at $3\sigma$ in $\sim 2.5$ nights before the detection efficiency exceeds 20 hours per detection.
8. $\sim 220$ Neptunes and giant planets amenable to transmission spectroscopy follow-up observations with JWST can be detected efficiently with a $5\sigma$ mass detection in $\sim 360-400$ nights before the detection efficiency exceeds 20 hours per detection.
9. An online version of the `Radial Velocity Follow-up Calculator` used throughput this paper on the expected TESS planet population is available at <http://maestria.astro.umontreal.ca/rvfc>. This general-usage tool can be used to calculate the number of RV measurements and total observing time required to detect the RV semi-amplitude of any transiting planet to a user-defined detection significance and with a user-defined spectrograph.
The results of this paper have been based on the synthetic planet population presented in . In their study they reported the expected TESS planet population (i.e. $\sim 1700$ planets) recovered from the TESS 2 minute cadence observing mode of the brightest targets. Additionally, deeper full frame images at a 30 minute cadence will be released and result in even more planet candidates, some of which may still be amenable to RV follow-up observations. Another population of TOIs not considered in our calculations is the population of targets featuring only one or two transit-like events. If confirmed, the corresponding planets will be interesting in their own right as their orbits will have systematically longer periods making them cooler and of interest for future habitability studies. Lastly, the TESS mission has the possibly of being extended beyond its nominal 2-year long primary mission. If extended, the extension of the TESS observational baselines will improve the measured ephemerides of confirmed TESS planets, shed light on the nature of systems exhibiting single transit-like events, and expand the population of planets discovered with TESS [see the overview in @bouma17].
Further caveats to the planet population from used throughout this study were addressed by a variety of studies and corresponding updates to the expected TESS planet population [e.g. @ballard18; @barclay18]. For example, [@barclay18] updated the calculations of by using the TESS Candidate Target List [@stassun17] and consequently updating the number of TESS discoveries including a decreased number of Earths and super-Earths which will have important implications for the corresponding science cases such as the bulk density characterization of TESS planets near the radius valley ($r_p \sim 2$ R$_{\oplus}$). Furthermore, [@ballard18] predicted that the planet population around M1-M4 dwarfs was underestimated. The results imply a larger cumulative planet yield around M dwarfs including many systems with multiple transiting planets. This has important implications for RV follow-up campaigns of TOIs as M dwarf planets have the potential to be the most efficiently detected planets in radial velocity. In practice this will depend on the on-sky performance of many of the up-coming generation of near-IR velocimeters which have favorable RV measurement precision when observing M dwarfs. Many up-coming near-IR spectrographs are anticipated to operate with an RV noise floor of $\sim 1$ [m s$^{-1}$]{} comparable to many high performance optical spectrographs but this may prove challenging as demonstrated by the CARMENES near-IR channel that seems to yield lower precision ($\sim 2-3$ [m s$^{-1}$)]{} on early to mid-M dwarfs compared to the sub-1 [m s$^{-1}$]{} performance achieved in the optical [@reiners17 c.f. Fig 6]. The focus on M dwarf planets with either class of spectrograph is well warranted as these planets represent some of the most interesting planets in terms of potential habitability and for the prospect transmission spectroscopy follow-up with JWST.
In Sect. \[sect:jwst\] we presented the results for the most favorable TESS targets for transmission spectroscopy follow-up with JWST. In addition to identifying the ‘best’ such planets based on the time required to measure their masses (i.e. bulk densities) with RVs, one may also consider metrics describing the ease of detecting atmospheric features in either transmission or thermal emission as in [@kempton18]. Favorable TESS planets based on our calculations of the observing time required to detect their masses in RVs, that also overlap with favorable TESS planets based on the metrics from [@kempton18], should be strongly considered for rapid RV follow-up. Similar target selection may be done based on the simulated transmission spectra from [@louie18] and the resulting S/N in transmission.
It is worth reiterating that although TOIs will be frequently reported following the launch and commissioning of TESS, RV follow-up teams should refrain from targeting just any TOI. Many detected planets will orbit stars either too dim or too active for efficient RV characterization. We emphasize that TOIs amenable to RV follow-up can be approximately identified—in real time—if they belong to one of the sets defined in Eqs. \[eq:bestopt\] or \[eq:bestnIR\], or equivalently, if they lie in one of the shaded regions of either panel in Fig. \[fig:identify50\]. However the sets of the ‘best’ TOIs are derived by marginalizing over the population of additional unseen planets in the system and the star’s intrinsic RV activity. The former source of RV signals will not be illuminated unless RV follow-up of the system commences but the level of stellar activity can be estimated from the star’s photometric variability in its TESS light curve. In addition to selecting targets based on Eqs. \[eq:bestopt\] and \[eq:bestnIR\], stars with high amplitudes of photometric variability or jitter should not be considered for efficient RV follow-up campaigns.
RC thanks Raphaëlle Haywood and Jason Dittmann for useful discussions of the GP implementation, particularly for the LHS 1140 system. RC thanks the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics for use of the Sunnyvale computing cluster throughout this work. RC is partially supported in this work by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Radial Velocity Follow-up Calculator {#app:rvfc}
====================================
Our models for the number of RV measurements [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} required to detect a transiting planet at a given significance—in the presence of white or correlated RV noise—are generalizable to the majority transiting planets observed with any velocimeter. Recall that our models are only applicable to planets on nearly circular orbits, with known ephemerides, and whose orbital phase curves will be (approximately) uniformly sampled in the white noise case. Furthermore, because the results presented throughout this paper have been regarding a hypothetical planet population and with only two fiducial spectrographs, we present to the community an online web-tool version of the generalized *Radial Velocity Follow-up Calculator*[^5] (`RVFC`) used throughout this study.
The `RVFC` is intended to serve the community by providing rapid calculations of [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} and total observing times for an arbitrary user-defined transiting planet with a user-defined spectrograph, given parameters of the planet from its transit light curve, stellar parameters, parameters of the employed spectrograph, RV noise parameters, and a small number of additional simulation parameters. The exact input parameters required by the calculator will depend on which of two possible primary modes-of-operation the user selects. In *option 1*, the calculator is used to calculate the photon-noise limited RV measurement precision [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} using the formalism discussed in Sect. \[sect:sigrv\] and PHOENIX stellar models. Two suboptions are available for users to either add additional RV noise sources which are sampled from appropriate empirical distributions (*option 1.1*) or for the user to specify verbatim those additional noise sources (*option 1.2*). In *option 2*, the user can input a fixed value of [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} thus negating the need for certain input parameters to be specified by the user and speeding up the wall time of the calculation. *Option 2* also features the two suboptions available for *option 1* and additionally has a third option in which the effective RV rms (i.e. the combination of all RV noise sources) is set verbatim if its value is known for the system of interest and only white noise calculations are desired (*option 2.3*). *Option 2* may be viable for users whose employed spectrograph features an independent ETC, the results from which differ from those returned by the built-in `RVFC` ETC. The input parameters required to run the `RVFC` are summarized in Table \[table:rvfc\].
One notable bottleneck in the wall-time of running the `RVFC` is the time required to compute the photon-noise limited RV precision given a unique set of stellar and spectrograph parameters. To facilitate *rapid* calculations with the `RVFC` we opt to interpolate these values from pre-computed tables rather than perform the calculations explicitly. The tables from which [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} values are interpolated from are computed individually for each of the spectral bands shown in Table \[table:bands\] and over five additional parameters: the spectral resolution, $T_{\text{eff}}$, $\log{g}$, $Z$, and [$v\sin{i_s}$.]{} Given values for these parameters in the `RVFC`, the corresponding [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} is obtained by interpolating over this grid for each spectral band spanned by the spectrograph’s wavelength domain. The remaining spectrograph parameters and stellar magnitude are then used to scale the interpolated value of [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} to the correct S/N per resolution element. Notably, the interpolation of [$\sigma_{\text{RV}}$]{} necessitates a trade-off between accuracy and computing time. However, the loss in accuracy we deem acceptable given the often inexact values of the other sources of RV noise (i.e. instrument stability, activity, and additional unseen planets).
Lastly, recall that the `RVFC` can be calculate [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} in either white or correlated RV noise limits according to our models discussed in Sects. \[sect:fisherwhite\] and \[sect:fisherGP\] respectively. As noted in Sect. \[sect:fisherGP\], the results in the latter scenario are dependent on the time-sampling which has been sampled uniformly in this study over a fixed baseline. This is also adopted in the initial version of the `RVFC`. As such, for users interested in calculating [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} in the presence of correlated RV noise we recommend using multiple calculations (e.g. $N_{\text{GP}} \gtrsim 10$) to obtain the most-likely value and spread in [$N_{\text{RV}}$]{} given a suite of sampled window functions. Users beware that increasing $N_{\text{GP}}$ will require a correspondingly longer computation time. In the future we would like to implement a way for users to upload custom window functions to avoid this ambiguity.
Fisher information with a quasi-periodic Gaussian process regression model {#app:fishergp}
==========================================================================
Here we derive the Fisher information matrix terms for a circular keplerian RV model plus a quasi-periodic GP correlated noise activity model, including an additional scalar jitter parameter. As discussed in Sect. \[sect:fisherGP\] the keplerian model parameter is solely the RV semi-amplitude $\{K \}$ whilst the GP covariance model has five hyperparameters $\boldsymbol{\Theta} = \{a, \lambda, \Gamma, P_{\text{GP}}, \sigma_{\text{jitter}} \}$ that describe the quasi-periodic covariance matrix $C$ commonly used when simultaneously fitting RV planets and stellar activity:
$$\begin{aligned}
k_{ij} &= a^2 \exp{\left[ -\frac{(t_i-t_j)^2}{2 \lambda^2}
-\Gamma^2 \sin^2{\left(\frac{\pi |t_i-t_j|}{P_{\text{GP}}} \right)} \right]}, \label{appeq:K1} \\
C_{ij} &= k_{ij} + \delta_{ij} \sigma_{\text{RV},i}^2. \label{appeq:K2}\end{aligned}$$
We therefore have six model parameters leading to a $6 \times 6$ Fisher information matrix $B$ which is related the model parameter covariance matrix $C'=B^{-1}$ from which model parameter measurement uncertainties are calculated. Assuming a circular keplerian orbit for the transiting planet of interest, the residual RV vector is
$$\mathbf{r}(\mathbf{t}) = \mathbf{y}(\mathbf{t}) - (-K \sin{(\phi(\mathbf{t}))})
\label{appeq:residual}$$
where $\mathbf{y}$ are the raw RVs observed at times $\mathbf{t}$ and $\phi(\mathbf{t})$ is the planet’s orbital phase centered on mid-transit. The generalized lnlikelihood from which the Fisher information matrix is calculated is then
$$\ln{\mathcal{L}} = -\frac{1}{2} \left(\mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \mathbf{r} + \ln{\text{det}C} +
\text{constant} \right),
\label{appeq:lnl}$$
Before populating the Fisher information matrix, we note two crucial mathematical identities
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} C^{-1} &= -C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta} C^{-1}, \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta} \ln{\text{det}C} &= \text{tr} \left(C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta} \right).\end{aligned}$$
We can now proceed with calculating the general equation for each of the 21 unique Fisher information matrix entries in terms of partial derivatives of either the RV residual vector or covariance matrix $C$ with respect to the model parameters instead of the partial derivative of the inverse covariance matrix.
$$\begin{aligned}
B_{ij} &= -\frac{\partial^2 \ln{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j}, \\
\frac{\partial \ln{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial \theta_i} &= \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta_i} \left[
-\frac{1}{2} \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \mathbf{r} -\frac{1}{2} \ln{\text{det}C} \right] \notag \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} \left[ \left(\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i} \right)^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \mathbf{r}
- \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_i} C^{-1} \mathbf{r}
+ \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i} \right)
+ \text{tr}\left( C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_i} \right) \right], \\
\frac{\partial^2 \ln{\mathcal{L}}}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j} &= -\frac{1}{2} \Bigg[ \Bigg.
\left(\frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j} \right)^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \mathbf{r}
- \left(\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i} \right)^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_j} C^{-1} \mathbf{r}
+ \left(\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i} \right)^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_j} \right) \notag \\
&- \Bigg( \Bigg. \left(\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_j} \right)^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_i} C^{-1} \mathbf{r}
- \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_j} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_i} C^{-1} \mathbf{r}
+ \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial^2 C}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j} C^{-1} \mathbf{r} \notag \\
&- \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_i} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_j} C^{-1} \mathbf{r}
+ \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_i} C^{-1} \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_j} \right) \Bigg. \Bigg) \notag \\
&+ \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_j} \right)^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i}
- \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial C}{\partial \theta_j} C^{-1} \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i}
+ \mathbf{r}^{\text{T}} C^{-1} \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j} \Bigg. \Bigg] \label{appeq:2nd}\end{aligned}$$
Each matrix entry is calculated using Eq. \[appeq:2nd\]. In Eq. \[appeq:2nd\] there are two first order and two second order partial derivatives that must be computed with respect to each of the six model parameters: $\boldsymbol{\Theta} = \{K, a, \lambda, \Gamma, P_{\text{GP}}, \sigma_{\text{jitter}} \}$. These being
$$\frac{\partial \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i}, \frac{\partial K}{\partial \theta_i},
\frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{r}}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j}, \text{ and } \frac{\partial^2 K}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j}$$
and can be computed analytically or symbolically using the open-source `sympy` package in `python` given the analytical expressions for the residual vector (Eq. \[appeq:residual\]) and the covariance matrix (Eq1. \[appeq:K1\] & \[appeq:K2\]).
[^1]: According to the NASA Exoplanet Archive accessed on March 18, 2018.
[^2]: Note that we use the term correlated ‘noise’ whereas—if arising from temporally correlated stellar activity—then this is a signal rather than noise but it is not the planetary signal that we interested in.
[^3]: There are approximately nine temperate Earth-like planets that will be discovered with TESS with $T_{\text{eq}} \in [185,300]$ K and $r_p \leq 1.5$ R$_{\oplus}$ .
[^4]: <https://tess.mit.edu/followup/>
[^5]: <http://maestria.astro.umontreal.ca/rvfc>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We solve the twisted conjugacy problem on Thompson’s group $F$. We also exhibit orbit undecidable subgroups of ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$, and give a proof that ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(F)$ are orbit decidable provided a certain conjecture on Thompson’s group $T$ is true. By using general criteria introduced by Bogopolski, Martino and Ventura in [@bomave2], we construct a family of free extensions of $F$ where the conjugacy problem is unsolvable. As a byproduct of our techniques, we give a new proof of a result of Bleak-Fel’shtyn-Gonçalves in [@bleakfelshgonc1] showing that $F$ has property $R_\infty$, and which can be extended to show that Thompson’s group $T$ also has property $R_\infty$.'
address:
- 'Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada IV, Escola Politècnica Superior de Castelldefels, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, C/Esteve Torrades 5, 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain'
- 'Département de Mathématiques, Faculté des Sciences d’Orsay, Université Paris-Sud 11, Bâtiment 425, Orsay, France'
- 'Departament Matemàtica Aplicada III, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Manresa, Catalunya'
author:
- José Burillo
- Francesco Matucci
- Enric Ventura
bibliography:
- 'go4.bib'
title: '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">The conjugacy problem in extensions of Thompson’s group $F$</span>'
---
Introduction \[sec:intro\]
==========================
Since Max Dehn formulated the three main problems in group theory in 1911, they have been a central subject of study in the theory of infinite groups. There now exists a large body of works devoted to the study of these problems. In this paper we focus on the conjugacy problem and a variant known as *the twisted conjugacy problem*. The conjugacy problem is known to be solvable for Thompson’s groups $F,T$ and $V$ by works of Guba and Sapir [@gusa1], Belk and the second author [@matucci9] and Higman [@hig]. Our interest arose in the study of extensions of the group $F$ where we find an unsolvability result. Even though Thompson himself used the groups $F,T,V$ in the construction of finitely presented groups with unsolvable word problem, to the best of our knowledge, the result that we obtain is a first in a direct generalization of the original Thompson groups. Moreover, we also look at property $R_\infty$ which has been under study recently and which is known to true for the group $F$ and one of its extensions.
We now give a more detailed description of the results. Let $F$ be a group. We say that a subgroup $A\leqslant {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ has solvable *orbit decidability problem* (ODP) if it is decidable to determine, given $y,z \in F$, whether or not there is $\varphi \in A$ and $g \in F$ such that $$\varphi(z)= g^{-1} y g.$$
On the other hand, if $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$, we say that $F$ has solvable *$\varphi$-twisted conjugacy problem* (TCP$_\varphi$) if it is decidable to determine, given $y,z \in F$, whether or not they are $\varphi$-*twisted conjugated* to each other, i.e. whether there exists $g\in F$ such that $$\label{eq:TCP-equation}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} z = g^{-1} y \varphi(g).$$ More generally, we say that the group $F$ has solvable *twisted conjugacy problem* (TCP) if (TCP$_\varphi$) is solvable for any given $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$.
In their recent paper [@bomave2], Bogopolski, Martino and Ventura developed a criterion to study the conjugacy problem for some extensions of groups, and found a connection of this problem with the two problems mentioned above.
Let $F,G,H$ be finitely presented groups and consider a short exact sequence $$\label{eq:usual-exact-sequence}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} 1 \longrightarrow F \overset{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} G
\overset{\beta}{\longrightarrow} H \longrightarrow 1.$$ In this situation, $\alpha(F) \unlhd G$ and so the conjugation map $\varphi_g$, for $g \in
G$, restricts to an automorphism of $F$, $\varphi_g \colon F\to F$, $x\mapsto g^{-1}xg$, (which does not necessarily belong to ${\mathrm{Inn}}(F)$). We define the *action subgroup* of the sequence (\[eq:usual-exact-sequence\]) to be the group of automorphisms $$A_G =\{\varphi_g \mid g \in G\} \leqslant {\mathrm{Aut}}(F).$$
\[thm:bomave-extensions\] Let $$1 \longrightarrow F \overset{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} G \overset{\beta}{\longrightarrow} H \longrightarrow 1.$$ be an algorithmic short exact sequence of groups such that
1. $F$ has solvable twisted conjugacy problem,
2. $H$ has solvable conjugacy problem, and
3. for every $1 \ne h \in H$, the subgroup $\langle h \rangle$ has finite index in its centralizer $C_H(h)$, and we can compute a set of coset representatives of $\langle
h\rangle$ in $C_H(h)$.
Then, the conjugacy problem for $G$ is solvable if and only if the action subgroup $A_G
=\{\varphi_g \mid g \in G\}\leqslant {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ is orbit decidable.
Here, a short exact sequence is *algorithmic* if all the involved groups are finitely presented and given to us with an explicit finite presentation, and all the morphisms are given by the explicit images of the generators.
Condition (3) is of more technical nature. It is clearly satisfied in free groups (where the centralizer of a non-trivial element $h$ is just the cyclic subgroup generated by its maximal root $\hat{h}$), and it is also true in torsion-free hyperbolic groups, see [@bomave2].
The goal of the present paper is to study the conjugacy problem in some extensions of Thompson’s group $F$ via Theorem \[thm:bomave-extensions\] (see [@bomave2; @ventura1] for references to similar applications of this same theorem into other families of groups).
We will assume the reader is familiar with Thompson’s groups $F$ (also denoted by ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$, where $I=[0,1]$ is the unit interval) and $T$ (also denoted by ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(S^1)$, where $S^1$ is the unit circle) and in any case, the comprehensive survey by Cannon, Floyd and Parry [@cfp] is an excellent source of information for Thompson’s groups.
We will employ techniques on conjugacy in the Bieri-Thompson-Stein-Strebel groups used by Kassabov and the second author in [@matucci5] and a rephrasing by Belk and the second author in [@matucci9; @matucci3] of a conjugacy invariant of Brin and Squier [@brin2]. The idea is to assume that the twisted conjugacy equation has a solution and use this to determine necessary conditions that a twisted conjugator should satisfy. This allows one to build some candidate conjugators which must then be tested.
With these techniques, we obtain the first result in the paper:
\[thm:TCP-solvable\] Thompson’s group $F$ has solvable twisted conjugacy problem.
Putting together Theorems \[thm:bomave-extensions\] and \[thm:TCP-solvable\], this opens us to the possibility of finding extensions of $F$ with solvable/unsolvable conjugacy problem, by detecting subgroups of ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ which are orbit decidable/orbit undecidable:
\[coro\] Consider Thompson’s group $F={\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$, a torsion-free hyperbolic group $H$, and let $$1 \longrightarrow F \overset{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} G \overset{\beta}{\longrightarrow} H \longrightarrow 1.$$ be an algorithmic short exact sequence. The group $G$ has solvable conjugacy problem if and only if the action subgroup $A_G \leqslant {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ is orbit decidable.
Using the previous result one can create extensions of $F$ with unsolvable conjugacy problem.
\[thm:CP-extension-unsolvable\] There are extensions of Thompson’s group $F$ by finitely generated free groups, with unsolvable conjugacy problem.
It is also possible to build some interesting extensions of $F$ with solvable conjugacy problem, provided that an open conjecture about $F$ is true. We study this in Section \[sec:ODP-solvable\].
A group $G$ has the *property $R_\infty$* if it has infinitely many distinct $\varphi$-twisted conjugacy classes, for any $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(G)$. Thompson’s group $F$ was shown to have property $R_\infty$ by Bleak, Fel’shtyn and Gonçalves in [@bleakfelshgonc1]. We give an alternative proof, which can be extended to Thompson’s group $T$.
\[thm:R-infty-T\] Thompson’s group $T$ has property $R_\infty$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:twisted-problem\] we introduce the groups we will be working with, we restate the twisted conjugacy problem for $F$ and prove Theorems \[thm:TCP-solvable\] and \[coro\]. In Section \[sec:CP-extensions\] we construct orbit undecidable subgroups of ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and exhibit free extensions of $F$ with unsolvable conjugacy problem. In Section \[sec:ODP-solvable\] we consider orbit decidability and construct some interesting extensions of $F$, which happen to have solvable conjugacy problem assuming an open conjecture on $F$ is true. In Section \[ssec:R-infty\] we show that the groups $F$ and $T$ have property $R_{\infty}$ using ideas from Section \[sec:twisted-problem\]. Finally, in Section \[sec:generaltions-of-results\] we analyze the extent to which the techniques of this paper generalize to other families of Thompson-like groups.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The authors would like to thank Matt Brin, Collin Bleak, Martin Kassabov, Jennifer Taback and Nathan Barker for helpful conversations about this work.
\[sec:twisted-problem\] The twisted conjugacy problem for $F$
=============================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm:TCP-solvable\]. The techniques developed for this purpose will be later used in Section \[ssec:R-infty\] to obtain a couple of byproducts.
Thompson’s group and its automorphisms\[sec:thompson and autos\]
----------------------------------------------------------------
We will look at Thompson’s group $F$ from different perspectives. The standard one is to look at $F$ as the group ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$ of orientation preserving piecewise-linear homeomorphisms of the unit interval $I=[0,1]$ with a discrete (and hence finite) set of breakpoints at dyadic rational points, and such that all slopes are powers of $2$ (the interval $I$ can be replaced to an arbitrary $[p,q]$ with $p,q$ being dyadic rationals and the resulting group is clearly isomorphic). We will also need to regard $F$ as a subgroup of a bigger group: consider the group ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ of all piecewise-linear homeomorphisms of $\mathbb{R}$ with a discrete set of breakpoints at dyadic rational points and such that all slopes are powers of $2$; and consider the subgroup of those elements $f$ which are eventually integral translations, i.e. for which there exist $m_-, m_+\in
\mathbb{Z}$ and $L,R\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x)=x+m_-$ for all $x\leqslant L$, and $f(x)=x+m_+$ for all $x\geqslant R$. It is straightforward to see that this subgroup of ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ is isomorphic to ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$; see Proposition 3.1.1 in Belk and Brown [@bebr] for an explicit isomorphism (it is interesting to note that, through this isomorphism, $2^{m_-}$ is the slope at the right of 0, and $2^{m_+}$ the slope at the left of 1). Both copies of Thompson’s group will be denoted $F$, and it will be clear from the context which one are we talking about at any moment.
Thompson’s group admits a finite presentation. The two generators are usually written $x_0$ and $x_1$, which represent the following maps on the real line: $$x_0(t)=t+1\qquad
x_1(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
t&\text{if }t<0\\
2t&\text{if }0\leq t\leq 1\\
t+1&\text{if }t>1.
\end{array}\right.$$ With these generators, $F$ admits a finite presentation with just two relations, which have lengths 10 and 14. See [@cfp] for details. Moreover, as we will need this later, we observe that when we regard $F$ as the group ${\mathrm{PL}}_2([0,1])$, the generator $x_0$ has this form: $$\theta(t):=
\begin{cases}
2t & t \in \left[0,\frac{1}{4} \right] \\
t + \frac{1}{4}& t \in \left[\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2} \right] \\
\frac{t}{2}+\frac{1}{2} & t \in \left[\frac{1}{2},1 \right].
\end{cases}$$ We distinguish $x_0$ and $\theta$ to make it clear that the first one is seen as an element of ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ while the second is regarded as a map in ${\mathrm{PL}}_2([0,1])$. The *support* of an element $f\in {\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ is the collection of points where it is different from the identity, ${\operatorname{supp}}(f)=\{ t\in \mathbb{R}\mid f(t)\neq t\}$.
{height="5.5cm"}\
{height="5.5cm"}\
*When talking about elements $f\in {\mathrm{PL}}_2 ({\mathbb{R}})$, we say that a property $\mathcal{P}$ holds *for $t$ positive sufficiently large* (respectively, *for $t$ negative sufficiently large*) to mean that there exists a number $R>0$ such that $\mathcal{P}$ holds for every $t\geqslant R$ (respectively, there exists a number $L<0$ such that $\mathcal{P}$ holds for every $t\leqslant L$). For example, $f\in F$ if and only if it is an integral translation for $t$ positive sufficiently large, and for $t$ negative sufficiently large.*
*\[thm:remark-initial-slope\] Observe that, for $g\in F\leqslant {\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$, the integer $m_-$ above (satisfying that $g(t)=t+m_-$ for $t$ negative sufficiently large) can also be obtained as the limit $m_- =\lim_{t\to -\infty} g(t)-t$. Similarly, $g(t)=t+m_+$ for $t$ positive sufficiently large, where $m_+ =\lim_{t\to +\infty} g(t)-t$. These two real numbers are called, respectively, the *initial slope* and the *final slope* of $g$ because, when regarded as an element of ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$, the slopes of $g$ on the right of the point 0 and on the left of the point 1 are, precisely, $2^{m_-}$ and $2^{m_+}$, respectively.*
Automorphisms and transitivity on dyadics
-----------------------------------------
To deal with the $\varphi$-twisted conjugacy problem for $F$, we first need to understand what the automorphisms of Thompson’s group $F$ look like. They have all been classified by Brin in his Theorem 1 in [@brin5] (see also Theorem 1.2 in [@burcleary2] for a more explicit version). The key idea to understand ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ is the fact that conjugation by elements from ${\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$ preserves $F$, and these conjugations give precisely all automorphisms of $F$:
\[thm:brin-thm\] For Thompson’s group $F$, the map $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2 & \longrightarrow & {\mathrm{Aut}}(F) \\ \tau & \mapsto & \begin{array}[t]{rcl} \gamma_{\tau}\colon F & \rightarrow & F
\\ g & \mapsto & \tau^{-1}g\tau, \end{array}
\end{array}$$ is well defined and it is a group isomorphism, so ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F) \simeq {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$. Furthermore, given $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ by the images of the standard generators, one can algorithmically compute the (unique) $\tau\in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$ such that $\varphi
(g)=\tau^{-1}g\tau$ for all $g\in F$.
*\[aut+\] We denote by ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+ (F)$ the group of automorphisms of $F$ given by conjugation by orientation preserving $\tau$’s (see Theorem \[thm:brin-thm\]); it is an index two subgroup ${\mathrm{EP}}_2 \simeq {\mathrm{Aut}}_+(F) <_2 {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)\simeq {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$.*
*Theorem \[thm:brin-thm\], including its algorithmic contents, is crucial for the arguments of the present paper. Brin’s original theorem establishes the isomorphism and we can do the algorithmic determination of $\tau$ in the following form. Burillo and Cleary [@burcleary2] obtained a finite presentation for ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ with nine generators $\varphi_1\,\ldots ,
\varphi_9$ all expressed in terms of the standard presentation of $F$, and as conjugations by suitable $\tau_1,\ldots ,\tau_9\in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$, i.e. $\varphi_i=\gamma_{\tau_i}$ for $i=1,\ldots ,9$. Suppose $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ is given by the images of $x_0$ and $x_1$. We can enumerate all formal words $w$ on letters $\varphi_1,\ldots ,\varphi_9$ and for each one compute the images of $x_0$ and $x_1$ by $w(\varphi_1,\ldots ,\varphi_9)$ until they match with $\varphi(x_0)$ and $\varphi(x_1)$ (here we need to use the word problem for $F$); this match will happen sooner or later because $\varphi_1,\ldots ,\varphi_9$ do generate ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$. Once we have this word, it is clear that $\tau=w(\tau_1,\ldots
,\tau_9)\in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$ satisfies $\gamma_{\tau}=\gamma_{w(\tau_1,\ldots
,\tau_9)}=w(\gamma_{\tau_1},\ldots ,\gamma_{\tau_9})=w(\varphi_1,\ldots
,\varphi_9)=\varphi$.*
The following is a result explaining how to build ${\mathrm{PL}}_2$-maps acting in a prescribed way on some given rational numbers. The first part gives an arithmetic condition for the existence of such a map. The second part expresses the flexibility of these groups: one can always “cut" the graphical representation of an element at a given dyadic rational, and freely “glue" the pieces to obtain new elements. This result will often be needed along the present paper.
\[thm:rationals-coincide\] Let $\eta,\zeta$ be dyadic rationals, let $\alpha, \beta\in \mathbb{Q}\cap(\eta,\zeta)$ written in the form $\alpha=\frac{2^t m}{n}$ and $\beta=\frac{2^k p}{q}$ with $t,k\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $m,n,p,q$ odd integers such that $(m,n)=(p,q)=1$, and let $\eta <\alpha_1 <\cdots
<\alpha_r <\zeta$ and $\eta <\beta_1 <\cdots <\beta_r <\zeta$ be two finite sequences of rational numbers.
1. The following are equivalent:
- there exists $g\in {\mathrm{PL}}_2([\eta,\zeta ])$ such that $g(\alpha)=\beta$,
- there exists $g\in {\mathrm{PL}}_2 (\mathbb{R})$ such that $g(\alpha)=\beta$,
- there exists $g\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ such that $g(\alpha)=\beta$,
- there exists $g\in F$ such that $g(\alpha)=\beta$,
- $n=q$ and $p\equiv 2^Rm \pmod{n}$ for some $R\in \mathbb{Z}$.
Moreover, there is an algorithm which constructs such elements $g$ if condition (e) is satisfied.
2. There exists $g\in F$ with $g(\alpha_i )=\beta_i$ if and only if for every $i=1,\ldots, r$ there exists $g_i \in F$ such that $g_i(\alpha_i) = \beta_i$. Moreover, if such a $g$ exists it can be constructed from the $g_i$’s.
The following is a well known standard result (see for example [@matucci5] for a proof).
\[thm:standard-folklore\] Let $p \in \mathbb{Q}$ and $g \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2([p,p+1])$. Let $u,v \in (p,p+1)$ be such that $u \not \in {\mathrm{Fix}}(g)$. Then there exists at most a unique integer $m$ such that $g^m(u)=v$, and one can algorithmically decide it (and compute such an $m$ if it exists).
Restatement of the TCP \[sec:restatement-TCP\]
----------------------------------------------
Our goal in this section is to solve the twisted conjugacy problem in $F$: given $\varphi
\in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and $y,z\in F$ (all in terms of the standard presentation of $F$, i.e. $\varphi (x_0),\, \varphi (x_1),\, y,\, z$ are given to us as words on $x_0,\, x_1$), we have to decide whether there exists $g\in F$ such that $$z=g^{-1} y \varphi(g).$$
Applying Theorem \[thm:brin-thm\], we can compute $\tau \in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$ such that $\varphi
(g)=\tau^{-1}g\tau$ for all $g\in F$, and the previous equation becomes $z=g^{-1} y
(\tau^{-1}g\tau)$, that is $$z \tau^{-1} = g^{-1} (y \tau^{-1})g.$$ Relabeling ${\overline{y}}:=y\tau^{-1}\in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$ and ${\overline{z}}:= z\tau^{-1}\in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$ to get $$\label{eq:conjugacy}\numberwithin{equation}{section}
{\overline{z}} = g^{-1} {\overline{y}} g,$$ the problem reduces to the standard conjugacy problem in ${\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$, but with the conjugator $g$ forced to be chosen from $F\leqslant {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$.
*Given two elements ${\overline{y}}, {\overline{z}}\in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$, we write ${\overline{y}}\sim_F {\overline{z}}$ if they are conjugated by a conjugator in $F$, i.e. if there exists $g\in F$ such that ${\overline{z}} = g^{-1}
{\overline{y}} g$.*
Notice that if one of ${\overline{y}}$ and ${\overline{z}}$ is in ${\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and the other is not, then equation (\[eq:conjugacy\]) has no solution. Thus, we can split its study into two cases: the orientation preserving case, i.e. when ${\overline{y}},{\overline{z}} \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ (studied in Sections \[ssec:periodicity-boxes\], \[ssec:fixed-points\], \[ssec:reducing-to-squares\] and \[sec:rescaling-the-circle\]) and then the orientation reversing one, i.e. when ${\overline{y}},{\overline{z}}\in {\mathcal{R}\cdot {\mathrm{EP}}_2}$ (considered in Section \[sec:special-case\]). Finally, in Section \[ssec:solution-TCP\] we put all pieces together.
Orientation preserving case of the TCP: periodicity boxes and building conjugators\[ssec:periodicity-boxes\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now deal with the equation $z=g^{-1}yg$ for $y,z\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and $g\in F$. The argument will make use of techniques and statements in [@matucci5] and refer often to that paper.
Subsection 4.1 in [@matucci5] shows that, if $z=g^{-1}yg$ with $y,z,g \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$, then there exists $\varepsilon
>0$ depending only on $y$ and $z$ such that $g$ is linear inside $[0,\varepsilon]^2$; the box $[0,\varepsilon]^2$ is called an *initial linearity box*. The goal of this section is to show an analog of this result inside suitable boxes $(-\infty,L]^2$ and $[R,\infty)^2$ where $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ are periodic.
The following is a first necessary condition for two maps to be conjugate to each other.
\[thm:identical-at-infinity\] Let $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ be such that $y\sim_F z$. Then there exist two numbers $L,R \in
\mathbb{R}$ such that $y(t)=z(t)$ for all $t \in (-\infty,L] \cup [R,\infty)$.
Let $g\in F$ be such that $g^{-1}y g=z$. For $t$ negative sufficiently large, we have $g(t)=t+m_-$, and so $$z(t)=g^{-1} y g(t)= g^{-1}y(t+m_-)=g^{-1}(y(t)+m_-)=y(t)+m_- -m_-=y(t).$$ Similarly for $t$ positive sufficiently large.
We move on to prove the existence of periodicity boxes.
\[ifpb\] For every pair of elements $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^>(-\infty, p)$ (with $-\infty <p\leqslant
+\infty$), there exists a computable constant $L\in \mathbb{R}$ (depending only on $y$ and $z$) such that every conjugator $g\in F$ between $y$ and $z$ must act as a translation inside the *initial periodicity box* $(-\infty,L]^2$. Similarly, for every pair of elements $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^>(p, +\infty)$ (with $-\infty \leqslant p<+\infty$) and a *final periodicity box* $[R, +\infty)^2$.
The exact same statement is true replacing ${\mathrm{EP}}_2^>$ to ${\mathrm{EP}}_2^<$.
If $y$ and $z$ are not equal for $t$ positive and negative sufficiently large then, by Lemma \[thm:identical-at-infinity\], there is no possible conjugator $g\in F$ and there is nothing to prove. So assume they are and consider a negative sufficiently large $L\in
\mathbb{R}$ such that $y(t)=z(t)$ and $y(t-1)=y(t)-1$ (and so, $z(t-1)=z(t)-1$), for every $t\leqslant L$ (clearly, such an $L$ is computable). We claim that every possible $g\in F$ satisfying $g^{-1}yg=z$ must be a translation for $t\leqslant L$. By the symmetry of $y$ and $z$ in the definition of $L$ and up to writing the conjugacy relation as $(g^{-1})^{-1}zg^{-1}=y$ (which changes the conjugator from $g$ to $g^{-1}$), we can assume that $g$ has non-positive translation at $-\infty$ (i.e. $g(t)=t+m_-$ for negative sufficiently large $t$, and with $m_-\leqslant 0$).
Assume, by contradiction, that $g$ is not a translation map in $(-\infty,L]$. Then, there is $\lambda<L$ such that $$g(t)=\begin{cases} t+m_- & t \leqslant \lambda \\ \alpha(t-\lambda) + \lambda +m_- & \lambda
\leqslant t<\mu \end{cases}$$ for some suitable real numbers $\alpha \neq 1$, $\lambda <\mu <L$. Since $z$ is increasing and strictly above the diagonal ${\mathrm{id}}(t)=t$, we can choose $r<\lambda <L$ such that $\lambda
<z(r)<\mu <L$. By our choice of $r$, we have $y(r)=z(r)$, $y(t-1)=y(t)-1$ and $z(t-1)=z(t)-1$ for all $t\leqslant r$. Moreover, since $gz(t)=yg(t)$ for all $t \in
\mathbb{R}$, we have $$\alpha(z(r)-\lambda) + \lambda +m_- =gz(r) =yg(r) =y(r+m_-) =y(r)+m_- =z(r)+m_-.$$ Rearranging the terms, we have $$\alpha(z(r)-\lambda)=z(r)-\lambda$$ and, since $z(r)-\lambda >0$, we get $\alpha=1$, a contradiction. Hence, $g(t)=t+m_-$ for every $t\leqslant L$ as claimed.
The symmetric argument gives a constant $R$ establishing the final periodicity box $[R,+\infty)^2$.
If $y,z\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^<$, then we apply the previous argument to $y^{-1},z^{-1}$ and derive the same conclusion.
*Note that, in the previous lemma, the constants $L$ and $R$ depend on $y$ and $z$ but not on the conjugator $g$. This will be crucial later.*
We observe that the results of Subsection 4.2 in [@matucci5] and their proofs follow word-by-word in our generalized setting, and hence we do not reprove them. We restate Lemma 4.6 in [@matucci5] to give an example of how results appear in this context.
Let $z\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^<$. Let $C_{F}(z)=C_{{\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})}(z)\cap F$ be the set of elements in $F$ commuting with $z$. Then the map $\varphi_z:C_{F}(z) \to \mathbb{Z}$ defined by $$\varphi_z(g) = \lim_{t \to -\infty}g(t)-t$$ is an injective group homomorphism. A similar statement is true for ${\mathrm{EP}}_2^>$.
Subsection 4.2 in [@matucci5] shows how to build a candidate conjugator $g$ between any two elements of $F$ after we have chosen the initial slope of $g$.
A *unique candidate conjugator* $g$ between $y$ and $z$ with a given initial slope $q$, if it exists, is the unique function that one needs to test as a conjugator of $y$ and $z$ with initial slope $q$: if $g$ fails to satisfy $g^{-1}yg=z$, then there is no conjugator of $y$ and $z$ with initial slope $q$. The proof of Corollary 4.12 in [@matucci5] can be lifted verbatim and so we only restate it in our new case.
\[thm:explicit-conjugator\] Let $y,z \in
{\mathrm{EP}}_2^<$. Suppose there exist $L<R$ such that $y$ and $z$ coincide and are periodic on $(-\infty,L] \cup [R,+\infty)$, so that $(-\infty,L]^2$ is the initial periodicity box. Let $\ell \in \mathbb{Z}_{<0}$.
1. Let $g_0 \in F$ be a map which is affine inside $(-\infty,L)^2$ and such that $\lim_{t \to -\infty}g_0(t)-t=q$. Then the unique conjugator ${\widehat{g}} \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$ between $y$ and $z$, which is affine inside $(-\infty,L)^2$ and such that $\lim_{t
\to -\infty}{\widehat{g}}(t)-t=\ell$ is defined pointwise by $${\widehat{g}}(t)=\lim_{r\to +\infty} y^{-r}g_0z^r(t).$$ Moreover, the map ${\widehat{g}}$ is recursively constructible and $y$ and $z$ are always conjugate in ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ via ${\widehat{g}}$.
2. There exists an algorithm to decide whether or not there is $g \in F$ such that $\lim_{t \to -\infty}g(t)-t=\ell$ and $g^{-1}yg=z$.
The above result has been stated, for simplicity, for two functions $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^<$. However, the same result can be stated for $y,z \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2^<([p_1,p_2])$ for any $p_1, p_2
\in \mathbb{Q}$, or for $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^<(p,+\infty)$.
*The results of this subsection do not involve dyadic rationals and slopes that are powers of 2 and are, in fact, true for other classes of groups without restrictions on the breakpoints and the slopes (for example ${\mathrm{PL}}_+(\mathbb{R})$, the Bieri-Thompson-Stein-Strebel groups in $\mathbb{R}$ and the corresponding subgroups with eventually periodic tails). See [@matucci5] for more details.*
Orientation preserving case of the TCP: fixed points\[ssec:fixed-points\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this Subsection is to reduce to the case where the sets $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ do coincide. Up to suitable special cases, this will allow us to reduce to looking for potential conjugators $g\in F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\subseteq {\mathrm{Fix}}(g)$, thus restricting ourselves to studying conjugacy among the corresponding intervals of $y$ and $z$ between any two consecutive points $p$ and $q$ of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$. On each such interval $y$ (and $z$) is either the identity, or has no fixed points apart from $p$ and $q$ and so they belong to either ${\mathrm{EP}}_2^<(p,q)$ or ${\mathrm{EP}}_2^>(p,q)$.
Note that the sets $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ are discrete subsets of $\mathbb{Q}$, and their intersections with any finite interval $[L, R]$ are easily computable by just solving finitely many systems of linear equations. An apparent technical difficulty is that, since $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$, the full sets $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ may be infinite; however, due to the periodicity, they are controlled by finite sets.
\[thm:identify-fixed-points\] There is an algorithm which, given $y,z\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ being equal for $t$ negative sufficiently large and for $t$ positive sufficiently large, decides whether or not there exists some $g\in F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and, in the affirmative case, it constructs such a $g$.
For the given $y,z$ we can easily compute constants $L<R$ such that, for all $t\in
(-\infty, L]$, $y(t)=z(t)$ and $y(t-1)=y(t)-1$, and such that, for all $t\in [R, +\infty)$, $y(t)=z(t)$ and $y(t+1)=y(t)+1$. Moving $L$ down and/or $R$ up if necessary, we can also assume that if $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y) \neq \emptyset$ then it has at least one point in $[L, R)$ (and similarly for $z$).
Now compute the finite sets of rational numbers $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [L, R)$, $\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [L, R)$, $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [L-1, L)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [L-1, L)$, and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [R, R+1)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [R, R+1)$; let $p,q,m,n\geqslant 0$ be their cardinals, respectively. By the periodicity of $y$ and $z$ outside $[L, R]$, these constitute full information about $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$. Up to switching $y$ with $z$, we may assume that $p\leqslant q$.
Clearly, $m=0$ if and only if $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ have a minimum element (as opposed to having infinitely many points approaching $-\infty$). Similarly, $n=0$ if and only if $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ have a maximum element.
If either $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ or $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ is empty then there is nothing to prove. Assume $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\neq \emptyset \neq \partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$, i.e. $1\leqslant p\leqslant
q$. We denote by $a_0$ (respectively, $b_0$) the smallest element in $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap
[L,R)$ (respectively $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [L,R)$) and we use it to enumerate in an order preserving way all the elements of the discrete set $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ (respectively, $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$) as $a_i$ (respectively, $b_i$); the index $i$ will run over a finite, infinite or bi-infinite subset of $\mathbb{Z}$ depending on whether or not $m$ (and/or $n$) is zero. With this definition, $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [L, R)=\{ a_0<a_1<\cdots <a_{p-1} \}$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [L, R)=\{ b_0<b_1<\cdots <b_{q-1} \}$.
Note that any $g\in F$ satisfying $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ must map all the $a_i$’s bijectively to all the $b_i$’s. In particular, if $m=0$ then $a_0$ must be mapped to $b_0$, and if $n=0$ then $a_{p-1}$ must be mapped to $b_{q-1}$ (and so $a_0$ to $b_{q-p}$). Hence, in the special case that either $m=0$ or $n=0$, the following claim completes the proof.
*Claim 1:* For every $b_i\in \partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$, we can algorithmically decide whether or not there exists some $g\in F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and $g(a_0)=b_i$ and, in the affirmative case, the algorithm constructs one explicitly.
The remaining case to study is when $m\neq 0\neq n$, so that $a_0$ potentially could be sent to any of the $b_i$’s by the map $g$. Let $\ell=\mathrm{lcm}(m,n)$ and let $[L-\ell/m,
L)$ be the smallest interval to the left of $L$ to contain $\ell$ points of $\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$. Similarly, let $[R, R+\ell/n)$ be the corresponding interval to the right of $R$. Consider the following two finite sets: $$\begin{array}{c}
A:=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \cap \left[L-\frac{2\ell}{m}, R+\frac{2\ell}{n} \right), \\ \\
B:=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y) \cap \left[L-\frac{2\ell}{m}, R+\frac{2\ell}{n} \right),
\end{array}$$ and let $s_0$ be the rightmost point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \cap \left[L-\frac{2\ell}{m},
L-\frac{\ell}{m} \right)$, and let $t_0$ be the leftmost point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \cap
\left[R+\frac{\ell}{n}, R+\frac{2\ell}{n} \right)$. We compute $A$, $B$, $s_0$ and $t_0$ explicitly.
*Claim 2:* Suppose there exists a map $g\in F$ such that $\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and $g(s_0)\in \left[R+\frac{k\ell}{n},
R+\frac{(k+1)\ell}{n}\right)$ for $k\geqslant 2$; then, there exists a $g'\in F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g'(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and $g'(s_0)\in \left[R+\frac{(k-1)\ell}{n},
R+\frac{k\ell}{n}\right)$. Similarly, if there exists $g\in F$ such that $\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and $g(t_0)\in \left[L-\frac{(k+1)\ell}{n},
L-\frac{k\ell}{n}\right)$ for some $k\geqslant 2$, then there exists a $g'\in F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g'(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and $g'(t_0)\in \left[L-\frac{k\ell}{n},
L-\frac{(k-1)\ell}{n}\right)$.
With the help of Claim 2 we can complete the proof in the following way. Suppose there exists $g\in F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$. Since $p\leqslant q$ it cannot simultaneously happen that $g(s_0)<s_0$ and $t_0<g(t_0)$. Hence either $s_0\leqslant
g(s_0)$ or $g(t_0)\leqslant t_0$ and, in either case, a repeated application of Claim 2 implies the existence of $g'\in F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g'(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and $g'(A)\cap B\neq \emptyset$. This gives finitely many possibilities for $g'(a_0)$ and so, applying Claim 1 finitely many times we can decide whether or not there exists a $g\in F$ satisfying $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$.
Hence, it only remains to prove the above two claims.
We will distinguish four cases.
**Case 1: $m=0$ and $n=0$.** In this case, $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)=\{
a_0<a_1<\cdots <a_{p-1} \}$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\{ b_0<b_1<\cdots <b_{q-1} \}$ and, clearly, $p=q$ and $g(a_0)=b_0$ are necessary conditions for such a $g$ to exist. If both conditions hold, then Proposition \[thm:rationals-coincide\] makes the decision for us.
**Case 2: $m\geqslant 1$ and $n=0$.** This case is entirely symmetric to the next one.
**Case 3: $m=0$ and $n\geqslant 1$.** In this case, $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ both have first elements $a_0$ and $b_0$ and infinitely many points approaching $+\infty$. As in case 1, $g(a_0)=b_0$ is a necessary condition for such a $g$ to exist.
We have $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [R, R+1)=\{ a_{p}<a_{p+1}<\cdots <a_{p+(n-1)} \}$ and that the elements in $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \cap [R+1,+\infty)$ are integral translations of these: for every $j\geqslant 0$, write $j=\lambda n+\mu$ with $\lambda,\mu\geqslant 0$ integers and $\mu =0,\ldots, n-1$, and we have $a_{p+j}=\lambda+a_{p+\mu}$. A similar argument for $y$ yields that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [R, R+1)=\{ b_{q}<b_{q+1}<\cdots <b_{q+(n-1)} \}$ and that, for every $j\geqslant q$, we have $b_{q+j}=\lambda+b_{q+\mu}$. Moreover, from $a_p=b_q$ on, the two sequences coincide, i.e., for every $j\geqslant 0$, $$\lambda+a_{p+\mu}=a_{p+j}=b_{q+j}=\lambda+b_{q+\mu}.$$
Now if some $g\in F$ satisfies $g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$, it must apply the points in an order preserving way, starting from the smallest ones, that is, $g(a_k)=b_k$ for any integer $k$. In particular, for $k\geqslant q\geqslant p$, we have $$g(\lambda_1+a_{p+\mu_1})=g(a_{p+(k-p)})=g(a_k)=b_k=b_{q+(k-q)}=\lambda_2+b_{q+\mu_2},$$ where $k-p=\lambda_1 n+\mu_1$ and $k-q=\lambda_2 n+\mu_2$. Since $g$ is of the form $g(t)=t+m_+$ with $m_+\in \mathbb{Z}$ for $t$ positive sufficiently large then, for large enough $k$, the above equation tells us that $$\lambda_1+a_{p+\mu_1}+m_+=g(\lambda_1+a_{p+\mu_1})=\lambda_2+b_{q+\mu_2}.$$ Therefore, $a_{p+\mu_1}-b_{q+\mu_2}=b_{q+\mu_1}-b_{q+\mu_2}$ must be an integer and so, $\mu_1=\mu_2$, which means that $k-p$ and $k-q$ are congruent modulo $n$, i.e. $q-p$ is multiple of $n$.
Assume then this necessary condition, $q-p=\lambda n$ with $\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}$, and apply Proposition \[thm:rationals-coincide\] (2) to the sequences $a_0<\cdots
<a_{p+\lambda n-1}$ and $b_0<\cdots <b_{q-1}$ (both with $q$ points). If there is no $g\in
F$ sending the first list to the second then there is no $g$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)
=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and we are done. Otherwise, we get a $g$ matching these first $q$ points, $g(a_0)=b_0, \ldots ,g(a_{p+\lambda n-1})=b_{q-1}$, and, after a final small modification, we will see that it automatically matches the rest.
Choose two dyadic numbers $a_{p+\lambda n-1}<\alpha <\beta <a_{p+\lambda n}$, choose $h\in
F$ such that $h(\alpha )=g(\alpha)$ and $h(\beta )=\beta -\lambda$ (such an $h$ exists and is effectively computable by Proposition \[thm:rationals-coincide\] (2)), and let us consider the following map: $$\widetilde{g}(t)=\begin{cases} g(t) & t \leqslant \alpha \\ h(t) & \alpha \leqslant t\leqslant \beta
\\ t-\lambda & \beta \leqslant t.\end{cases}$$ By construction, $\widetilde{g}$ is continuous, piecewise linear with dyadic breakpoints, and all slopes are powers of 2; furthermore $g\in F$ and $\widetilde{g}$ is an integral translation for $t\geqslant \beta$ so, $\widetilde{g}\in F$. On the other hand, $$\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [L, b_{q-1}]=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [L,a_{p+\lambda
n-1}])=\widetilde{g}(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [L,a_{p+\lambda n-1}]),$$ and $$\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [b_{q}, +\infty)=\{ b_q, b_{q+1},\ldots \}=\{ a_{p+\lambda n}-\lambda,
a_{p+\lambda n+1}-\lambda, \ldots \} =$$ $$=\widetilde{g}(\{ a_{p+\lambda n}, a_{p+\lambda n+1}, \ldots \})=\widetilde{g}(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap
[a_{p+\lambda n}, +\infty )).$$ Hence, $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\widetilde{g}(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$ and we are done.
**Case 4: $m\geqslant 1$ and $n\geqslant 1$.** The argument in this case is similar to that of case 3 but repeated twice, up and down (and with no restriction for $b_i$ because we have both infinitely many fixed points bigger and smaller than $b_i$).
Following the notation above, the $m$ fixed points from $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [L-1,
L)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [L-1, L)$ are labeled and ordered as $a_{-m}<\cdots <a_{-1}$ and $b_{-m}<\cdots <b_{-1}$ (hence, $a_{-j}=b_{-j}$ for $j=1,\ldots ,m$). The elements from $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \cap (-\infty,L-1)$ and $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y) \cap (-\infty,L-1)$ are their integral translations to the left.
Now if some $g\in F$ satisfies $g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $g(a_0)=b_i$, it must send the points $a_j$ to the $b_j$ in an order preserving way starting from $g(a_0)=b_i$, both up and down. Hence, two arguments exactly like in the previous case give us two necessary congruences among $p,q$ and $i$, modulo $n$ (close to $+\infty$) and modulo $m$ (close to $-\infty$). If one of them fails, then there is no such $g$ and we are done. If both are satisfied, then apply Proposition \[thm:rationals-coincide\] (2) to a long enough tuple of $a_j$’s and $b_j$’s: a negative answer tells us there is no such $g\in
F$, and a positive answer provides a $g\in F$ which, after two local modifications like in the previous case (one close to $+\infty$ and the other close to $-\infty$), will finally give us a $g'\in F$ such that $g'(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$, and $g'(a_0)=b_i$.
This completes the proof of Claim 1.
We will prove the first part of the claim; the symmetric argument for the second part is left to the reader.
Assume the existence of $g\in F$ such that $g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $g(s_0 )\in \left[R+\frac{k\ell}{n}, R+\frac{(k+1)\ell}{n}\right)$ for $k\geqslant 2$. To push $g(s_0)$ down, let us define the *reduction* map $g_-$ by $$g_-(t)=
\begin{cases}
g(t-\frac{\ell}{m}) & t<s_0 \\
g(t)-\frac{\ell}{n} & t \ge s_0.
\end{cases}$$ To understand the map $g_-$, note that its graphical representation can be obtained from that of $g$ by performing the following operation: remove the graph within $[s_0-\ell/m,s_0]$, translate the graph of $g$ defined on $[s_0,+\infty)$ by the vector $(0,-\ell/m)$ and translate the graph of $g$ defined on $(-\infty,s_0-\ell/m]$ by the vector $(\ell/m,0)$. Hence, $g_-$ is the same as $g$ avoiding the piece over the interval $[s_0-\ell/m, s_0]$.
It is obvious that the two parts of $g_-$ to the left and to the right of $s_0$ are both continuous, increasing, piecewise linear, with dyadic breakpoints, with slopes being powers of two, and being eventually translations (near $-\infty$ and $+\infty$, respectively). To check whether $g_-$ is in $F$ it only remains to analyze what happens around the point $s_0$.
First of all, $g_-$ is continuous at $s_0$: observe that $s_0-\frac{\ell}{m}\in
\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ is exactly $\ell$ points to the left of $s_0$ in the discrete set $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$; since $g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $g$ is an increasing function, $g(s_0-\frac{\ell}{m})$ must be exactly $\ell$ points to the left of $g(s_0)$ in the discrete set $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ that is, $g(s_0-\frac{\ell}{m})=g(s_0)-\frac{\ell}{n}$.
Unfortunately, the slopes of $g_-$ to the left and to the right of $s_0$ (i.e. the slopes of $g$ to the left of $s_0-\ell/m$ and to the right of $s_0$) may be different; and $s_0$ may not be a dyadic rational number. If these two facts happen simultaneously then $g_-$ will not an element of $F$ because of having a breakpoint at a non-dyadic point, namely $s_0$. This technical difficulty will be fixed later by modifying the map $g_-$ in a suitably small neighborhood of $s_0$.
Before doing this, let us check that $g_-$ fulfils our requirement. Since $g(s_0-\frac{\ell}{m})=g(s_0)-\frac{\ell}{n}$, the hypothesis $g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ implies that $$g_-(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap (-\infty, s_0])=g\left(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap \left(-\infty,
s_0-\frac{\ell}{m}\right]\right)=$$ $$=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap \left(-\infty, g(s_0)-\frac{\ell}{n}\right],$$ and $g_-(s_0)=g(s_0-\frac{\ell}{m})=g(s_0)- \frac{\ell}{n}$, and $$g_-(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [s_0, +\infty))=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)\cap [s_0, +\infty ))-
\frac{\ell}{n} =\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap \left[g(s_0)-\frac{\ell}{n}, +\infty \right).$$ Hence, $g_-(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and $g_-(s_0)=g(s_0)-\frac{\ell}{n}\in
\left[R+\frac{(k-1)\ell}{n}, R+\frac{k\ell}{n}\right)$, as we wanted.
To complete the proof of Claim 1 we must be able to fix the above technical problem, by modifying $g_-$ in such a way that the resulting map belongs to $F$, but not changing the image of any point in $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$; this will be achieved by changing $g_-$ only in a small enough neighborhood of $s_0$ not containing any other point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ (and, of course, not changing the image of $s_0$ itself).
Let $\alpha_1$ be a dyadic point found strictly between $\alpha_2:=s_0$ and the point of $A$ immediately to the left of $s_0$; and let $\alpha_3$ be a dyadic point found strictly between $\alpha_2:=s_0$ and the point of $A$ immediately to the right of $s_0$. Now consider the points $$\beta_1:=g_-(\alpha_1)=g\left(\alpha_1-\frac{\ell}{m} \right),$$ $$\beta_2:=g_-(\alpha_2)=g\left(\alpha_2-\frac{\ell}{m} \right)=g(\alpha_2)-\frac{\ell}{n},$$ $$\beta_3:=g_-(\alpha_3)=g(\alpha_3)-\frac{\ell}{n}.$$ Since $\alpha_1<\alpha_2<\alpha_3$ and $\beta_1<\beta_2<\beta_3$ are rational points such that, for every $i=1,2,3$, $\beta_i$ is the image of $\alpha_i$ by some element in $F$, then we can apply Proposition \[thm:rationals-coincide\] (2) and construct a function $h\in F$ such that $\beta_i=h(\alpha_i)$. Finally, define $$g'(t)=\begin{cases} h(t) & t\in [\alpha_1,\alpha_3] \\ g_-(t) & t\not \in [\alpha_1,\alpha_3].
\end{cases}$$ Clearly, $g'\in F$, $g'(s_0)=g_-(s_0)$ and $g'(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=g_-(\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$. This completes the proof of Claim 2.
This finishes the proof of Proposition \[thm:identify-fixed-points\].
\[thm:RTCP\] The decidability of the following two problems is equivalent:
1. For any two $y,z\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ we can determine whether or not there is $g\in F$ such that $g^{-1}yg=z$.
2. For any two $y,z\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ we can determine, whether or not there is $g\in F$ such that $g^{-1}yg=z$.
Obviously, if (TCP) is decidable, then (RTCP) is decidable. Assume now that (RTCP) is decidable. By the discussion at the beginning of this subsection, if $y$ and $z$ are conjugate via $g \in F$, then $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$. By Theorem \[thm:identify-fixed-points\] we can decide whether or not there is a map $g \in
F$ such that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$. If there is no such map, then $y$ and $z$ are not conjugate. If there is such a $g\in F$ (and in this case Theorem \[thm:identify-fixed-points\] constructs it) then $\partial
({\mathrm{Fix}}(gzg^{-1}))=g(\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z))=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and we can apply (RTCP) to the two maps $y$ and $gzg^{-1}$ to detect whether or not they are conjugate. Obviously, this is the same decision as the one we are interested in.
By Lemma \[thm:RTCP\] we can restrict our focus to studying (RTCP).
Orientation preserving case of the TCP: Reducing the problem to squares. \[ssec:reducing-to-squares\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can make $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ as done in Proposition \[thm:identify-fixed-points\]. If $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) =
\emptyset$ we defer the discussion to Subsection \[sec:rescaling-the-circle\]. On the other hand, if $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \neq \emptyset$ and $g\in F$ is a conjugator between $y$ and $z$, the only thing we can say is that $g$ acts on $\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ in an order preserving way. There are two possibilities:
1. ${\mathrm{Fix}}(g) \neq \emptyset$.
2. ${\mathrm{Fix}}(g) = \emptyset$. We can assume that $g \in F^>$.
Case (2) can indeed happen as is shown by the following example: take $y=z$ to be a non-trivial periodic function of period $1$ with fixed points. Then the map $g(t)=t+1 \in
F^>$ is a conjugator for $y$ and $z$ having no fixed points.
We need to find if there is a conjugator $g$ between $y$ and $z$ such that $g \in F^>$. We can assume $y \ne {\mathrm{id}}\ne z$, otherwise our analysis becomes trivial. We can write the supports ${\operatorname{supp}}(y)={\operatorname{supp}}(z)$ as the union of the family $\{I _j\}$ of (possibly unbounded) intervals on which $y$ and $z$ have no fixed points ordered so that $I_j$ is to the left of $I_{j+1}$, for every $j$. If this family were finite, since we are assuming $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \neq \emptyset$, then it means that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ is finite and so $g$ must fix the smallest element in $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ since $g$ is order preserving, hence ${\mathrm{Fix}}(g) \ne \emptyset$ and this would not be the case that we are studying now. Thus we must study the case of the following proposition.
Let $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ be such that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ and that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ has infinitely many points. Then there are only finitely many candidate conjugators $g \in F^>$.
We give out only some relevant details of how to prove this proposition. This entails generalizations of many results of this paper and of Kassabov-Matucci [@matucci5] and so we only explain how to achieve them. The main point here is noticing that we can develop a Stair Algorithm and bounding initial slopes of $g \in F$, even if at $-\infty$ the functions $y,z$ have no initial slope.
By hypothesis, $\{I_j\}$ has infinitely many intervals and so $g$ “shifts” them, that is $g(I_j)=I_{j+k}$, for some fixed $k$. Let $t_j$ be the left endpoint of $I_j$. We make a series of observations:
1. We can build candidate conjugators (Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\]) on each $I_j$, given a fixed initial slope at $t_j$,
2. The initial slope of $z$ on $I_j$ coincides with the initial slope of $y$ in the image interval $g(I_j)$,
3. There is an “initial” box for $g$ in $I_j$,
4. We can bound the “initial” slopes of $g$ on $I_j$,
5. We can bound the initial slope of $g$ at $-\infty$.
\(1) and (2) are a straightforward calculation. (3) is a verbatim rewriting of the proof of Lemma 4.2 in [@matucci5].
\(4) A standard trick from [@matucci5] is observing that $$z=g^{-1}yg= g^{-1}y^{-r} y y^rg$$ and so the slope of $y^r g$ at $t_j$ is $(y'(t_{i+k}))^r g'(t_i)$ and $y^r g$ is a conjugator for $y$ and $z$ on $I_j$. On each $I_j$ there are only finitely many slopes for $g'(t_i^+)$ to be tested and on each one, we apply Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\] to build candidate conjugators that we can test.
\(5) Recall that a candidate conjugator $g$ pushes all the intervals in ${\operatorname{supp}}(y)$ in the same direction by the “same amount of intervals in ${\operatorname{supp}}(y)$”. In particular, the initial slope of $g$ determines the number $k$ such that $g(I_j)=I_{j+k}$ for every $j$.
We use ideas similar to Claim 2 in Proposition \[thm:identify-fixed-points\]. Let us call $J_L$ the left open interval on which $y=z$ and they are periodic. A similar definition can be made for $J_R$. Let $J_C=\mathbb{R} \setminus (J_L \cup J_R)$ the remaining central piece. Assume that there is a conjugator $g$ between $y$ and $z$ which sends and interval $I_j$ inside $J_L$ to an interval $I_{j+k+1}$ with the requirement that $I_{j+k}$ is entirely contained into $J_R$. Using ideas similar to Claim 2 in Proposition \[thm:identify-fixed-points\] one can create a new conjugator $\overline{g}$ such that $\overline{g}(I_j)=I_{j+k}$.
Therefore, similarly to Claim 2 in Proposition \[thm:identify-fixed-points\], this allows us to reduce the study to only finitely many candidate conjugators where $g(J_C) \cap J_C
\ne \emptyset$ or where the rightmost interval $I_j$ inside $J_L$ goes to the leftmost interval $I_s$ of $J_R$ (or viceversa). This argument reduces the number of initial slopes of $g$ to be tested.
To conclude we observe that there are only finitely many slopes for $g$ at $-\infty$ and finitely many “initial” slopes for $g$ on the finitely many intervals $I_j$ contained in $J_C$ and then we can apply Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\] on each of these intervals building finitely many candidate conjugators $g \in F^>$ which we can then test one by one.
The previous result allows one to restrict to the case of looking for conjugators $g$ with fixed points.
\[tim:fix-of-z-is-inside-fix-g\] Let $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ be such that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \ne \emptyset$ and let $g$ be a conjugator between $y$ and $z$ such that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(g) \ne \emptyset$. Then ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \subseteq {\mathrm{Fix}}(g)$.
Let $a \in {\mathrm{Fix}}(g)$ and let $b$ be the the smallest point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ such that $a<b$. Since $g$ fixes ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ set wise and is order-preserving, then $g(b)$ must also be the smallest point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ such $g(b)>a$, therefore $g(b)=b$ and so $g$ must fix all of ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ pointwise.
We need to show that (RTCP) of Lemma \[thm:RTCP\] is decidable. Lemma \[tim:fix-of-z-is-inside-fix-g\] tells us that we can restrict ourselves to solve the problem inside the closed intervals of ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$.
As was done in [@matucci5] we observe that if $p \in \partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ is a non-dyadic rational point and $g$ is a conjugator between $y$ and $z$, then $g'(p^-)=g'(p^+)$ or, in other words, the slope of $g$ at one side of $p$ is completely determined by the slope on its other side. This implies that the important points of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ are the dyadic rational ones (if they exist) as they are the ones where $g$ has freedom to have different slopes on the two sides and therefore the conjugator that we are attempting to build can be constructed by by gluing two conjugators on the two sides of a dyadic rational point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$. In the case that $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ had no dyadic rational points, then we can compute a conjugator at a point $p \in \partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and this uniquely determines the conjugator on the entire real line. Otherwise, there are dyadic rational points in $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and we argue as following.
Let $L<R$ are two integers chosen so that $y$ and $z$ coincide and are periodic inside $(-\infty,L] \cup [R,+\infty)$. The case when $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y) \cap [L,R]$ contains no dyadic rational point is dealt with as above. Similarly, if there is only one dyadic point inside $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y) \cap [L,R]$, then we have two instances of the previous case on the two sides of the dyadic point. Otherwise, we choose $p_1,p_2$ with the property of being dyadic and consecutive inside $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and such that $[p_1,p_2] \subseteq [L,R]$. With these provisions, we can use the solution of the standard conjugacy problem inside ${\mathrm{PL}}_2([p_1,p_2])$ using the techniques in [@matucci5]. If there is no conjugator on any of those intervals, then $y$ and $z$ cannot be conjugate. Otherwise, we can glue the conjugators that we find on each such interval. We then need to understand what happens outside $[L,R]$.
Let $p$ be the rightmost dyadic point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)\cap [L,R]$. If $y,z \in
{\mathrm{EP}}_2^>(p,+\infty)$ (or $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^<(p,+\infty)$), then we deal with this case in Subsection \[sec:rescaling-the-circle\]. Otherwise, let $q$ be the leftmost point of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y) \cap (R,+\infty)$. If $y(t)=z(t)=t$ on $[p,q]$, then we define $g(t)=t$ on $[p,+\infty)$ and this defines a conjugator for $y$ and $z$ on $[p,+\infty)$ which we can glue to the previous intervals. Otherwise, we apply the standard conjugacy problem on the interval $[p,q]$ with final slope $1$ at $q^-$ since the conjugator $g$ has to be the identity translation on $[R,+\infty)$. If the standard conjugacy problem on $[p,q]$ has no solution, then $y$ and $z$ cannot be conjugate. Otherwise, if $h$ is the conjugator on $[p,q]$ we define $$g(t):=
\begin{cases}
h(t) & t \in [p,q] \\
t & [q,+\infty)
\end{cases}$$ which is a well-defined map of $F$, since $g'(q^-)=g'(q^+)=1$, regardless of whether or not $q$ is dyadic. The map $g$ defines a conjugator for $y$ and $z$ on $[p,+\infty)$ which we can glue to the previous intervals. A similar argument can be applied to the left of $L$.
Orientation preserving case of the TCP: Mather invariants\[sec:rescaling-the-circle\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedure outlined in [@matucci5] to solve the conjugacy problem in Bieri-Thompson-Stein-Strebel groups requires various steps which we have studied already: (i) making ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$ and ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ coincide (seen in Subsection \[ssec:fixed-points\]) and (ii) showing that, for a possible initial slope of a conjugator in $F$ (see Remark \[thm:remark-initial-slope\]), there exists at most one candidate and we can compute it through an algorithm (seen in Subsection \[ssec:periodicity-boxes\]). The next natural step is to bound the number of integers $\lim_{t \to -\infty}g(t)-t$ representing possible initial slopes for which we need to build a candidate conjugator.
In order to do this, we will employ ideas to characterize conjugacy seen in [@matucci3], by taking very large powers of $y$ and $z$ and building a conjugacy invariant. In [@matucci3] a conjugacy class in $F$ has been described by a double coset $Ay^\infty B$ where $y^\infty$ is an element of Thompson’s group $T$ obtained by taking suitable high powers of $y$ and $A$ and $B$ are two finite cyclic groups (of rotations of the circle). In the case of the twisted conjugacy problem that we are studying, the Mather invariant will be essentially defined by a product $A y^\infty B$ where $A \cong B \cong
\mathbb{Z}$.
*Mather invariant construction.* In what follows, we will assume that $y,z \in
{\mathrm{EP}}_2^>$, to simplify the notation. We can define Mather invariants in the two neighborhoods of infinity (that is on ${\mathrm{EP}}_2(-\infty,p)$ and ${\mathrm{EP}}_2(q,+\infty)$ for some suitable numbers $p,q$), while solving the conjugacy problem between any two consecutive dyadic points of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$.
Let $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^>$ and assume that, on the intervals $(-\infty,L]\cup [R,+\infty)$, the maps $y$ and $z$ coincide and are periodic, for some integers $L \leqslant R$. Let $N \in
\mathbb{N}$ be large enough so that $y^N((y^{-1}(L),L)) \subseteq (R,+\infty)$ and $z^N((y^{-1}(L),L)) \subseteq (R,+\infty)$. We look for an orientation preserving homeomorphism $H \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ such that
1. $H(y^k(L))=k$, for any integer $k$, and
2. $H(y(t))=\lambda(H(t))=H(t)+1$, where $\lambda(t)=t+1$.
To construct $H$, choose any ${\mathrm{PL}}_2$-homeomorphism $H_0:[y^{-1}(L),L] \to [-1,0]$ with finitely many breakpoints. Then we extend it to a map $H \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2(\mathbb{R})$ by defining $$H(t):=H_0(y^{-k}(t))+k \qquad \mbox{if} \; t \in [y^{k-1}(L),y^k(L)] \; \mbox{for some integer $k$}.$$ We make a series of remarks.
- By construction, it is easy to see that $H(y(t))=\lambda(H(t))$ for any real number $t$.
- If we define ${\overline{y}}:=Hy H^{-1},{\overline{z}}:=Hz H^{-1}$, we observe that, by construction, they both coincide with $\lambda(t)=t+1$ on the intervals $(-\infty,1]\cup [N,+\infty)$. It is also clear that ${\overline{y}}=\lambda$.
- We notice that ${\overline{\lambda}}=H\lambda H^{-1} \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$. To show this, let $t$ be positive sufficiently large so that $y$ is periodic of period $1$ and that all the calculations below make sense and define $\widetilde{t}=H_0^{-1}(t- k-1)$: $${\overline{\lambda}}(t+1)=H \lambda y^{k+2}H_0^{-1}\lambda^{-k-2}(t+1)=
H\lambda y^{k+2}(\widetilde{t})= H(y^{k+2}(\widetilde{t})+1) =$$ $$\lambda^{k'}H_0 y^{-k'}(y^{k+2}(\widetilde{t}+1)) =
\lambda^{k'-1}H_0 y^{-k'+1}(y^{k+1}(\widetilde{t}+1))+1
={\overline{\lambda}}(t)+1,$$ where $k'$ are the jumps that $y$ must make to bring $y^{k+2}(\widetilde{t}+1)$ back to the domain of $H_0$. A similar argument can be shown for $t$ negative sufficiently large.
We define $$C_0:= (-\infty,0)/\mathbb{Z} \qquad C_1:= (N,\infty)/\mathbb{Z}$$ and let $p_0:(-\infty,0) \to C_0$ and $p_1:(N,\infty) \to C_1$ be the natural projections. Then we define the map ${\overline{y}}^\infty:C_0 \to C_1$ by $${\overline{y}}^{\infty}([t]):=[{\overline{y}}^{N}(t)].$$ Similarly we can define the map ${\overline{z}}^{\infty}$. The maps ${\overline{y}}^{\infty}$ and ${\overline{z}}^{\infty}$ are well-defined and they do not depend on the specific $N$ chosen (the proof is analogous to the one in Section 3 in [@matucci3]). They are called the *Mather invariants* of ${\overline{y}}$ and ${\overline{z}}$ (compare this with the definitions in Section 3 in [@matucci3]).
This induces the equation ${\overline{g}}{\overline{z}}^N={\overline{y}}^N{\overline{g}}$ which, following [@matucci3], passes to quotients and becomes $$\label{eq:mather-equivalence}
v_1^k {\overline{z}}^{\infty} = {\overline{y}}^{\infty} v_0^{\ell}$$ since all the maps ${\overline{y}},{\overline{z}},{\overline{g}}$ are in ${\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and where $v_1 := p_1 {\overline{\lambda}}
p_1^{-1}$ is an element of Thompson’s group $T_{C_1}$ defined on the circle $C_1$ and induced by ${\overline{\lambda}}$ on $C_1$ by passing to quotients via the map $p_1$, $v_0:=p_0
{\overline{\lambda}} p_0^{-1}$ and where $\ell,k$ are the initial and final slopes of $g$.
The following result shows that the integer solutions of equation (\[eq:mather-equivalence\]) correspond to conjugators between $y$ and $z$. The proof is an extension of the proof of Theorem 4.1 in [@matucci3].
\[thm:mather-iff\] Let $y,z \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2^>$. Then $y$ and $z$ are conjugate through an element $g \in F$ if and only if there is a pair of integers $k,\ell$ that satisfy equation (\[eq:mather-equivalence\]).
Clearly, if $g \in F$ conjugates $y$ to $z$, then equation (\[eq:mather-equivalence\]) is satisfied by the calculations above. Conversely, assume that we have a pair $(k,\ell)$ such that (\[eq:mather-equivalence\]) is satisfied. We use Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\] to find a map $g \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$ which is affine around $-\infty$, such that $\lim_{x\to -\infty}g(x)-x=\ell$ and that $yg=gz$. By conjugating via $H$ we see that ${\overline{y}}{\overline{g}}={\overline{g}}{\overline{z}}$. If $x$ is positive sufficiently large then ${\overline{y}}(x)={\overline{z}}(x)=x+1$ so $${\overline{g}}(x)+1={\overline{y}}{\overline{g}}(x)={\overline{g}}{\overline{z}}(x)={\overline{g}}(x+1).$$ Arguing similarly at $\infty$ we deduce that ${\overline{g}} \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and so the equation ${\overline{y}}^N{\overline{g}}={\overline{g}}{\overline{z}}^N$ passes to quotients and becoming ${\overline{g}}_{\mathrm{ind}}
{\overline{z}}^{\infty} = {\overline{y}}^{\infty} v_0^{\ell}$. By using our assumption we see that ${\overline{g}}_{\mathrm{ind}} {\overline{z}}^{\infty} = {\overline{y}}^{\infty} v_0^{\ell} = v_1^k
{\overline{z}}^{\infty}$ and by cancellation we obtain ${\overline{g}}_{\mathrm{ind}} = v_1^k$. By taking the unique lift of ${\overline{g}}_{\mathrm{ind}}$ and $v_1^k$ defined on $[N,N+1)$ and passing through the point $(N,g(N))$, we see that ${\overline{g}}$ and ${\overline{\lambda}}^k$ coincide on $[N,N+1]$ and therefore they coincide on $[N,+\infty)$ since they are both in ${\mathrm{EP}}_2$. Thus, $g \in F$ since ${\overline{g}}(x)={\overline{\lambda}}(x)$ around $+\infty$.
We relabel $t_0:={\overline{z}}^{\infty} v_0^{-1} ({\overline{z}}^{\infty})^{-1}$, $t_1:=v_1$ and and $t:={\overline{y}}^{\infty}({\overline{z}}^{\infty})^{-1}$ and we rewrite equation (\[eq:mather-equivalence\]) as $$\label{eq:thesis-case}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} t_1^k t_0^\ell=t$$ where $t_0,t_1,t \in T_{C_1}$. To solve equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) we will need Lemma 8.4 from [@matucci5] which we restate for the reader’s convenience.
\[thm:matucci5-special-case\] Let $p \in
\mathbb{Q}$ and let ${\mathrm{PL}}_2([p,p+1])$ be the group of piecewise-linear homeomorphisms of the interval $[p,p+1]$ with finitely many breakpoints which occur at dyadic rational points and such that all their slopes are powers of $2$. If $t_0,t_1,t \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2([p,p+1])$, there is an algorithm which outputs one of the following two mutually exclusive cases in finite time:
1. Equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) has at most one solution and we compute a pair $(k,\ell)$ such that, if equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) is solvable, then $(k,\ell)$ must be its unique solution.
2. Equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) has infinitely many solutions which are given by the sequence of pairs $(k_j,\ell_j)$ where $k_j = a_1 j +b_1$ and $\ell_j=a_2 j +
b_2$ for any $j \in \mathbb{Z}$ and for some integers $a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2$ which we can compute.
Lemma \[thm:matucci5-special-case\] gives a solution for equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) in the case that $t_0,t_1,t$ live in a copy of Thompson’s group ${\mathrm{PL}}_2([p,p+1])$ of functions over an interval. However, equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) needs to be solved in a copy of Thompson’s group $T$ of functions over a circle, so we will need to adapt Lemma \[thm:matucci5-special-case\] to our needs.
\[thm:thesis-case\] Let $T$ be Thompson’s group ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(S^1)$ and let $t_0,t_1,t
\in T$. Then there is an algorithm which outputs one of the following two mutually exclusive cases in finite time:
1. Equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) has at most finitely many solutions and we compute a finite set $S$ such that, if $(k,\ell)$ is a solution of equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]), then $\ell \in S$.
2. Equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) has infinitely infinitely many solutions and we compute a sequence of solutions $(k_j,\ell_j)$ where $k_j = a_1 j +b_1$ and $\ell_j=a_2 j + b_2$ for any $j \in \mathbb{Z}$ and for some integers $a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2$.
For a map $h \in T$, we denote by $\mathrm{Per}(h)$ the set of all periodic points of $h$. Obviously, ${\mathrm{Fix}}(h) \subseteq \mathrm{Per}(h)$. By a result of Ghys and Sergiescu [@GhysSergiescu] every element of $T$ has at least one periodic point. For $i=0,1$, we find a $q_i \in \mathrm{Per}(t_i)$ be a point of period $d_i$. If $d=\mathrm{lcm}(d_0,d_1)$, then both $t_0^d,t_1^d$ have fixed points and therefore $\mathrm{Per}(t_i^d)={\mathrm{Fix}}(t_i^d)$.
Using the division algorithm we write $k=k'd+r$ and $\ell=\ell'd+s$ with $0 \leqslant r,s
<d$ so that equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) becomes
$$\label{eq:family-of-equations}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} (t_1^d)^{k'}(t_0^d)^{\ell' }=t_1^{-r}t t_0^{-s}.$$
By considering all possibilities for $0 \leqslant r,s <d$, equation (\[eq:family-of-equations\]) can be regarded as a family of $d^2$ equations in $T$. Equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) is solvable if and only if at least one of the $d^2$ equations (\[eq:family-of-equations\]) is solvable.
Up to renaming $t_0^d$ with $t_0$, $t_1^d$ with $t_1$ and $t_1^{-r}t t_0^{-s}$ with $t$, we observe that each of the equations (\[eq:family-of-equations\]) has the same form of equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]), therefore we have reduced ourselves to study equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) with the extra assumption that both $t_0$ and $t_1$ have fixed points. We compute the full fixed point sets of $t_0$ and $t_1$. We now break the proof into two cases.
*Case 1: There is a point $p \in \partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(t_1)$ such that $p \not \in
{\mathrm{Fix}}(t_0)$.* Rewriting equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) and applying it to $p$, we get $$\label{eq:thesis-cases-rewrite}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} t_0^{-\ell}(p)= t^{-1}(p).$$ Since $p \not \in {\mathrm{Fix}}(t_0)$ and $t_0$ is orientation preserving, then there exists at most one number $\ell$ satisfying equation (\[eq:thesis-cases-rewrite\]) by Lemma \[thm:standard-folklore\].
*Case 2: There is a point $p \in \partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(t_1) \cap {\mathrm{Fix}}(t_0)$.* If $p
\not \in {\mathrm{Fix}}(t)$, by particularizing at $p$ we see that equation (\[eq:thesis-case\]) is not solvable for any pair $(k,\ell)$. Otherwise, $p \in {\mathrm{Fix}}(t)$ and we can cut the unit circle open at $p \in \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$ and regard $t_0,t_1,t$ as elements of ${\mathrm{PL}}_2([p,p+1])$. We can now finish the proof by applying Lemma \[thm:matucci5-special-case\].
*The proof of Lemma \[thm:thesis-case\] shows how to locate the pairs $(k,\ell)$. We need to find all periodic orbits and their periods and this can be effectively achieved by computing the Brin-Salazar revealing pairs of the tree pair diagrams of $T$, using the Brin-Salazar technology to compute neutral leaves and thus deducing the size of periodic orbits (see, for example, Section 4 in [@matucci8]).*
*We observe that the construction of the Mather invariant can be carried out even when $y$ and $z$ are elements of ${\mathrm{EP}}_2^>(p,+\infty)$ or of ${\mathrm{EP}}_2^>(-\infty,p)$ for any rational number $p$. All the results of the current subsection can still be recovered. For this reason, in the following we will refer to the Mather invariant regardless of the ambient set where it will be built.*
Orientation reversing case of the TCP\[sec:special-case\]
---------------------------------------------------------
We now study the orientation reversing case of TCP, that is, we want to solve the equation $$\label{eq:conj}\numberwithin{equation}{section}
z=g^{-1}yg,$$ where $y,z \in {\mathcal{R}\cdot {\mathrm{EP}}_2}\setminus \{{\mathrm{id}}\}$ and $g \in F$. The general idea that we will follow is to square the equation and attempt to solve $$z^2 = g^{-1} y^2 g$$ so that $y^2,z^2 \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and we can appeal to the results of the previous subsections.
Since $y,z$ are strictly decreasing and approach $\mp \infty$ when $t \to \pm \infty$ then both $y$ and $z$ have exactly one fixed point each. Moreover, all possible $g$’s fulfilling equation (\[eq:conj\]) must also satisfy $g({\mathrm{Fix}}(z))= {\mathrm{Fix}}(gzg^{-1})={\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$. By Proposition \[thm:rationals-coincide\](ii), one can algorithmically decide whether or not there is $g \in F$ mapping the point ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ to the point ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)$. If there is no such $g$, then equation (\[eq:conj\]) has no solution and we are done. Otherwise, compute such a $g\in F$ and, after replacing $z$ by $gzg^{-1}$, we can assume that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z)=\{
p\}$, for some $p\in \mathbb{Q}$.
We start with a special case and then move on to consider all orientation reversing maps.
\[thm:orientation-reversing-special\] Let $y,z \in \mathcal{R}\cdot {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ be such that $y^2=z^2={\mathrm{id}}$ and $y(p)=z(p)=p$, for some $p\in \mathbb{Q}$. Then $y$ and $z$ are conjugate by an element of $F$ if and only if there exists $u\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $y^{-1}z(t)=t+u$ for $t$ positive sufficiently large.
The forward direction follows from a straightforward check of the behavior of $y$ and $z$ at neighborhoods of $\pm \infty$. For the converse, define the following map $$g(t):=
\begin{cases}
t & \; \mbox{if} \; \; \; \; \; t \in (-\infty,p] \\ y^{-1}z(t) & \; \mbox{if} \; \; \; \; \; t \in [p,+\infty).
\end{cases}$$ If $t\leqslant p$, then $$g(t)=t=y^{-2}z^2(t)=y^{-1}(y^{-1}z)z(t)=y^{-1}gz(t)$$ since $y^2=z^2={\mathrm{id}}$ and $z(t)\geqslant p$. On the other hand, if $t\geqslant p$, then $$g(t)=y^{-1}z(t)= y^{-1}gz(t)$$ since $z(t) \leqslant p$. So $y$ and $z$ are conjugate to each other by the element $g\in
{\mathrm{EP}}_2$. The final step is to observe that $g$ is, in fact, in $F$ because $g(t)=t$, for $t$ negative sufficiently large, and $g(t)=t+u$ by construction, for $t$ positive sufficiently large.
We quickly recall and extend an argument from [@matucci5] to reduce the number of candidate conjugators to test. The trick is to reduce the number of initial slopes that we need to test.
\[thm:solving-reverse-squared\] Let ${\overline{y}}, {\overline{z}} \in {\mathcal{R}\cdot {\mathrm{EP}}_2}^<(p,+\infty)$ and $g \in F(p,+\infty)$ and consider the equation $$\label{eq:standard-conjugacy-equation}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} {\overline{z}} = x^{-1} {\overline{y}} x.$$ Then $x=g$ is a solution of (\[eq:standard-conjugacy-equation\]) if and only if there exists an integer $n$ such that $x={\overline{y}}^{2n}g \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2(p,+\infty)$ is the unique solution of equation (\[eq:standard-conjugacy-equation\]) such that $({\overline{y}}^{2n}g)'(p^+)
\in [(y^2)'(p^+),1]$.
This follows immediately by noticing that equation (\[eq:standard-conjugacy-equation\]) is equivalent to $${\overline{z}} = ({\overline{y}}^{2n}x)^{-1}{\overline{y}} ({\overline{y}}^{2n} x).$$ To show uniqueness, we observe that in Subsection \[sec:restatement-TCP\] we noticed that a solution of equation (\[eq:standard-conjugacy-equation\]) is also a solution of the squared equation $$\label{eq:squared-conjugacy-equation-first}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} {\overline{z}}^2 = g^{-1} {\overline{y}}^2 g.$$ Uniqueness follows from Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\] applied to the squared equation (\[eq:squared-conjugacy-equation-first\]).
\[thm:orientation-reversing-general\] Let $y,z \in \mathcal{R}\cdot {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ be such that $y(p)=z(p)=p$, for some $p\in \mathbb{Q}$. We can decide whether or not $y$ and $z$ are conjugate by an element of $F$. If there exists a conjugator, we can construct one.
If $y^2=z^2={\mathrm{id}}$, then we are done by Proposition \[thm:orientation-reversing-special\]. Moreover, if $y$ and $z$ are conjugate via an element of $F$, it is immediate that $y^{-1}z(t)=t+u$, for some integer $u$ and for any $t$ positive sufficiently large (as observed in the proof of Proposition \[thm:orientation-reversing-special\]). Thus we can assume that $y^{-1}z$ is a translation, for $t$ positive sufficiently large.
Assume now $y^2\ne {\mathrm{id}}\ne z^2$. We can appeal to Proposition \[thm:identify-fixed-points\] and assume that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z^2)$, up to suitable conjugation. Moreover, if there exists a conjugator between $y$ and $z$, then it must fix ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z)=\{p\}$ and so $\{p\} \subseteq {\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z^2) \subseteq {\mathrm{Fix}}(g)$.
Let $L<R$ be two suitable integers so that $y^2$ and $z^2$ coincide and are periodic on the set $(-\infty,L] \cup [R,+\infty)$. If either $L$ or $R$ does not exist, then $y$ and $z$ cannot be conjugate. We can apply the techniques from [@matucci5] on any two consecutive dyadic rational points $p_1,p_2$ of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2) \cap [L,R]$ where $y^2|_{[p_1,p_2]} \ne {\mathrm{id}}|_{[p_1,p_2]}$ and $z^2|_{[p_1,p_2]} \ne {\mathrm{id}}|_{[p_1,p_2]}$ and find (if they exist) all the finitely conjugators between $y^2|_{[p_1,p_2]}$ and $z^2|_{[p_1,p_2]}$ with initial slopes within $(y^2)'(p^+)$ and $(y^{-2})'(p^+)$. Similarly we can do on $[a,+\infty)$ where $a$ is the rightmost dyadic rational point of $\partial
{\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2) \cap [L,R]$ by applying Lemma \[thm:solving-reverse-squared\] in the case that $y^2$ and $z^2$ have no fixed points on $[R,+\infty)$ (to reduce the number of initial slopes on which we can apply Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\]) or using the argument at the end of Subsection \[ssec:reducing-to-squares\] in case $y^2$ and $z^2$ have fixed points on $[R,+\infty)$.
Thus in all cases, up to using the same trick of Lemma \[thm:solving-reverse-squared\] to reduce the slopes to test, we apply Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\] (or its bounded version from [@matucci5]) to build finitely many functions between any two consecutive dyadic rational points $p_1,p_2$ of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2)$ (respectively, on an interval of the type $[p_1,+\infty)$) and such that $y^2 \ne {\mathrm{id}}$ on $[p_1,p_2]$ (respectively, on an interval of the type $[p_1,+\infty)$).
We now test all these functions as conjugators between $y$ and $z$ in the respective intervals. If there is an interval such that none of these functions conjugates $y$ and $z$, then $y$ and $z$ cannot be conjugate via an element of $F$. Otherwise, on each such interval $U_s$ we fix a conjugator $g_s$ between $y$ and $z$.
Now we will carefully glue all these conjugators with the function that we have built in Proposition \[thm:orientation-reversing-special\]. Assume that $(p,+\infty) \setminus
{\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2)$ is a disjoint union of ordered intervals $I_i=(a_i,b_i)$ so that $a_i < a_j$, if $i<j$. Similarly, assume that $(-\infty,p) \setminus {\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2)$ is a disjoint union of ordered intervals $J_i=(d_i,c_i)$ such that $c_i>c_j$, if $i<j$. $$g(t):=
\begin{cases}
t & \; \mbox{if} \; \; \; \; \; t=p \text{ or } t \in {\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2) \cap (-\infty,p) \\
y^{-1}z(t) & \; \mbox{if} \; \; \; \; \; t \in {\mathrm{Fix}}(y^2) \cap (p,+\infty) \\
g_s(t) & \; \mbox{if} \; \; \; \; \; t \in U_s
\end{cases}$$ Since $y$ acts on ${\mathbb{R}}$ in an order reversing way, it is immediate to verify that $y(a_i)=c_i=z(a_i)$, $y(c_i)=a_i=y(c_i)$, $y(b_i)=d_i=z(b_i)$ and $y(d_i)=b_i=z(d_i)$ and therefore the map $g$ is in $F$. It is straightforward to observe that this map is continuous and in $F$ and that it is a conjugator, by construction. For example, since $z([c_{i+1},d_i])=[b_i,a_{i+1}]$ and $y^2=z^2={\mathrm{id}}$ on $[c_{i+1},d_i]$ then it is clear that $$g(t)=t=y^{-2}z^2(t)=y^{-1}(y^{-1}z)z(t)=y^{-1}gz(t)$$ for any $t \in [c_{i+1},d_i]$.
Solution of the TCP\[ssec:solution-TCP\]
----------------------------------------
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:TCP-solvable\].
**Theorem \[thm:TCP-solvable\].** *Thompson’s group $F$ has solvable twisted conjugacy problem.*
Given $y,z \in F$ and $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$, we need to establish whether or not there is a $g \in F$ such that $$\label{eq:recall-TCP}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} z = g^{-1} y \varphi(g).$$ In Subsection \[sec:restatement-TCP\] we have shown that equation (\[eq:recall-TCP\]) is equivalent to the equation $$\label{eq:original-conjugacy-equation}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} {\overline{z}} = g^{-1} {\overline{y}} g,$$ for ${\overline{y}},{\overline{z}} \in {\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$ and $g \in F$. We describe a procedure to wrap up all work of the previous subsections:
1. If one of ${\overline{y}}$ and ${\overline{z}}$ belongs to ${\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and the other in ${\mathcal{R}\cdot {\mathrm{EP}}_2}$, then equation (\[eq:original-conjugacy-equation\]) has no solution for $g\in F$, since conjugation does not change the orientation of a function.
2. If both ${\overline{y}},{\overline{z}} \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$, then we apply the results of Subsections \[ssec:periodicity-boxes\] through \[sec:rescaling-the-circle\] to solve equation (\[eq:original-conjugacy-equation\]).
3. If ${\overline{y}},{\overline{z}} \in {\mathcal{R}\cdot {\mathrm{EP}}_2}$, then we apply Theorem \[thm:orientation-reversing-general\] to solve equation (\[eq:original-conjugacy-equation\]).
This ends the proof of Theorem \[thm:TCP-solvable\].
Extensions of $F$ with unsolvable conjugacy problem \[sec:CP-extensions\]
=========================================================================
In this section we recall the necessary tools from [@bomave2] in order to construct extensions of Thompson’s group $F$ with unsolvable conjugacy problem (proving Theorem \[thm:CP-extension-unsolvable\]).
As explained in the introduction, Bogopolski, Martino and Ventura give a criterion to study the conjugacy problem in extensions of groups (see Theorem \[thm:bomave-extensions\]). Applying it to the case we are interested in, let $F$ be Thompson’s group, let $H$ be any torsion-free hyperbolic group (for example, a finitely generated free group), and consider an algorithmic short exact sequence $$\label{eq:exact-sequence}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} 1 \longrightarrow F \overset{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} G
\overset{\beta}{\longrightarrow} H \longrightarrow 1.$$ We can then consider the *action subgroup* of the sequence, $A_G =\{\varphi_g \mid g
\in G\} \leqslant {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$, and Theorem \[coro\] tells us that $G$ has solvable conjugacy problem if and only if $A_G\leqslant {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ is orbit decidable. In the present section we will find orbit undecidable subgroups of ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and so, extensions of Thompson’s group $F$ with unsolvable conjugacy problem.
A good source of orbit undecidable subgroups in ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ comes from the presence of $F_2\times F_2$ via Theorem 7.4 from [@bomave2]:
\[thm:bomave-unsolvable\] Let $F$ be a finitely generated group such that $F_2 \times F_2$ embeds in ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ in such a way that the image $B$ intersects trivially with $\mathrm{Stab}^*(v)$ for some $v \in F$, where $$\mathrm{Stab}^*(v)=\{ \theta \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F) \mid \theta(v) \text{ is conjugate to } v \text{ in } F\}.$$ Then ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ contains an orbit undecidable subgroup.
Let us first find a copy of $F_2\times F_2$ inside ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and then deal with the technical condition about avoiding the stabilizer.
We can define two maps $\varphi_{-\infty},\, \varphi_{\infty} \colon {\mathrm{EP}}_2 \to
T={\mathrm{PL}}_2(S^1)$ in the following way: given $f\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ we find a negative sufficiently large integer $L$ so that $f$ is periodic in $(-\infty,\, L]$; then we pass $f|_{(L-1,\,
L]}$ to the quotient modulo $\mathbb{Z}$ to obtain an element from $T$ defined to be the image of $f$ by $\varphi_{-\infty}$. The map $\varphi_{+\infty}$ is defined similarly but looking at a neighborhood of $+\infty$.
The maps $\varphi_{-\infty}$ and $\varphi_{+\infty}$ are clearly well-defined homomorphisms from ${\mathrm{EP}}_2$ to $T$. Note also that, for $f_1, f_2\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and $k\in \mathbb{Z}$, if $f_1$ and $f_2+k$ agree for $t$ negative (resp. positive) sufficiently large, then $\varphi_{-\infty}(f_1)=\varphi_{-\infty}(f_2)$ (resp. $\varphi_{+\infty}(f_1)=\varphi_{+\infty}(f_2)$).
We begin by showing that both $\varphi_{-\infty}$ and $\varphi_{+\infty}$ are surjective.
\[thm:embed-F\_2\] For every $a\in T$ and every dyadic rational $p$, there exist preimages of $a$ by $\varphi_{-\infty}$ and $\varphi_{+\infty}$, respectively inside ${\mathrm{EP}}_2(-\infty,p) \leqslant {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ and ${\mathrm{EP}}_2(p,+\infty) \leqslant {\mathrm{EP}}_2$.
We show the result for the case ${\mathrm{EP}}_2(p,+\infty)$ (the other case is completely analogous). Let $a\in T$ and choose ${\widetilde{a}}\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ to be any standard periodic lift of $a$ conveniently translated up so that $p<{\widetilde{a}}(p+1)$. By Proposition \[thm:rationals-coincide\], we can construct $g\in F$ such that $g(p)=p$ and $g(p+1)={\widetilde{a}}(p+1)$. Finally, consider $${\widehat{a}}(t)= \begin{cases} t & t\leqslant p \\ g(t) & p\leqslant t\leqslant p+1 \\ {\widetilde{a}}(t) &
p+1\leqslant t,
\end{cases}$$ which is clearly an element of ${\mathrm{EP}}_2(p,+\infty)$ such that $\varphi_{+\infty}({\widehat{a}})
=\varphi_{+\infty}({\widetilde{a}})=a$.
The following Corollary is the key observation of the current subsection.
\[thm:F\_2 x F\_2 in EP\_2\] The automorphism group of Thompson’s group $F={\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$ contains a copy of the direct product of two free groups, $F_2 \times F_2
\leqslant {\mathrm{EP}}_2 \leqslant {\mathrm{Aut}}^+(F)$.
It is well known that Thompson’s group $T={\mathrm{PL}}_2(S^1)$ contains a copy of $F_2$, the free group on two generators, say generated by $a,b\in T$. Apply Lemma \[thm:embed-F\_2\] to obtain preimages of $a$ and $b$ by $\varphi_{-\infty}$, say ${\widehat{a}}_-, {\widehat{b}}_- \in
{\mathrm{EP}}_2(-\infty ,0)$, and preimages of $a$ and $b$ by $\varphi_{+\infty}$, say ${\widehat{a}}_+,
{\widehat{b}}_+ \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2(0, +\infty)$. Since $\varphi_{-\infty}$ and $\varphi_{+\infty}$ are homomorphisms, we have again $\langle {\widehat{a}}_-, {\widehat{b}}_-\rangle \simeq F_2 \simeq \langle
{\widehat{a}}_+, {\widehat{b}}_+\rangle$. And, on the other hand, by disjointness of supports, they commute to each other and so $F_2 \times F_2 \simeq \langle {\widehat{a}}_-, {\widehat{b}}_-, {\widehat{a}}_+,
{\widehat{b}}_+\rangle \leqslant {\mathrm{EP}}_2 \simeq {\mathrm{Aut}}^+(F)$.
We are finally ready to prove Theorem \[thm:CP-extension-unsolvable\].
**Theorem \[thm:CP-extension-unsolvable\].** *There are extensions of Thompson’s group $F$ by finitely generated free groups, with unsolvable conjugacy problem.*
We need to redo the proof of Corollary \[thm:F\_2 x F\_2 in EP\_2\] in an algorithmic fashion and choosing our copy of $F_2\times F_2$ inside ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+(F)$ carefully enough so that it satisfies the technical condition in Theorem \[thm:bomave-unsolvable\].
Let $\Theta$ be the map obtained by repeating periodically the map $\theta$ defined in Subsection \[sec:thompson and autos\] inside each square $[k,k+1]^2$, for any integer $k$. Let $\alpha(t):= \Theta^2(t) \pmod{1} \in T$ and $\beta(t):=\Theta^2(t)+\frac{1}{2} \pmod{1} \in T$. By using the ping-pong lemma it is straightforward to verify that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ generate a copy of $F_2$ inside $T$. Now take $a=\alpha^2$, $b=\beta^2$, $c=\alpha \beta \alpha^{-1}$ and $d=\beta \alpha \beta^{-1}$, which generate a copy of the free group of rank four, $F_4 \simeq \langle a,b,c,d\rangle \leqslant T$.
Using Lemma \[thm:embed-F\_2\], we can find preimages of $a,b\in T$ by $\varphi_{-\infty}$, denoted by ${\widehat{a}},\, {\widehat{b}}\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2(-\infty,\, 0) \leqslant {\mathrm{EP}}_2$, and preimages of $c,d\in T$ by $\varphi_{+\infty}$, denoted by ${\widehat{c}},\, {\widehat{d}} \in
{\mathrm{EP}}_2(0,\, +\infty) \leqslant {\mathrm{EP}}_2$. Since $\langle a,b\rangle \cong F_2 \cong \langle
c,d\rangle$ and $\varphi_{-\infty}$ and $\varphi_{+\infty}$ are both group homomorphisms, we get $\langle {\widehat{a}},{\widehat{b}}\rangle \cong F_2 \cong \langle {\widehat{c}},{\widehat{d}}\rangle$. Moreover, the disjointness of supports gives us that $F_2\times F_2 \cong \langle
{\widehat{a}},{\widehat{b}},{\widehat{c}}, {\widehat{d}}\rangle \leqslant {\mathrm{EP}}_2$; this is the copy $B$ of $F_2\times
F_2$ inside ${\mathrm{EP}}_2$ (though as positive automorphisms of $F$ via Brin’s Theorem) ready to apply Theorem \[thm:bomave-unsolvable\]. Additionally, note that, by construction, $\varphi_{-\infty}({\widehat{a}})=a$, $\varphi_{-\infty}({\widehat{b}})=b$, $\varphi_{+\infty}({\widehat{c}})=c$ and $\varphi_{+\infty}({\widehat{d}})=d$ but, at the same time, $\varphi_{+\infty}({\widehat{a}})=\varphi_{+\infty}({\widehat{b}})=
\varphi_{-\infty}({\widehat{c}})=\varphi_{-\infty}({\widehat{d}})=1_T$.
Let now $v\in F$ be the map $v(t)=t+1$, for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$. We will show that $B\cap \mathrm{Stab}^*(v)=\{ {\mathrm{id}}\}$. Let $\tau \in B \cap \mathrm{Stab}^*(v)$. On one hand, $\tau \in B$ and so $\tau(0)=0$ and $\tau = w_1({\widehat{a}},{\widehat{b}})w_2({\widehat{c}},{\widehat{d}})$ for some unique reduced words $w_1({\widehat{a}},{\widehat{b}}) \in \langle {\widehat{a}},{\widehat{b}} \rangle$ and $w_2({\widehat{c}},{\widehat{d}}) \in \langle {\widehat{c}},{\widehat{d}} \rangle$. On the other hand, $\tau \in
\mathrm{Stab}^*(v)$ and so $\tau^{-1} v\tau = g^{-1}v g$ for some $g\in F$, which implies that $\tau g^{-1}$ commutes with $v$ in ${\mathrm{EP}}_2$. By definition of $v$, the map $\tau
g^{-1}$ is periodic of period 1 on the entire real line, thus $\varphi_{-\infty}(\tau
g^{-1})=\varphi_{+\infty}(\tau g^{-1})$ in $T$. On the other hand, since $g\in F$, there exist integers $m_-$ and $m_+$ such that, for negative sufficiently large $t$, $\tau
g^{-1}(t)=\tau(t-m_-)=\tau(t)-m_-$, and for positive sufficiently large $t$, $\tau
g^{-1}(t)=\tau(t-m_+)=\tau(t)-m_+$. Modding out these two equations by $\mathbb{Z}$ around $\pm \infty$, we get $$\varphi_{-\infty}(\tau g^{-1})=\varphi_{-\infty}(\tau )=\varphi_{-\infty} (w_1({\widehat{a}},{\widehat{b}})
w_2({\widehat{c}},{\widehat{d}}))=$$ $$=\varphi_{-\infty} (w_1({\widehat{a}},{\widehat{b}})) \varphi_{-\infty}(w_2({\widehat{c}},{\widehat{d}}))=w_1(a,b);$$ similarly, $\varphi_{+\infty}(\tau g^{-1})=w_2(c,d)$. Hence, $$w_1(a,b)=\varphi_{-\infty}(\tau g^{-1})=\varphi_{+\infty}(\tau g^{-1})=w_2(c,d),$$ an equation holding in $\langle a,b,c,d\rangle \leqslant T$. Since this is a free group on $\{ a,b,c,d\}$, we deduce that $w_1(a,b)$ and $w_2(c,d)$ are the trivial words and therefore $\tau ={\mathrm{id}}$.
Having shown that $B\cap \mathrm{Stab}^*(v)=\{{\mathrm{id}}\}$, an application of Theorem \[thm:bomave-unsolvable\] gives us orbit undecidable subgroups of ${\mathrm{Aut}}^+(F)$, and Theorem \[coro\] concludes the proof.
*The element $v$ chosen in the previous proof is actually $x_0$, the first generator of the standard finite presentation defined in Subsection \[sec:thompson and autos\].*
The orbit decidability problem for $F$ \[sec:ODP-solvable\]
===========================================================
In this section we study the orbit decidability problem for ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(F)$. We study two different cases and use techniques which are “dual” to those of Section \[sec:twisted-problem\]. As a consequence, provided that one knows the solvability of a certain decision problem, we can build nontrivial extensions of $F$ with solvable conjugacy problem.
By using Theorem \[thm:brin-thm\] and following computations similar to those in Subsection \[sec:restatement-TCP\], the orbit decidability problem for ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ can be restated as the following one: given $y,z \in F$ decide whether or not there exists a $g
\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ such that either
1. $g^{-1}yg=z$, or
2. $g^{-1}(\mathcal{R}y\mathcal{R})g=z$.
Notice that the first equation corresponds to orbit decidability for ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(F)$. Up to renaming $\mathcal{R}y\mathcal{R}$ by $y$, both (i) and (ii) can be regarded as an instance of (i).
Orbit decidability problem: fixed points\[ssec:ODP-fixed-points\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is immediate to adapt Lemma \[thm:identical-at-infinity\] to this setting, noticing that if $y \sim_{{\mathrm{EP}}_2} z$ then $y$ and $z$ coincide around $\pm \infty$.
*\[thm:remark-fixed-points-coincide\] Since $y,z \in F$ have only finitely many intervals of fixed points, we can use the results of Subsection \[ssec:fixed-points\] and assume that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$, up to conjugating by a $g \in F$. It can be shown that if there is no $g \in F$ such that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=g({\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$, then there is no $h \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ such that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)=h({\mathrm{Fix}}(z))$.*
\[thm:ODP-with-fixed-points\] Let $y,z \in F$ such that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(y)={\mathrm{Fix}}(z) \ne
\emptyset$. It is decidable to determine whether or not there is a $g \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ such that $g^{-1}yg=z$.
If $g \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ conjugates $y$ to $z$, then it must fix ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ point wise. For any two consecutive points $p_1,p_2$ of $\partial {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$ we can use the techniques in [@matucci5] to decide whether or not there is a $h_{p_1,p_2} \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2([p_1,p_2])$ conjugating $y|_{[p_1,p_2]}$ to $z|_{[p_1,p_2]}$.
Let $R=\max {\mathrm{Fix}}(z)$. If $R=+\infty$, then there exists a rational number $p$ such that $y=z={\mathrm{id}}$ on $[p,+\infty)$ and so we can choose $g \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2(R,+\infty)$ to be $g={\mathrm{id}}$ to conjugate $y$ to $z$. Assume now that $R<+\infty$.
By using the same idea seen in Subsection \[ssec:solution-TCP\] and rewriting the equation $z=g^{-1}yg=(y^n g)^{-1} y (y^n g)$ we restrict to looking for candidate conjugators with slopes at $R^+$ inside $[y'(R^+),1]$. For any power $2^\alpha$ within $[y'(R^+),1]$, we apply Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\](ii) to build the unique conjugator $g \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2(R,+\infty)$ such that $g'(R^+) = 2^\alpha$. We find a finite number of conjugators $g_1,\ldots,g_s \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2(R,+\infty)$. Notice: by Theorem \[thm:explicit-conjugator\](ii) every $g_i$ conjugates $y$ to $z$, but it may not be true that $g_i \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2(R,+\infty)$.
There exists a positive sufficiently large number $M$ such that, for any $t \geqslant M$, we have $y(t)=t+k=z(t)$ and that for any $i=1,\ldots,s$ and any $t \geqslant M$, we have: $$g_i(t)+k=yg_i(t)=g_iz(t)=g_i(t+k),$$ so that every $g_i$ is periodic of period $k$ on $[M,+\infty)$. To finish the proof, we only need to check if any of the $g_i$’s is in ${\mathrm{EP}}_2(R,+\infty)$. To do so, we check if $g_i(t+1)=g_i(t)+1$ on the interval $[M,M+k]$. If any of them is indeed periodic of period $1$, then we have found a valid conjugator, otherwise $y$ and $z$ are not conjugate.
\[ssec:ODP-Mather\]Orbit decidability problem: Mather invariants
------------------------------------------------------------------
We assume that $y,z \in F^>$ and that there exist two integers $L < R$ such that $y(t)=z(t)=t+a$ for $t \leqslant L$ and $y(t)=z(t)=t+b$ for $t \geqslant R$, for suitable integers $a,b \geqslant 1$. Up to conjugation by a suitable $g \in F$, we can assume that $L=0$ and $R=1$. Define the two circles $$C_0:= (-\infty,0)/a\mathbb{Z} \qquad C_1:= (1,\infty)/b\mathbb{Z}$$ and let $p_0:(-\infty,0) \to C_0$ and $p_1:(1,\infty) \to C_1$ be the natural projections. As was done before, let $N$ be a positive integer large enough so that $y^N(-a,0) \subseteq
(1,+\infty)$ and define the map $y^\infty:C_0 \to C_1$ by $$y^{\infty}([t]):=[{\overline{y}}^{N}(t)].$$ Similarly we define $z^{\infty}$ and call them the *Mather invariants* for $y$ and $z$. Arguing as in Subsection \[sec:rescaling-the-circle\] we see that, if $g^{-1}yg = z$ for $g \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$, then $$\label{eq:ODP-mather}
\numberwithin{equation}{section} v_1 z^{\infty}=y^{\infty} v_0$$ where $v_i$ is an element of Thompson’s group $T_{C_i}$ induced by $g$ on $C_i$, for $i=0,1$, and such that $v_i(t+1)=v_i(t)+1$.
Recall that a group $G$ has solvable *$k$-simultaneous conjugacy problem* ($k$-CP) if, for any two $k$-tuples $(y_1, \ldots, y_k)$, $(z_1, \ldots, z_k)$ of elements of $G$, it is decidable to say whether or not there is a $g\in G$ so that $g^{-1} y_i g=z_i$, for all $i=1,\ldots, k$. Kassabov and the second author [@matucci5] show that Thompson’s group $F$ has solvable $k$-CP.
\[conj-T\] Thompson’s group $T$ has solvable $k$-CP.
This conjecture is believed to be true, and partial results have been obtained by Bleak, Kassabov and the second author in Chapter 7 of the second author’s thesis [@matuccithesis]; it is work in progress to complete this investigation.
\[thm:ODP-without-fixed\] Let $y,z \in F^>$. If the $2$-simultaneous conjugacy problem is solvable in Thompson’s group $T$, then it is decidable to determine whether or not there is a $g \in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$ such that $g^{-1}yg=z$.
A straightforward extension of Theorem 4.1 in [@matucci3] yields that $y \sim_{{\mathrm{EP}}_2}
z$ if and only if there exists $v_i \in T_{C_i}$ such that $v_i(t+1)=v_i(t)+1$, for $i=0,1$ and they satisfy equation (\[eq:ODP-mather\]). Since $v_0$ needs to be equal to $y^{-\infty}v_1 z^{\infty}$, our problem is reduced to deciding whether or not there is $v_1 \in T_{C_1}$ solving these equations: $$\label{eq:ODP-equations-1}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{array}{cc}
v_1(t+1)=v_1(t)+1, & \forall t \in C_1 \\
y^{-\infty}v_1 z^{\infty}(t+1)=y^{-\infty}v_1 z^{\infty}(t)+1, & \forall t \in C_0.
\end{array}$$ Recalling that $C_0$ is a circle of length $a$ and $C_1$ is a circle of length $b$, we define $s_i:C_i \to C_i$ to be the rotation by $1$ in $C_i$, for $i=0,1$. The problem now becomes this: we need to decide whether or not there exists a map $v_1 \in T_{C_1}$ such that $$\label{eq:ODP-equations-2}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{array}{c}
v_1s_1=s_1v_1 \\
y^{-\infty} v_1 z^{\infty}s_0= s_0y^{-\infty}v_1 z^\infty.
\end{array}$$ If we relabel $y^\infty s_0y^{-\infty}:=y^\ast$ and $z^{\infty}s_0 z^{-\infty}:=z^\ast$, equations (\[eq:ODP-equations-2\]) become $$\label{eq:simultaenous-equation}
\begin{array}{c}
v_1^{-1}s_1v_1 = s_1 \\
v_1^{-1}y^\ast v_1 =z^\ast.
\end{array}$$ Equations (\[eq:simultaenous-equation\]) are an instance of $2$-CP which is solvable by assumption.
Non-trivial extensions of $F$ with solvable conjugacy problem
-------------------------------------------------------------
\[thm:ODP-solvable\] If Conjecture \[conj-T\] is true for $k=2$, then ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(F)$ are orbit decidable (as subgroups of ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$). In particular, assuming that such conjecture is true, every group $G$ in an algorithmic short exact sequence $$1 \longrightarrow F \overset{\alpha}{\longrightarrow} G \overset{\beta}{\longrightarrow} H \longrightarrow 1,$$ where $F={\mathrm{PL}}_2(I)$, $H$ is a torsion-free hyperbolic group, and the action subgroup $A_G$ is either ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ or ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(F)$, has solvable conjugacy problem.
An application of Remark \[thm:remark-fixed-points-coincide\] and Lemmas \[thm:ODP-with-fixed-points\] and \[thm:ODP-without-fixed\] implies the solvability of orbit decidability for the groups ${\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(F)$. We verify the requirements of Theorem \[thm:bomave-extensions\]. By Theorem \[thm:TCP-solvable\], condition (1) is satisfied. It is well known (see, for example, Proposition 4.11(b) [@bomave2]) that if $H$ is a free group or a torsion-free hyperbolic group, conditions (2) and (3) from Theorem \[thm:bomave-extensions\] are satisfied. By Theorem \[thm:ODP-solvable\] we know that the action subgroup is orbit decidable, then Theorem \[thm:bomave-extensions\] implies that $G$ has solvable conjugacy problem.
\[ssec:R-infty\] Property $R_\infty$ in Thompson groups $F$ and $T$
=====================================================================
In this section we show that Thompson groups $F$ and $T$ both have property $R_\infty$. We recall the definition of property $R_\infty$, for the reader’s convenience.
*A group $G$ has property $R_\infty$ if for any $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(G)$, there exists a sequence $\{z_i\}_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ of pairwise distinct elements which are pairwise not $\varphi$-twisted conjugate. See also Section \[sec:intro\].*
We know that an automorphism $\varphi$ of $F$ is obtained by conjugation in $F$ by an element $\tau\in{\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$. Moreover, we have seen in Subsection \[sec:restatement-TCP\] that two elements $y,z\in F$ are $\varphi$-twisted conjugate if and only if the two elements $y\tau$ and $z\tau$ (now elements of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$) are conjugate by an element of $F$. Therefore, to prove that $F$ has property $R_\infty$ it is enough to show that, given $\tau\in{\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_2$, there exists a family of elements $z_i\in F$, for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n,\ldots$ such that they are pairwise not $\varphi$-twisted conjugate, i.e., $z_i\tau$ and $z_j\tau$ are not conjugate by an element of $F$.
Assume first that $\tau\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$. If two elements are conjugate by an element of $F$ then their fixed point sets match each other. So to prove that $z_i\tau$ and $z_j\tau$ are not conjugate, it would be enough to construct the $z_i \in F$ in such a way that $z_i\tau$ has, say, a fixed point set with $i$ connected components so that the fixed point sets for all the $z_i\tau$ would be different and the elements cannot be conjugate.
We observe that the fixed point set of $z_i\tau$ contains exactly the points $t\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $z_i(t)=\tau^{-1}(t)$. Thus, it is enough to construct a map $z_i\in F$ such that it has exactly $i$ disjoint intervals where $z_i(t)=\tau^{-1}(t)$, thus producing $i$ connected components for ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z_i\tau)$. A reader familiar with $F$ should be able to construct easily such family $z_i$.
The proof above does not work if $\tau$ is orientation reversing. But it can be modified to solve this case too. Assume now that $\tau=\sigma\mathcal{R}$ with $\sigma\in {\mathrm{EP}}_2$. Construct the elements $z_i\in F$ similarly to the orientation preserving case using $\sigma$, but in such a way that the fixed point set for $z_i\sigma$ is symmetric with respect to the origin. More precisely, we can ensure that ${\mathrm{Fix}}(z_i\sigma)$ has $2i+1$ connected components given by $\{0\}$, $i$ connected components inside ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ and the opposite of these components in ${\mathbb{R}}_-$. Moreover, we can ensure that $z_i \sigma > 0$ if and only if $t>0$. Observe that by this symmetry, the map $\mathcal{R}z_i\sigma\mathcal{R}$ has the exact same fixed points as $z_i\sigma$ and so ${\mathrm{Fix}}((z_i\sigma\mathcal{R})^2)={\mathrm{Fix}}((z_i\sigma)^2)$.
Using this family $z_i$, we see that if $z_i\tau$ and $z_j\tau$ were conjugate via an element of $F$, then $(z_i\sigma\mathcal{R})^2$ and $(z_j\sigma\mathcal{R})^2$ would also be, and these have a different number of connected components in their fixed-point sets, by construction, yielding a contradiction.
The argument above shows that we can recover property $R_\infty$ for $F$, giving a new proof of the following result.
\[thm:R-infty-F\] Thompson’s group $F$ has property $R_\infty$.
*We notice that very recently Koban and Wong [@kowon] have shown that the group $F \rtimes \mathbb{Z}_2$ has property $R_\infty$.*
Since we have a characterization for ${\mathrm{Aut}}(T)$ also in terms of conjugation by piecewise-linear maps, the method described above to prove property $R_\infty$ for $F$ can be used for $T$ as well.
**Theorem \[thm:R-infty-T\].** *Thompson’s group $T$ has property $R_\infty$.*
By Theorem 1 in [@brin5], the group ${\mathrm{Aut}}(T)$ can be realized by inner automorphisms and by conjugations by $\mathcal{R}$, the map which reverses the orientation. The process will consist on constructing maps with different fixed-point sets. Consider a piecewise-linear map on $[0,1]$ whose only fixed points are 0, $\frac{1}{2}$ and 1, and also such that the graph is symmetric respect to the point $[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$. Identify the endpoints to obtain a map on $S^1$ and hence an element of $T$. Call this map $h_1$ and consider its lift $\widetilde{h}_1 \in {\mathrm{PL}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$. From the way we have constructed $h_1$, we see that $\widetilde{h}_1$ is symmetric respect $[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$ inside the square $[0,1]^2$, and so $\widetilde{h}_1$ is invariant under $\mathcal{R}$, i.e., $\mathcal{R}\widetilde{h}_1\mathcal{R}=\widetilde{h}_1$ inside ${\mathrm{PL}}_2({\mathbb{R}})$. Therefore $\mathcal{R}h_1 \mathcal{R} = h_1$ in $T$.
Now define inductively the map $h_i$ by subdividing the interval $[0,1]$ in its two halves and in each half define a scaled-down version of $\widetilde{h}_{i-1}$, by a factor of 2. Observe that if $i\neq j$, then $h_i$ and $h_j$ have different number of fixed points. For a fixed $\varepsilon \in \{0,1\}$, if $h_i\mathcal{R}^{\varepsilon}$ and $h_j\mathcal{R}^{\varepsilon}$ were conjugate in $T$, then $(h_i\mathcal{R}^{\varepsilon})^2$ and $(h_j\mathcal{R}^{\varepsilon})^2$ are also conjugate in $T$. We notice that $(h_i\mathcal{R})^2=h_i^2$ and that $h_i^2$ and $h_j^2$ have different number of fixed points, so they cannot be conjugate.
Generalizations and some questions \[sec:generaltions-of-results\]
==================================================================
In this section we make a series of observations about the extent to which the material of this paper generalizes and describe some natural related questions.
Extensions of the Bieri-Thompson-Stein-Strebel groups ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems likely that the theory developed in this paper can be generalized to a certain extent to the Bieri-Thompson-Stein-Strebel groups ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I)$, with the computational requirements described in [@matucci5].
We recall that ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I)$ is the group of piecewise-linear homeomorphisms of the unit interval $I$ with finitely many breakpoints occurring inside $S \leqslant \mathbb{R}$, an additive subgroup of $\mathbb{R}$ containing $1$, and such that the breakpoints lie in $G
\leqslant U(S)$, where $U(S)=\{g \in \mathbb{R}^* \mid gS=S \text{ and } g>0 \}$.
Since our results rely on straightforward generalizations of those in [@matucci5] and [@matucci3], to generalize our algorithms to the groups ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I)$ we need to observe a number of things:
1. We define the analogues ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(\mathbb{R}),{\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_{S,G}, {\mathrm{EP}}_{S,G}$ and observe that the existence of periodicity boxes, the construction of conjugators and moving fixed points (Subsections \[ssec:periodicity-boxes\], \[ssec:periodicity-boxes\] and \[ssec:fixed-points\]) generalize immediately via the results in [@matucci5] (which are proved in ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I)$).
2. To reduce the number of possible “initial slopes” we need to generalize Subsection \[sec:rescaling-the-circle\]. We can do this since the material in [@matucci3] can be generalized to ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I)$. The second observation that is needed to reduce slopes is the one used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:TCP-solvable\], where we multiply a candidate conjugator $g$ by a power of $y^2$. This shows that we need to build candidate conjugators only for slopes in $[(y^2)'(p^+),1]$ and, by Lemma 5.4 in [@matucci5], we can show that the sets of slopes is discrete in $\mathbb{R}_+$, thereby giving us only finitely many slopes inside $[(y^2)'(p^+),1]$. Hence, this part generalizes too.
3. Brin’s Theorem \[thm:brin-thm\] has a non-trivial generalization in a result of Brin and Guzman [@bringuzman] which describes certain classes of automorphisms of the groups ${\mathrm{PL}}_{\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}],\langle n \rangle}(I)$. There exist elements in the automorphism group ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathrm{PL}}_{\mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{n}],\langle n \rangle}(I))$ which are represented by conjugation via elements that are not in ${\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_n$ (and that are called “exotic”). Therefore, we can only generalize results of the current paper by restricting the action subgroup being used. Instead of studying the full automorphism group ${\mathrm{Aut}}({\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I))$, we can restrict to study conjugations by element of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_{S,G}$ so that we can adapt our results in a straightforward manner.
*It should be noted that the tools of this paper are not generally sufficient to solve either the twisted conjugacy problem or the orbit decidability problem in any group ${\mathrm{PL}}_{S,G}(I)$ generalizing Thompson’s group $F$ (for example, in generalized Thompson’s groups $F(n)$). This is because the full automorphism group may contain conjugations via not piecewise-linear maps.*
It is however possible to give suitable reformulations of Theorems \[thm:TCP-solvable\], \[thm:ODP-solvable\] and \[thm:CP-extension-unsolvable\] in the setting of actions whose acting group is realized by conjugations by an element of ${\widetilde{\mathrm{EP}}}_{S,G}$. The restatement of Theorem \[thm:ODP-solvable\] will need to assume that the $2$-simultaneous conjugacy problem is solvable for the groups $T_{S,G}$ and this is also work-in-progress as mentioned in Section \[sec:ODP-solvable\].
Since the techniques used to study the twisted conjugacy problem for $F$ arise from those used in [@matucci5] to study the simultaneous conjugacy problem for $F$, it is natural to ask the following question:
*Is the $k$-simultaneous twisted conjugacy problem solvable for $F$? More precisely, is it decidable to determine whether or not, given $\varphi \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(F)$ and $y_1,\ldots,y_k,z_1,\ldots,z_k \in F$, there exists a $g \in F$ such that $z_i=g^{-1}y_i
\varphi(g)$?*
Extensions of Thompson’s group $T$
----------------------------------
As observed at the beginning of the proof of Theorem \[thm:R-infty-T\], if $\varphi \in
{\mathrm{Aut}}(T)$, then there exists an $\varepsilon \in \{0,1\}$ such that $\varphi(\lambda)=\mathcal{R}^{\varepsilon} \tau^{-1} \alpha \tau
\mathcal{R}^{\varepsilon}$, for all $\alpha \in T$. Arguing as in Subsection \[sec:restatement-TCP\], equation (\[eq:TCP-equation\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{eq:TCP-in-T-again} \numberwithin{equation}{section} g^{-1}(y\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon) g =
z\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon$$ for $y,z,g \in T$ and $\varepsilon \in \{0,1\}$. To attack equation (\[eq:TCP-in-T-again\]), we can start by squaring it and initially reduce ourselves to solve the equation $$\label{eq:squared-TCP-in-T-again} \numberwithin{equation}{section} g^{-1}(y\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon)^2 g =
(z\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon)^2.$$ The advantage of working with equation (\[eq:squared-TCP-in-T-again\]) is that $(y\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon)^2, (z\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon)^2 \in T$.
The conjugacy problem in $T$ is solvable by the work of Belk and the second author in [@matucci9] and thus we can list all the conjugators in $T$ between $(y\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon)^2$ and $(z\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon)^2 $. However, there might be infinitely many of them and there is no obvious way to detect which of them will also be conjugators between $y\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon$ and $z\mathcal{R}^\varepsilon$.
We cannot use the techniques of the current paper, since there is no uniqueness given by an the “initial slope” of elements of $T$ (although something similar may be feasible, as it was done in Chapter 7 in [@matuccithesis] to study centralizers in $T$). We are thus led to ask:
*Is the twisted conjugacy problem solvable in Thompson’s group $T$?*
To conclude, we mention that the orbit decidability problem for $T$ is solvable for ${\mathrm{Aut}}(T)$ and ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(T)$.
Let $T$ be Thompson’s group ${\mathrm{PL}}_2(S^1)$. Then ${\mathrm{Aut}}(T)$ and ${\mathrm{Aut}}_+(T)$ are orbit decidable.
We need to decide whether or not, given $y,z \in T$, there exists an element $g \in T$ such that at least one of the two equalities $$\label{eq:ODP-in-T} \numberwithin{equation}{section} z=g^{-1}yg \qquad \text{or} \qquad
z=g^{-1}(\mathcal{R}y\mathcal{R})g$$ holds. This amounts to study two distinct conjugacy problems for elements of $T$, each of which is solvable by the work [@matucci9].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that the number of overpseudoprimes to base 2 not exceeding $x$ does not exceed $x^{\frac 3 4}(1+o(1) ).$'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev\
Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel. e-mail:[email protected]
author:
- Vladimir Shevelev
title: An Upper Estimate for the Overpseudoprime Counting Function
---
Introduction
============
For an odd $n >1$, consider the number $r=r(n)$ of distinct cyclotomic cosets of 2 modulo $n$ \[2, pp.104-105\]. E.g., $r(15)=4$ since for $n=15$ we have the following 4 cyclotomic cosets of 2: $\{1,2,4,8\}, \{3,6,12,9\},\{5,10\},\newline\{7,14,13,11\}$. Note that, if $C_1,\ldots, C_r$ are all different cyclotomic cosets of 2$\mod n$, then
$$\label{2}
\bigcup^r_{j=1}C_j=\{1,2,\ldots, n-1\},\qquad C_{j_1}\cap C_{j_2}=\varnothing , \;\; j_1\neq j_2.$$
For the least common multiple of $|C_1|, \ldots, |C_r|$ we have
$$\label{3}
[|C_1|,\ldots,|C_r|]= h(n),$$
where $h(n)$ is the multiplicative order of 2 modulo $n.$ (This follows easily, e.g., from Exercise 3, p. 104 in [@4]).
It is easy to see that for odd prime $p$ we have
$$\label{4}
|C_1|=\ldots=|C_r|$$
such that
$$\label{5}
p= rh + 1.$$
We call odd composite number $n$ overpseudoprime to base 2 $(n\in\mathbb{S}_2)$ if
$$\label{6}
n=r(n) h(n)+1.$$
Let $n$ be odd composite number with the prime factorization $$\label{7}
n=p_1^{l_1}\cdots p_k^{l_k}.$$ In \[6\] we proved the following criterion.
\[t1\] The number $n$ is overpseudoprime if and only if for all nonzero vectors $(i_1, \ldots, i_k)\leq (l_1, \ldots, l_k)$ we have $$\label{8}
h(n)=h(p_1^{i_1}\cdots p_k^{i_k}).$$
\[1\] Every two overpseudoprimes $n_1$ and $n_2$ for which $h(n_1)\neq h(n_2)$ are coprimes.
\[1\] Notice that, every overpseudoprime is always a super-Poulet pseudoprime and, moreover, a strong pseudoprime to base 2 ( see Theorem 12 in \[6\]). Besides,in \[6\] we proved the following result.
\[2\] If $p$ is prime then $2^p-1$ is either prime or overpseudoprime.
\[2\] Note that, prime divisors of overpseudoprime $n$ are primitive divisors of $2^{h(n)}-1.$ Besides, up to $2^n-1,$ every prime $p\leq n$ has already been a primitive divisor of the sequence $(2^n-1)_{n\geq1}.$ On the other hand, large prime $p>2^n-1$ evidently has $h(p)>\log_2(2p)\geq n$. Thus, in any case, all overpseudoprimes to base $2$ are in the set of products of the primitive divisors of the sequence $(2^n-1)_{n\geq1}.$ It is a simple key for finding an upper estimate for the overpseudoprime counting function. Let $n$ be a composite number and the number $2^{n}-1$ has at least one primitive prime divisor. Let us consider the so-called primover cofactor $([6])$ of $2^{n}-1,$ denoted $Pr(2^{n}-1)$, i. e. the products of all its primitive prime divisors. In \[7\] we proved that there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $$\label{9}
2^{n}-1\leq (Pr(2^{n}-1))^{C\ln\ln n} .$$ Notice also that, if $n$ is prime then, by Theorem 2, $2^{n}-1=Pr(2^{n}-1).$
If $Pr(2^{n}-1)$ is not prime, then we call it full overpseudoprime to base $2$.
Proof of the main results
=========================
Denote by $\omega(N(n))$ the number of prime divisors (with their multiplicities) of full overpseudoprime $N=Pr(2^{n}-1).$
\[1\]For $n>1$ we have $$\omega(N(n))<\frac {n} {\log_2 n}.$$
**Proof.If $p$ is a prime divisor of $N$ then $n$ divides $p-1$ and , consequently, $p>n.$ Thus, $$N>n^{\omega(N)}$$ and $$\omega(N)<\frac {\log_2N} {\log_2n}<\frac {n} {\log_2n}.\blacksquare$$ Denote by $Ov^{(n)}(x)\enskip (Ov^{(\leq n)}(x))$ the number of overpseudoprimes $m\leq x$ for which $h(m)=n \enskip(h(m)\leq n).$**
\[2\]If $n\leq\log_2x,$ then $$Ov^{(\leq n)}(x)=o(x^\varepsilon),$$ where $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary small for sufficiently large $x.$
**Proof.According to Lemma 1 we, evidently, have $$\log_2Ov^{(n)}(x)<\frac {n} {\log_2 n}\leq \frac {\log_2x} {\log_2\log_2x}.$$ Thus, $$(Ov^{(\leq n)}(x))<x^{\frac {1} {\log_2\log_2x}}\log_2x=o(x^\varepsilon).\blacksquare$$**
\[3\]If $m\leq x$ is overpseudoprime, then $$h(m)<x^{\frac {1} {k}}$$ and $$k=\omega(m)\leq\frac {\log_2x} {\log_2\log_2x}.$$
**Proof.Let $p_1\leq...\leq p_k$ be all prime divisors of overpseudoprime $m\leq x.$ Then $$\min(p_1, ..., p_k)\leq x^{\frac {1} {k}}.$$ Thus, $$h(m)=h(p_1)=...=h(p_k)<x^{\frac {1} {k}}.$$ Furthermore, by Lemma 1, for $n=h(m)$ we have**
$$k=\omega(m)\leq \omega(N)\leq\frac {h(m)} {\log_2h(m)}\leq\frac {x^{\frac {1} {k}}} {\log_2(x^{\frac {1} {k}})}.$$ Thus, $$x^{\frac {1} {k}}\geq\log_2 x$$ and the lemma follows.$\blacksquare$
If $m\leq x$ is overpseudoprime, then $$h(m)\leq\sqrt x.$$
Hence, denoting $Ov(x)$ the number of overpseudoprimes to base 2 not exceeding $x$, we have $$Ov(x)=Ov^{(\leq\sqrt x)}(x).$$
\[4\] The number of overpseudoprimes $m\leq x,$ for which $$\omega(m)=2$$ and $$x^{\frac {1} {4 }}\leq h(m)\leq\sqrt x,$$ is $o(x^{\frac 3 4}).$
**Proof.We use the following well known statement which belongs to Titchmarsh (sf \[3,Theorem 5.2.1\]): denote $\pi(x, k, l)$ the number of primes of the form kt+l not exceeding $x;$ if $$1\leq k\leq x^{a},\enskip 0<a<1,$$ then there exists a constant $C=C(a)$ such that $$\pi(x, k, l)<C\frac {x} {\varphi(k)\ln x}.$$ If overpseudoprime $m=pq$ then primes $p, q$ have the form $h(m)t+1.$ Therefore, the considered number does not exceed $$\sum_{p\leq q, pq\leq x}1=\sum_{p\leq\sqrt x}\pi(\frac {x} {p}, h(m), 1)\leq C\sum_{p\leq\sqrt x}\frac {x} {p\varphi(h(m))\ln (\frac {x} {p})}\leq$$ $$\frac {C_1x\ln\ln h(m)} {h(m)\ln \sqrt x}\sum_{p\leq\sqrt x}\frac {1} {p}\leq C_2\frac{x(\ln\ln \sqrt x)^2} {x^{\frac 1 4}\ln x}$$ and the lemma follows.$\blacksquare$**
\[3\]$$Ov(x)\leq x^{\frac 3 4}(1+o(1)).$$
**Proof.Let $m\leq x$ be an overpseudoprime. Using the idea of C. Pomerance (private correspondence) we distinguish two cases: a) $h(m)\leq x^{\frac {1} {2k}}$ and b) $h(m)> x^{\frac {1} {2k}}.$a) In view of Lemma 2 we could suppose that $\log_2x\leq h(m)\leq x^{\frac {1} {2k}}.$ Notice that, by Lemma 1, the number of overpseudoprimes $m\leq x,$ having $k$ prime divisors, for which $ h(m)=n$ does not exceed $$\begin{pmatrix} \omega(N(n))\\k\end{pmatrix}\leq(\frac {h(m)} {\log_2h(m)})^{k}$$ Summing this over $h=h(m),$ we have $$\sum_{h=\log_2 x}^{x^\frac {1} {2k}}(\frac {h} {\log_2h})^{k}\leq\sum_{h=\log_2 x}^{x^\frac {1} {2k}}h^{k}<x^{\frac {k+1} {2k}}.$$ Further, summing this over $k\geq 2$ and using Lemma 3, we find an upper estimate of the overpseudoprimes in this case: $$\sum_{k=2}^{\frac {\log_2 x} {\log_2\log_2 x}}x^{\frac{k+1} {2k}}\leq x^{\frac 3 4}+ x^{\frac 2 3}\frac {\log_2 x} {\log_2\log_2 x}.$$ b)In this case, using Brun-Titchmarsh inequality, for the number of overpseudoprimes $m\leq x$ with $k\geq 3$ prime divisors we have $$\sum_{overpseudoprimes \enskip m\leq x}\frac {1} {x}\leq \sum_{overpseudoprimes\enskip m\leq x}\frac {1} {m}\leq$$ $$\leq (\sum_{p\leq x, p \equiv1 \pmod h}^{k}\frac {1} {p})^{k}\leq (C_3\frac {\ln\ln x} {\varphi(h)})^{k}\leq (C_4 \frac {(\ln\ln x)^2} {h})^{k}.$$ Put $h_k=\max(x^{\frac {1} {2k}},\log_2 x).$ Notice that, for $k\geq 3$ $$\sum_{h_k\leq h\leq\sqrt x}\frac {1} {h^{k}}\leq \frac {C_5} {h_{k}^{k-1}}\leq \frac {C_5} {x^{\frac {k-1} {2k}}}.$$ Thus, for $k\geq3$ we have $$\sum_{overpseudoprimes \enskip m\leq x}1\leq C_5 (C_4(\ln\ln x)^2)^{k}x^{\frac {k+1} {2k}}.$$ In view of Lemma 3, $$(C_4(\ln\ln x)^2)^{k}=o(x^\varepsilon),$$**
where $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary small for sufficiently large $x.$ Taking into account Lemma 4, we obtain that the number of overpseudoprimes $m\leq x$ in Case 2 for $x>x_0$ does not exceed $$o(x^{\frac 3 4})+ C_5x^{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq3}^{\frac {\log_2x} {\log_2\log_2x}}x^{\frac{k+1} {2k}}\leq o(x^{\frac 3 4})+C_5x^{\frac 2 3+\varepsilon}\frac{\log_2x} {\log_2\log_2x}=o(x^{\frac 3 4}).$$ Now, summing the numbers of overpseudoprimes $m\leq x$ in Cases 1-2, we obtain the theorem. $\blacksquare$
From proof of Lemma 4, more exactly, we have $$Ov(x)\leq x^{\frac 3 4}(1+O(\frac {(\ln\ln x)^2} {\ln x})).$$
Since up to now the remainder term $O(x^{\frac 3 4})$ in the theorem on primes is unattainable, then the prime account function and the primover account function have at the moment the same asymptotics, including the remainder term. On the other hand, C. Pomerance conjectures that really $Ov(x)=o(x^{\frac 1 2 +\varepsilon}).$ Thus, the situation, probably, will be without changes even after proof of the Riemann hypothesis about zeros of zeta-function $(sf [3,(6.5.12)])$ .
Let $Str_a(x)$ denote the number of strong pseudoprimes to base $a$ not exceeding $x.$ From Theorem 4 of paper \[1\] it follows that at least $$\label{10}
Str_a(x)>x^{0.12-\varepsilon}.$$ On the other hand, $Str_a(x)$ is essentially larger than $Ov_a(x).$ Indeed, for strong pseudoprime $m$ should satisfy only conditions: $a^{m-1}\equiv1\pmod m$ and if primes $p_i|m$ then $h_a(p_i)$ contain 2 in the same powers (see \[1,Proposition 1.1\]). It is interesting that (9) was obtained in \[1\] for those Carmichael pseudoprimes which are strong pseudoprimes to base $a\leq e^{c_\delta(\ln\ln x)^{(1-\delta)}}$ with any fixed $\delta, 0<\delta<1,$ and the constant $c_\delta$ depends on $\delta$ only. Recently, we have found the first Carmichael pseudoprime which is also overpseudoprime to base 2. It is $1541955409=499*1163*2657$ such that $ h_2(499)=h_2(1163)=h_2(2657)=166.$ But it is not overpseudoprime to base 3.
On overpseudoprime witness for odd composites
=============================================
For an odd composite number $n,$ let $w^{(o)}(n)$ denote the least overpseudoprime witness for $n;$ that is, the least positive number $w^{(o)}$ for which $n$ is not an overpseudoprime to the base $w^{(o)}.$ It is very interesting to get an answer to the following Lenstra-like question: whether, for any given finite set of odd composite numbers, there exist an integer $w^{(o)}$ which serves as a witness for every number in the set (in particular, we would like to have such a common witness for the set of odd composites up to $x.)$ Notice that, the original Lenstra’s question for strong pseudoprimes was solved in \[1\] in negative.
Unconditional proof of infinity of overpseudoprimes to base $2$
===============================================================
The following theorem belongs to C. Pomerance (private correspondence).
\[4\] There exist infinitely many overpseudoprimes to base $2.$
**Proof.Let $n=8k+4$. Then all primitive divisors of $2^{n}-1$ devide $2^{4k+2}+1.$ We have the following Aurefeuillian decomposition: $$2^{4k+2}+1= 4(2^{2k})^2+1=(2^{2k+1}+2^{k+1}+1)(2^{2k+1}-2^{k+1}+1)$$ and, according to \[5\], for every $k\geq 3$ each expression in brackets has at least one primitive divisor. Since the difference of these expressions is a power of 2, then we have at least two different primitive divisors, for which the multiplicative order of 2 equals to $n$. Thus, product of these primitive divisors is overpseudoprime to base 2.$\blacksquare$**
\[2\] There exist infinitely many super-Poulet pseudoprimes to base [2]{}.
So, for $n= 28, 36, 44, 52, 60, 68, 76, 84, 92, 100, 108, ...$ we have the following least overpseudoprimes to base $2$ correspondingly, with the multiplicative order of 2 which equals to $n$ (cf \[8, A141232 and A122929\]): $$3277, 4033, 838861, 85489, 80581, 130561, 104653, 20647621, 280601,$$ $$818201, 68719214593, ...$$
**Acknowledgment.The author is grateful to Professor C. Pomerance for important private correspondences.**
[5]{}
1 W.A.Alford, A.Granville, and C.Pomerance,*On the difficulty of finding reliable witnesses,Algorithmic Number Theory Proceedings (ANTS-1), L.M. Adleman and M.-D.Huang, eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Sci. 877 (1994), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1-16. 2 F.J.MacWilliams and N.J.A.Sloane, *The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes,Elsevier/North Holland, 1977. 3 K.Prachar,*Primzahlverteilung, Springer-Verlag, 1957. 4 D.Redmond,*Number Theory: an Introduction,Marcel Dekker, N.Y., 1996. 5 A.Schinzel,*On primitive prime factors of $a^n-b^n,$ Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 58 (1962), 555-562. 6 V.Shevelev,*Overpseudoprimes, Mersenne numbers and Wieferich primes, http:// arxiv.org /abs/0806.3412 7 V.Shevelev,*Process of “primoverization” of numbers of the form $a^{n}-1$, http:// arxiv.org /abs/0807.2332 8 N.J.A.Sloane,*The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (http: //www.research.att.com)********
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we extent the previously published DALI-approximation for likelihoods to cases in which the parameter dependency is in the covariance matrix. The approximation recovers non-Gaussian likelihoods, and reduces to the Fisher matrix approach in the case of Gaussianity. It works with the minimal assumptions of having Gaussian errors on the data, and a covariance matrix that possesses a converging Taylor approximation. The resulting approximation works in cases of severe parameter degeneracies and in cases where the Fisher matrix is singular. It is at least $1000$ times faster than a typical Monte Carlo Markov Chain run over the same parameter space. Two example applications, to cases of extremely non-Gaussian likelihoods, are presented – one demonstrates how the method succeeds in reconstructing completely a ring-shaped likelihood. A public code is released here: [[DALI](http://lnasellentin.github.io/DALI/)]{}.'
author:
- |
Elena Sellentin$^{1}$\
$^{1}$Institut für Theoretische Physik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Philosophenweg 16, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany\
bibliography:
- 'Dali2.bib'
date: 'Accepted 2015 July 21. Received 2015 July 21; in original form 2015 May 27'
title: 'A fast, always positive definite and normalizable approximation of non-Gaussian likelihoods'
---
\[firstpage\]
Introduction
============
Evaluating a multidimensional likelihood can be a computationally costly procedure. If speed matters, often a good approximation of the likelihood is required. A widely used approximation of likelihoods is the Fisher matrix approximation, which singles out the Gaussian part of a likelihood [@Tegmark:1996bz]. Because many analytical results for Gaussians are available, such as the position of the 1-$\sigma$ confidence contours and higher-order equivalents, the Fisher matrix approximation is numerically fast to evaluate. It has also become widely used as it allows for the easy computation of Figures of Merit, simple determinants of the matrix elements and manipulations thereof, that can be used to evaluate the expected performance of an experiment, for example as introduduced to dark energy research by @2006astro.ph..9591A.
The alternatives to the Gaussian approximation are grid-evaluations of the likelihood, or sampling techniques such as Monte Carlo Markov Chains (MCMC), Nested Sampling [@2013JCAP...02..001A; @2014MNRAS.437.3918A; @2004AIPC..735..395S], and Population Monte Carlo (that uses iterative updates of a mixture model to capture non-Gaussianities [@2010MNRAS.405.2381K; @2009PhRvD..80b3507W]). These methods tackle the challenge of characterising non-Gaussian likelihoods by using sophisticated algorithms. Gram-Charlier and Edgeworth-type expansions can also be used to capture non-Gaussianities, but suffer from regions in the parameter space where the approximated likelihood turns negative, thereby violating the Kolmogorov axioms for a probability [@CramerH].
Nonetheless, likelihood approximations are urgently needed throughout the physical sciences, whenever evaluating a full likelihood is numerically too costly, e.g. when forecasting parameter constraints of a future experiment, where many different configurations need to be simulated, see e.g. [@2012MNRAS.422...44P; @2011arXiv1110.3193L]. A quick check of the resulting likelihood is also desirable when optimizing a data analysis pipeline, or when establishing novel observables and testing how precisely they can constrain model parameters, see e.g. [@2014arXiv1409.3364C]. Non-Gaussian likelihood approximations, that maintain positive definiteness and normalizability, whilst rivaling the Fisher matrix in manners of speed, have recently become a focus of research. Transformations of the likelihood to Gaussianity are one way of tackling this problem [@Joachimi:2011iq]. Another approach named ‘DALI’ was presented in @Sellentinetal (henceforth named ’Paper1’), under the additional constraint of the data being Gaussianly distributed and the covariance matrix being constant. The main results of Paper 1 were application independent, i.e. the presented approximation would work for all observables to which it would be specified. The appendix contained insights into how the non-Gaussian likelihood approximation could also be applied to cases where the covariance matrix depends on parameters - however, additional assumptions about the covariance matrix needed to be made, which are fullfilled only for specific applications.
In this paper, we extend the results of Paper 1 and present a non-Gaussian likelihood approximation that can deal with parameter-dependent covariance matrices. The main results will again be independent of the physical application, meaning the method can be applied in any field of physics, as well as in cosmology, or any other scientific branch that compares a parameterized model to data. The method only demands that the data shall be again Gaussianly distributed. Therefore, a public code [[DALI](http://lnasellentin.github.io/DALI/)]{} is being released along with this paper which allows the user to interface the DALI-formalism with their physical problems. The code also contains the results of Paper 1. A cosmological application to weak lensing will be presented in (in prep.).
Gaussianity
===========
Throughout the paper, we assume a data set ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ with Gaussian errors, leading to the unapproximated likelihood $$L( {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}| {\boldsymbol{p}}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{ (2\pi)^d |{\boldsymbol{C}}|}}\exp\left(-{\frac{1}{2}}({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}- {\ensuremath{ \boldsymbol{\mu}_{} }})^T{\boldsymbol{C}}^{-1} ({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}- {\ensuremath{ \boldsymbol{\mu}_{} }}) \right)
\label{L}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{p}}$ is a vector that holds $p$ parameters. The mean of the data ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$ and the covariance matrix ${\boldsymbol{C}}$ are predicted by a parameterized physical model and can in general both depend on the $p$ parameters. These parameters shall be constrained by maximizing the likelihood using the data which is collected in the data vector $ {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$. The number of data points is $d$ and $|{\boldsymbol{C}}|$ is the determinant of the covariance matrix. The covariance matrix is given by $${\boldsymbol{C}}(\boldsymbol{p}) = \langle \left({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}- {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}\right)\left({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}- {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}\right)^T\rangle,$$ such that for a linear model, the parameters enter already quadratically in the covariance matrix. In general, the parameter dependence of the covariance matrix will be determined by the estimator applied and often also include nuisance parameters [@2014MNRAS.442.2728T].
The corresponding log-likelihood $\mathcal{L} = -\ln(L)$ of the Gaussian Eq. (\[L\]) is $$\mathcal{L} = {\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {\ln ({\boldsymbol{C}}) + \boldsymbol{C}^{-1} \langle \boldsymbol{D} \rangle} \right] }},
\label{Llog}$$ where we neglected the $2\pi$ factors of the normalization, and where $\boldsymbol{D} = ({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}- {\ensuremath{ \boldsymbol{\mu}_{} }})({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{\ensuremath{ \boldsymbol{\mu}_{} }})^T$ is the data matrix. Angular brackets denote averaging over the data.
The numerical costs of evaluating this likelihood will increase with the number of data points, the complexity of calculating the model predictions ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$ and the estimation of the covariance matrix under variation of the parameters. In case of Bayesian inference, the likelihood could be updated to a posterior by multiplying with priors and normalizing by the corresponding evidence.
The assumption of Gaussian errors is not a severe constraint, since due to the central limit theorem, all data that stems from a distribution of finite variance, can be rebinned into a data set with Gaussian errors - if enough data points are available. However, having Gaussian errors in the *data* space does not mean that the resulting likelihood will be Gaussian in the *parameter* space. Therefore, the mathematical tools available to exploit Gaussian likelihoods, such as their analytical marginalization over nuisance parameters, cannot be automatically exploited in the parameter space. The Gaussianity of the data set only transfers to the parameter space if no parameter degeneracies occur and if the model that is compared to the data is linear in all parameters. Similarly, a Gaussian likelihood can also be expected if the data set is constraining enough, such that essentially a linear Taylor approximation of the model and the covariance matrix around the best fit point is sufficient. This explains why the Fisher matrix has become so popular in forecasting the performance of precision experiments, which were designed to tightly constrain targeted parameters.
In contrast, achieving extremely constraining data with a new experiment cannot be expected by default if for example extensions to a standard model are to be investigated and new parameters measured for the very first time. If the forecasted data is not expected to be extremely constraining, the likelihood will not be peaked so sharply around the best fit that a linear Taylor approximation of the model, and the covariance matrix alone may not be good enough. This already hints at why the following non-Gaussian likelihood approximation needs to build on higher order derivatives.
The higher order likelihood approximation for a constant covariance matrix was derived in Paper 1. Here, we specialize to the case of the model dependence of the mean being identically zero, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}(\boldsymbol{p}) \equiv 0$, and all parameter dependence is contained in the covariance matrix. This can be the case in a real scenario, where the mean is zero but fluctuations around that mean can be of different amplitudes, and this is encoded in the covariance. Examples are a measurement of pure noise, which clearly has mean zero, but where the covariance of the noise depends on parameters. Another example is any kind of mode decomposition, where again it is clear that a mode has mean zero. A cosmological example is the galaxy power spectrum, which arises from density fluctuations around the cosmic mean value, and where the mean overdensity must be zero, due to mass conservation. The power spectrum can then be used as the covariance in the following framework, where it is the covariance of the Fourier amplitudes of the overdensity field.[^1]
Problems when approximating likelihoods {#problems}
=======================================
Approximating a likelihood is more complicated than approximating a more general function because one typically wishes the likelihood to be positive semi-definite at all orders; otherwise negative probabilities occur, which are non-sensical. Positive semi-definiteness is a strong constraint and not automatically fulfilled by a usual Taylor series approximation of the likelihood. For example, Taylor approximating a standard normal distribution yields, $$\exp(-x^2) = 1 -x^2 + \frac{1}{2}x^4 + \mathcal{O}(x^5).
\label{TaylorL}$$ If truncated at second order, this approximation becomes negative at 2-$\sigma$ from the best fit, or begins rising to infinity at about 2-$\sigma$ when truncated at fourth order. This divergence makes the likelihood approximation not normalizable, such that no measure for relative likelihoods can be defined. Both, second and fourth order approximation of the standard normal distribution therefore violate defining properties of a likelihood. Obviously, a continuation of the Taylor approximation Eq. (\[TaylorL\]) to very high orders would remedy both of these issues but this would be a cumbersome approach. It is well known that Taylor approximating the log-likelihood instead, reconstructs the Gaussian likelihood much more quickly $$\exp(-x^2) = \exp(-\mathcal{L}) = \exp(-\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{L})),
\label{TayLog}$$ where $\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{L})$ denotes the Taylor series of the log-likelihood. If this Taylor series is evaluated at the maximum of the standard normal distribution then already the first and second order terms of this series recovers the Gaussian likelihood completely, and all higher orders of the series are identically zero. The approximation schemes Eq. (\[TaylorL\]) and Eq. (\[TayLog\]) are both mathematically valid ways of approximating the standard normal distribution, even though they lead to entirely different Taylor series. The scheme outlined in Eq. (\[TayLog\]) is however much more advantageous because it leads already at second order the desired approximation, and negative likelihoods then do not appear at all, since the exponential function is always positive. Therefore, the choice of which quantity shall be approximated influences decisively how quickly the approximation recovers the shape of the original function, and whether unwanted artifacts appear when truncating the approximation at low orders.
The choice of Taylor approximating the log-likelihood, instead of the likelihood, to second order in multiple dimensions yields a Hessian matrix whose expectation value is the Fisher (or Information) matrix. Denoting partial derivatives by $\partial_\alpha f = f,_\alpha$, the Fisher matrix of Eq. (\[L\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{F_{\alpha \beta} }}= & \langle {\mathcal{L}},_{\alpha\beta} \rangle |_{\boldsymbol{\hat{p}}} \\
= & \frac{1}{2} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {\boldsymbol{C_0}^{-1} C,_\alpha \boldsymbol{C_0}^{-1} C,_\beta\ } \right] }} + {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}},_\alpha \boldsymbol{C_0}^{-1} {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}},_\beta
\end{aligned}
\label{fish_formula}$$ where the derivatives are evaluated at the maximum likelihood point $\boldsymbol{\hat{p}}$ and summation over repeated indices is implied. All quantities that are to be evaluated at the maximum likelihood point are marked by a subscript zero. Consequently, ${\boldsymbol{C_0}}$ is constant and cannot be derived with respect to parameters.
The corresponding likelihood approximation is then given by $$L({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}| {\boldsymbol{p}}) \approx N \cdot \exp( -{\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{F_{\alpha \beta} }}{\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}})
\label{Lfish}$$ where the ${\Delta p_{\alpha}} = p_\alpha - \hat{p}_\alpha$ are the offsets from the best fit point $\hat{p}_\alpha$ and $N$ is a normalization constant.
The Fisher approximation results in the usual ellipsoidal, multi-variate correlated Gaussian confidence contours, which often do not recover the shape of a non-Gaussian likelihood distribution well. A continuation of the Taylor series is then desirable in order to capture these non-Gaussianites. This wish for a continuation of the series is predicated on the requirement to solve the issue of normalizability and positive-definiteness at all orders. Also, it is preferrable to recover the essential shape of the likelihood with as little additional terms as possible for computational efficiency. Clearly, just as there exist multiple ways in approximating the likelihood Eq. (\[TaylorL\]), there will exist multiple ways of continuing the approximation from that given by the Fisher matrix. These extended approximations will pick up the desired information about the likelihood’s shape with different efficiencies. An obvious extension would be the continuation of the log-likelihood’s Taylor-approximation $$\begin{aligned}
L({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}| {\boldsymbol{p}}) \approx & N \exp \left( -{\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{F_{\alpha \beta} }}{\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}} \right. \\
& -\frac{1}{3!} S_{\alpha\beta\gamma}{\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}}{\Delta p_{\gamma}} \\
& \left. -\frac{1}{4!} Q_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}{\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}}{\Delta p_{\gamma}}{\Delta p_{\delta}} + \mathcal{O}({\Delta p_{}}^5)\right),
\label{taylorlog}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\alpha\beta\gamma} = & {\mathcal{L}},_{\alpha\beta\gamma}|_{\hat{{\boldsymbol{p}}}}\\
& = -2{\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\gamma {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\beta {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha } \right] }} \\
& + \frac{3}{2} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\gamma {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha \beta}} \right] }},\\
\end{aligned}
\label{flex}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\alpha \beta\gamma\delta} = & {\mathcal{L}},_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}|_{\boldsymbol{\hat{p}} }\\
& = 9\ {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\delta {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\gamma {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\beta {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha } \right] }}\\
& + \frac{3}{2} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\gamma\delta} {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha \beta}} \right] }} \\
& - 12\ {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\gamma\delta}{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\beta {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha } \right] }}\\
& + 2\ {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\gamma {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta\delta}} \right] }}\\
\end{aligned}
\label{quarx}$$ which gives the Taylor series of the log-likelihood up to fourth order, after being averaged over the data.
In reference to Eq. (\[taylorlog\]) multiple observations can be made. Firstly, this approximation will in general be unnormalizable since it will diverge somewhere in parameter space. This is partly due to the odd powers of ${\Delta p_{}}$, which will clearly become negative on one side of the fiducial point (about which the expansion is made) if they are positive on the other side of the fiducial point; the argument of the exponential function will then become positive even for small displacements from the best fit point, and the approximation will begin to diverge. Also the summation over even powers of ${\Delta p_{}}$ can lead to divergences, as terms of the structure ${\Delta p_{1}}{\Delta p_{1}}{\Delta p_{1}}{\Delta p_{2}}$ will appear, as has been detailed in Paper 1. These divergences of the approximation can only be avoided in an application-independent way if the argument of the exponential is negative everywhere in parameterspace. One way of achieving this is to demand the approximation to have the shape $$L \approx N \exp\left( - Q \right),
\label{quad}$$ where $Q$ is a quadratic function of the parameters and therefore always positive definite. The expansion Eq. (\[taylorlog\]) of the log-likelihood does not have this shape.
Secondly, we observe that even if only first order derivatives of the covariance matrix were non-vanishing, the above series would still not terminate after the Fisher approximation. The first lines of Eq. (\[flex\]) and Eq. (\[quarx\]) contain only first order derivatives of the covariance matrix and make it clear that at the $n$-th Taylor order a term of the shape $${\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {\left({\boldsymbol{C_0}}^{-1}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha {\Delta p_{\alpha}}\right)^n} \right] }}
\label{highT}$$ appears, where we have expressed the repeated multiplication of the same matrices as a power. As new information on the parameter dependence of the covariance matrix is encoded in its higher order derivatives, the terms Eq. (\[highT\]) do not add any of the new information which we target; they simply stem from the slowly convergent Taylor series of the logarithm.
Therefore we see that a Taylor approximation of the log-likelihood beyond second order is a valid but laborious way to include non-Gaussian behaviour: the log-likelihood would need to be approximated to much higher than the 4th order, before it can be expected to be normalizable for a physical application. To avoid all of the above discussed difficulties, we construct a likelihood approximation in which we explicitely request that it shall have the shape Eq. (\[quad\]). This can be achieved by Taylor approximating the covariance matrix directly which has the further advantage that ${\boldsymbol{C}}$ depends on the parameters more sensitively than $\ln({\boldsymbol{C}})$. Thus, Taylor expanding the covariance matrix will pick up the higher order derivatives earlier. This approximation is deduced in Sec.(\[beyond\]) and the convergence criterion for this approximation is given in Sec.(\[sec:appl\])
Beyond Gaussianity {#beyond}
==================
We express the variation of the covariance matrix over the parameter space by its Taylor series and single out the constant zeroth-order term $${\boldsymbol{C}}(\boldsymbol{p}) = \boldsymbol{C_0} + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} },$$ where ${\boldsymbol{C_0}}$ is the constant covariance matrix evaluated at the likelihood maximum, and $${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{{\boldsymbol{C}}^{(n)}|_{\boldsymbol{\hat{p}}}}{n!} (p_\alpha -\hat{p}_\alpha)...(p_n -\hat{p}_n)$$ is the $p$-dimensional Taylor series of the covariance matrix, beginning at the first derivative ${\boldsymbol{C}}^{1}$. The derivatives are chosen to be evaluated at the maximum of the likelihood, denoted by $\boldsymbol{\hat{p}}$. This series carries information on how the covariance matrix changes throughout the parameter space. Here, we are specifically interested in higher order derivatives of the covariance matrix, since these encode the non-linear dependence of the covariance matrix on parameters. For ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}\equiv 0$ the data matrix is $\boldsymbol{D} = {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}^T$ which is parameter independent. The log-likelihood is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} & = {\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { \ln({\boldsymbol{C}}) } \right] }} + {\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { \langle {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}^T \rangle {\boldsymbol{C}}^{-1}} \right] }}\\
& = {\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { \ln\left({\boldsymbol{C_0}}[1+{\boldsymbol{C_0}}^{-1} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }] \right) + \langle {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}^T \rangle \left( {\boldsymbol{C_0}}+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }\right)^{-1} } \right] }},
\label{logex}
\end{aligned}$$ where angular brackets denote averaging over the data and $\langle {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}^T \rangle$ is kept explicitely, in order to emphasize that it does not depend on parameters, although it will later average out to be the measured covariance matrix. So far, the covariance matrix has only been rewritten, but no approximation has been made.
However, if the Taylor series ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }$ is evaluated only sufficiently close to the maximum likelihood point, then we will have ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }\ll {\boldsymbol{C_0}}$ and we can consistently approximate Eq. (\[logex\]) up to second order in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }$. This leads to the targeted shape Eq. (\[quad\]). We therefore approximate by applying the matrix inversion identity (also known as Woodbury identity) $$(\boldsymbol{A} +\boldsymbol{B} )^{-1} = \boldsymbol{A}^{-1} - \boldsymbol{A}^{-1}\left( 1 + \boldsymbol{B}\boldsymbol{A}^{-1}\right)^{-1}\boldsymbol{B}\boldsymbol{A}^{-1}$$ to find an approximation for the inverted covariance matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\left( {\boldsymbol{C_0}}+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }\right)^{-1} & = {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}+ {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }\ {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}\\
& - {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }\ {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }\ {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}+ \mathcal{O}(3),
\label{inv}
\end{aligned}$$ where the approximation was truncated at second order since we target the shape Eq. (\[quad\]). The quadratic term of the logarithm’s Taylor expansion is, $$\ln (1+x) = x -\frac{x^2}{2} + \mathcal{O}(x^3).
\label{log}$$ The quadratic approximation of the log-likelihood then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} &\approx {\frac{1}{2}}{\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {\ln({\boldsymbol{C_0}}) + {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }- {\frac{1}{2}}{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }\ {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }} \right] }}\\
&+ {\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[ \langle {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}^T \rangle \left( {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}- {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}\right. \right. \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \left. \left. {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}+ \mathcal{O}(3) \right) \right].
\label{puttogehter}
\end{aligned}$$ Applying $\langle {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}^T \rangle = {\boldsymbol{C_0}}$ the likelihood approximation simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
L & \approx N \exp( -\mathcal{L} ) \\
& = N \exp \left( - \frac{1}{4} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }} \right] }} + \mathcal{O}(3) \right)\\
&= N \exp \left( - \frac{1}{4} \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}({\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha {\Delta p_{\alpha}} +{\frac{1}{2}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta} {\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}} + ...) \right. \right.\\
& \left. \left. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}({\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha {\Delta p_{\alpha}} +{\frac{1}{2}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta} {\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}} + ...) \right] + \mathcal{O}(3) \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\ln({\boldsymbol{C_0}})$ and ${\boldsymbol{C_0}}{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}= 1$ are constants and were absorbed into the normalization constant $N$. In the last step, a repeated multiplication of the same terms appears. This can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
L & \approx\\
&= N \exp \left( - \frac{1}{4} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { \left({\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}({\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha {\Delta p_{\alpha}} +{\frac{1}{2}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta} {\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}} + ...) \right)^2 } \right] }} \right),
\label{mainres}
\end{aligned}$$ where the repeated multiplication of the same matrices in the trace was made more explicit by denoting it as a square.
We therefore have arrived at an approximation of the shape Eq. (\[quad\]) that includes higher order derivatives of the covariance matrix. This approximation will consequently remain normalizable everywhere in parameter space. This result generalizes the usual Fisher matrix in a straight forward way: if the Taylor-approximation ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }$ is truncated at first order, the usual Fisher matrix approximation Eq. (\[fish\_formula\]) of the likelihood is obtained and the higher order corrections are then $$\begin{aligned}
L \approx N \exp & \left( - \frac{1}{4} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\beta } \right] }}{\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}} \right. \\
& \left. - \frac{1}{4} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\beta\gamma} } \right] }} {\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}}{\Delta p_{\gamma}} \right.\\
& \left. - \frac{1}{16} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta} {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\gamma\delta} } \right] }} {\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}}{\Delta p_{\gamma}}{\Delta p_{\delta}} \right.\\
& \left. - \frac{1}{24} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta} {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\gamma\delta\epsilon} } \right] }} {\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}}{\Delta p_{\gamma}}{\Delta p_{\delta}}{\Delta p_{\epsilon}} \right.\\
& \left. - \frac{1}{144} {\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta\gamma} {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\delta\epsilon\phi} } \right] }} {\Delta p_{\alpha}}{\Delta p_{\beta}}{\Delta p_{\gamma}}{\Delta p_{\delta}}{\Delta p_{\epsilon}}{\Delta p_{\phi}} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ where we have chosen to truncate the Taylor expansion of the covariance matrix at third order for brevity; the continuation to fourth and higher orders of the covariance matrix is however obvious from Eq. (\[mainres\]). The terms that are cubic and quintic in the ${\Delta p_{}}$ can become negative and thereby decrease the likelihood estimate in regions, where it had been overerstimated by the even-order terms. In total however, the terms combine to a quadratic form, and thereby the approximation is known to not diverge anywhere in parameter space.
As this result generalizes the findings of Paper 1, and is also based on a derivative expansion (this time of the covariance matrix), we stick with the name DALI (Derivative Approximation for LIkelihoods). If this approximate likelihood shall be updated to a posterior distribution, multiplication by a prior can be achieved by adding the log-likelihood of the prior to the DALI-approximation, just as in case of the Fisher matrix approximation. Details about the expected speed-up when compared to MCMC can be found in Paper 1.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Criteria of applicability {#sec:appl}
=========================
Non-Gaussianity can arise from at least two sources. For example if the data has only little constraining power then even the likelihood for a model with only mildly non-linear parameters will pick up non-Gaussianities. In contrast, if the data is very constraining non-Gaussianites will still occur if parameters are degenerate with each other over a finite range. In this case the non-Gaussianities can be recovered by DALI.
The approximation of Eq. (\[mainres\]) is strictly valid if the following criteria are fulfilled:
- The data set ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ must be so constraining that the likelihood is confined to within a region ${\Delta p_{}}$ where the second order Taylor approximations Eq. (\[log\]) and Eq. (\[inv\]) dominate over their higher orders.
- Approximating the log in Eq. (\[puttogehter\]) requires $${\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ { {\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}_{(C)}^{1} }} \right] }} \ll 1$$ which can be solved for parameter offsets ${\Delta p_{}}$ $${\Delta p_{\alpha}} \ll \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{ \mathrm{Tr}\left[ {{\boldsymbol{C}_0^{-1}}({\boldsymbol{C}},_\alpha + \frac{1}{2}{\boldsymbol{C}},_{\alpha\beta}{\Delta p_{\beta}} + ...)} \right] }}}
\label{cond}$$
The last requirement will be fulfilled if the data set confines the preferred parameter space to an area within which the Taylor-approximation captures well the variation of the covariance matrix throughout the parameter space. DALI is therefore expected to work well in case of rather constraining data and degenerate parameters, while a good recovery of non-Gaussianities for weakly constraining data and mild non-linear dependences on the parameters would require Taylor-approximating the log-likelihood to much higher orders with the corresponding difficulties detailed in Sec.(\[problems\]). If the condition Eq. (\[cond\]) is only marginally fulfilled, the DALI-approximations will still converge although they will not pick up all the shape-information of the likelihood. Mismatches between the shape of the approximation and the real likelihood shape will then be observed. This is already known from the Fisher matrix, and expected to be more mild in DALI since the higher order derivatives will correct upon the Fisher matrix misestimates.
Parameter dependent covariance matrix and mean
==============================================
The DALI formalism described above is able to recover non-Gaussian likelihood shapes if the covariance matrix depends on parameters. In the previous paper @Sellentinetal, a non-Gaussian likelihood approximation was developed for the case when the covariance matrix is constant, and only the mean ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$ depends on parameters. An interesting question is whether the two approxiations can be combined to approximate a likelihood where *both* mean and covariance matrix depend on data. Multiple interesting aspects should be pointed out in this context. One expects a likelihood approximation to fulfill three criteria: it shall be positive-definite, normalizable, and additionally possess a high degree of shape fidelity, i.e. quickly converge towards the shape of the unapproximated likelihood. Positive definiteness and normalizability are guaranteed by DALI being of the shape $L \approx \exp(-Q)$, with $Q$ being a positive definite form in the parameters. In principle, any positive definite form could be chosen. However, our choice of using the squared Taylor series of either ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$ or ${\boldsymbol{C}}$ additionally guarantees the shape fidelity of the DALI expansion. If the squared Taylor series were replaced by another quadratic form, the shape fidelity would most likely be quickly lost. If both, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{C}}$ depend on the same parameters, no quadratic form that is at the same time a Taylor series has been found so far due to the appearance of crossterms between derivatives of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{C}}$, e.g. ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}},_\alpha {\boldsymbol{C}},_\beta {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}},_\gamma$. Neglecting these crossterms will produce a DALI-expansion that is a simple multiplication of Eq. (\[mainres\]) and Eq. (16) from @Sellentinetal. This may be a good approximation in many cases, e.g. when the covariance matrix depends strongly on some parameters but not on those on which the mean depends. However, due to omitting the crossterms, in general this expansion will not be able to recover all information and therefore it may not yield a good approximation.
Testcases
=========
The strength of this new approximation scheme was tested on two toy-models of particularly severe non-Gaussianities which arise from degeneracies. Both toy models are two-dimensional and have ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}\equiv 0$. The data set consists of 50 data points. The covariance matrix of the first is diagonal and given by $$C_{ij}(\boldsymbol{p}) = (p_1^2 + p_2^2)\delta_{ij},
\label{mod1}$$ with the Kronecker-Delta $\delta_{ij}$. Since $p_1^2 + p_2^2 = 1$ is the equation of a circle, this model produces a ring-shaped unapproximated likelihood, with the interior of the ring being a region of zero likelihood. All points which lie exactly on the circle will maximize the likelihood and any of them could be chosen as fiducial point for evaluating the DALI approximation. Taking more than 50 data points would decrease the thickness of the ring but would never be able to lift the degeneracy, even for an infinite number of measurements. Such likelihoods appear for example in particle physics for measurements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix [@2015PhRvD..91g3007C].
The covariance matrix of the second toy model is, $$C_{ij}(\boldsymbol{p}) = (p_1^4 + p_2^4)\delta_{ij},
\label{mod2}$$ which again possesses a closed degeneracy line of a somewhat boxy ring-shape. Again, each point along the line $p_1^4 + p_2^4 =1$ can serve as fiducial point for the DALI approximation. The unapproximated likelihoods of these two models are depicted as grey shades in Fig.(\[circle\_fish\]-\[square\_2nd\]), where the two shades indicate the 68$\%$ and $95\%$ confidence contours. Both toy models were then approximated by Eq. (\[mainres\]), truncated at different orders. The Fisher matrix of both cases is degenerate and appears as parallel non-closing lines. Changing the evaluation of the derivatives cannot break this degeneracy. The second-order DALI-approximation already finds the full circle, since no higher than second order derivatives exist in this case. For the second toy-model, a complete recovery of the likelihood would require the calculation of fourth order derivatives. Although this could be done analytically in the case at hand, in general such a calculation would need a numerical solution. We therefore maintain the truncation of the expansion Eq. (\[mainres\]) at third order, as implemented in the public code [[DALI](http://lnasellentin.github.io/DALI/)]{}. The resulting approximation can be seen in Fig. (\[square\_2nd\], right) for third order derivatives, or second order derivatives in Fig. (\[square\_2nd\], middle). The degeneracy of the Fisher matrix is lifted in both cases, and the improvement in shape fidelity can easily be seen. As typical applications of this method would not posess such strong parameter degeneracies, it can be expected that the DALI-method will reconstruct the likelihood contours with great accuracy.
The DALI-code that combines the specialized likelihood approximations of our previous paper, and the extension presented here, is public at [[DALI](http://lnasellentin.github.io/DALI/)]{}. However, due to the structural similarity with the Fisher matrix, any already existing Fisher code can easily be upgraded to a DALI-code by adding the higher order derivatives of Eq. (\[mainres\]).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
It is a pleasure to thank Luca Amendola, Matthias Bartelmann, Alan Heavens, Tom Kitching and Björn Malte Schäfer for support and helpful discussions. This work has received financial support through the RTG *Particle Physics beyond the Standard Model* (DFG fund 1904), and the transregional collaborative research centre TR 33 ’*The Dark Universe*’ of the German Science Foundation.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Often, however, such analyses are carried out by comparing a measured power spectrum to a parameterized power spectrum, which is then treated as the mean. In these cases the covariance matrix would then be the covariance *of* the power spectrum (a four-point function) instead of *the* powerspectrum.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a birational parameterization $\phi$ of an algebraic surface ${\mathscr S}$ in the projective space ${\mathbb P}^3$, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the sets of points on ${\mathscr S}$ whose preimage consists in $k$ or more points, counting multiplicities. They are described explicitly in terms of Fitting ideals of some graded parts of the symmetric algebra associated to the parameterization $\phi$.'
address:
- 'Departamento de Matemática, FCEN, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.'
- 'INRIA Sophia Antipolis - Méditerranée, Galaad team, 2004 route des Lucioles, B.P. 93, F-06902, Sophia Antipolis France.'
- 'Institut Mathématique de Jussieu et Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Boîte 247, 4 place Jussieu, F-75252 Paris CEDEX 05, France.'
author:
- Nicolás Botbol
- Laurent Busé
- Marc Chardin
title: 'Fitting ideals and multiple-points of surface parameterizations'
---
Introduction
============
Parameterized algebraic surfaces are ubiquitous in geometric modeling because they are used to describe the boundary of 3-dimensional shapes. To manipulate them, it is very useful to have an implicit representation in addition to their given parametric representation. Indeed, a parametric representation is for instance well adapted for drawing or sampling whereas an implicit representation allows significant improvements in intersection problems that are fundamental operations appearing in geometric processing for visualization, analysis and manufacturing of geometric models. Thus, there exists a rich literature on the change of representation from a parametric to an implicit representation under the classical form of a polynomial implicit equation. Although this problem can always be solved in principle, for instance via Gröbner basis computations, its practical implementation is not enough efficient to be useful in practical applications in geometric modeling for general parameterized surfaces.
In order to overcome this difficulty, alternative implicit representations of parameterized surfaces under the form of a matrix have been considered. The first family of such representations comes from the resultant theory that produces a non-singular matrix whose determinant yields an implicit equation from a given surface parameterization. But the main advantage is also the main drawback of these resultant matrices: since they are universal with respect to the coefficients of the given surface parameterization, they are very easy to build in practice, but they are also very sensitive to the presence of base points. As a consequence, a particular resultant matrix has to be designed for each given particular class of parameterized surfaces. A second family of implicit matrix representations is based on the syzygies of the coordinates of a surface parameterization. Initiated by the geometric modeling community [@SC95], these matrices have been deeply explored in a series of papers (see [@BuJo03; @BC05; @BDD08; @Bot10] and the references therein). Compared to the resultant matrices, they are still very easy to build, although not universal, but their sensitivity to the presence of base points is much weaker. However, these matrices are in general singular matrices and the recovering of the classical implicit equation from them is more involved. Therefore, to be useful these matrices have to be seen as implicit representations on their own, without relying on the more classical implicit equation. In this spirit, the use of these singular matrix representations has recently been explored for addressing the curve/surface and surface/surface intersection problems [@BL12; @LBBM09].
As a continuation, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the self-intersection locus of a surface parameterization through its matrix representations. More precisely, let $\phi$ be a parameterization from ${\mathbb P}^2$ to ${\mathbb P}^3$ of a rational algebraic surface ${\mathcal S}$ and let $M(\phi)$ be one of its matrix representations. The main result of this paper is that the drop of rank of $M(\phi)$ at a given point $P\in{\mathbb P}^3$ is in relation with the fiber of the graph of $\phi$ over $P$. Thus, the Fitting ideals attached to $M(\phi)$ provide a filtration of the surface which is in correspondence with the degree and the dimension of the fibers of the graph of the parameterization $\phi$.
It turns out that this kind of results have already been investigated for different purposes in the field of intersection theory under the name of multiple-point formulas. Given a finite map of schemes $\varphi:X\rightarrow Y$ of codimension one, its source and target double-point cycles have been extensively studied (see e.g. [@KLU96; @KLU92; @Pie78; @Tei77]). Moreover, in [@MP89] Fitting ideals are used to give a scheme structure to the multiple-point loci. Therefore, in the particular case where $\phi:{\mathbb P}^2\rightarrow {\mathbb P}^3$ has no base point (hence is a finite map), our results are partially contained in the above literature. Thus, the main contribution of this paper is to extend these previous works to the case where $\phi$ is not necessarily a finite map under ubiquitous conditions. The theory in this article is thus applicable to most of the parameterizations that appear in applications.
In what follows, we will first briefly overview matrix representations and define some Fitting ideals attached to them in Section \[sec:def\]. The main result of this paper is then proved in Section \[sec:main\]. Section \[sec:comp\] is devoted to the computational aspects of our results. In Section \[sec:link\] we will discuss on the link with multiple-points formulas developed in the field of intersection theory. Finally, we will treat the case of parameterizations $\phi$ whose source is ${\mathbb P}^1\times {\mathbb P}^1$ instead of ${\mathbb P}^2$. This type of parameterizations being widely used in geometric modeling (see for instance [@SSV12] for a detailed study of a special case).
Fitting ideals associated to surface parameterizations {#sec:def}
======================================================
Let $k$ be a field and $\phi: {\mathbb P}^2_k {\dashrightarrow}{\mathbb P}^3_k$ be a rational map given by four homogeneous polynomials $f_0,f_1,f_2,f_3$ of degree $d$. We will denote by ${\mathscr S}$ the closure of its image. Set $s:=(s_0,s_1,s_2)$, $x:=(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)$, and let $S:=k[s]$ and $R:=k[x]$ be the polynomial rings defining ${\mathbb P}^2_k$ and ${\mathbb P}^3_k$ respectively. Finally, define the ideal $I=(f_0,f_1,f_2,f_3)\subset S_d$. In the sequel, we will assume that: $$\label{H}\tag{${\mathcal H}$}
\left.
\begin{array}{l}
- \ {\mathscr S}\textrm{ is a surface in } {\mathbb P}^3_k, \\
- \ \phi \textrm{ is a birational map onto } {\mathcal S}, \\
- \ V(I) \textrm{ is finite and locally a complete intersection.}
\end{array}\right\}$$
Matrix representations of $\phi$
--------------------------------
The approximation complex of cycles associated to the sequence of polynomials $f_0,f_1,f_2,f_3$ is of the form (see e.g. [@BuJo03 §4] for an introduction to these complexes in this context) $$\label{eqZComplex}
{\mathcal Z}_\bullet: \qquad 0\to {\mathcal Z}_3 \to {\mathcal Z}_2 \to {\mathcal Z}_1 \stackrel{M(\phi)}{{\longrightarrow}} {\mathcal Z}_0 \to 0.$$ The map $M(\phi)$ sends a 4-tuple $(g_0,g_1,g_2,g_3)$ to the form $\sum_{i=0}^{3}g_ix_i$, with the condition that $(g_0,g_1,g_2,g_3) \in {\mathcal Z}_1$ if and only if $\sum_{i=0}^{3}g_if_i=0$. The complex ${\mathcal Z}_\bullet$ inherits a grading from the canonical grading of the polynomial ring $S$. Thus, the notation $M(\phi)_\nu$ stands for the matrix in $({\mathcal Z}_\bullet)_\nu$ that corresponds to the degree $\nu$ part of $M(\phi)$.
Under our hypothesis, the symmetric algebra ${\mathcal S}_I:=\operatorname{Sym}_S(I)$ of the ideal $I\subset S$ is projectively isomorphic to the Rees algebra ${\mathcal R}_I:=\operatorname{Rees}_S(I)$. In other words, the graph $\Gamma \subset {\mathbb P}^2_k\times {\mathbb P}^3_k$ of the parameterization $\phi$ is scheme defined by ${\mathcal S}_I$. As a consequence, the approximation complex of cycles ${\mathcal Z}_\bullet$ can be used to determine an implicit representation of the closed image of $\phi$, i.e. the surface ${\mathscr S}$ (recall that $H_0({\mathcal Z}_\bullet)=\operatorname{Sym}_S(I)$).
Under the assumptions , for all integer $\nu\geq \nu_0$ the matrix $M(\phi)_\nu$ of the graded map of free $R$-modules $({\mathcal Z}_1)_\nu\rightarrow ({\mathcal Z}_0)_\nu$ is called a *matrix representation* of $\phi$.
For the moment, the integer $\nu_0$ can be taken equal to $2d-2$, but we will come back to its definition in the next section. Here are the main features of the collection of matrix representations $M(\phi)_\nu$ of $\phi$, for $\nu\geq \nu_0$:
- Its entries are linear forms in $R=k[x_0,\ldots,x_3]$,
- it has $\binom{\nu+2}{2}$ rows and at least as many columns as rows,
- it has maximal rank $\binom{\nu+2}{2}$ at the generic point of ${\mathbb P}^3_k$, that is to say $$\mathrm{rank} \, M(\phi)_\nu \otimes_{R}\mathrm{Frac}(R) = \binom{\nu+2}{2},$$
- when specializing $M(\phi)_\nu$ at a point $P\in {\mathbb P}^3$, its rank drops if and only if $P\in {\mathcal S}$.
Fitting ideals associated to $\phi$
-----------------------------------
From the properties of matrix representations of $\phi$, for all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ the support of the Fitting ideal ${\mathfrak F}^0(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)$ is ${\mathscr S}$ and hence provides a scheme structure for the closure of the image of $\phi$. Following [@Tei77] (and [@EH00 V.1.3]), we call it the *Fitting image* of $\phi$.
Observe that by definition, the ideals ${\mathfrak F}^0(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)$ depend on the integer $\nu$ (it is generated in degree $\nu$) whereas $\operatorname{ann}_R(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)=\ker(\phi^\sharp)$ for all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ (see [@BuJo03 Proposition 5.1] and [@BC05 Theorem 4.1]), where $\phi^\sharp:R\to S$ is the map of rings induced by $\phi$ (it sends each $x_i$ to $f_i(s)$ for all $i=0,\ldots,3$) and $\ker(\phi^\sharp)$ is the usual ideal definition of the image of $\phi$.
In this paper, we will push further the study of ${\mathfrak F}^0(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)$ by looking at the other Fitting ideals ${\mathfrak F}^i(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)$, $i>0$, since they provide a natural stratification : $${\mathfrak F}^0(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu) \subset {\mathfrak F}^1(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu) \subset {\mathfrak F}^2(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu) \subset \cdots \subset {\mathfrak F}^{\binom{\nu+2}{2}}(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)=R.$$ As we will see, these Fitting ideals are closely related to the geometric properties of the parameterization $\phi$. For simplicity, the Fitting ideals ${\mathfrak F}^i(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)$ will be denoted ${\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi)$. We recall that ${\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi) \subset R$ is generated by all the minors of size $\binom{\nu+2}{2}-i$ of any matrix representation $M(\phi)_\nu$.
Consider the following parameterization of the sphere $$\begin{aligned}
\phi : {\mathbb P}^2_\CC & {\dashrightarrow}& {\mathbb P}^3_\CC \\
(s_0:s_1:s_2) & \mapsto & (s_0^2+s_1^2+s_2^2: 2s_0s_2:2s_0s_1:s_0^2-s_1^2-s_2^2).\end{aligned}$$ Its matrix representations $M(\phi)_\nu$ have the expected properties for all $\nu\geq 1$ (see the next section). The computation of the smallest such matrix yields $$M(\phi)_1=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & X_1 & X_2 & -X_0+X_3 \\
X_1 & 0 & -X_0-X_3 & X_2 \\
-X_2 & -X_0-X_3 & 0 & X_1
\end{array}\right).$$ Here is a Macaulay2 [@M2] code computing this matrix (and others by tuning its inputs: the parameterization $\phi$ and the integer $\nu$):
>A=QQ[s0,s1,s2];
>f0=s0^2+s1^2+s2^2; f1=2*s0*s2; f2=2*s0*s1; f3=s0^2-s1^2-s2^2;
>F=matrix{{f0,f1,f2,f3}};
>Z1=kernel koszul(1,F);
>R=A[X0,X1,X2,X3];
>d=(degree f0)_0; nu=2*(d-1)-1;
>Z1nu=super basis(nu+d,Z1);
>Xnu=matrix{{X0,X1,X2,X3}}*substitute(Z1nu,R);
>Bnu=substitute(basis(nu,A),R);
>(m,M)=coefficients(Xnu,Variables=>{s0_R,s1_R,s2_R},Monomials=>Bnu);
>M -- this is the matrix representation in degree nu
A primary decomposition of the $3\times 3$ minors of $M(\phi)_1$, i.e. ${\mathfrak F}^0_1(\phi)$, returns $$(X_0^2-X_1^2-X_2^2-X_3^2)\cap(X_2,X_1,X_0^2+2X_0X_3+X_3^2)$$ which corresponds to the implicit equation of the sphere plus one embedded double point $(1:0:0:-1)$. Now, a primary decomposition of the $2\times 2$ minors of $M(\phi)_1$, i.e. ${\mathfrak F}^1_1(\phi)$, returns $$(X_2,X_1,X_0+X_3)\cap (X_3,X_2^2,X_1X_2,X_0X_2,X_1^2,X_0X_1,X_0^2)$$ which corresponds to the same embedded point $(1:0:0:-1)$, now with multiplicity one, plus an additional component supported at the origin. Finally, the ideal of $1$-minors of $M(\phi)_1$, i.e. ${\mathfrak F}^2_1(\phi)$, is supported at the origin (i.e. is empty as a subscheme of ${\mathbb P}^2$).
The point $(1:0:0:-1)$ is actually a singular point of the parameterization $\phi$ (but not of the sphere itself). Indeed, the line $L=(0:s_1:s_2)$ is a ${\mathbb P}^1$ that is mapped to $(s_1^2+s_2^2: 0:0:-(s_1^2+s_2^2))$. In particular, the base points of $\phi$, $(0:1:i)$ and $(0:1:-i)$, are lying on this line, and the rest of the points are mapped to the point $(1:0:0:-1)$. Outside $L$ at the source and $P$ at the target, $\phi$ is an isomorphism.
Regularity of the symmetric algebra
-----------------------------------
Hereafter, we give an upper bound for the regularity of the symmetric algebra ${\mathcal S}_I$ in our setting. We will use in the course of this paper. We begin with some classical notation.
Given a finitely generated graded $S$-module $N$, we will denote by $HF_N$ its Hilbert function and by $HP_N$ its Hilbert polynomial. Recall that for every $\mu$, $$HF_N(\mu ):=\dim_k (N_\mu ),$$ and $$\label{eq:HPHF}
HP_N (\mu ):=HF_N(\mu )-\sum_i (-1)^i HF_{H_{{\mathfrak m}}^i(N)}(\mu)$$ where ${\mathfrak m}$ denotes the ideal ${\mathfrak m}=(s_0,s_1,s_2)\subset S$. It is well-known that $HF_{H_{{\mathfrak m}}^i(N)}(\mu)$ is finite for any $i$ and $\mu$, and that $HP_N$ is a polynomial function.
We also recall the definition of three classical invariants attached to a graded module $N$. We will denote $$a^i(N):=\sup\{\mu\ |\ H^i_{\mathfrak m}(N)_\mu\neq 0\}, \ \ a^*(N):=\max_i\{a^i(N)\}, \ $$ and $$\operatorname{reg}(N):=\max_i\{a^i(N)+i\}$$ for the $a^i$-invariant, the $a^*$-invariant and the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of $N$, respectively. Finally, the notation $\mu(J)$ for a given ideal $J$ stands for its minimal number of generators.
The following lemma will be useful in some places (see [@SZ Corollary A12] for a self contained elementary proof) :
\[regdim0\] Let $J$ be a graded ideal in $S$, generated in degree $d$ such that $\dim(S/J)\leq 1$ and $\mu(J_\pp)\leq 3$ for every prime ideal ${\mathfrak m}\supsetneq \pp \supset J$. Then, $$\operatorname{reg}(S/J^{sat})\leq 2d-3$$ and $$\operatorname{reg}(S/J)\leq 3d-3-\operatorname{indeg}(J^{sat})$$ unless $\mu (J)=2$, in which case $J=J^{sat}$ and $\operatorname{reg}(S/J)=2d-2$.
We may assume that $k$ is infinite. Let $f$ and $g$ be two general forms of degree $d$ in $J$. They form a complete intersection. Hence, by liaison (see e.g. [@CU02 4.1 (a)]) $$\operatorname{reg}(S/J^{sat})=\operatorname{reg}(S/(f,g))-\operatorname{indeg}(((f,g):J^{sat})/(f,g)).$$ Hence $\operatorname{reg}(S/J^{sat})\leq 2d-3$, unless $(f,g)\supseteq J^{sat}$ in which case $J=(f,g)$.
Let $J'\subseteq J$ be an ideal generated by $3$ general forms of degree $d$. As $\mu(J_\pp)\leq 3$ for every prime ideal ${\mathfrak m}\supsetneq \pp $, $J'$ and $J$ have the same saturation. Therefore, it suffices to show that $H^0_{\mathfrak m}(S/J')_{\mu +d}=0$. Observe that by Koszul duality (see for instance [@Ch04 Lemma 5.8]) $H^0_{\mathfrak m}(S/J')_{\mu +d}=0$ is equivalent to $H^0_{\mathfrak m}(S/J')_{2d-3-\mu}=0$. But since $2d-3-\mu <d$ we indeed have $$H^0_{\mathfrak m}(S/J')_{2d-3-\mu}=(J')^{sat}_{2d-3-\mu}=J^{sat}_{2d-3-\mu}=0$$ since $2d-\mu -3<\operatorname{indeg}( J^{sat})$.
\[prop:regSym\] Assume that $\dim(S/I)\leq 1$ and $\mu(I_\pp)\leq 3$ for every prime ideal ${\mathfrak m}\supsetneq \pp \supset I$, then ${\mathcal Z}_\bullet$ is acyclic, $a^*({\mathcal S}_I)+1\leq\nu_0:=2d-2-\operatorname{indeg}(I^{sat})$, and $$\operatorname{reg}({\mathcal S}_I)\leq \nu_0,$$ unless $I$ is a complete intersection of two forms of degree $d$[^1], in which case $a^*({\mathcal S}_I)= d-3$ and $\operatorname{reg}({\mathcal S}_I)=d-1=\nu_0+1$.
The acyclicity of ${\mathcal Z}_\bullet$ is proved in [@BC05 Lemma 4.2]. Furthermore, $H^i_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal S}_I)=0$ for $i\notin \{0,1,2,3\}$, so we only need to examine $H^i_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal S}_I)$ for $i\in \{0,1,2,3\}$. The case $i=0$ is treated in [@BC05 Theorem 4.1]. The proof uses the spectral sequence $$\label{eq:spectseq}
H^j_{\mathfrak m}(Z_{i+j})_{\mu +(i+j)d}\otimes_k R\Rightarrow H^i_{\mathfrak m}( {\mathcal S}_I)_\mu$$ from which we will also deduce the vanishing for $i>0$.
For $i=1$, let $\mu \geq \nu_0$. We will show that $H^2_{\mathfrak m}(Z_1)_{\mu +d}=H^3_{\mathfrak m}(Z_2)_{\mu +2d}=0$ as by it implies that $H^1_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal S}_I)_\mu=0$ as claimed (recall that $H^1_{\mathfrak m}(Z_0)=H^1_{\mathfrak m}(S)=0$).
By [@BC05 Lemma 4.1], $H^3_{\mathfrak m}(Z_2) \simeq (Z_1)^*[3-4d]$ and we deduce that $$H^3_{\mathfrak m}(Z_2)_{\mu +2d}\simeq \left((Z_1)^*[3-4d]\right)_{\mu+2d}\simeq (Z_1)^*_{\mu-2d+3}.$$ But $2d-\mu -3< \operatorname{indeg}( I^{sat})\leq d$ as $\mu\geq \nu_0$. Hence $(Z_1)_{2d-\mu -3}=0$ since $Z_1\subset S(-d)^4$, proving that $H^3_{\mathfrak m}(Z_2)_{\mu +2d}=0$.
The exact sequence $0\to Z_1\to S(-d)^4\to S\to S/I\to 0$ provides a graded isomorphism $H^2_{\mathfrak m}(Z_1) \simeq H^0_{\mathfrak m}(S/I)$. By Lemma \[regdim0\], $\operatorname{reg}(S/I)\leq 3d-3-\operatorname{indeg}(I^{sat})=d+\nu_0 -1$, hence $H^2_{\mathfrak m}(Z_1)_{\mu +d}=0$.
For $i=2$, consider the canonical exact sequence defining $K$ $$0 \rightarrow K \rightarrow {\mathcal S}_I \rightarrow {\mathcal R}_I \rightarrow 0.$$ As $K$ is the direct sum of the $S$-modules $\ker (\operatorname{Sym}^t_S(I) \to I^t)$ that are supported on $V(I)$, we have $H^i_{\mathfrak m}(K)=0$ for $i>\dim S/I$. It follows that $H^2_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal S}_I) \simeq H^2_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal R}_I)$. Now, $a^2({\mathcal R}_I)=\max_{t\geq 1}\{ a^2(I^t)-td\}=\max_{t\geq 1}\{ a^1(S/I^t)-td\}$. The surjective map $(S/I)(-td)^{\binom{t+3}{3}}\to I^t/I^{t+1}$ provides the inequality $a^1(I^t /I^{t+1}) \leq a^1(S/I)+td$, and it remains to estimate $a^1(S/I)$. By Lemma \[regdim0\], $$a^2({\mathcal R}_I)\leq a^1(S/I) - d\leq d-4,$$ unless $\mu (I)=2$. As $\operatorname{indeg}(I^{sat})\leq d$ it follows that $a^2({\mathcal R}_I)\leq \nu_0-2$, unless $I=(f,g)$, in which case $a^2({\mathcal R}_I) =\nu_0-1$.
For $i=3$, $H^3_{\mathfrak m}(Z_0)_\mu =H^3_{\mathfrak m}(S)_\mu=0$ for all $\mu>-3$, hence $a^3({\mathcal S}_I)\leq -3$. Finally, $a^3({\mathcal S}_I)=\oplus_{t\geq 0} H^3_{\mathfrak m}(S)(td)$, hence $a^3({\mathcal S}_I)=-3$.
If $V(I)=\emptyset$ then $a^2 ({\mathcal S}_I)=-\infty$ and $a^1 ({\mathcal S}_I)=a^1(I)-d=\operatorname{reg}(S/I)-d$. Also, when $\dim(S/I)=1$ and $V(I)$ is locally a complete intersection, one has $a^2 ({\mathcal S}_I)=a^2(I)-d$ as above and $a^1 ({\mathcal S}_I)=\max\{ a^1(I)-d,a^1(I^2)-2d\}$. This shows in particular that $a^1 ({\mathcal S}_I)$ and $a^2 ({\mathcal S}_I)$ can be (very quickly) computed from $I$, using a dedicated software.
Fibers of the canonical projection of the graph of $\phi$ onto ${\mathcal S}$ {#sec:main}
=============================================================================
Let $\Gamma \subset {\mathbb P}^2_{{\mathbb P}^3}$ be the graph of $\phi$ and $R_{+}=(X_0,\ldots,X_3)$ the graded maximal ideal of $R$. We have the following diagram $$\label{eq:diagram}
\xymatrix@1{\Gamma\ \ar[d]_{\pi_1}\ar[rd]^{\pi_2}\ar@{^(->}[r] & {\mathbb P}^2_{{\mathbb P}^3_k} \\ {\mathbb P}^2_k & {\mathbb P}^3_k}$$ where all the maps are canonical. For any $\pp\in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$, we will denote by $\kappa(\pp)$ its residue field $R_\pp/\pp R_\pp$. The fiber of $\pi_2$ at $\pp\in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$ is the subscheme $$\pi_2^{-1}(\pp):=\operatorname{Proj}({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)) \subset {\mathbb P}^2_{\kappa(\pp)}.$$ For simplicity, we set $N_\nu^\pp:=\dim_{\kappa (\pp )}({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_{R} \kappa(\pp))_{\nu}$ for the Hilbert function of the fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ in degree $\nu$. It turns out that this quantity governs the support of the Fitting ideals ${\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi)$ we are interested in.
\[propVanishingFitt\] For any $\pp\in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$ $${\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi)\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)=
\begin{cases}
0 & \textrm{ if } \ 0\leq i<N_\nu^\pp \\
\kappa(\pp) & \textrm{ if } \ N_\nu^\pp \leq i
\end{cases}$$
First, as a consequence of the stability under base change of the Fitting ideals, one has $${\mathfrak F}^i(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu)\otimes_{R} \kappa(\pp)={\mathfrak F}^i(({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu\otimes_{R} \kappa(\pp)).$$ Now, for any $\nu\geq 0$ the $\kappa(\pp)$-vector space $$({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu\otimes_{R} \kappa(\pp)=({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_{R} \kappa(\pp))_\nu$$ is of dimension $N_\nu^\pp$. The result then follows from the fact that the $i$-th Fitting ideals of a $\kappa(\pp)$-vector space of dimension $N$ is $0$ for $i<N$ and $\kappa(\pp)$ for $i\geq N$.
This leads us to focus on the behavior of the Hilbert functions $N_\nu^\pp$. By , it suffices to control the local cohomology of the fiber ${\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp)$ with respect to the ideal ${\mathfrak m}$. Part of this control is already known,
\[lemFromDimToN\] Let $\pp\in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$ and $v_\pp:=\dim ({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R\kappa(\pp))$. Then, $$a^{v_\pp}({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R\kappa(\pp))=a^{v_\pp} ({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R R_\pp)\leq a^{v_\pp}({\mathcal S}_I) \\$$ and $$a^{v_\pp -1}({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R\kappa(\pp))\leq \max\{ a^{v_\pp -1}({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R R_\pp), a^{v_\pp} ({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R R_\pp)\}
\leq \max\{ a^{v_\pp -1}({\mathcal S}_I), a^{v_\pp} ({\mathcal S}_I)\} .$$
We are now ready to describe the support of the ideals ${\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi)$ with $i\geq 0$ and $\nu\geq \nu_0$. We begin with the points on ${\mathscr S}$ whose fiber is 0-dimensional.
Let $\pp \in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$. If $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp) = 0$ then for all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ $$\label{eqFittDeg}
\pp \in V({\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi)) \Leftrightarrow \deg(\pi_2^{-1}(\pp))\geq i+1.$$
By Proposition \[prop:regSym\] and Lemma \[lemFromDimToN\], we have $H^i_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R\kappa(\pp))_\nu=0$ for all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ and $i\geq 0$. Then, the conclusion follows from Proposition \[propVanishingFitt\] and the equality since the Hilbert polynomial of the fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is a constant polynomial which is equal to the degree of this fiber.
We now turn to points on ${\mathscr S}$ whose fiber is 1-dimensional.
\[1fiber\] Assume that the $f_i$’s are linearly independent, the fiber over a closed point $\pp$ of coordinates $(p_0:p_1:p_2:p_3)$ is of dimension 1, and its unmixed component is defined by $h_\pp\in S$. Let $\ell_\pp$ be a linear form with $\ell_\pp (p_0,\ldots ,p_3 )=1$ and set $\ell_i (x):=x_i-p_i \ell_\pp (x)$. Then, $h_\pp =\gcd (\ell_0(f),\ldots ,\ell_3(f))$ and $$I=(\ell_\pp (f))+h_\pp (g_0,\ldots ,g_3)$$ with $\ell_i (f)=h_\pp g_i$ and $\ell_\pp (g_0,\ldots ,g_3 )=0$. In particular $$(\ell_\pp (f))+h_\pp (g_0,\ldots ,g_3 )^{sat}\subseteq I^{sat} \subseteq (\ell_\pp (f))+(h_\pp ).$$
A syzygy $L=\sum_{i} a_{i}x_i =\sum_{i} a_{i}(p_i \ell_\pp (x)+\ell_i (x))$ provides an equation for the fiber : $\overline{L}=\sum_{i} a_i p_{i}$. Recall that $h_\pp =\gcd (\overline{L_1},\ldots ,\overline{L_t})$ where the $L_j$ are generators of the syzygies of $I$.
The particular syzygy $L_{(i)}:=\ell_i (f)\ell_\pp (x)-\ell_\pp (f)\ell_i (x)$ satisfies $\overline{L_{(i)}}=\ell_i (f)$. It follows that $h_\pp$ divides $h:=\gcd (\ell_0(f),\ldots ,\ell_3(f))$. Set $\ell_i (f)=hg_i$ for some $g_i\in S$. The $\ell_i$’s span the linear forms vanishing at $p$, and are related by the equation $\ell_\pp (\ell_0,\ldots ,\ell_3 )=0$. It follows that $$I=(\ell_\pp (f),\ell_0(f),\ldots ,\ell_3 (f))=(\ell_\pp (f))+h(g_0,\ldots ,g_3),$$ and $\ell_\pp (g_0,\ldots ,g_3)=0$. Now if one has a relation $a\ell_\pp (f)+\sum_i b_i hg_i=0$, then $h$ divides $a$, as the $f_i$’s have no common factor. This in turn shows that $h$ divides $h_\pp$ and completes the proof.
Notice that if $p_i\not= 0$, $g_i$ is a linear combination of the $g_j$’s for $j\not= i$ as $\ell_\pp (g_0,\ldots ,g_3)=0$. For instance if $p_0\not= 0$, $I=(\ell_\pp (f))+h(g_1,\ldots ,g_3)$.
\[rem:NoBPfinite\] The above lemma shows that fibers of dimension 1 can only occur when $V(I)\not= \emptyset$ as $V(I)\supseteq V((\ell_\pp (f),h_\pp ))$. It also shows that $$d\deg (h_\pp )\leq \deg (I)$$ if there is a fiber of dimension 1 of unmixed part given by $h_\pp$. Furthermore, any element $F$ in $I^{sat}$ of degree $<d$ has to be a multiple of $h_\pp$ for any fiber of dimension 1. As $h_\pp$ and $h_{\pp'}$ cannot have a common factor for $\pp \not= \pp'$, the product of these forms divide $F$. This gives a simple method to compute 1 dimensional fibers if such an $F$ exists.
\[thm:1dimfibers\] Let $\pp \in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$ be a $k$-rational closed point. If $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp) = 1$ then, setting $\delta:=\deg (\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)))$, $$a^0 ( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \nu_0 -\delta -1$$ and $$\operatorname{reg}( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \max\{ \nu_0 -\delta -1,\operatorname{reg}(I)-d\}\leq \nu_0 -1.$$ As a consequence, $a^* ( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \nu_0 -2$.
By Lemma \[1fiber\], $I=(f)+h(g_1,g_2,g_3)$ with $h$ the equation of the unmixed part of the fiber. Let $I':=(g_1,g_2,g_3)$. We may assume for simplicity that $\pp=(1:0:0:0)$ (i.e. $f=f_0$ and $f_i=hg_i$ for $i=1,2,3$), and we then have an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow Z_1'(d) \rightarrow Z_1(d) \rightarrow S \rightarrow {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp) \rightarrow 0,$$ with $Z_1'$ the syzygy module of $(f_1,f_2,f_3)$, the first map sending $(b_1,b_2,b_3)$ to $(0,b_1,b_2,b_3)$ and the second $(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)$ to $a_0$.
It follows that $\operatorname{reg}( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \max\{ \operatorname{reg}(S),\operatorname{reg}(Z_1)-d-1,\operatorname{reg}(Z'_1)-d-2\}$ and $a^0 ( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq a^2(Z'_1)-d\leq \operatorname{reg}(Z'_1)-d-2$ as $H^0_{\mathfrak m}(S)=H^1_{\mathfrak m}(Z_1)=0$.
By Lemma \[1fiber\], $h=\gcd (f_1,f_2,f_3)$ is of degree $\delta$. Set $f_i=hf_i'$ for all $i=1,2,3$. The syzygies of $(f_1,f_2,f_3)$ and $I':=(f_1',f_2',f_3')$ are equal, up to a degree shift by $\delta$, and the exact sequence $0\to Z'_1 (\delta )\to S(-d+\delta )^3 \to I'\to 0$ shows that : $$\operatorname{reg}(Z'_1)=\operatorname{reg}(I')+1+\delta .$$ Notice that $hI'\subset I$, hence $h(I')^{sat}\subseteq I^{sat}$ and $\operatorname{indeg}(I^{sat})\leq \delta +\operatorname{indeg}((I')^{sat})$. By Lemma \[regdim0\] we obtain $$\operatorname{reg}(I')\leq 3(d-\delta)-2-\operatorname{indeg}((I')^{sat})\leq 3d -2\delta -\operatorname{indeg}(I^{sat}) -2$$ hence $$a^0 ( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq 2d-\delta -3 -\operatorname{indeg}(I^{sat})=\nu_0 -\delta -1.$$ Finally, $\operatorname{reg}(Z_1)-d-1=\operatorname{reg}(I)-d\leq \nu_0 -1$ by Lemma \[regdim0\].
To conclude the above case discussion, let us state a simple corollary :
\[cor:key\] Let $\pp \in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$.\
(i) If $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)=\emptyset$ then $a^* ( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))=\operatorname{reg}( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \nu_0 -1$.\
(ii) If $\dim (\pi_2^{-1}(\pp))=0$ then $a^* ( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \nu_0 -1$ and $\operatorname{reg}( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \nu_0$.\
(iii) If $\dim (\pi_2^{-1}(\pp))=1$ then $a^* ( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \nu_0 -2$ and $\operatorname{reg}( {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp))\leq \nu_0-1$.
Let us now remark that there is no fiber of dimension two (i.e. equal to $ {\mathbb P}^{2}$) over a point $\pp \in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$. More generally :
\[FibreP2\] Let $\phi: {\mathbb P}^{n-1}_k {\dashrightarrow}{\mathbb P}^{m}_k$ be a rational map and $\Gamma$ be the closure of the graph of $\phi$. The following are equivalent : (i) $\pi : \Gamma \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^m_k$ has a fiber $F_x$ equal to ${\mathbb P}^{n-1}_x$, (ii) $\phi$ is the restriction to the complement of a hypersurface of the constant map sending any point to the zero dimensional and $k$-rational point $x$.
For (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii), notice that $ {\mathbb P}^{n-1}_k\times \{ x\}$ is a subscheme of the absolutely irreducible scheme $\Gamma$ that has same dimension $n-1$. Hence $F_x =\Gamma$ showing (ii).
\[fibreP2\] For all $\nu\geq \nu_0$, $$\left\{\pp\in \operatorname{Proj}(R) : HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(\nu) = HP_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu) =\binom{\nu+2}{2} \right\}=\emptyset$$
It follows from Proposition \[prop:regSym\] that the defining ideal of the fiber is generated in degree at most $\nu_0$. As this ideal is non trivial for any point in $\operatorname{Proj}(R)$ by Lemma \[FibreP2\], we deduce that $HP_\nu^\pp < \binom{\nu+2}{2}$ for any prime in $\operatorname{Proj}(R)$ if $\nu \geq \nu_0$.
It is worth mentioning two facts that are direct consequences of the above results. First, the embedded components of ${\mathfrak F}^0_\nu(\phi)$ are exactly supported on $V({\mathfrak F}^1_\nu(\phi))\subset V({\mathfrak F}^0_\nu(\phi))={\mathscr S}$. Second, the set-theoretical support of each ${\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi)$, $i$ fixed, stabilizes for $\nu \gg 0$; its set-theoretical support then correspond to those points on ${\mathcal S}$ whose fiber is either a curve and or a finite scheme of degree greater or equal to $i+1$.
Computational aspects {#sec:comp}
=====================
In this section, we detail the consequences of the previous results for giving a computational description of the singular locus of the parameterization $\phi$ of the surface ${\mathcal S}$.
Description of the fiber of a given point on ${\mathscr S}$ {#sec:algo}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Given a point $\pp$ on ${\mathscr S}$, we summarize the results we obtained with Figure \[figure\]. The blue curve corresponds to a finite fiber, i.e. a point $\pp$ such that $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp)=0$, the red curve corresponds a one dimensional fiber, i.e. a point $\pp$ such that $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp)=1$, and the black curve represents the Hilbert polynomial of $S$, the coordinate ring of ${\mathbb P}^{2}_{k}$.
![Graph of $N_\nu^\pp$ as a function of $\nu$ for a given $\pp \in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$.[]{data-label="figure"}](pic1.pdf)
The fact that $\pp$ belongs or not to the support of ${\mathfrak F}_\nu^i(\phi)$ can be checked by the computation of the rank of a matrix representation $M_\nu(\phi)$ evaluated at the point $\pp$. More precisely, we get the following properties:
- If $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp)\leq 0$ then for all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ $$\corank(M_\nu(\phi)(\pp))=\deg(\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)).$$
- If $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp) = 1$ then for all $\nu\geq \nu_0-1$ $$\corank(M_\nu(\phi)(\pp))=\deg(\pi_2^{-1}(\pp))\nu+c$$ where $c\in {\mathbb Z}$ is such that $HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(\nu)=\deg(\pi_2^{-1}(\pp))\nu+c$.
From here, we get an algorithm to determine the Hilbert polynomial of a fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ of a given point $\pp$ by comparing the rank variation of the matrix $M_\nu(\phi)(\pp)$ for two consecutive integers $\nu$ and $\nu+1$, assuming $\nu \geq \nu_0$. Before giving a more precise description in the form of an algorithm, we refine the distinction between finite and non-finite fibers.
Let $\pp$ be a point on ${\mathscr S}$ and choose an integer $\nu$ such that $$\nu_0\leq \nu\leq 2d-2.$$ If $\corank(M_{\nu}(\phi)(\pp))\leq \nu$ then $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is necessarily a finite fiber.
We know that the Hilbert function of the fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ coincides with its Hilbert polynomial for all $\nu\geq \nu_{0}$. Therefore, to prove our claim it is enough to show that if the fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ of $\pp$ is of dimension 1, then $$\corank(M_{\nu}(\phi)(\pp))=HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(\nu)\geq \nu+1.$$ So, assume that $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is 1-dimensional and set $\delta:=\deg(\pi_2^{-1}(\pp))$ so that $$HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(\nu)=\delta\nu+1-\binom{\delta-1}{2}+N$$ where $\binom{\delta-1}{2}$ is the arithmetic genus of the unmixed dimension one part of the fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ and $N\geq 0$ is the degree of its remaining finite part. Observe that $\delta\leq d$. Now, a straightforward computation yields $$HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(\nu)=\frac{\delta(2\nu+3-\delta)}{2}+N.$$ From here, we see that $HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(\nu)$ is an increasing function of $\delta$ on the interval $[-\infty;\nu+\frac{3}{2}]$ which takes value ${\nu+1+N}$ for $\delta=1$. Observe moreover that $\nu+\frac{3}{2}\geq \delta$ as soon as $\nu \geq d-1$. And if $\nu=d-2$, then $HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(d-2)$ takes the same value for $\delta=d-1$ and $\delta=d$.
An interesting consequence of the above proposition is that for all integer $0\leq n \leq 2d-2$ $$\corank(M_{2d-2}(\phi)(\pp))=n \Leftrightarrow \pi_2^{-1}(\pp) \textrm{ is finite of degree } n.$$ Therefore, as soon as $d\geq 2$ we have $$\corank(M_{2d-2}(\phi)(\pp))=1 \Leftrightarrow \pp \textrm{ has a unique preimage}.$$ Observe in addition that once we know that a point $\pp$ has a unique preimage, this preimage can be computed from the kernel of the transpose of $M_{2d-2}(\phi)(\pp)$. Indeed, this kernel is generated by a single vector. But it is clear by the definition of $M_{2d-2}(\phi)$ that the evaluation of the basis of $S_\nu$ chosen to build $M_{2d-2}(\phi)$ evaluated at the point $(s_0:s_1:s_2)$ is also a nonzero vector in the kernel of the transpose of $M_{2d-2}(\phi)(\pp)$. Hence, from this property it is straightforward to compute the pre-image of $\pp$ if it is unique.
**Algorithm** : Determination of the characters of a fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$
**Input:** a parameterization $\phi$ of a surface ${\mathscr S}$ satisfying and a point $\pp \in {\mathbb P}^3$.
**Output:** the hilbert polynomial of the fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$.
1. Pick an integer $\nu\geq \nu_0$ (e.g. $\nu=2d-2$ which is always valid).
2. Compute a matrix representation $M_{\nu}(\phi)$.
3. Compute $r_{\nu}:=\corank(M_{\nu}(\phi))(\pp)$.
4. If $r_{\nu}=0$ then *$\pp$ does not belong to ${\mathscr S}$* (and stop).
5. If $0<r_{\nu}\leq \nu$ then $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is a finite set of $r_{\nu}$ points, counted with multiplicity.
6. If $r_{\nu}>\nu$ then compute $M_{\nu+1}(\phi)$.
7. Compute $r_{\nu+1}:=\corank(M_{\nu+1}(\phi))(\pp)$.
8. If $r_{\nu}=r_{\nu+1}$ then $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is a finite set of $r_{\nu}$ points, counted with multiplicity.
9. If $r_{\nu}<r_{\nu+1}$ then $\dim(\pi_2^{-1}(\pp))=1$ and $$HP_{\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)}(\nu)=(r_{\nu+1}-r_{\nu})\nu+r_{\nu}-(r_{\nu+1}-r_{\nu})\nu.$$ In other words, $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is made of a curve of degree $r_{\nu+1}-r_{\nu}$ and of a finite set of $$\binom{r_{\nu+1}-r_{\nu}-1}{2}+r_{\nu}-(r_{\nu+1}-r_{\nu})\nu-1.$$
Pull-back to the parameter space
--------------------------------
So far, we have seen that the fibers of $\pi_2$ can be described from the Fitting ideals ${\mathfrak F}^i_\nu(\phi)$ which are homogeneous ideals in the ring $R$ of implicit variables. However, for applications in geometric modeling, it is also interesting to get such a description of the singular locus of $\phi$ in the source space ${\mathbb P}^2$ in place of the target space ${\mathbb P}^3$. From a computational point of view, this also allows to reduce the number of ambient variables by one. For that purpose, we just have to pull-back our Fitting ideals through $\phi$. For all integers $i\geq 0$ and $\nu\geq \nu_0$ we define the ideals of $S$ $$\phi^{-1}({\mathfrak F}_\nu^i):=\phi^\sharp({\mathfrak F}_\nu^i).S$$
It is clear that for all $i$ we have $\phi^{-1}({\mathfrak F}_\nu^i) \subset I$, that is to say that the base points of $\phi$ are always contained in the support of $\phi^{-1}({\mathfrak F}_\nu^i)$ for all $i\geq 0$ and all $\nu\geq \nu_0$. By Lemma \[fibreP2\], this support is exactly the base points of $\phi$ if $i=\binom{\nu+2}{2}-1$. In other words we have $$\phi^{-1}\left({\mathfrak F}_\nu^{\binom{\nu+2}{2}-1} \right)=I, \hspace{.2cm} \forall \, \nu \geq \nu_0.$$
For all $\nu\geq \nu_0$, we clearly have $\phi^{-1}({\mathfrak F}_\nu^0)=(0) \subset S$. Notice that this behavior is similar to substituting the parameterization $\phi$ into an implicit equation of ${\mathscr S}$ which returns $0$. However, $\phi^{-1}({\mathfrak F}_\nu^1)$ is nonzero since we have assumed $\phi$ birational. Actually, as a consequence of the results of Section \[sec:main\], the sequence of ideals $$\phi^{-1}({\mathfrak F}_\nu^1) \subset \phi^{-1}({\mathfrak F}_\nu^2) \subset \cdots \subset \phi^{-1}\left({\mathfrak F}_\nu^{\binom{\nu+2}{2}-1} \right)=I$$ yields a filtration of ${\mathbb P}^2$ which is in correspondence with the singularities of $\phi$. Here is an illustrative example where we focus on the singularities of the parameterization $\phi$ in a situation where ${\mathscr S}$ is smooth and very simple.
Take four general linear forms $l_0,l_1,l_2,l_3$ in $S_1$ and consider the parameterization $$\phi: {\mathbb P}^2_\CC \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^3_\CC: (s_0:s_1:s_2) \rightarrow (l_1l_2:l_0l_3:l_0l_1:l_0l_1).$$ The closed image of $\phi$ is the plane of equation ${\mathscr S}: X_2-X_3=0$. There are three base points that are all local complete intersections: $$P_{01}=\{l_0=0\}\cap \{l_1=0\}, \ P_{02}=\{l_0=0\}\cap \{l_2=0\}, \ P_{13}=\{l_1=0\}\cap \{l_3=0\}.$$ The fiber of each base point by $\pi_1$ (see the diagram ) gives a line on ${\mathscr S}$, the projection of the associated exceptional divisor, say $D_{01}, D_{02}$ and $D_{13}$. The equations of the graph $\Gamma$ are $l_0X_0-l_2X_2,l_1X_1-l_3X_2,(l_3-l_2)X_2, X_2-X_3$ so that we have $$D_{01}: \{X_2=0\}\cap {\mathscr S}, \ D_{02}: \{l_1(P_{02})X_1-l_3(P_{02})X_2=0\}\cap {\mathscr S},$$ $$D_{13}: \{l_0(P_{13})X_0-l_2(P_{13})X_2=0\}\cap {\mathscr S}.$$ Now, let $P$ be a point on ${\mathscr S}$. If $P \notin D_{01}\cup D_{02} \cup D_{13}$ then $\pi_1(\pi_2^{-1}(P))$ does not contain any base point and is necessarily zero-dimensional. Moreover, $\pi_1 \pi_2^{-1}(D_{01}\cap D_{13})=\{ l_1=0\}$, so that we have the one-dimensional fiber over $D_{01}\cap D_{13}=(0:1:0:0)$ that goes through only two of the three base points. A similar property appears for $\pi_1 \pi_2^{-1}(D_{01}\cap D_{02})=\{ l_0=0\}$.
Notice that the three lines $D_{01},D_{02}, D_{13}$ are not in the image of $\phi$ except for the two points: $(0:1:0:0)$ and $(1:0:0:0)$. Moreover, the fibers over these two points are lines and they are the only points with a one-dimensional fiber.
Link with multiple-point schemes of finite maps {#sec:link}
===============================================
Given a finite map of schemes $\varphi:X\rightarrow Y$ of codimension one, its source and target double-point cycles have been extensively studied in the field of intersection theory (see e.g. [@KLU96; @KLU92; @Pie78; @Tei77]). In [@MP89], Fitting ideals are used to give a scheme structure to the multiple-point loci.
Under the hypothesis that $\phi:{\mathbb P}^2\rightarrow {\mathbb P}^3$ is a finite map, our results are partially contained in the above literature. Recall that if $\phi$ has no base point then $\phi$ is finite (see Remark \[rem:NoBPfinite\]). The contribution of our paper is hence mainly an extension to the case where $\phi$ is not finite. It is known that it is always possible to remove the base points by blowing-up, and this is exactly the role of the symmetric algebra in our approach of matrix representations, but still some one-dimensional fibers might remain.
In loc. cit. the basic ingredient is the direct image of the structural sheaf of ${\mathbb P}^2$: $\varphi_*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2})$. Since $\varphi$ is assumed to be finite, then $\varphi_*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2})$ is a coherent sheaf and hence one can consider its Fitting ideal sheaves [@MP89]. In our approach, we did not considered this sheaf, but the sheafification of the graded part of degree $\nu$ of the symmetric algebra ${\mathcal S}_I$ ($\nu\geq \nu_0$). It turns out that they are isomorphic as soon as $\phi$ is finite. Let us be more precise.
Assume that $\phi$ is finite (e.g. $\phi$ has no base point). In the following diagram $$\xymatrix@1{ \Gamma \subset {\mathbb P}^2_k\times{\mathbb P}^3_k \ar[d]_{\pi_1} \ar[rd]^{\pi_2} & \\ {\mathbb P}^2_k \ar[r]^{\phi} & {\mathbb P}^3_k}$$ the morphism ${\pi_1}_{|\Gamma}:\Gamma \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^2_k$ is an isomorphism, so that $ \pi_1^{\sharp}: {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}\simeq {\pi_1}_*({{\mathcal O}_{\Gamma}})$ by definition. In particular, we have the sheaf isomorphisms $$\label{eq:phiPP1}
{\pi_2}_{*}({\mathcal O}_\Gamma) = \phi_*{\pi_1}_*({{\mathcal O}_{\Gamma}}) \simeq \phi_*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}).$$ Given an integer $\nu$, we can consider two sheaves of ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^3}$-modules: $${\pi_2}_*({\mathcal O}_\Gamma\otimes_{{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2\times {\mathbb P}^3}} \pi_1^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu)))$$ and the sheaf associated to the graded $R$-module $({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu$ that we will denote by $\widetilde{({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu}$.
For all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ we have $$\phi_*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}) \simeq \widetilde{({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu}$$
The exact sequence of $R$-modules $$0 \rightarrow H^0_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu \rightarrow ({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu \rightarrow H^0({\mathbb P}^2_{\operatorname{Spec}(R)},{\mathcal O}_\Gamma\otimes \pi_1^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu)))
\rightarrow H^1_{\mathfrak m}({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu \rightarrow 0$$ shows that for all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ we have (extending $\pi_2$ to ${\mathbb P}^2\times \operatorname{Spec}(R) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R)$) $$\label{eq:pi2pi1}
({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu= H^0({\mathbb P}^2_{\operatorname{Spec}(R)},{\mathcal O}_\Gamma\otimes \pi_1^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu)))=H^0(\operatorname{Spec}(R),{\pi_2}_{*}({\mathcal O}_\Gamma\otimes \pi_1^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu))))$$ where the last equality follows from the definition of ${\pi_2}_*(-)$ and the fact that $\pi_2^{-1}(\operatorname{Spec}(R))={\mathbb P}^2\times \operatorname{Spec}(R)$. Since is an equality of graded $R$-modules, we deduce that $$\widetilde{({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu}\simeq {\pi_2}_*({\mathcal O}_\Gamma\otimes_{{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2\times {\mathbb P}^3}} \pi_1^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu))).$$ Comparing this with we obtain that for all $\nu\geq \nu_0$ $$\phi_*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}) \simeq \widetilde{({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu}$$ (because $\pi_1^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu))$ is an invertible sheaf).
In particular, we get that $${\mathfrak F}^0_{{\mathbb P}^3}( \pi_1^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(\nu))) \simeq {\mathfrak F}^0_{{\mathbb P}^3}( \widetilde{({\mathcal S}_I)_\nu} ) \simeq \widetilde{{\mathfrak F}^0_\nu(\phi)}$$ where the last isomorphism follows from the stability of Fitting ideals under base change and the classical properties of the sheaves associated to graded modules.
The case of bi-graded parameterizations of surfaces {#sec:bigraded}
===================================================
In this paper, we have treated rational surfaces that are parameterized by a birational map from ${\mathbb P}^2$ to ${\mathbb P}^3$. In the field of geometric modeling such surfaces are called *rational triangular Bézier surfaces* (or patches). In this section, we will (briefly) show that we can treat similarly rational surfaces that are parameterized by a birational map from ${\mathbb P}^1\times {\mathbb P}^1$ to ${\mathbb P}^3$; such surfaces are called *rational tensor product surfaces* in the field of geometric modeling where they are widely used.
Suppose given a rational map $\phi: {\mathbb P}^1_k\times {\mathbb P}^1_k {\dashrightarrow}{\mathbb P}^3_k$ where $f_0,f_1,f_2,f_3$ are four bi-homogeneous polynomials of bi-degree $\ud:=(d_1,d_2)$, that is to say that $f_i \in S:=k[s_0,s_1,t_0,t_1]$ is homogeneous of degree $d_1$ with respect to the variables $s_0,s_1$ and is homogeneous of degree $d_2$ with respect to the variables $t_0,t_1$. As in Section \[sec:def\], denote by ${\mathscr S}$ the closure of the image of $\phi$, set $x=(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)$, $R:=k[x]$, $I=(f_0,f_1,f_2,f_3)\subset S_\ud$ and assume that conditions hold. In this setting, the approximation complex of cycles can still be considered and it inherits a bi-graduation from the ring $S$ with respect to the two sets of variables $s_0,s_1$ and $t_0,t_1$. It is proved in [@Bot10] that matrix representations of $\phi$ still exist in this setting. To be more precise, define the following region (see Figure \[fig:R\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\Rf_{\ud}:=\{ (n_1,n_2)\in {\mathbb Z}^2 \textrm{ such that } (n_1 \leq d_1-2), \ \textrm{ or } (n_2 \leq d_2-2), \textrm{ or } \\
(n_1 \leq 2d_1-2 \textrm{ and } n_2 \leq 2d_2-2) \}\subset {\mathbb Z}^2. \end{gathered}$$
![The region $\Rf_{\ud}$ is represented in grey color.[]{data-label="fig:R"}](RegFitt-v1.pdf)
Then, for all $\unu=(\nu_1,\nu_2) \notin \Rf_\ud$ the matrix $M(\phi)_\unu$, which corresponds to the $\unu$-graded part of the matrix $M(\phi)$ in , is a matrix representation of $\phi$ with all the expected properties, in particular (see [@Bot10] for the details):
- its entries are linear forms in $R=k[x_0,\ldots,x_3]$,
- it has $(\nu_1+1)(\nu_2+1)$ rows and at least as many columns as rows,
- it has maximal rank $(\nu_1+1)(\nu_2+1)$ at the generic point of ${\mathbb P}^3_k$,
- when specializing $M(\phi)_\unu$ at a point $P\in {\mathbb P}^3$, its rank drops if and only if $P\in {\mathcal S}$.
Therefore, one can also consider the Fitting ideals ${\mathfrak F}^i_\unu(\phi) \subset R$ associated to $M(\phi)_\unu$ for which Proposition \[propVanishingFitt\] holds. Notice that in this setting, the projective plane ${\mathbb P}^2$ is replaced by ${\mathbb P}^1\times {\mathbb P}^1$ in , so that for any point $\pp \in \operatorname{Proj}(R)$ the fiber of $\pi_2$ at $\pp$ is a subscheme of ${\mathbb P}^1_{\kappa(\pp)}\times {\mathbb P}^1_{\kappa(\pp)}$: $$\pi_2^{-1}(\pp) = \mathrm{BiProj}({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)) \subset {\mathbb P}^1_{\kappa(\pp)}\times {\mathbb P}^1_{\kappa(\pp)}.$$ Thus, the Hilbert function of a fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is a function of ${\mathbb Z}^2$. Similarly to Section \[sec:main\], we set $N^\pp_\unu:=HF_{{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)}(\unu)$. It turns out that an equality similar to also holds: $$HP_{{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)} (\unu ):=HF_{{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)}(\unu )-\sum_i (-1)^i HF_{H_{B}^i({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})}(\unu)$$ where the ideal $B$ denotes the product of ideals $B:=(s_0,s_1)(t_0,t_1)\subset S$. The function $HP_{{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)}$ is a polynomial function called the Hilbert polynomial (see [@ColTesis] or [@BC13 Chapter 4.6] for more details). The following result allows to control the vanishing of the Hilbert function of the local cohomology modules of the fibers.
For all $\pp\in \operatorname{Spec}(R)$, all integer i and $\unu \notin \Rf_\ud$, $$H_{B}^i({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu =0$$
We will only outline the proof of this result because it follows the main lines of the proof of Corollary \[cor:key\].
Assume first that $\delta:=\dim({\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp))=1$. Lemma \[lemFromDimToN\] implies that $$H_{B}^0({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu=H_{B}^1({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu=0$$ if $H_{B}^0({{\mathcal S}_I})_\unu=H_{B}^1({{\mathcal S}_I})_\unu=0$. As proved in [@Bot10 Theorem 4.7], this latter condition holds if $\unu \notin \Rf_\ud$.
Now, we turn to the case $\delta=2$ for which we have to control the vanishing of $H_{B}^0({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu$, $H_{B}^1({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu$ and $H_{B}^2({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu$. We proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:1dimfibers\]. We may assume for simplicity that $\pp=(1:0:0:0)$ so that $I=(f_0)+h(g_1,g_2,g_3)$ with $h$ the equation of the unmixed part of dimension 2 of the fiber at $\pp$; it is a bi-homogeneous polynomial of bi-degree $\ue=(e_1,e_2)$. Setting $I':=(g_1,g_2,g_3)$, we have an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow Z_1'(\ud) \rightarrow Z_1(\ud) \rightarrow S \rightarrow {\mathcal S}_I\otimes \kappa(\pp) \rightarrow 0,$$ with $Z_1'$ the syzygy module of $(f_1,f_2,f_3)$, the first map sending $(b_1,b_2,b_3)$ to $(0,b_1,b_2,b_3)$ and the second $(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)$ to $a_0$. The two spectral sequences associated to the double complex $$0 \rightarrow {\mathcal C}_B^\bullet(Z_1'(\ud)) \rightarrow {\mathcal C}_B^\bullet (Z_1(\ud)) \rightarrow {\mathcal C}_B^\bullet(S)$$ show that
- $H_{B}^0({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu=0$ if $H^1_B(Z_1(\ud))_\unu=H^2_B(Z_1'(\ud))_\unu=0$,
- $H_{B}^1({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu=0$ if $H^2_B(Z_1(\ud))_\unu=H^3_B(Z_1'(\ud))_\unu=0$,
- $H_{B}^2({{\mathcal S}_I\otimes_R \kappa(\pp)})_\unu=0$ if $H^2_B(S)_\unu=H^3_B(Z_1(\ud))_\unu=0$.
Recall that $H^i_B(S)=0$ if $i\neq 2,3$, that $H^3_B(S)_\unu\neq 0$ if and only if $\nu_1\leq -2$ and $\nu_2\leq -2$, and that $H^2_B(S)_\unu\neq 0$ if and only if $\nu_1\leq-2$ and $\nu_2\geq 0$, or $\nu_1\geq 0$ and $\nu_2\leq-2$ (see [@Bot10 Lemma 6.7 and §7]).
To control the local cohomology of $Z_1$ we consider the long exact sequence of local cohomology associated to the canonical short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow Z_1 \rightarrow S(-\ud)^4 \rightarrow I \rightarrow 0.$$ We get $H^1_B(Z_1)=0$ and the exact sequences $H^1_B(I)\rightarrow H^2_B(Z_1) \rightarrow H^2_B(S(-\ud)^4)$ and $H^2_B(I)\rightarrow H^3_B(Z_1) \rightarrow H^3_B(S(-\ud)^4)$. Since we know the local cohomology of $S$, it remains to estimate the vanishing of the local cohomology modules $H^1(I)$ and $H^2(I)$. For that purpose, we examine the two spectral sequences associated to the double complex $${\mathcal C}_B^\bullet(K_\bullet((f_0,f_1,f_2,f_3);S)).$$ We obtain that $H^1_B(I)_\unu=0$ for all $\unu$ such that $H^2_B(S(-2\ud))_\unu=H^3_B(S(-3\ud))_\unu=0$ and that $H^2_B(I)_\unu=0$ for all $\unu$ such that $H^2_B(S(-\ud))_\unu=H^3_B(S(-2\ud))_\unu=0$. From here, we deduce that $H^2_B(Z_1(\ud))_\unu=H^3_B(Z_1(\ud))_\unu=0$ for all $\unu \notin \Rf_\ud$.
Similarly, to control the local cohomology of $Z_1'$ we consider the long exact sequence of local cohomology associated to the canonical short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow Z_1'(\ue) \rightarrow S(-\ud+\ue)^3 \rightarrow I' \rightarrow 0.$$ We get $H^1_B(Z_1')=0$ and the exact sequences $H^1_B(I')\rightarrow H^2_B(Z_1'(\ue)) \rightarrow H^2_B(S(-\ud+\ue)^3)$ and $H^2_B(I')\rightarrow H^3_B(Z_1'(\ue)) \rightarrow H^3_B(S(-\ud+\ue)^3)$. As in the previous case, it remains to estimate the vanishing of the local cohomology modules $H^1(I')$ and $H^2(I')$. We proceed similarly by inspecting the two spectral sequences associated to the double complex ${\mathcal C}_B^\bullet(K_\bullet((g_1,g_2,g_3);S))$ and finally deduce that $H^2_B(Z_1'(\ud))_\unu=H^3_B(Z_1'(\ud))_\unu=0$ for all $\unu \notin \Rf_\ud$.
As a consequence of this result, all the properties we obtained in Section \[sec:comp\] also applied to the setting of a bi-graded parameterization. In particular, we have the following properties:
- If $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp)\leq 0$ then for all $\unu\notin \Rf_\ud$ $$\corank(M_\unu(\phi)(\pp))=\deg(\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)).$$
- If $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(\pp) = 1$ then for all $\unu\notin \Rf_\ud$ $$\corank(M_\unu(\phi)(\pp))=e_1\nu_1+e_2\nu_2+c$$ where the curve component of $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ is of bi-degree $(e_1,e_2)$ and $c\in {\mathbb Z}$.
From here, an algorithm similar to the one presented in §\[sec:algo\] can be derived, for all $\unu\notin \Rf_\ud$, in order to determine the characters of a fiber $\pi_2^{-1}(\pp)$ by comparing matrix representations with consecutive indexes. Typically, the first matrix representation to consider is $M(\phi)_{(d_1-1,2d_2-1)}$ (or $M(\phi)_{(2d_1-1,d_2-1)}$) which has $2d_1d_2$ rows. Then, informations on the fiber at a given point $\pp$ can be obtained by comparing the rank at $\pp$ of $M(\phi)_{(d_1-1,2d_2-1)}$ with the ranks at $\pp$ of $M(\phi)_{(d_1,2d_2-1)}$ and $M(\phi)_{(d_1-1,2d_2)}$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We would like to thank Ragni Piene and Bernard Teissier for enlightening discussions about the singularities of finite maps. Most of this work was done while the first author was hosted at INRIA Sophia Antipolis with a financial support of the european Marie-Curie Initial Training Network SAGA (ShApes, Geometry, Algebra), FP7-PEOPLE contract PITN-GA-2008-214584.
[LBBM09]{}
Laurent Bus[é]{} and Marc Chardin. Implicitizing rational hypersurfaces using approximation complexes. , 40(4-5):1150–1168, 2005.
Nicol[á]{}s Botbol and Marc Chardin. Castelnuovo mumford regularity with respect to multigraded ideals. Preprint arXiv:1107.2494v2, 2013.
Nicol[á]{}s Botbol, Alicia Dickenstein, and Marc Dohm. Matrix representations for toric parametrizations. , 26(7):757–771, 2009.
Laurent Bus[é]{} and Jean-Pierre Jouanolou. On the closed image of a rational map and the implicitization problem. , 265(1):312–357, 2003.
Laurent Bus[é]{} and Thang Luu Ba. The surface/surface intersection problem by means of matrix based representations. , 29(8):579–598, 2012.
Nicol[á]{}s Botbol. Implicit equation of multigraded hypersurfaces. , 348(1):381–401, 2011.
Marc Chardin. Regularity of ideals and their powers. , Pr[é]{}publication 364, 2004.
Marc Chardin. Powers of ideals and the cohomology of stalks and fibers of morphisms. , 2012.
Gemma Colomé-Nin. Multigraded structures and the depth of blow-up algebras. , 2008.
Marc Chardin and Bernd Ulrich. , 124(6):1103–1124, 2002.
David Eisenbud and Joe Harris. , 2000.
Daniel R Grayson and Michael E Stillman. Macaulay 2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. .
Steven Kleiman, Joseph Lipman, and Bernd Ulrich. , 1992.
Steven Kleiman, Joseph Lipman, and Bernd Ulrich. , 34(2):285–326, 1996.
Thang Luu Ba, Laurent Bus[é]{}, and Bernard Mourrain. . In H. Kai and H. Sekigawa, editors, [*[SNC]{}*]{}, pages 71–78, Kyoto, Japan, 2009. ACM Press.
David Mond and Ruud Pellikaan. Fitting ideals and multiple points of analytic mappings. In [*Algebraic geometry and complex analysis ([P]{}átzcuaro, 1987)*]{}, volume 1414 of [*Lecture Notes in Math.*]{}, pages 107–161. Springer, Berlin, 1989.
Ragni Piene. Polar classes of singular varieties. , 11(2):247–276, 1978.
Tom Sederberg and Falai Chen. Implicitization using moving curves and surfaces. 303:301–308, 1995.
Hal Schenck, Alexandra Seceleanu, and Javid Validashti. Syzygies and singularities of tensor product surfaces of bidegree (2,1). Preprint arXiv:1211.1648, to appear in [*Mathematics of Computations*]{}, 2012.
Agnes Szanto. Solving over-determined systems by the subresultant method. , 43(1):46–74, 2008. With an appendix by Marc Chardin.
Bernard Teissier. The hunting of invariants in the geometry of discriminants. In [*Real and complex singularities ([P]{}roc. [N]{}inth [N]{}ordic [S]{}ummer [S]{}chool/[NAVF]{} [S]{}ympos. [M]{}ath., [O]{}slo, 1976)*]{}, pages 565–678. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1977.
[^1]: Notice that in this case the closed image of $\phi$ cannot be a surface.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Although observations of circumstellar shock interactions around supernovae are generally consistent with a $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ wind surrounding the progenitor star, this is not true for GRB (gamma-ray burst) afterglows. However, GRB 991208 and GRB 000301C may be consistent with wind interaction if the injection particle spectrum is a broken power law. Circumstellar dust echos can place constraints on supernova and GRB progenitors, but have been clearly observed only around SN 1987A. Excess emission observed in two GRB afterglows is more likely to have a supernova origin. An interstellar dust echo, causing the light curve to flatten out, is a possibility for GRB afterglows, but is not likely to be observable.'
author:
- 'Roger A. Chevalier'
title: 'Theoretical Implications of the Gamma-Ray Burst – Supernova Connection'
---
Introduction
============
A year ago, there were a number of pieces of evidence that pointed to a connection between GRBs (gamma-ray bursts) and SNae (supernovae) (see [@K00] for a review). The positions of GRBs in galaxies, near star forming regions, were consistent with a massive star origin. In addition to the association of GRB 980425 with SN 1998bw, two distant GRB afterglows showed evidence for supernovae in their light curves and spectra. In some cases, the afterglow evolution suggested interaction with a freely expanding stellar wind, as expected in the immediate vicinity of a massive star.
Although the evidence for an association with star forming regions has held up [@Bl00], the other topics have not provided further support. There have been no further convincing associations of supernovae with GRB afterglows. Dust echos have been proposed as the mechanism for the two apparent distant supernova cases that have been observed [@WD00; @EB00]. The two best observed recent afterglows, GRB 991208 and GRB 000301C, have been interpreted in terms of expansion in a constant density medium, with jet effects [@G00; @B00]. All these points weaken the case for a GRB – SN connection. Here, I discuss these recent developments in the context of studies of supernovae and GRB afterglows.
Supernova and GRB Shock Interactions
====================================
The shock interactions of supernovae with circumstellar matter can be observed through radio synchrotron emission (analogous to the synchrotron emission in GRB afterglows) and through X-ray thermal radiation. The radio light curves are characterized by an initial rise followed by a power law decline. A plot of the time of the light curve peak vs. the peak luminosity at that time sorts the observed supernovae into various types [@C98; @LC99]. These properties are related to the density of the gas into which the shock wave is propagating. Except for SN 1987A, Type II supernovae are thought to have red supergiant progenitors, which have wind velocities of $\sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$. The inferred mass loss rate from the progenitor of SN 1999em, a recently detected radio supernova [@L99], is $\dot M \sim 10^{-6}~M_\odot~\rm yr^{-1}$. This may be typical of SN II progenitors; the well-observed Type II radio supernovae are probably at the upper end of a distribution of circumstellar densities. The most luminous radio supernovae are inferred to have $\dot M\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}~M_\odot~\rm yr^{-1}$.
Although some deviation from standard evolution has been found in radio supernovae with red supergiant progenitors [@M98; @M00] the variations are small compared to those in SN 1987A. The well-known equatorial ring is at a radius of $6.3\times 10^{17}$ cm, but moderately dense gas probably extends in from this radius because of photoionization by the progenitor star [@CD95]. The radio luminosity was initially low compared to the red supergiant case because of interaction with the low density progenitor wind, but started to increase in 1990 and rapidly rose to $> 100$ times an extrapolation of the early decline [@B95]. During the last few years, the supernova shock wave has started to interact with parts of the equatorial ring that are closest to the supernova [@LS00]. The changes in radio flux, which are more dramatic than any observed for other Type II supernovae, show what happens when a supernova shock wave runs into dense gas from an earlier evolutionary stage. At the present time, SN 1987A remains unique among the SN IIae and the precise causes for the progenitor evolution to the blue are not clear; they may have to do with binary evolution.
Except for SN 1998bw, the SN Ib/c that have been observed in the radio have similar properties [@LC99; @K98]. If they are able to efficiently radiate synchrotron emission, the radio flux is approximately in accord with $\dot M\sim 10^{-5}-10^{-4}~M_\odot~\rm yr^{-1}$ and $v_w \approx 1,000$ km s$^{-1}$, as expected for a Wolf-Rayet star [@C98]. Except for SN 1998bw, the radio light curves show a smooth evolution, although the data are sparse. In the case of SN 1998bw, the observed rise in flux between days 20 and 30 [@K98] is more likely to be due to an increase in the energy of the explosion than to an encounter with denser gas [@LC99]. The evolution is consistent with interaction with a $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ wind extending out to at least $4\times 10^{17}$ cm.
If GRBs have massive star progenitors, they are likely to be Wolf-Rayet stars. Arguments in favor of this assumption include: (1) SN 1998bw, the best case of a SN – GRB association (GRB 980425), was of Type Ic, with a probable Wolf-Rayet progenitor. (2) The high energy of GRBs suggest that a moderately massive black hole is involved, which, in turn, requires a massive, $\gsim
20-25 ~M_\odot$, progenitor [@EH98]. These stars are likely to be Wolf-Rayet stars at the end of their lives [@GS96]. (3) The relativistic flow from a central object may be able to penetrate a relatively compact Wolf-Rayet star, but probably cannot penetrate an extended red supergiant star [@MW99]. None of these arguments is definitive, but they are suggestive. The GRB rate is a small fraction of the SN rate so that a peculiar kind of star with an unusual surroundings could be involved. For example, a binary merger may be needed so that the central black hole has a large rotational energy. The merger process may be associated with a strong equatorial outflow of the stellar envelope. However, the relativistic flow is likely to be along the polar axis, where the mass loss properties may be normal.
The best tests for afterglow models are sources with extensive data; radio data are especially useful because they give information on the absorption frequency and the peak flux and its frequency. The extensive radio data [@FWK00] on GRB 970508 can be fitted by a model afterglow interacting with an $r^{-2}$ wind, extending out to $3\times 10^{18}$ cm [@CL00]. Frail et al. [@FWK00] fit the same data by jet expansion in a uniform medium. In their model, jet effects become important at day 25 and there is a transition to spherical nonrelativistic flow at day 100. The radio data on GRBs 991208 and 000301C can also be approximately fitted by a wind model [@LC01], but in these cases a broken power law spectrum is needed for the particles in order to fit the higher energy light curves. The jet in a uniform medium models for these objects can assume a single power law spectrum; however, the evolution of GRB 991208 is taken to be in the jet transition phase during the period of observation ($\sim 3-20$ days) [@G00], whereas GRB 000301C is taken to have a sharp transition to asymptotic jet evolution on day 7.3 [@B00]. A problem with the jet models is that the evolution is not well defined. The broken power law, wind models can be tested by late observations because different time dependences are expected at radio and optical wavelengths. The wind interaction models [@CL00; @LC01] have not included jet effects, although a collimated flow is expected if it must escape from the center of a star. To some extent, this can be justified by the slow apparent evolution of a jet in a wind [@KP00; @GD00].
The facts that many afterglows can be fitted by model evolution in a constant density medium and that massive stars are attractive progenitors have led to the suggestion [@W01] that the expansion is into the constant density medium that is expected downstream from the termination shock of the massive star wind [@CL99]. The outer radius of such a region is $\sim 2-2.5$ times the inner radius when the fast wind from a Wolf-Rayet star runs into a slow wind from a previous evolutionary stage [@CL99; @CI83]. Models and observations of Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars show that the swept-up shell of red supergiant material at the outer radius is at a distance $\gsim 3$ pc from the star [@GS96; @CL99]. This radius is sufficiently large that interaction with the free $\rho\propto r^{-2}$ wind is expected over the typical period of observation of afterglows. The time for the wind to reach the termination shock is relatively short ($\sim 300$ years to reach $10^{18}$ cm), so that the assumption of constant wind properties is plausible. In a massive star progenitor model, a high density in the immediate vicinity of the explosion is expected even if the wind passes through a termination shock at a relatively small radius. The prompt optical emission from a GRB gives the opportunity to investigate the immediate surroundings; in the case of GRB 990123, low density (interstellar medium) interaction gives a better explanation for the observations [@CL00; @SP99].
Despite the plausibility of free wind interaction, the uncertainty in the evolution of massive stars leaves open the possibility of interaction with denser material at early times; Ramirez-Ruiz et al. [@RR00] have investigated such a case. The interaction of a GRB flow with a dense shell could have different properties compared to a supernova, as exemplified by SN 1987A. In the supernova case, the shock front is continually driven by the lower velocity supernova ejecta with most of the kinetic energy. Most GRB afterglow models have constant energy, so that although an initial overpressure can be expected upon a collision with a shell, it is not as marked as in the supernova case. In addition, the GRB flow is likely to be in a jet, unlike the supernova case. When the beamed flow interacts with a large density jump, it is rapidly decelerated and lateral spreading can occur. The afterglow could make a rapid transition to the asymptotic behavior for a jet flow [@SPH99]. The afterglow of GRB 000301C did show a bump followed by a transition to a steeper decline that could be lateral jet expansion, although the bump can be interpreted as a microlensing event [@GLS00].
Dust Echos
==========
The possibility of circumstellar dust echos arises naturally for Type II supernovae with red supergiant progenitors because their cool winds are known to contain dust. For the higher estimated mass loss rates, e.g., $\sim
10^{-4}~M_\odot~\rm yr^{-1}$ for SN 1979C, the progenitor star is expected to be entirely enshrouded in dust. Yet when we observe Type II supernovae, there is little evidence for dust absorption in the spectra of the supernovae, including SN 1979C. The probable solution is that the dust near the star is evaporated by the radiation from the supernova and the remaining dust does not have a large optical depth. The radius at which dust becomes so hot that it is evaporated, $r_v$, occurs at $\sim 3\times 10^{17}$ cm for typical supernova and dust parameters [@D83].
The circumstellar dust beyond $r_v$ can give rise to infrared and scattered light echos. Both SN 1979C and SN 1980K showed evidence for infrared excesses that might be attributable to dust echos [@D83]. The late optical light from these supernovae appeared to be dominated by emission from the circumstellar shock wave interactions and did not show dust scattering effects [@C86]. Roscherr and Schaefer [@RS00] have recently examined the emission from SN IIn to search for scattered light echos, but again found that the late emission is dominated by circumstellar shock interactions. Circumstellar scattered light echos have been observed around SN 1987A [@Cr95] because it was possible to spatially resolve the echos away from the supernova; it would not have been possible to observe the echos for a supernova at a typical distance.
No evidence for circumstellar dust echos has been found in Type Ib/c supernovae, which is not surprising considering their presumed Wolf-Rayet star progenitors. Wolf-Rayet stars atmospheres are too hot for dust formation. Despite this, circumstellar dust has been found in a small fraction of these stars. The source appears to be the compressed interaction region where the Wolf-Rayet star wind collides with the wind from a close companion, as indicated by the pinwheel dust patterns observed around two Wolf-Rayet stars [@MTD99]. Dust may be more commonly present in circumstellar shells at radii $\gsim 3$ pc, but such shells would have only a small dust optical depth.
Circumstellar dust echos have been of recent interest for GRB afterglows because of the possibility that they could explain the excess emission observed in two sources at ages $10-60$ days without the need for a supernova [@WD00; @EB00]. An echo from thermal re-radiation by dust is too red to explain the observations, so the scattered light explanation is considered here [@EB00]. The timescale for the emission sets the dust at a radial distance of $4.5\times 10^{17}$ cm and its color requires an optical depth at 3000 Å of 7 [@EB00]. The required dust mass is $\sim 0.1 ~M_\odot$ or $\sim 10 ~M_\odot$ total mass in the shell. If the gas is moving out as part of the stellar wind, special timing is needed to have much of the envelope mass end up at the appropriate radial distance. Thus, on the basis of the fact that the most plausible massive star progenitors for GRBs (Wolf-Rayet stars) do not typically have dusty winds plus the special conditions that are needed for the dust if present, the supernova hypothesis appears to be a more natural explanation for the excess light than a dust echo. Reichart [@R00] has recently examined detailed models for circumstellar echos and found that the colors of the excess light of GRB 970228 are inconsistent with an echo. Even if the excess light could be explained as a scattered light echo, the implication would be that the progenitor object was a massive star which was a red supergiant at the time of the explosion or soon before the explosion.
In addition to circumstellar dust echos, dust in interstellar clouds can give rise to echo phenomena. In the supernova case, the well-known rings around SN 1987A are due to clouds that are 100 pc or more in front of the supernova [@CE88]. Similar scattered light echos have been observed around the Type Ia supernovae SN 1991T and SN 1998bu [@Sp99; @Ca00]. The echo phenomenon is characterized by a flattening of the supernova light curve, a late spectrum related to the spectrum near maximum light, and a significant spatial size related to the distance of the interstellar cloud in front of the supernova. If the peak luminosity, $L_p$, of the supernova or GRB lasts for a time $\Delta t$, the ratio of the echo luminosity to $L_p$ is $\tau c F\Delta t /2d$, where $\tau$ is the dust optical depth, $c$ is the speed of light, $F$ is the phase function (forward scattering is expected), $d$ is the distance of the cloud in front of the explosion, and single scattering is assumed [@CE88]. This can explain the $9-10$ magnitude decline from peak to flattening of the light curve in the 3 observed echos. GRB 990123 has the best defined afterglow optical light curve; it peaked at $\sim 9$ mag. and subsequently declined more rapidly than $t^{-1}$ so that most of the radiated energy appeared near the peak. If a similar cloud were placed in front of GRB 990123 to those in front of SNae 1991T and 1998bu, the fact that $\Delta t\sim 30$ sec for GRB 990123, but is $\sim 20$ days for the supernovae would make the luminosity $\sim 6\times 10^4$ fainter compared to the peak luminosity. This would give an echo magnitude $\sim 30$, which is undetectable. The angular radius of the echo from the explosion is $0.08 (t/{\rm yr})^{1/2}
(d/{\rm 100~pc})^{-1/2}$ rad, which could be outside the beamed emission from a GRB, further reducing the echo brightness. It is only for a relatively nearby GRB with a favorable distribution of dust that there is any chance of detecting an echo. The best candidates for an echo would be sources that show evidence for dust in the host galaxy, e.g., GRB 000418 [@Kl00]. Such a detection would be of interest in that it would give information on the very early optical luminosity of the burst.
I am grateful to C. Fransson and Z.-Y. Li for discussions and collaboration, and to NASA grant NAG5-8130 for support.
[8.]{}
S. R. Kulkarni, E. Berger, et al.: ‘The Afterglows of Gamma-Ray Bursts’. In: *Gamma-Ray Bursts: 5th Huntsville Symposium*. ed. by R.M. Kippen, R.S. Mallozzi, G.J. Fishman (AIP, New York 2000) pp. 277–297
J.S. Bloom, S.R. Kulkarni, S.G. Djorgovski: Astron. J. submitted (astro-ph/0010176) (2000)
E. Waxman, B.T. Draine: Astroph. J. **537**, 796 (2000)
A.A. Esin, R. Blandford: Astroph. J. **534**, L151 (2000)
T.J. Galama, M. Bremer, et al.: Astroph. J. **541**, L45 (2000)
E. Berger, R. Sari, et al.: Astroph. J. **545**, 56 (2000)
R.A. Chevalier: Astroph. J. **499**, 810 (1998)
Z.-Y. Li, R.A. Chevalier: Astroph. J. **526**, 716 (1999)
C.K. Lacey, S.D. Van Dyk, et al.: [*IAUC*]{} No. 7336 (1999)
M.J. Montes, S.D. van Dyk, et al.: Astroph. J. **506**, 874 (1998)
M.J. Montes, K.W. Weiler, et al.: Astroph. J. **532**, 532 (2000)
R.A. Chevalier, V.V. Dwarkadas: Astroph. J. **452**, L45 (1995)
L. Ball, D. Campbell-Wilson et al.: Astroph. J. **453**, 864 (1995)
S.S. Lawrence, B.E. Sugerman, et al.: Astroph. J. **537**, L123 (2000)
S.R. Kulkarni, D.A. Frail, et al.: Nature **395**, 663 (1998)
E. Ergma, E.P.J. van den Heuvel: Astron. & Ap. **331**, L29 (1998)
G. García-Segura, N. Langer, M.-M. MacLow: Astron. & Ap. **316**, 133 (1996)
A.I. MacFadyen, S.E. Woosley, A. Heger: Astroph. J. submitted (astro-ph/9910034) (1999)
D.A. Frail, E. Waxman, S.R. Kulkarni: Astroph. J. **537**, 191 (2000)
R.A. Chevalier, Z.-Y. Li: Astroph. J. **536**, 195 (2000)
Z.-Y. Li, R.A. Chevalier: Astroph. J. in press (astro-ph/0010288) (2001)
P. Kumar, A. Panaitescu: Astroph. J. **541**, L9 (2000)
L.J. Gou, Z.G. Dai, et al.: Astron. & Ap. in press (astro-ph/0010244) (2000)
R.A.M.J. Wijers: these proceedings
R.A. Chevalier, Z.-Y. Li: Astroph. J. **520**, L29 (1999)
R.A. Chevalier, J.N. Imamura: Astroph. J. **270**, 554 (1983)
R. Sari, T. Piran: Astroph. J. **517**, L109 (1999)
E. Ramirez-Ruiz, L.M. Dray, et al.: MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0012396) (2000)
R. Sari, T. Piran, J.P. Halpern: Astroph. J. **519**, L17 (1999)
P.M. Garnavich, A. Loeb, K.Z. Stanek: Astroph. J. **544**, L11 (2000)
E. Dwek: Astroph. J. **274**, 175 (1983)
R.A. Chevalier: Astroph. J. **308**, 225 (1986)
B. Roscherr, B.E. Schaefer: Astroph. J. **532**, 415 (2000)
A.P.S. Crotts, W.E. Kunkel, S.R. Heathcote: Astroph. J. **438**, 724 (1995)
J.D. Monnier, P.G. Tuthill, W.C. Danchi: Astroph. J. **525**, L97 (1999)
D.E. Reichart: Astroph. J. in press (astro-ph/0012091) (2001)
R.A. Chevalier, R.T. Emmering: Astroph. J. **331**, L105 (1988)
W.B. Sparks, F. Machetto, et al.: Astroph. J. **523**, 585 (1999)
E. Cappellaro, F. Patat, et al., Astroph. J. in press (astro-ph/0101342) (2001)
S. Klose, B. Stecklum, et al.: Astroph. J. **545**, 271 (2000)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Implicit feedback, such as user clicks, is a major source of supervision for learning to rank (LTR) model estimation in modern retrieval systems. However, the inherent bias in such feedback greatly restricts the quality of the learnt ranker. Recent advances in unbiased LTR leverage Inverse Propensity Scoring (IPS) to tackle the bias issue. Though effective, it only corrects the bias introduced by treating clicked documents as relevant, but cannot handle the bias caused by treating unclicked ones as irrelevant. Because non-clicks do not necessarily stand for irrelevance (they might not be examined), IPS-based methods inevitably include loss from comparisons on relevant-relevant document pairs. This directly limits the effectiveness of ranking model learning.
In this work, we first prove that in a LTR algorithm that is based on pairwise comparisons, only pairs with different labels (e.g., relevant-irrelevant pairs in binary case) should contribute to the loss function. The proof asserts sub-optimal results of the existing IPS-based methods in practice. We then derive a new weighting scheme called Propensity Ratio Scoring (PRS) that takes a holistic treatment on both clicks and non-clicks. Besides correcting the bias in clicked documents, PRS avoids relevant-relevant comparisons in LTR training in expectation and enjoys a lower variability. Our empirical study confirms that PRS ensures a more effective use of click data in various situations, which leads to its superior performance in an extensive set of LTR benchmarks.
author:
- Nan Wang
- Xuanhui Wang
- Hongning Wang
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: Unbiased Learning to Rank via Propensity Ratio Scoring
---
This paper is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant SCH-1838615, IIS-1553568, and IIS-1618948.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Long-range contributions to the three-nucleon force that have been recently worked out in chiral effective field theory at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order are for the first time included in the triton and the doublet nucleon-deuteron scattering length calculations. The strengths of the two short-range terms available at this order in the chiral expansion are determined from the triton binding energy and the neutron-deuteron doublet scattering length. The structure of the resulting three-nucleon force is explored and effects for the two-nucleon correlation function in the triton are investigated. Expectation values of the individual contributions to the three-nucleon force in the triton are found to be in the range from a few $100$ keV to about $1$ MeV. Our study demonstrates that the very complicated operator structure of the novel chiral three-nucleon forces can be successively implemented in three-nucleon Faddeev calculations.'
author:
- 'R. Skibiński$^1$'
- 'J. Golak$^1$'
- 'K. Topolnicki$^1$'
- 'H. Wita[ł]{}a$^1$'
- 'E. Epelbaum$^2$'
- 'W. Glöckle$^2$'
- 'H. Krebs$^2$'
- 'A. Nogga$^3$'
- 'H. Kamada$^4$'
title: ' The triton with long-range chiral N$^{\bf 3}$LO three nucleon forces '
---
Introduction
============
Chiral effective field theory (EFT) provides a powerful framework to systematically describe low-energy dynamics of few- and many-nucleon systems. Various variants of effective theories for nuclear forces have been explored, see [@Epelbaum; @Epelbaum_review; @Machleidt] for recent review articles. Up to now, the most advanced few-nucleon studies have been carried out within a framework based on pions and nucleons as the only explicit degrees of freedom taken into account in the effective Lagrangian. Within this approach, the nucleon-nucleon (NN) force is currently available up to next-to-next-to-next-to leading order ([N$^3$LO ]{}) in the chiral expansion. At this chiral order, it receives contributions from one-, two- and three-pion exchange diagrams as well as short-range NN contact interactions with up to four derivatives. As demonstrated in Refs. [@NN_in_N3LO; @Entem:2003ft], NN phase shifts are accurately described at [N$^3$LO ]{}up to laboratory energies of the order of 200 MeV. The theoretical uncertainty due to truncation of the chiral expansion is estimated in Ref. [@NN_in_N3LO] by means of a cutoff variation. Within the spectral function regularization (SFR) framework [@SFR] adopted in Ref. [@NN_in_N3LO], the NN potential depends on two ultraviolet cutoffs $\tilde \Lambda$ and $\Lambda$. The first one removes large-mass components in the spectrum of the two-pion exchange potential which cannot be correctly described within the chiral EFT framework while the other one provides regularization of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. Five different combinations of these cut-off parameters are available for the NN potentials of Ref. [@NN_in_N3LO]. The residual dependence of low-energy observables on the cutoff choice provides a measure of the importance of higher-order contact interactions and thus may serve as an estimate of the theoretical uncertainty.
Parallel to these developments three-nucleon force (3NF) has also been explored within the framework of chiral effective field theory. The first nonvanishing contributions to the 3NF emerge at next-to-next-to-leading order ([N$^2$LO ]{}) [@3NF_in_N2LO] from the two-pion exchange and one-pion-exchange-contact diagrams as well as the purely short-range derivative-less three-nucleon contact interaction [@3NF_in_N2LO], see also Ref. [@vanKolck:1994yi] for a pioneering work along this line. The resulting [N$^2$LO ]{}three-nucleon potential depends on two low-energy constants (LECs) $D$ and $E$ accompanying the short-range $\pi NN$ and $NNN$ vertices, respectively. The values of these LECs need to be fixed from a fit to few-nucleon data. Among a few possible observables that have been used in this connection are the triton binding energy and the nucleon-deuteron doublet scattering length $^2a_{nd}$ [@3NF_in_N2LO; @Epelbaum:2009zsa], $\alpha$-particle binding energy [@Nogga:2005hp; @Epelbaum:2011md], the properties of light nuclei [@Navratil:2007we] and the triton beta decay [@Gazit:2008ma]. The [N$^2$LO ]{}3NF of [@3NF_in_N2LO] was successfully used in three-body calculations, see Refs. [@Kistryn; @Kalantar] for a few examples of recent studies. At this order, chiral EFT yields a good description of elastic scattering and deuteron breakup observables up to energies of about $\approx
50$ MeV. The accuracy of the results in this regime is comparable with the one that is achieved by realistic phenomenological NN and 3N interactions such as e.g. AV18 [@AV18] 2NF in combination with UrbanaIX [@Urbana] 3NF or CD-Bonn [@CDBonn] 2NF in combination with the Tucson-Melbourne [@TM] 3NF, see [@Witala.2001; @Kistryn]. However, the spread of the results is relatively large for some spin observables which clearly calls for the inclusion of new terms of the nuclear interaction that occur at higher orders of the chiral expansion.
Subleading contributions to the 3NF are currently being investigated by several groups. At [N$^3$LO ]{}, one has to take into account (irreducible) contributions emerging from all possible one-loop three-nucleon diagrams constructed with the lowest order vertices. In addition, there are (tree-level) leading relativistic corrections, see [@Friar:1994zz] for an early work on the longest-range relativistic corrections. Note that the tree diagrams involving higher-order vertices from the effective chiral Lagrangian do not produce any irreducible pieces. Effects due to two-pion exchange 3NF in elastic nucleon-deuteron scattering were already explored by Ishikawa and Robilotta [@Ishikawa] within a hybrid approach and found to be rather small. The [N$^3$LO ]{}contributions feed into five different topologies as will be explained in detail in the next section. The explicit expressions both in momentum and in coordinate space for the long-range contributions have already been worked out [@Ishikawa; @Bernard]. Their inclusion in numerical few-body calculations appears to be challenging due to the very rich and complicated operator structure. The large number of terms in the 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}, see Ref. [@Bernard], requires an efficient method of performing the partial wave decomposition. Recently such a method has been proposed [@Golak.2010] and tested for the Tucson-Melbourne force [@aPWDTM]. Here and in what follows, this approach will be referred to as the automatized partial wave decomposition (aPWD). In this paper we apply this method of the numerical partial wave decomposition to the [N$^3$LO ]{}3NF contributions derived in [@Bernard]. For the first time, the parts of 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}different from the two-pion exchange force are included in the triton and the scattering length calculations. In order to test the implementations and get a first hint to possible effects of these forces, we fix the two LECs entering the 3NF from the triton binding energy and the nucleon-deuteron doublet scattering length and explore the effects due to these novel 3NF terms by computing the $^3$H properties. Although this calculations is still incomplete since not all 3NF contributions at [N$^3$LO ]{}are taken into account, it provides an important first step towards the complete [N$^3$LO ]{}analysis of 3N scattering and demonstrates our ability to numerically handle the rather complicated structure of the subleading chiral 3NF.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[section1\] we describe briefly the structure of the chiral 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}. In Sect. \[section3\] we discuss in detail the partial wave decomposition needed in our scattering and bound-state calculations. Next, the procedure of fixing the LECs is described in Sect. \[section4\] where also the obtained values of LECs are listed. These results are used in Sect. \[section5\] to explore some properties of the triton. Finally, our findings are summarized in Sec. \[conclusion\].
3NF at N${\mbox{\boldmath $ ^3 $}}$LO {#section1}
======================================
The subleading (i.e. [N$^3$LO ]{}) contributions to the three-nucleon force $V_{123}$ can be written in the form [@Bernard] $$V_{123}=V_{2\pi}+V_{2\pi-1\pi}+V_{ring}+V_{1\pi-cont}+V_{2\pi-cont}+
V_{1/m}\;.$$ where the individual terms refer, in order, to the two-pion exchange, two-pion-one-pion-exchange, ring (i.e. one pion being exchanged between each of the three nucleon pairs), one-pion-exchange-contact and two-pion-exchange-contact contributions as well as the leading relativistic corrections, see Fig. 1 of Ref. [@Bernard] for a diagrammatic representation. The expressions for the (static) long-range part of the 3NF given by the first three terms in the above equation have been worked out in heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory in Ref.[@Bernard]. The two-pion exchange contribution at the one-loop level has also been calculated within the infrared-regularized version of chiral perturbation theory in Ref. [@Ishikawa]. The shorter-range contributions involving two-nucleon contact interactions and relativistic corrections are currently being worked out [@Evgeny_private].
While the two-pion-exchange $V_{2\pi}$ and one-pion-exchange-contact parts $V_{1\pi-cont}$ already occur at [N$^2$LO ]{}and receive corrections at [N$^3$LO ]{}, the remaining topologies first emerge at [N$^3$LO ]{}. It is important to emphasize that all subleading contributions to the 3NF are parameter-free. Thus, the low-energy constants $D$ and $E$ entering the one-pion-exchange-contact and the purely short-range parts of the 3NF at [N$^2$LO ]{}are the only unknown parameters up to [N$^3$LO ]{}.
Here and in what follows, we adopt the notation in which a given 3NF $V_{123}$ is decomposed into three terms $$\begin{aligned}
V_{123} = V^{(1)} + V^{(2)} + V^{(3)} ~, \label{e3nf_split}\end{aligned}$$ where each $V^{(i)}$ is symmetrical under interchanging the nucleons $j$ and $k$ ($i, j, k = 1, 2, 3$, $i \ne j \ne k$). Clearly, this condition does not specify $V^{(1)}$ uniquely. In the following we choose $V^{(1)}$ in such a way that the number of operator structures is minimized which is convenient for the aPWD.
The operator structure of the 2$\pi$ exchange part $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}$ at [N$^3$LO ]{}remains the same as at [N$^2$LO ]{}$$V^{(1)}_{2\pi}=F_1 \; \vec{\sigma_2}\cdot\vec{q_2} \;
\vec{\sigma_3} \cdot\vec{q_3} \; {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau_2 $}} \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau_3 $}}
+ F_2 \; \vec{\sigma_2}\cdot\vec{q_2} \;
\vec{\sigma_3} \cdot\vec{q_3} \; \vec{q_2} \times \vec{q_3} \cdot \vec{\sigma_1} \; {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau_2 $}} \times {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau_3 $}} \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau_1 $}},$$ where $\vec{q_i}$ is the momentum transfer to the i-th nucleon, $\vec{q_1}+\vec{q_2}+\vec{q_3}=0$ and $\vec{\sigma_i}$ (${\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau_i $}}$) are Pauli spin (isospin) matrices for nucleon $i$. The scalar functions $F_1=F_1(q_2,q_3,\hat{q_2}\cdot\hat{q_3})$ and $F_2=F_2(q_2,q_3,\hat{q_2}\cdot\hat{q_3})$ depend on the LECs $\tilde{c}_{1,3,4}$ which accompany the subleading pion-nucleon vertices. Chiral expansion of $F_1$ and $F_2$ up to [N$^3$LO ]{} has the form [@Bernard] $$\begin{aligned}
F_1 &=& \frac{g_A^4}{4 F_{\pi}^4} \;\frac{(-4\tilde{c_1} M_{\pi}^2 + 2\tilde{c_3}\vec{q_2}\cdot\vec{q_3})}
{(q_2^2+M_{\pi}^2)(q_3^2+M_{\pi}^2)} + \tilde{F_1} \label{eqF1F21} \\
F_2 &=& \frac{g_A^4}{4 F_{\pi}^4}
\;\frac{\tilde{c_4}}{(q_2^2+M_{\pi}^2)(q_3^2+M_{\pi}^2)} +
\tilde{F_2} \;, \label{eqF1F22}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{F_1} &=& \frac{g_A^4}{128 \pi F_{\pi}^6} \frac{1}{(q_2^2+M_{\pi}^2)(q_3^2+M_{\pi}^2)}
(M_{\pi}(M_{\pi}^2+3q_2^2+3q_3^2+4\vec{q_2}\cdot\vec{q_3}) \nonumber \\
&+& (2M_{\pi}^2+q_2^2+q_3^2+2\vec{q_2}\cdot\vec{q_3})(3M_{\pi}^2+3q_2^2+3q_3^2+4\vec{q_2}\cdot\vec{q_3})
A(\vert \vec{q_2}+\vec{q_3} \vert)) \\
\tilde{F_2} &=& \frac{-g_A^4}{128 \pi F_{\pi}^6} \frac{1}{(q_2^2+M_{\pi}^2)(q_3^2+M_{\pi}^2)}
(M_{\pi}+(4M_{\pi}^2+q_2^2+q_3^2+2\vec{q_2}\cdot\vec{q_3})A(\vert \vec{q_2}+\vec{q_3} \vert)) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the loop function $A(q)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
A(q) &=& \frac{1}{2q} \arctan{\frac{q}{2M_{\pi}}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The axial-vector coupling constant, the weak pion decay constant and the pion mass are denoted as $g_A$, $F_{\pi}$ and $M_{\pi}$, respectively. Note that SFR changes $A(q)$ (see [@SFR]). For the study here we do not need to consider this change since they differ only by higher order polynomials [@Epelbaum]. The quantities $\tilde
c_i$ appearing in the above expressions are related to the [N$^2$LO ]{}LECs $c_i$ entering the effective chiral Lagrangian via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ci_def}
\tilde{c_1} &=& c_1-\frac{g_A^2 M_{\pi} }{64 \pi F_{\pi}^2} = -0.94\; {\rm GeV}^{-1} \nonumber \\
\tilde{c_3} &=& c_3+\frac{g_A^4 M_{\pi} }{16 \pi F_{\pi}^2} = -2.51\; {\rm GeV}^{-1} \nonumber \\
\tilde{c_4} &=& c_4-\frac{g_A^4 M_{\pi} }{16 \pi F_{\pi}^2} =
2.51\; {\rm GeV}^{-1} \;, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have adopted the values for the $c_i$ from Ref. [@NN_in_N3LO], namely $$c_1 = -0.81\; \mbox{GeV}^{-1}, \quad \quad
c_3 = -3.40\; \mbox{GeV}^{-1}, \quad \quad
c_4 = 3.40\; \mbox{GeV}^{-1}\,.$$ These values are consistent with the ones determined from pion-nucleon scattering [@Buettiker:1999ap]. The finite shifts of the LECs $c_i$ in Eq. (\[ci\_def\]) emerge from pion loops at [N$^3$LO ]{}.
The $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}$ interaction at [N$^3$LO ]{}has the following operator structure $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}&=&
\frac{\vec \sigma_1 \cdot \vec q_1}{q_1^2 + M_\pi^2} \Big[ {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_2
\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_1 \; \left( \vec \sigma_3 \cdot \vec q_2 \; \vec q_2 \cdot
\vec q_1 \; F_1 (q_2) + \vec \sigma_3 \cdot \vec q_2 \; F_2 (q_2) +
\vec \sigma_3 \cdot \vec q_1 \; F_3 (q_2) \right) \nonumber \\
&+& {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_3
\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_1 \; ( \vec \sigma_2 \cdot \vec q_2 \; \vec q_2 \cdot
\vec q_1 \; F_4 (q_2)
+ \vec \sigma_2 \cdot \vec q_1 \; F_5 (q_2) +
\vec \sigma_3 \cdot \vec q_2 \; F_6 (q_2) +
\vec \sigma_3 \cdot \vec q_1 \; F_{7} (q_2)
) \nonumber \\
&+& {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_2
\times {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_3 \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_1 \; \vec \sigma_2 \times \vec \sigma_3
\cdot \vec q_2 \; F_{8} (q_2)
\Big] + (2 \leftrightarrow 3) \,.\end{aligned}$$ with scalar functions $F_i(q_i)$. The interchange of nucleons $(2
\leftrightarrow 3)$ refers to the interchange of momentum vectors, spin and isospin matrices and arguments of the functions $F_i$. Explicit expressions for the scalar functions $F_i(q_i)$ which appear in the $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}$ can be found in Ref. [@Bernard].
The $V^{(1)}_{ring}$ force is chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{ring} &=&
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{\sigma}_2 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; R_1+
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_1\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}_1 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; R_2+
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_1\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}_3 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; R_3 \nonumber \\
&+&
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_3\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}_1 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; R_4
+\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_3\vec{\sigma}_2\cdot\vec{q}_3 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; R_5+{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; R_6
+\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_1\vec{\sigma}_3\cdot\vec{q}_1 \; R_7 \nonumber \\
&+& \vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_1\vec{\sigma}_3\cdot\vec{q}_3 \; R_8
+\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_3\vec{\sigma}_3\cdot\vec{q}_1 \; R_9
+\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{\sigma}_3 \; R_{10}
+\vec{q}_1\cdot \vec{q}_3\times\vec{\sigma}_2 \;
{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2\times{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; R_{11} \nonumber \\
&+&{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2 \; S_1+
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_1\vec{\sigma}_3\cdot\vec{q}_1 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2
\; S_2+
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_3\vec{\sigma}_3\cdot\vec{q}_1 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2
\; S_3+
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_1\vec{\sigma}_3\cdot\vec{q}_3 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2
\; S_4\nonumber \\
&+&
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{q}_3\vec{\sigma}_3\cdot\vec{q}_3 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2
\; S_5+
\vec{\sigma}_1\cdot\vec{\sigma}_3 \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2
\; S_6+
\vec{q}_1\cdot \vec{q}_3\times\vec{\sigma}_1 \;
{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_1\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_2\times{{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}}_3 \; S_7 \nonumber \\
&+& (2 \leftrightarrow 3)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the expressions for the scalar functions $R_i=R_i(q_1,q_3,\hat{q_1} \cdot \hat{q_3})$ and $S_i=S_i(q_1,q_3,\hat{q_1} \cdot \hat{q_3})$ can be found in Ref. [@Bernard].
The modifications of the one-pion-exchange-contact $V^{(1)}_{1\pi-cont}$ term arising at [N$^3$LO ]{}are in preparation [@Evgeny_private]. Thus, instead of the full $V^{(1)}_{1\pi-cont}$ interaction we use the lowest-order result for it resulting at [N$^2$LO ]{}[@3NF_in_N2LO]: $$V^{(1)}_{d-term} = - \frac{g_A \, D}{8 F_\pi^2}\;
\frac{\vec \sigma_1\cdot \vec q_1}{q_1^2 + M_\pi^2} \;
({\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_1 \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_3 \; \vec \sigma_3 \cdot \vec q_1 +
{\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_1 \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_2 \; \vec \sigma_2 \cdot \vec
q_1)\;.$$ The low energy constant $D$ can be expressed as $D=c_D/(F_{\pi}^2 \Lambda_{\chi})$, where $c_D$ is a dimensionless free parameter and the chiral symmetry breaking scale $\Lambda_{\chi}$ is estimated to be $\Lambda_{\chi}=700$ MeV. Here and in what follows, we use $F_{\pi}=92.4$ MeV for the pion decay constant. The value of $c_D$ has to be determined from experimental data. This is described in section \[section4\] for our fit for the test case of this study. Of course, results of this fit will significantly change when the complete short range interaction is taken into account.
As already pointed out above, the remaining terms $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-cont}$ and $V^{(1)}_{1/m}$ are also not available yet [@Evgeny_private] and thus cannot be taken into account in the present study. Finally, the purely short-range part of the 3NF has the form [@3NF_in_N2LO]: $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}_{e-term} &=& E {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_2 \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $ \tau $}}_3 \;.\end{aligned}$$ Again, the LEC $E$ is usually expressed in terms of a dimension-less parameter $c_E$ via $E=c_E/(F_{\pi}^4
\Lambda_{\chi})$ which needs to be determined from (at least) three-nucleon data.
To summarize, in this paper we use the $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}$, $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}$, $V^{(1)}_{ring}$ [N$^3$LO ]{} terms combined with the $V^{(1)}_{d-term}$ and $V^{(1)}_{e-term}$ terms at N$^2$LO. The [N$^3$LO ]{}contributions to $V^{(1)}_{1\pi-cont}$ and $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-cont}$ and relativistic corrections $V^{(1)}_{1/m}$ are not included. Finally, the remaining terms $V^{(2)}$ and $V^{(3)}$ of Eq. (\[e3nf\_split\]) can be obtained from $V^{(1)}$ by appropriate permutations of nucleons.
Numerical calculations of 3NF matrix elements {#section3}
=============================================
We work in the momentum space using three-nucleon partial-wave states $\mid p, q, \alpha \rangle$ in the $jJ$-coupling [@book; @physrep_96] $$\begin{aligned}
\mid p, q, \alpha \rangle \equiv
\mid p q (l s ) j (\lambda \frac12 ) I (j I ) J M_J \rangle \mid (t \frac12 )
T M_T \rangle \ ,
\label{eqn.alpha}\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ and $q$ are magnitudes of the standard Jacobi momenta and $\alpha$ denotes a set of discrete quantum numbers defined in the following way: the spin $s$ of the subsystem composed from nucleons 2 and 3 is coupled with their orbital angular momentum $l$ to the total angular momentum $j$. The spin $1/2$ of the spectator particle $1$ couples with its relative orbital angular momentum $\lambda$ to the total angular momentum $I$ of nucleon $1$. Finally, $j$ and $I$ are coupled to the total 3N angular momentum $J$ with the projection $M_J$. For the isospin part, the total isospin $t$ of the subsystem $(23)$ is coupled with the isospin $1/2$ of the spectator nucleon to the total 3N isospin $T$ with the projection $M_T$.
The matrix elements of $V^{(1)}_{2\pi},V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}$ and $V^{(1)}_{ring}$ forces in the basis $\mid p, q, \alpha \rangle$ are obtained using the recently proposed aPWD method [@Golak.2010; @aPWDTM]. In this approach the spin-momentum and isospin parts of three-nucleon interactions are calculated using a software for symbolic calculations. The resulting momentum-dependent functions are then integrated numerically in five dimensions over angular variables. The major advantage of this method is its generality. It can be applied to *any* momentum-spin-isospin operator including, in particular, the full operator structure of the 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}including even the non-local relativisitic corrections. The only complication emerges in the treatment of the ring contributions to the 3NF due to rather complex expressions for the functions $R_i=R_i(q_1,q_3,\hat{q_1} \cdot \hat{q_3})$ and $S_i=S_i(q_1,q_3,\hat{q_1} \cdot \hat{q_3})$ which involve certain scalar integrals related to the three-point function. For any given values of the arguments, these integrals have to be computed numerically. This evaluation is too expensive to be carried out on-the-fly during the aPWD. Moreover, while the functions $R_i$ and $S_i$ are, of course, finite and smooth for all possible values of their arguments, they are given in Ref. [@Bernard] as linear combinations of terms, some of which are becoming singular under certain kinematical conditions. Their numerical implementation therefore requires special care. In order to deal with these difficulties, we first evaluate the functions $R_i$ and $S_i$ at a (fixed) dense grid of points for their arguments and then use interpolation to compute them for arbitrary values of $q_1$, $q_3$ and $\hat{q_1}\cdot \hat{q_3}$ as needed in the aPWD approach. We have carefully checked the stability of this procedure by increasing the density of the grid points. Finally, the partial wave decomposition of $V^{(1)}_{d-term}$ and $V^{(1)}_{e-term}$ is performed with the standard techniques [@3NF_in_N2LO] but also verified with the new method.
Examples of the resulting matrix elements $\langle p',q',\alpha'
\vert V_i^{(1)} \vert p,q,\alpha \rangle$ are given in Fig. \[fig1.1\] as a function of the momentum $p$. Here, we fix the momenta to be $p'=0.268$ fm$^{-1}$, $q'=2.842$ fm$^{-1}$ and $q=0.132$ fm$^{-1}$ and consider the following four channel combinations: ($\alpha'=\alpha=1$), ($\alpha'=1,\alpha=5$), ($\alpha'=\alpha=4$) and ($\alpha'=4,\alpha=7$). These channels correspond to the quantum numbers given in Tab. \[tab0\].
$\;\;\;\;\alpha$ l s j $\lambda$ I t
------------------ --- --- --- ----------- ----------- ---
1 0 0 0 0 $\frac12$ 1
4 1 0 1 1 $\frac32$ 0
5 0 1 1 0 $\frac12$ 0
7 2 1 1 0 $\frac12$ 0
: The values of the discrete quantum numbers for the selected $\alpha$ states (\[eqn.alpha\]) with the total angular momentum $J=1/2$, the total isospin $T=1/2$ and its projection $M_T=-1/2$.[]{data-label="tab0"}
Channels $\alpha=1$ and $\alpha=5$ are especially important since those two states provide the dominant components of the $^3$H wave function. As can be noticed, all three components of the [N$^3$LO ]{}3NF give a strong contribution: the $V^{(1)}_{ring}$ dominates for the channel combination ($\alpha'=\alpha=1$), $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}$ for ($\alpha'=1,\alpha=5$) and $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}$ for ($\alpha'=\alpha=4$) and ($\alpha'=4,\alpha=7$). We emphasize, however, that the large size of these matrix elements (which contain certain admixtures of short-range operators) as compared to the N$^2$LO terms does not necessarily imply that theirs effects in low-energy observables are large. The values of the LECs for $V^{(1)}_{d-term}$ and $V^{(1)}_{e-term}$ terms shown in Fig. \[fig1.1\] are set to be $c_D=1$ and $c_E=1$ in order to allow for a qualitative comparison of the strength of the individual terms. Their real contributions emerging after fitting the LECs $c_D$ and $c_E$ to experimental data will be discussed in the next section. Fig. \[fig1.1\] also clearly demonstrates that not all terms contribute to each channel combination due to the spin-isospin dependence. The $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}$ and $V^{(1)}_{d-term}$ terms contribute to $V^{(1)}$ only to ($\alpha'=1,\alpha=5$) and the $V^{(1)}_{e-term}$ term only contributes to ($\alpha'=\alpha=1$). Further, $V^{(1)}_{ring}$ vanishes for $\alpha'=\alpha=4$.
The component $V^{(1)}$ of $V_{123}$ enters the dynamical equations for 3N bound and scattering states [@physrep_96; @Nogga.1997] (see below) only in combination with the permutation operator $P$ forming the operator $V^{(1)}(1+P)$. The permutation operator $P \equiv
P_{12}P_{23} + P_{13}P_{23}$ is built from the transpositions $P_{ij}$, which interchange nucleons $i$ and $j$. The aPWD scheme can be used to obtain directly the $V^{(1)}(1+P)$ matrix elements [@aPWDTM] which allows us to avoid uncertainties associated with the partial wave decomposition of the permutation operator. The resulting matrix elements $\langle p',q',\alpha' \vert V^{(1)}(1+P)
\vert p,q,\alpha \rangle$ are given in Fig. \[fig1.1pp\] for the same momenta and channel combinations as in Fig. \[fig1.1\].
Again, we observe that matrix elements of all contributions to the 3NF are large for these momenta. The $V^{(1)}_{ring}$ contribution is particularly large in matrix elements with $\alpha'=1$. For these channels also $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}$ and $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-1\pi}$ are significant. Moreover for $\alpha'=\alpha=1$ also $V^{(1)}_{d-term}$ and $V^{(1)}_{e-term}$ are non-negligible, at least with $c_D=1$ and $c_E=1$. For $\alpha'=4$, the $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}$ piece dominates. Nevertheless in the case of $\alpha=7$ also $V^{(1)}_{ring}$ provides a significant contribution. Due to their spin-isospin structure the $V^{(1)}_{d-term}$ and $V^{(1)}_{e-term}$ forces are absent for ($\alpha'=\alpha=4$) and ($\alpha'=4,\alpha=7$) channel combinations.
The 2$\pi$-exchange contribution at [N$^3$LO ]{}can be compared with a corresponding part of the [N$^2$LO ]{}interaction. The example is given in Fig. \[fig6.1pp.2pi\], where the dashed (solid) line represents the predictions obtained at [N$^2$LO ]{}([N$^3$LO ]{}). The $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}(1+P)$ matrix elements differ significantly for all considered channel pairs. Fig. \[fig6.1pp.2pi\] demonstrates that these differences mainly originate from the parts of the $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}$ interaction proportional to the $\tilde{F_1}$ and $\tilde{F_2}$ formfactors, see Eqs.(\[eqF1F21\])-(\[eqF1F22\]). In particular, in Fig. \[fig6.1pp.2pi\], we also show results for $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}(1+P)$ at [N$^3$LO ]{}but with $\tilde{F_1}$ and $\tilde{F_2}$ being artificially set to zero. In such a case the only difference between matrix elements at [N$^2$LO ]{}and [N$^3$LO ]{}comes from the different values of $c_i$ and $\tilde{c_i}$ LECs. The presented matrix elements have then a similar dependence on momentum $p$ as well as a similar magnitude in [N$^3$LO ]{}and [N$^2$LO ]{}. Notice, however, that these observations do not necessarily imply that the N$^3$LO corrections to the 3NF lead to large effects in low-energy three-nucleon observables. In fact, the opposite was observed in Ref.[@Ishikawa] for the case of the two-pion exchange topology.
The $V^{(1)}_i$ and $V^{(1)}_i(1+P)$ matrix elements shown in Figs. \[fig1.1\] and \[fig1.1pp\] have to be regularized prior to being used as input to the dynamical equations [@3NF_in_N2LO]. We use the regulator function of the form [@Epelbaum] $$f(p,q)=\exp{\frac{-(4p^2+3q^2)^3}{(4\Lambda^2)^3}}$$ which ensures that the large momenta are sufficiently suppressed. Following Ref. [@Epelbaum] we use three values of $\Lambda$ parameter: $450$, $550$ and $600$ MeV. The regularization transforms matrix elements as $$\langle p',q',\alpha' \vert V^{(1)}(1+P) \vert p,q,\alpha \rangle \rightarrow
f(p',q') \langle p',q',\alpha' \vert V^{(1)}(1+P) \vert p,q,\alpha \rangle f(p,q).
\label{eq.reg}$$
The examples of the regularized $V^{(1)}(1+P)$ matrix elements are compared to the nonregularized ones in Fig. \[fig3\]. This is done separately for $V^{(1)}_{2\pi}(1+P)$ and $V^{(1)}_{ring}(1+P)$ contributions. The momenta are $p'=q'=q=0.132$ fm$^{-1}$ (upper row) and $p'=0.268$ fm$^{-1}$, $q'=2.842$ fm$^{-1}$ and $q=0.132$ fm$^{-1}$ (lower row) and we show only the ($\alpha'=\alpha=1$) channel combination. In the upper row, where the momenta $p'$, $q'$ and $q$ are small, all regulator functions are close to $1$ for small values of $p$. For momenta $p>1$ fm$^{-1}$, the different $\Lambda$ values lead to different slopes of matrix elements. The lowest value of the parameter $\Lambda=450$ MeV forces the fastest decreasing of $V^{(1)}_i(1+P)$ matrix elements. In such a case, the short-range part of the interaction is suppressed. On the contrary, the highest value $\Lambda=600$ MeV allows for larger contributions of short-range interactions. In the lower row, where the momenta $p'$ and $q'$ are bigger, the effects of the regularization are seen already at the low values of $p$. For $p=0.001$ fm$^{-1}$ the regularization factor $f(p',q') f(p,q)$ changes from 0.194 for $\Lambda=450$ MeV to 0.747 for $\Lambda=600$ MeV. This strong cutoff dependence is expected to be largely compensated by an appropriate “running” of the LECs $c_D$ and $c_E$ when calculating low-energy observables.
Determination of the LECs ${\mbox{\boldmath $ c_D $}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $ c_E $}}$ at [N$^3$LO ]{}. {#section4}
========================================================================================================
Once the new terms are added to the 3NF, the procedure of refitting of the LECs $c_D$ and $c_E$ has to be repeated. We follow Ref.[@3NF_in_N2LO] and use the triton binding energy $E^{^3H}$ and the neutron-deuteron doublet scattering length $^2a_{nd}$ as two observables from which $c_D$ and $c_E$ can be obtained. The up-to-date experimental values are $E^{^3H}=8.481821(5)$ MeV [@exp3H] and $^2a_{nd}=0.645(7)$ fm [@exp2and].
Our procedure to fix the values of LECs can be divided into two steps. First, the dependence of $E^{^3H}$ on $c_E$ for a given value of $c_D$ is determined. The requirement to reproduce the experimental value of the triton binding energy yields a set of combinations $c_D$ and $c_E$. This set is then used in the calculations of $^2a_{nd}$ what allows us to find which pair of $c_D$ and $c_E$ describes both observables simultaneously. Such a procedure has to be repeated for all $\Lambda$-values used in the regularization. The same values of the cutoff $\Lambda$ are used to suppress high momenta in the NN potential in order to ensure the convergence of the integral in the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. The chiral NN potential depends, in addition, on another cut-off parameter $\tilde{\Lambda}$ emerging from the SFR of the two-pion exchange potential. We follow Ref. [@Epelbaum] and use five combinations of ($\Lambda, \tilde{\Lambda}$) shown in Tab. \[tab1\].
We compute the $^3$H wave function using the method described in [@Nogga.1997]. Here we mention only that the full triton wave function $\Psi = ( 1 + P ) \psi $ is given by its Faddeev component $\psi$ being the solution of the Faddeev equation $$\psi = G_0 t P \psi + (1+ G_0 t) G_0 V^{(1)} (1+P) \psi \;.
\label{eq.bs}$$ Here, $G_0$ is the free 3N propagator, $P$ is the same permutation operator as defined above and $t$ is the two-body $t$-operator generated from a given NN potential through the Lippmann-Schwinger equation.
We use the 3N states $\vert p,q,\alpha
\rangle$ defined on the grids of 68 $p$-points and 48 $q$-points in intervals $p \in (0,\, 15)$ fm$^{-1}$ and $q\in (0,\, 10)$ fm$^{-1}$, respectively. We take into account all states up to the two-body total angular momentum $j=5$ for the NN potential, and all states up to $j=3$ for the 3N interaction.
We solve Eq.(\[eq.bs\]) and find pairs of the LECs $c_D$ and $c_E$ which reproduce the experimental value of $E^{^3H}$. It is exemplified in the top panel of Fig. \[fig4\] for the 3rd cut-off combination from Tab. \[tab1\]. The dependence is smooth and for some values of $c_E$ there are two possible values of $c_D$.
In the second step of the fitting procedure the doublet scattering length $^2a_{nd}$ is calculated for the ($c_D$, $c_E$) pairs, which reproduce the correct value of $E^{^3H}$. To this aim we first solve the Faddeev equation for the auxiliary amplitude $T$ at zero incoming nucleon energy, $$T \ = \ t \, P \, \phi \
+ \ ( 1 + t G_0 ) \, V^{(1)} \, ( 1 + P ) \, \phi \
+ \ \ t \, P \, G_0 \, T \
+ \ ( 1 + t G_0 ) \, V^{(1)} \, ( 1 + P ) \, G_0 \, T \;,
\label{eqT}$$ where the initial channel state $\phi$ occurring in the driving terms is composed of the deuteron and a plane wave state of the projectile nucleon. The amplitude for the elastic nucleon-deuteron scattering is then given by $$U \ = \ P G_0^{-1} \ + \ P T \ + \ V^{(1)} \, ( 1 + P ) \, \phi \
+ \ V^{(1)} \, ( 1 + P ) \, G_0 \, T\;.
\label{eqU}$$ We refer to [@physrep_96; @HuberAPP] for a general overview on 3N scattering and for more details on the practical implementation of the Faddeev equations. The expression for $^2a_{nd}$ in our basis and further technical details can be found in [@Witala2and]. In this second step of the fitting procedure we use grids of 32 $p$ points in the range $p \in
(0,25)$ fm$^{-1}$ and 31 $q$ points in the range $q\in (0,15)$ fm$^{-1}$. Similarly to the triton calculations, the NN (3N) potential acts in all states up to $j=5(3)$. Our calculations are accurate up to 2 keV for the binding energy and up to 0.005 fm for the scattering length. We expect that, even in [N$^3$LO ]{}, the chiral expansion of the nuclear forces induces uncertainties that are larger than these estimates. Therefore, the numerical calculations are sufficiently accurate to perform sensible fits of $c_D$ and $c_E$ at [N$^3$LO ]{}.
The final values of $c_D$ and $c_E$ LECs, which reproduce the experimental values of $E^{^3H}$ and $^2a_{nd}$ are given in Tab. \[tab1\]. For all combinations of cut-off parameters, the LEC $c_D$ remains positive with the value around $10$. It weakly depends on the value of the cutoff $\Lambda$ and becomes larger with increasing $\Lambda$. The second LEC $c_E$ changes in a more complicated way. While again it is smallest in magnitude for the smallest value of $\Lambda$, its biggest value is for the medium $\Lambda$=550 MeV and then decreases while moving to $\Lambda$=600 MeV. Note, that $c_E$ changes sign so the $V^{(1)}_{e-term}$ interaction changes from attractive to repulsive. We also stress that while the value of the LEC $c_D$ appears to be rather large, the expectation value of the one-pion-exchange-contact part of the 3NF is of a natural size. It remains to be seen whether the complete calculation including the remainig 3NF contributions at N$^3$LO will lead to more natural values of the LEC $c_D$.
cut-off ($\Lambda, \tilde{\Lambda})$ $c_D$ $c_E$
--------- ------------------------------ ------- --------
1 (450,500) 10.78 -0.172
2 (600,500) 12.00 1.254
3 (550,600) 11.67 2.120
4 (450,700) 7.21 -0.748
5 (600,700) 14.07 1.704
: The values of $c_D$ and $c_E$ LECs for the different parametrizations of chiral [N$^3$LO ]{}potential.[]{data-label="tab1"}
Finally, we would like to emphasize that the values of the LECs which are *bare* parameters must be refitted at each order in the chiral expansion (and, of course, for each cutoff combination). This is in contrast with chiral perturbation theory calculations in the Goldstone-boson and single-nucleon sectors where the scattering amplitude is usually expressed in terms of *renormalized* LECs. Indeed, using the values of $c_D$ and $c_E$ determined at [N$^2$LO ]{}in the [N$^3$LO ]{}calculation would generally result in a poor description of low-energy observables. For example, for the 3rd cutoff combination, the 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}furnished with the [N$^2$LO ]{}values $c_D=-0.45$ and $c_E=-0.798$ [@Epelbaum] yields $E^{^3H}=-8.197$ MeV and $^2a_{nd}=1.004$ fm which are far from the experimental values. Similarly, while the combination $c_D=1.5744$ and $c_E=-17.8$ allows to reproduce the triton binding energy and the doublet $nd$ scattering length for [N$^3$LO ]{}NN force accompanied with the [N$^2$LO ]{}3NF, it produces $E^{^3H}=-7.542$ MeV and $^2a_{nd}=1.4354$ fm when the [N$^3$LO ]{}3NF is used. Note that a big value of $c_E$ obtained in this case seems to violate naturalness. These results demonstrate clearly that fitting to the data has to be made consistently within the given order of the chiral expansion. Therefore, also the results of our test fit here, which does not include the full 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}, has to be taken with care. However, the fit results allows us to study the properties of $^3$H in the next section.
The properties of ${\mbox{\boldmath $ ^3 $}}$H {#section5}
==============================================
Once the values of $c_D$ and $c_E$ low energy parameters are established, one can explore the properties of the $^3$H wave function. We begin with the expectation values of the kinetic energy $\langle H_0 \rangle$, the NN potential energy $\langle
V_{NN} \rangle$ and the 3N potential energy $\langle V_{3N}
\rangle$ which are listed in Tab. \[tab2\].
cut-off $\langle H_0 \rangle$ \[MeV\] $\langle V_{NN} \rangle$ \[MeV\] $\langle V_{3N} \rangle$ \[MeV\]
--------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------
1 35.972 -43.459 -0.994
2 54.708 -61.515 -1.673
3 48.088 -55.187 -1.381
4 33.232 -41.050 -0.663
5 53.504 -60.278 -1.706
: Expectation values $\langle H_0 \rangle$, $\langle V_{NN} \rangle$ and $\langle V_{3N} \rangle$ in the triton for different parametrizations of the chiral [N$^3$LO ]{}potential as discussed in the text.[]{data-label="tab2"}
The expectation values clearly depend on the cut-off parameters $\Lambda$ and $\tilde{\Lambda}$ as they should. Not surprisingly, the expectation values of both the NN potential and the 3NF are smallest for the softest cutoff $\Lambda=450$ MeV. Higher $\Lambda$-values lead to stronger 3NF contributions to the $E^{^3H}$ which for $\Lambda=600$ MeV reaches about $\approx 20\%$. For all cutoff values, one clearly observes the dominance of the NN forces, $\langle V_{3N} \rangle/\langle V_{NN} \rangle =
1.5 \ldots 3\%$, in agreement with the expectations based on the chiral power counting. Note that the interplay of [N$^2$LO ]{}counter terms and [N$^3$LO ]{}structures of the 3NF does not allow to use these expectation values for an assessment of the contributions of [N$^3$LO ]{}3NFs. Similarly as in the NN interaction, one observes strong cancelations of [N$^3$LO ]{}contributions also with [N$^2$LO ]{}contact interactions. Such a comparison only makes sense for renormalized quanties, which we are not able to identify here. One also observes that the dependence of the expectation values on the SFR cutoff $\tilde{\Lambda}$ is less pronounced as the $\Lambda$-dependence. For example for cutoff combinations 1 and 4, which differ only in the choice of $\tilde{\Lambda}$, the $\langle H_0 \rangle$ and $\langle V_{NN}
\rangle$ differ by about $3$ MeV. On the other hand, the differences reach almost $20$ MeV for the cutoff combinations 1 and 2 which have the same SFR cutoff $\tilde \Lambda$ but different values of $\Lambda$. This holds true also for $\langle V_{3N} \rangle$.
A more detailed information about the 3NF triton expectation values is given in Tab. \[tab3\]. The expectation value of the 3NF $\langle V_{3N}
\rangle$ is split into the individual contributions from various topologies. The expectation value of the two-pion-exchange potential $\langle
V_{2\pi} \rangle$ shows a smooth dependence with $\Lambda$. For the softest cutoff $\Lambda=450$ MeV, the two-pion exchange 3NF turns out to be most attractive providing more than $0.5$ MeV to the triton binding energy. With increasing $\Lambda$, the contribution of $V_{2\pi}$ becomes weaker. For the cutoff combination 2, $\Lambda =
600$ MeV, $\tilde \Lambda = 500$ MeV, the additional binding due to the two-pion exchange 3NF only amounts to about $240$ keV. Interestingly, most of the attraction necessary to reproduce the triton binding energy is produced in this case by the ring topology, which is found to be attractive for all cutoff combinations. Contrary to the longest-range two-pion exchange topology, the contributions of the ring diagrams are enhanced for the largest value of the cutoff $\Lambda = 600$ MeV. Qualitatively, this behavior might be expected given the fact that the large values of $\Lambda$ probe the shorter-range part of $V_{ring}$ which is of the van der-Waals type, i.e. the matrix elements grow rapidly with decreasing relative distances between the nucleons. The cutoff dependence of this contribution is very large. This explicitly shows the dependence on the short distance pieces making it impossible to estimate the impact of this topology on low energy observables based on our results. The expectation value of the two-pion-one-pion-exchange topology $\langle V_{2\pi-1\pi}
\rangle$ also strongly depends on $\Lambda$. It changes sign from positive for $\Lambda=450$ MeV to negative at $\Lambda=600$ MeV. The dependence on the SFR cutoff is fairly weak. Note however that a stronger dependence might be induced once the SFR regularized $A(q)$ has been taken into account. The $\langle V_{d-term} \rangle$ shows the most complicated behaviour. It achieves the lowest value for the intermediate value of $\Lambda$ (cutoff combination 3) and, for $\Lambda=600$ MeV, shows a strong dependence on the SFR cutoff $\tilde
\Lambda$. In particular, for the smaller value $\tilde{\Lambda}= 500$ MeV, this contribution to the 3NF becomes repulsive and relatively big, while for $\tilde{\Lambda}=700$ MeV the expectation value remains negative. Finally, the $\langle V_{e-term} \rangle$ expectation value changes smoothly with $\Lambda$. It also changes its sign from positive at the lowest $\Lambda$ to negative at $\Lambda=600$ MeV.
cut-off $\langle V_{2\pi} \rangle$ \[MeV\] $\langle V_{2\pi-1\pi} \rangle$ \[MeV\] $\langle V_{ring} \rangle$ \[MeV\] $\langle V_{d-term} \rangle$ \[MeV\] $\langle V_{e-term} \rangle$ \[MeV\]
--------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
1 -0.639 0.458 -0.147 -0.693 0.027
2 -0.241 -0.580 -1.114 0.694 -0.432
3 -0.473 0.107 -0.191 -0.708 -0.116
4 -0.771 0.539 -0.452 -0.259 0.281
5 -0.377 -0.275 -0.622 -0.119 -0.313
: The expectation values for the different parts of the 3N potential and for the different parametrizations of the chiral [N$^3$LO ]{}potential.[]{data-label="tab3"}
Last but not least, we emphasize that the expectation values discussed above as well as the separation of the potential energy into the contributions due to the NN potential and 3NF do *not* correspond to observable quantities and are expected to show a strong cutoff dependence. Notice further that expectation values of the various 3NF contributions are, strictly speaking, bare quantities. Comparing their size with the one of the N$^2$LO terms does, therefore, not allow to draw conclusions about the convergence of the chiral expansion [@footnote]. It is comforting to see that all expectation values turn out to be of a reasonable size.
We now turn to the two-nucleon correlation function of $^3$H which is defined as [@Nogga.1997] $$C(r) \equiv \frac13 \frac{1}{4\pi} \int d\hat{r} \langle \Psi \mid \sum_{i<j} \delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r_{ij}}) \mid \Psi \rangle\,.$$ Here, $\vec{r_{ij}}$ is the relative distance corresponding to the Jacobi momentum $\vec{p}$. In Fig. \[fig5\] the correlation function is shown for the same combinations of the regularization parameters as in Tab.\[tab1\]. Thin lines represent predictions based on NN interactions only while thick ones show the predictions based on NN+3N forces. As expected, the softest cutoff value $\Lambda=450$ MeV yields a more flat correlation function with the less amount of the short-range correlations. The higher $\Lambda$ values prefer distributions concentrated around the maximum at $r \approx 1.5$ fm. The effects of the 3NFs are small for the lowest $\Lambda$ but increase with increasing $\Lambda$. For the lowest $\Lambda$ there is also a strong dependence of the correlation function on the SFR parameter $\tilde{\Lambda}$.
Summary and outlook {#conclusion}
===================
In this paper we, for the first time, included the long-range [N$^3$LO ]{}corrections to the 3NF in the Faddeev calculations. These novel two-pion-exchange, two-pion-one-pion and ring interactions supplemented with the one-pion-exchange and contact terms emerging at [N$^2$LO ]{}represent, presently, the most advanced chiral 3NF. We use this force in the triton and the doublet neutron-deuteron scattering length Faddeev calculations to fix the two low-energy parameters $c_D$ and $c_E$ for different sets of regularization parameters, which cut off large-momentum or, equivalently, short-range components in the few-nucleon states. While the value of the LEC $c_D$ remains fairly stable, $c_E$ features a stronger sensitivity to regularization parameters. It will be interesting whether such a behavior is also seen for fits involving the complete [N$^3$LO ]{}3NF. We also studied the individual contributions of the various topologies to the triton binding energy. The expectation values of the two-pion-one-pion and ring terms turn out to be smaller than the ones of the dominant two-pion-exchange 3NF for softer values of the regulator. Generally, all expectation values are found to be sizable. As expected, we observe a strong sensitivity of the expectation values to the regularization parameters. We also looked at the impact of the used 3NF on the two-nucleon correlation function in the triton.
While our work does not yet correspond to a complete N$^3$LO analysis due to the shorter-range contributions and relativistic corrections to the 3NF which are not yet available and are still missing in our calculations, it does represent a very important step in this direction and provides a proof-of-principle that the very complex operator structure of the 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}can be successfully implemented in few-body calculations. In the future, this study should be extended to explore effects of the novel terms in the 3NF in few-nucleon scattering. This work is in progress. To complete the analysis of the 3NF at [N$^3$LO ]{}the inclusion of full structure of shorter-range $V^{(1)}_{1\pi-cont}$, $V^{(1)}_{2\pi-cont}$ as well as $V^{(1)}_{1/m}$ terms should be pursued. The numerical implementation of the new terms can be straightforwardly performed using the newly developed aPWD scheme, which is successfully tested for the long-range terms in the present study. Finally, it should be emphasized that the present work also opens the way for applying the novel chiral nuclear forces in many-body calculations, see e.g. [@Navratil:2009ut; @Roth:2011ar; @Lesinski:2011rn] for some exciting recent developments along these lines based on [N$^2$LO ]{}3NFs.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under Grant No. N N202 077435. It was also partially supported by the Helmholtz Association (grants VH-NG-222 and VH-VI-231), by the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity “Study of Strongly Interacting Matter” (acronym HadronPhysics2, Grant Agreement n. 227431) under the Seventh Framework Programme of EU and the European Research Council (ERC-2010-StG 259218 NuclearEFT). The numerical calculations have been performed on the supercomputer cluster of the JSC, Jülich, Germany and ACK-Cyfronet, Kraków, Poland.
[99]{} E. Epelbaum, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. [**57**]{}, 654 (2006). E. Epelbaum, W-H. Hammer, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 1773 (2009).
R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. [**503**]{}, 1 (2011).
E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. A[**747**]{}, 362 (2005). D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C[**68**]{}, 041001 (2003). E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Eur. Phys. J. A[**19**]{}, 125 (2004). E. Epelbaum, A. Nogga, W. Glöckle, H. Kamada, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, H.Witała, Phys. Rev. C[**66**]{}, 064001 (2002). U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C[**49**]{}, 2932-2941 (1994).
E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee and Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Eur. Phys. J. A [**41**]{}, 125 (2009). A. Nogga, P. Navratil, B. R. Barrett and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 064002 (2006).
E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee and Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 192501 (2011). P. Navratil, V. G. Gueorguiev, J. P. Vary, W. E. Ormand and A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 042501 (2007). D. Gazit, S. Quaglioni and P. Navratil, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 102502 (2009). St. Kistryn et al., Phys. Rev. C[**72**]{}, 044006 (2005).
N. Kalantar-Nayestanaki, E. Epelbaum, Nucl. Phys. News. [**17**]{}, 22 (2007).
R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C[**51**]{}, 38 (1995).
B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, Steven C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C[**56**]{}, 1720 (1997).
R. Machleidt, F. Sammarruca, and Y. Song, Phys. Rev. C[**53**]{}, R1483 (1996).
S.A. Coon et al., Nucl. Phys. A[**317**]{}, 242 (1979); S.A. Coon and W. Glöckle, Phys. Rev. C[**23**]{}, 1790 (1981).
H.Witała et al., Phys. Rev. C[**63**]{}, 024007 (2001).
J. L. Friar, S. A. Coon, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{}, 1272 (1994). S.Ishikawa, M.R.Robilotta, Phys. Rev. C[**76**]{}, 014006 (2007).
V. Bernard, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Rev. C[**77**]{}, 064004 (2008).
J. Golak et al., Eur. Phys. J. A[**43**]{}, 241 (2010).
R. Skibiński et al., Eur. Phys. J. A[**47**]{}, 48 (2011).
V. Bernard, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, in preparation.
P. Büttiker and Ulf-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. A[**668**]{}, 97 (2000).
W. Glöckle, [*The Quantum Mechanical Few-Body Problem*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, (1983).
W. Glöckle, H. Wita[ł]{}a, D. Hüber, H. Kamada, J. Golak, Phys. Rep. [**274**]{}, 107 (1996).
A. Nogga, D. Hüber, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle, Phys. Lett B[**409**]{}, 19 (1997).
G. Audi, A. H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys. A[**595**]{}, 409 (1995) [*and references therein*]{}.
K. Schoen et al., Phys. Rev. C[**67**]{}, 044005 (2003).
D. Hüber, H. Kamada, H. Witała, W. Glöckle, Acta Phys. Polon. B[**28**]{}, 1677 (1997).
H. Witała, at al., Phys. Rev. C[**68**]{}, 034002 (2003).
P. Navratil, S. Quaglioni, I. Stetcu, B. R. Barrett, J. Phys. G [**36**]{}, 083101 (2009). R. Roth, J. Langhammer, A. Calci, S. Binder, P. Navratil, arXiv:1105.3173 \[nucl-th\].
T. Lesinski, K. Hebeler, T. Duguet, A. Schwenk, arXiv:1104.2955 \[nucl-th\]. In fact, $r$-space potentials generated by the long-range N$^3$LO contributions are much weaker than the ones emerging from the leading two-pion exchange terms at relative distances of the order of the inverse pion mass.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using a n-dimensional general spacetime and variable extra dimensional spacetime, we achieve its 4-dimensional Einstein equation and Friedman equations, and discover a general dual relation between the scale factor $a(t)$ of our universe and the scale factor $B(t)$ of extra dimensions. Based on the dual relation equation, predictions of shrinking of extra dimensions and free of singularity problem of our universe are given. Therefore, solution to initial singularity paradox of our universe is achieved. Because the dual relation is general, this Letter discovers that it is just the extra dimensional shrinking contribution that results in our universe’s expanding in terms of the dual relation in the bulk space, and actually the deduced dual relation doesn’t depend on the 4-dimensional matter concrete Lagrangian, these are key important for a lot of future relative investigations.'
author:
- 'Yong-Chang Huang'
- LiuJi Li
title: Variable Extra Dimensional Spacetime and Solution to Initial Singularity Paradox of Our Universe From Extra Dimensions
---
Introduction
============
The idea of extra dimensions plays an important role in theoretical physics. From the first Kaluza-Klein theory to current M-theory, the concept of extra dimension is widely used to attempt a theory unifying all known fundamental interactions. As well, cosmological aspects of extra dimensional theories have drawn peoples a lot of attentions. The key feature of these theories with extra dimensions is that there are more spatial dimensions compacted to tiny scale, apart from our well-known 4-dimensional spacetime.
Since we have not found any signal of extra dimensions at the current experiments, size of extra dimensions must be smaller than the extent of current high energy experiments, then it is nature to ask how extra dimensions have been compactified to small scale. There are comprehensive review papers [@OvWe:1997] [@Duff:1994] outlined early works on compactification of extra dimensions.
Usually, cosmological compactification was induced by explicit matter terms, and also, the cosmological constant term is put in these theories by hand. However, Wesson made a suggestion [@Wes:1990] that 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein equations without sources may be reduced to the 4-dimensional Einstein equations with sources. Next, they investigated a kind of 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein model whose metric is dependent on the extra coordinate [@Wes:1992], and its effective 4-dimensional results can be interpreted as the Scalar-Tensor gravity theory [@FuMa:2003].
Ref. [@Huang1:2011] gave research on hidden conformal symmetry of extremal Kaluza-Klein black hole in four dimensions, for applications of string theories with compact extra spacetimes to cosmology, Ref. [@Zhang:2011] investigated DBI potential, DBI inflation action and general Lagrangian relative to phantom, K-essence and quintessence. There were different physical investigatonss about the early universe [@KoTu:1990]. In the present work, our aim is to study a more general n-dimensional spacetime by means of a different approach.
Generally, the universe with extra spatial dimensions can be described as a n-dimensional spacetime with topology $R^4\times M^{n-4}$, where $R^4$ is a 4-dimensional spacetime, and $M^{n-4}$ is a ($n-4)$-dimensional space. For the n-dimensional spacetime, we take its general infinitesimal line element square as $$ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+g_{ab} (t,x^a)dx^adx^b,\quad \mu,\nu=0,1,2,3;\quad a,b=1,2,...,n-4,$$ where $ds^2(g_{\mu \nu )} =dt^2-a^2(t)\left[\frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2d\theta^2 +r^2 sin^2 \theta d\phi \right]$ is corresponding to the Robertson-Walker metrics of our universe, $g_{ab}$ is metric of extra space, in general, it can be functions of $x^{\mu}$ and $x^{a}$, and we consider here the case that it is function of time $t$ and coordinator of extra dimensions $x^{a}$. We also require $5 \le n \le 11$ following the idea of M-theory in which the total dimensions of supergravity are $11$. For later convenience, we decompose Ricci scalar of the n-dimensional spacetime into a new formula [@Li:2005thesis] $$\label{ttricsl}
R_{total} =g^{\mu \nu }R^\alpha _{\mu\alpha \nu } +g^{ab}R^\alpha _{a\alpha b} +g^{\mu \nu }R^c_{\mu c\nu
} +g^{ab}R^c_{acb} =\mathcal{R}+\mathcal{R}'+\mathcal{R}_{cross},$$ where $$\mathcal{R}=g^{\mu \nu }(\Gamma ^\alpha _{\mu \nu ,\alpha } -\Gamma ^\alpha_{\mu \alpha ,\nu } +\Gamma ^\alpha _{\beta \alpha } \Gamma ^\beta _{\mu \nu } -\Gamma ^\alpha _{\beta \nu } \Gamma ^\beta _{\mu \alpha} ),$$ $$\mathcal{R}'=g^{ab}(\Gamma ^c_{ab,c} -\Gamma ^c_{ac,b} +\Gamma ^c_{dc} \Gamma^d_{ab} -\Gamma ^c_{db} \Gamma ^d_{ac} ),$$ $$\label{rcross}
\mathcal{R}_{cross} =g^{\mu \nu }(-\Gamma ^c_{\mu c,\nu } +\Gamma ^c_{\beta c} \Gamma^\beta _{\mu \nu } -\Gamma ^c_{a\nu } \Gamma^a_{\mu c} ) + g^{ab}(\Gamma^\alpha _{ab,\alpha } +\Gamma^\alpha_{\beta \alpha } \Gamma ^\beta _{ab} -\Gamma ^\alpha _{db} \Gamma^d_{a\alpha } +\Gamma^c_{\beta c} \Gamma^\beta _{ab} -\Gamma^c_{\beta b} \Gamma^\beta _{ac} ).$$ This decomposition is similar with the previous work by Straumann [@Straumann:1986] which studied extra dimensions with the structure of a compact Lie group in the framework of principle fibre bundles, but the cross component (\[rcross\]) is not the same as the one in [@Straumann:1986] which comes from Yang-Mills fields.
Cosmology with extra dimensions
===============================
A general action of the n-dimensional spacetime with matter field localized in 4-dimensional spacetime can be written as $$\label{ndimaction}
\mathcal{I}_n=\int {d^4xd^{n-4}y} \sqrt {-g_{_{total}} }\mathcal{R}_{total}+\int{d^4x} \sqrt{-g} \mathcal{L}_m.$$ Using variational principle on the action with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$, we can easily deduce a 4-dimensional effective Einstein field equation from the n-dimensional spacetime action $$\label{einsteingm}
R_{\mu \nu } -\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu } \mathcal{R}-g_{\mu \nu }
\frac{\mathcal{R}'+\mathcal{R}_{cross} }{2}=-8\pi G_NT_{\mu \nu } -C_{\mu \nu}.$$ where $$\begin{split}
C_{\mu \nu}=& -\Gamma _{a\nu }^b \Gamma _{\mu b}^a +\Gamma_{\alpha b}^b \Gamma _{\mu \nu }^\alpha +\frac{g^{\alpha \beta}}{2}\Gamma _{\mu b}^b \{\nu ,\alpha \beta \}+\frac{g^{cd}}{2}\Gamma_{\mu b}^b \{\nu ,cd\} -\frac{g^{cd}}{2}\Gamma _{\mu d}^b \{\nu,cb\}\\
&+\frac{g^{cd}}{2}\partial _\mu \{\nu ,cd\}+\frac{g^{cd}}{2}\Gamma_{cd}^\alpha \{\nu ,\alpha \mu \}+\frac{g^{cd}}{2}\Gamma _{\mu\alpha }^\alpha \{\nu ,cd\}-\frac{g^{cd}}{2}\Gamma _{\mu c}^a \{\nu,ad\}\\
&{-\frac{1}{2}\partial _\mu (g^{cd}\{\nu,cd\})} + \frac{1}{2}\partial _\alpha (g^{cd}g_{\mu \nu } \Gamma_{cd}^\alpha ).
\end{split}$$
Ricci scalar $\mathcal{R}$ is achieved by timing $g^{\mu\nu}$ on both side of Einstein equation (\[einsteingm\]) $$\label{ricciscalar}
\mathcal{R}=8\pi G_N T+ C -2(\mathcal{R}'+\mathcal{R}_{cross}) .$$ where $C=g^{\mu\nu}C_{\mu\nu}$. Replacing the Ricci scalar in the Einstein equation (\[einsteingm\]) in terms of (\[ricciscalar\]), we come to have another formula of Einstein equation. $$\label{einequ}
R_{\mu \nu} =-8\pi G(T_{\mu \nu } -\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu } T)-(C_{\mu \nu} -\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu } C)-\frac{1 }{2}g_{\mu \nu} (\mathcal{R}'+\mathcal{R}_{cross}).$$ There is no new constraint from the contracted Bianchi identities, and the point is discussed in appendix.
Usually, in cosmology, matter in the universe can be considered as perfect fluid whose energy-momentum tensor is $T^{\mu}_{\nu}=\text{diag}(\rho, -P,-P,-P)$, and using Robertson-Walker metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, the effective Friedmann equations of 4-dimensional spacetime are straightforwardly deduced from equation ($\ref{einequ}$) $$\label{eftfriedequ1}
3\frac{\ddot {a}}{a}+4\pi G_N(\rho +3P) = -\frac{1}{4}\partial _0 g^{ab}\partial
_0 g_{ab} +\frac{1}{4}g^{ab}\partial _0 g_{ab} g^{cd}\partial _0 g_{cd}
-\frac{R'}{2},$$ $$\label{eftfriedequ2}
\frac{a \ddot {a}+2\dot {a}^2+2\kappa}{a^2} -4\pi G_N (\rho -P) = -\frac{\dot {a}}{a}g^{ab}\partial _0
g_{ab} -\frac{1}{2}R'\quad .$$
Duality between Scale Factors
=============================
On the other side, recent experimental data [@Riess:1998cb; @Perlmutter:1998np] from type Ia supernovae indicate that our universe is accelerating by dark energy, which can be considered as an effect of the cosmological constant term in Einstein equation.
We now generally generalize the cosmological constant to a general function of spacetime coordinates. In 4 dimensional theory, the Friedmann equations with the cosmological variable parameter term $\Lambda$ can be obtained from a 4-dimensional action $\mathcal{I}_4=\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}(R+\mathcal{L}_m+\Lambda)$, thus we still have $$\label{4dfriedequ1}
3\frac{\ddot {a}}{a}+4\pi G_N (\rho +3P)=-\Lambda \quad ,$$ $$\label{4dfriedequ2}
\frac{{a \ddot {a}+2 \dot {a}^2+2\kappa}}{a^2} -4\pi G_N (\rho -P)=-\Lambda .$$ where $\Lambda(x)$ is a general function of spacetime coordinates. No losing generality, comparing Eq.(13) minuse Eq.(14) with Eq.(11) minuse Eq.(12), we achieve that right sides of equations (\[eftfriedequ1\]) and (\[eftfriedequ2\]) are equal to each other, because the effective Friedmann equations (\[eftfriedequ1\]) and (\[eftfriedequ2\]) deduced from higher dimensional spacetime should be the same as the 4-dimensional Friedmann equations (\[4dfriedequ1\]) and (\[4dfriedequ2\]). It thus yields one equation $$\label{relequ}
\frac{1}{4}\partial _0 g^{ab}\partial_0 g_{ab} - \frac{1}{4}g^{ab}\partial_0 g_{ab} g^{cd}\partial_0 g_{cd} =\frac{\dot{a}}{a}g^{ab}\partial_0 g_{ab} .$$
We consider the condition that extra spatial dimensions are not constant, that is to say, extra dimensions are dependent on time $t$, then the metric of extra spatial dimension can be written as $$\label{mesd}
g_{ab} =-B^2(t)\tilde {g}_{ab} \quad ,$$ where $\tilde {g}_{ab} $ ( a, b = 1,2, […]{}, n-4 ) depend only on coordinates of different extra dimensions. Consequently, we have two following equations $$\label{esdequ1}
g^{ab}\partial_0 g_{ab} =2(n-4)\frac{\dot {B}}{B} ,$$ $$\label{esdequ2}
\partial _0 g^{ab}\partial _0 g_{ab} =-4(n-4)\frac{\dot {B}^2}{B^2} ,$$ Substituting equations (\[esdequ1\]) and (\[esdequ2\]) into equation (\[relequ\]), we thus come up with an equation $$\label{nrelequ}
(n-4) \frac{\dot{B}}{B} \left((n-3)\frac{\dot{B}}{B}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)=0$$ since $n-4>0$ and $\frac{\dot{B}}{B}\ne 0$ are always valid, general solution of equation (\[nrelequ\]) is the same as general solution of following equation $$\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=-\frac{n-3}{2}\frac{\dot{B}}{B}$$ which solution is a relation [@Li:2005thesis] of scale factors $a(t)$ and $B(t)$ $$\label{relab}
a(t)=\alpha B^{-\frac{n-3}{2}}(t) ,$$ where $\alpha$ is an arbitrary constant parameter and we can fix its value later, after we take information of our universe and extra dimensions as input parameters. Further we get $$\label{relab}
B(t)={(\frac{\alpha}{a(t)})}^{\frac{2}{n-3}} ,$$ Eq.(22) has very important physics meanings, which are given in next section.
Discussion
==========
The relation (\[relab\]) exhibits a duality relationship of scale factors between our 3-dimensional space and extra spatial dimensions. As we know, physical size of our universe is proportional to scale factor $a(t)$. Since our universe has a long historical expanding, the scale factor $a(t)$ is therefore very large. Then relation (\[relab\]) indicates that the scale factor of extra dimensions $B(t)$ could be very small for a certain value of $\alpha$, as a consequence, physical size of extra dimensional space is small as well, and it is consistent with the general idea of Kluza-Klein theory and string theory in which extra dimension(s) is(are) compact to very small scale. Furthermore, the relation can be explained as a good example of spontaneous dimensional reduction in Kaluza-Klein theories, the spontaneous dimensional reduction in any Kaluza-Klein theories always yields a compactified extra-space. The only difference from other approaches is that here the compactification of extra dimensions is not caused by any kind of bosonic matter field coupled to gravity.
However, one may argue that the relation (\[relab\]) could cause one problem at the beginning of our universe. At the time, because of relation (\[relab\]) and tiny magnitude of scale factor $a(t)$, extra spatial dimensions could be extremely large. In this case, we would like to give an estimation of the relation equation (\[relab\]). Updated observational data from Planck collaborator [@Ade:2013zuv] shows that size of our universe is at the degree of $10^{26} m$, and ATLAS group [@Aad:2012fw; @ATLAS:2012ky] has released new limitation on the size of extra dimensions, which is smaller than $10^{-16}\ m$. Taking these two values as input parameters in equation (21), we can get a value $10^{10}$ of constant $\alpha$ when there is only one extra spatial dimension. While, along with increasing of the number of total dimensions $n$, the value of $\alpha$ decreases very fast, and it becomes to $10^{-38}$ when number $n$ is equal to $11$. The big value gap of $\alpha$ does not matter at all, and it shows only that $\alpha$’s value depends on the number of extra dimensions $n$.
To see if the condition is reasonable, we choose scale factor $a(t)$ is about $l_{Planck}$ at the very beginning of the universe. If there is only one extra dimension, then its size would be close to $10^{45}\ m$ under the condition $\alpha \sim 10^{10}$. This result is completely surprising, and it is very hard to understand that the size of this large extra dimension is even larger than the size of our current universe, why and how it could shrink to so small size at present from an extreme size at the beginning. However, when the number of extra dimensions are large, under the conditions $n=11$ and $\alpha=10^{-38}$, the size of extra dimensions is smaller than $ 0.1 m$, which means that the extra dimensions are small at the beginning of the universe though its size is extraordinarily big comparing the size of our universe at the time.
As a result, we find that, at the very beginning time, 3 spatial dimensions of our universe are very small, and the extra spatial dimensions are also small. After that, along with expanding of our universe, the scale factor $B(t)$ of extra dimensions is shrinking. And for this reason, from this relation (\[relab\]), we can give a safe claim that extra dimensions, in the future, will be harder to find than current, since the size of extra dimensions at the later time will be smaller than its value at present.
In addition, after fixing the value of $\alpha$ in accord with input parameters, we can evaluate the evolution of $B(t)$ with respect to the increasing of $a(t)$ under the conditions of different number $n$.
![Relation of scale factors of our universe and extra spatial dimensions. Dotted line is for n=7, dotted-dashed line is for n=9, solid line is for n=11 []{data-label="porsf"}](n.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The Fig.\[porsf\] clearly shows that, with bigger number $n$, the initial value of $B(t)$ are smaller, and the related $B(t)$ decrease rapidly faster than those $B(t)$ of bigger number $n$. And also, no matter what the number $n$ is at any time, at last, the scale factor $a(t)$ will not go to zero because of the relation (22), i.e., because, in the relation (22), $a(t)$ may infinitely approach to zero but no equal to zero, or the relation (22) cannot keep effect when $a(t)$ is equal to zero and the extra dimensions exist, i.e., *the serious mathematical expression, namely the general inner characteristic structure of the bulk spacetime, forbids $a(t)$ to equate zero, but it may infinitely approaches to zero*. Thus there is no the singular property in exact mathematical and physical description. If we accept that there is a minimum limitation, *Planck length*, in the theory, then size of extra dimensions will go to the limitation if scale factor $a(t)$ increase enough time.
Moreover, issue of very early singularity paradox of our universe could be avoided under this scenario. Because it is well known that, at zero scale or below Planck scale, current all physical laws lose effects and actions, which is a real paradox or crisis for all the current well admitted physical theories. For example, in cosmology, in 4 dimensional theories, at the early stage of our universe, scale factor satisfies $a(t)\sim t^{\frac{2}{3(1+\omega)}}$ and energy density of matter goes to $\rho \sim t ^{-3(1+\omega)}$ from the Friedmann equations and equation of state $P=\omega \rho$. At time $t=0$, scale factor $a(t)$ vanishes and the matter density becomes infinite. This is the singularity problem. However, the problem will not happen if there exist extra dimensions, because relation (\[relab\]) forbids scale factor $a(t)$ becoming to zero. It implies that equation of state $P=\omega \rho$ should be revised at the early universe therefore new physics could emerge.
There are some interesting results from the relation (\[relab\]), for example, our now 3 spatial dimensions are accelerated expanding because of dark energy or the cosmological constant in current theories, and the relation (\[relab\]) predicts that extra spatial dimensions are shrinking, but it is not the same as previous works on compactification of extra dimensions which is induced by specific matter terms. In present work, the relation (21) is general and has nothing to do with the 4-dimensional matter Lagrangian, then it is urgent to ask which mechanism leads to this result, it can be seen from the investigation of this Letter what it is just the extra dimensional shrinking mechanism contribution that results in our universe’s expanding in terms of dual relation (21) in the bulk space, and that the dual relation is deduced doesn’t depend on the 4-dimensional matter concrete Lagrangian, all these are very important for future relative research.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
For a n-dimensional general spacetime $R^4\times M^{n-4}$, we deduce its 4-dimensional Einstein field equation with extra dimensional contribution terms. It leads to an interesting relationship of scale factors between our universe and extra spatial dimensions. And the relation (\[relab\]) definitely predicts the shrinking of extra dimensions, according to the fact that our universe is expanding. Furthermore, the early singularity paradox can be avoided as a result of dual relation (\[relab\]), namely, the paradox of the very early singularity of our universe is solved by using the dual relation to forbid the zero singularity of the scale of our universe, because the dual relation must exist when there are extra dimensions. As a further matter, evaluation of the relation (\[relab\]) shows that value of parameter $\alpha$ strongly depends on the number of extra spatial dimensions, and small value of $n$ might lead to a result that magnitude of extra dimension, at the time as early as *planck time* of our universe, could be ridiculously large. And the dual relation is general, we achieve that it is just the extra dimensional shrinking contribution that leads to our universe’s expanding according to the dual relation in the bulk space, and that the dual relation is achieved doesn’t depend on the 4-dimensional matter concrete Lagrangian. All the results gotten in this Letter conform to current physics experiments. More theoretical works may be done, which will be written in another paper because of length limit of the Letter.
Since it is a n-dimensional manifold, then there are n-dimensional Einstein equations. $$G^{AB}=\kappa_n T^{AB},$$ Its component formulae can be written as $$\label{4d}
G^{\mu\nu}=\kappa_n T^{\mu\nu},$$ $$\label{ed}
G^{ab}=\kappa_n T^{ab}=0,$$ $$\label{4ded}
G^{\mu b}=\kappa_n T^{\mu b}=0.$$ The last two equations are valid because matter fields are localized in 4-dimensional spacetime.
It is easy to find that $\nabla_A G^{A b}=\nabla_{\mu} G^{\mu b}+\nabla_a G^{a b}=0$, because of equations (\[ed\]) and (\[4ded\]); and $\nabla_A G^{A \nu}=\nabla_a G^{a\nu}+\nabla_{\mu} G^{\mu\nu}=0 $, because of equations (\[4d\]) and (\[4ded\]). Then the contracted Bianchi identities $\nabla_A G^{AB}=0 $ are always agree with the Einstein equations.
So there is no new constraint on 4-dimensional Einstein equations (10) in the paper.
Authors are grateful for Prof. R. G. Cai for useful discussion. The work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China ( grants No. 11275017 and No. 11173028).
[unsrt]{} J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, Phys. Rept. 283 (1997) 303. M. J. Duff, hep-th/9410046. P. S. Wesson, Gen. Rel. Grav. 22 (1990) 707. P. S. Wesson and J. Ponce de Leon, J. Math. Phys. 33 (1992) 3883. Y. Fujii and K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation, (Cambridge University Press), 2003. Y. C. Huang and F. F. Yuan, Journal of High Enery Physics. 03(2011)029. Q. Zhang and Y. C. Huang, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. 11 (2011) 050. E. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe, (Addison Wesley), 1990. Y. C. Huang and L. J. Li, High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics, 29 (2005) 844. N. Straumann, J. Appl. Math. Phys. (ZAMP) 37 (1986) 1. A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009, astro-ph/9805201. S. Perlmutter [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565, astro-ph/9812133. P. A. R. Ade, [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/1303.5076. G. Aad [*et al.*]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett., 110 (2013) 011802, hep-ex/1209.4625. G. Aad [*et al.*]{}, JHEP, 1304(2013) 075, hep-ex/1210.4491. J. E. Daum and M. Reuter, Annals Phys. 334 (2013) 351.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2}$ be the algebras of joint invariants and joint covariants of the two binary forms of degrees $d_1$ and $d_2.$ Formulas for computation of the Poincaré series $\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z),$ $ \mathcal{PC}_{d_1,d_2}(z)$ of the algebras is found. By using these formulas, we have computed the series for $d_1,d_2 \leq 20.$'
address: 'Khmelnitskiy national university, Insituts’ka, 11, Khmelnitskiy, 29016, Ukraine'
author:
- 'L. Bedratyuk'
title: The Poincaré series of the joint invariants and covariants of the two binary forms
---
[**1.**]{} Let $V_{d_1}, V_{d_2}$ be the complex vector spaces of the binary forms of degrees $d_1$ and $d_2$ endowed with the natural action of the complex group $SL_2.$ Consider the induced action of the group on the algebras of the polynomial functions $\mathcal{O}(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})$ and $\mathcal{O}(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}\oplus \mathbb{C}^2).$ The algebras $$\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2}:=\mathcal{O}(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})^{SL_2} \text{ and } \mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2}:=\mathcal{O}(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}\oplus \mathbb{C}^2)^{SL_2}$$ is called the algebra of joint invariants and the algebra of joint covariants for the binary forms. The reductivity of $SL_2$ implies that the algebras $\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2},$ $\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2}$ are finite generated graded algebras $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2}=(\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_0+(\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_1+\cdots+(\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_i+ \cdots,\\
\\
\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2}=(\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2})_0+(\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2})_1+\cdots+(\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2})_i+ \cdots,
\end{array}$$ and the vector spaces $(\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_i,$ $(\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2})_i$ are the finite dimensional. The formal power series $\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z), \mathcal{CI}_{d_1,d_2}(z) \in \mathbb{Z}[[z]],$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty }\dim((\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_i) z^i, \mathcal{CI}_{d_1,d_2}(z) =\sum_{i=0}^{\infty }\dim((\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2})_i) z^i,$$ is called the Poincaré series of the algebras of joint invariants and covariants. The finite generation of the algebra of covariants implies that its Poincaré series is an expansion of some rational function. We consider here the problem of computing efficiently this rational function.
The Poincaré series calculations were an important object of research in classical invariant theory of the 19th century. For the cases $d\leq 10,$ $d=12$ the Poincaré of the algebra of invariants of binary form of degree $d$ were calculated by Sylvester and Franklin, see [@SF], [@Sylv-12]. Relatively recently, Springer [@SP] set the explicit formula for computing the Poincaré series of the algebras of invariants of the binary $d$-forms. This formula has been used by Brouwer and Cohen [@BC] for $d\leq 17$ and also by Littelmann and Procesi [@LP] for even $d\leq 36.$ In [@Dr_G] the Poincaré series of algebras of joint invariants and covariants of two and three binary form of small degrees is calculated.
In the paper we have found Sylvester-Cayley-type formulas for calculating of $(\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_i,$ $(\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2})_i$ and Springer-type formulas for calculation of $\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z),$ $ \mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z).$ By using the derived formulas, the Poincaré series is calculated for $d_1,d_2 \leq 20.$
[**2.**]{} To begin with, we give a proof of the Sylvester-Cayley-type formula for joint invariants and covariants of two binary form. Let $V\cong \mathbb{C}^2$ be standard two-dimensional representation of Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}.$ The irreducible representation $V_d=\langle v_0,v_1,...,v_d \rangle,$ $\dim V_d=d+1$ of the algebra $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}$ is the symmetric $d$-power of the standard representation $V=V_1,$ i.e. $V_d=S^d(V),$ $V_0 \cong \mathbb{C}.$ The basis elements $ \left( \begin{array}{ll} 0\, 1 \\ 0\,0 \end{array} \right),$ $ \left( \begin{array}{ll} 0\, 0 \\ 1\,0 \end{array} \right)$, $ \left( \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \phantom{-}0 \\ 0 &-1 \end{array} \right)$ of the algebra $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}$ act on $V_d$ by the derivations $D_1, D_2, E$ : $$D_1(v_i)=i\, v_{i-1}, D_2(v_i)=(d-i)\,v_{i+1}, E(v_i)=(d-2\,i)\,v_i.$$ Let us consider the two irreducible $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}$-modules $V_{d_1}$ і $V_{d_2}.$ Identity the algebras of polynomial functions $\mathcal{O}(V_{d_1}),$ $\mathcal{O}(V_{d_2})$ with the symmetrical algebras $S(V_{d_1}),$ $S(V_{d_2}).$The action of $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}$ is extended to action on the symmetrical algebra $S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}).$ in the natural way. The algebra $\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2},$ $$\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2}= \displaystyle{ S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})^{\mathfrak{sl_{2}}}}=\{ v \in S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})| D_1(v)=0, D_2(v) =0 \},$$ is called the algebra of joint invariants of two binary forms of degrees $d_1, d_2.$
Let $\mathfrak{u}_{2}$ be the maximal unipotent subalgebra of $\mathfrak{sl}_{2}.$ The algebra $\mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2},$ $$\mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2}:= \displaystyle{ S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})^{\mathfrak{u_{2}}}}=\{ v \in S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})| D_1(v)=0 \},$$ is called the algebra of joint semi-invariants of the binary forms of the degrees $d_1, d_2.$ For any element $v \in \mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2}$ a natural number $s$ is called the order of the element $v$ if the number $s$ is the smallest natural number such that $$D_2^s(v) \ne 0, D_2^{s+1}(v) = 0.$$ It is clear that any semi-invariant of order $i$ is the highest weight vector for an irreducible $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}$-module of the dimension $i+1$ in $S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}).$
The application of the Grosshans principle, see [@Gross], [@Pom] gives $$\mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2}:= \displaystyle{ S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})^{\mathfrak{u_{2}}}}\cong \mathcal{O}(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2} \oplus \mathbb{C}^2)^{\mathfrak{sl_{2}}}=\mathcal{C}_{d_1,d_2}.$$ Thus, the algebra joint covariants is isomorphic to the algebra of joint semi-invariants. Therefore, it is enough to compute the Poincaré series of the algebra $\mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2}.$
The algebra $S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})$ is graded: $$S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})=S^0(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})+S^1(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})+\cdots +S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})+\cdots,$$ and each $S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})$ is the complete reducibly representation of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}.$
Thus, the following decomposition holds $$S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}) \cong \gamma_n(d_1,d_2;0) V_0+\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;1) V_1+ \cdots +\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;n\cdot \max(d_1,d_2)) V_{n\cdot \max(d_1,d_2)}, \eqno{(1)}$$ here $\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;k)$ is the multiplicity of the representation $V_k$ in the decomposition of $S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}).$ On the other hand, the multiplicity $\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;i)$ of the representation $V_i$ is equal to the number of linearly independent homogeneous joint semi-invariants of the degree $n$ and the order $i.$ In particular, the number of linearly independent joint invariants of degree $n$ is equal to $\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;0).$ This argument proves
$$\begin{array}{ll}
(i) & \dim (\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_n=\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;0),\\
(ii) & \dim (S_{d_1,d_2})_n=\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;0)+\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;1) + \cdots +\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;n\,\max(d_1,d_2)).
\end{array}$$
Let us recall some points of the representation theory of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl_{2}}.$
The set of weights ( eigenvalues of the operator $E$) of a representation $W$ denote by $\Lambda_{W},$ in particular, $\Lambda_{V_d}=\{-d, -d+2, \ldots, d \}.$ The set of weights of a representation $W$ denote by $\Lambda_{W},$ in particular, $\Lambda_{V_d}=\{-d, -d+2, \ldots, d \}.$ It is clear that any joint semi-invariant $v \in \mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2}$ of degree $i$ is the highest weight vector for an irreducible representation $V_i$ in the symmetrical algebra $S(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}).$ A formal sum $${\rm Char}(W)=\sum_{k \in \Lambda_{W}} n_W(k) q^k,$$ is called the character of a representation $W,$ here $n_W(k)$ denotes the multiplicity of the weight $k \in \Lambda_{W}.$ Since, a multiplicity of any weight of the irreducible representation $V_d$ is equal to 1, we have $${\rm Char}(V_d)=q^{-d}+q^{-d+2}+\cdots+q^{d}.$$
On the other hand, the characted $ {\rm Char}(S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})$ of the representation $S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})$ equals $$H_n(q^{-d_1},q^{-d_1+2},\ldots,q^{d_1},q^{-d_2},q^{-d_2+2},\ldots,q^{d_2}),$$ see [@FH], where $H_n(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{d_1},y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_{d_2})$ is the complete symmetrical function $$H_n(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{d_1},y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_{d_2})=\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|=n} x_0^{\alpha_0} x_1^{\alpha_1} \ldots x_{d_1}^{\alpha_{d_1}}y_0^{\beta_0} y_1^{\beta_1} \ldots y_{d_1}^{\beta_{d_2}} , |\alpha|=\sum_i \alpha_i.$$
By replacing $x_i=q^{d_1-2\,i},$ $i=0,\ldots, d_1,$ $y_i=q^{d_2-2\,i},$ $i=0,\ldots, d_2,$ we obtain the specialized expression for the character of ${\rm Char}(S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2})):$ $${\rm Char}(S^n(V_{d_1}\oplus V_{d_2}))= \sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|=n} (q^{d_1})^{\alpha_0} (q^{d_1-2\cdot 1})^{\alpha_1} \ldots (q^{-d_1})^{\alpha_{d_1}} (q^{d_2})^{\beta_0} (q^{d_2-2\cdot 1})^{\beta_1} \ldots (q^{-d_2})^{\beta_{d_2}} =$$ $$= \sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|=n} p^{d_1|\alpha|+d_2|\beta| +(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\cdots + d_1\, \alpha_{d_1})+(\beta_1+2\beta_2+\cdots + d_2\, \beta_{d_2})}=\sum_{i=0}^{n\,\max(d_1,d_2)} \omega_n(d_1,d_2;i) p^{i},$$ here $\omega_n(d_1,d_2;i)$ is the number nonnegative integer solutions of the following system of equations: $$\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
d_1|\alpha|+d_2|\beta| -(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\cdots + d_1\, \alpha_{d_1})-(\beta_1+2\beta_2+\cdots + d_2\, \beta_{d_2})=i \\
\\
|\alpha|+|\beta| =n.
\end{array}
\right.
\eqno{(2)}$$
We can summarize what we have shown so far in
$$\begin{array}{ll}
(i) & \dim (\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_n=\omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)-\omega_n(d_1,d_2;2),\\
&\\
(ii) & \dim (\mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2})_n=\omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)+\omega_n(d_1,d_2;1).
\end{array}$$
$(i)$ The zero weight appears once in any representation $V_k,$ for even $k$, therefore $$\omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)=\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;0)+\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;2) +\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;4)+\ldots$$ The weight $2$ appears once in any representation $V_k,$ for odd $k$, therefore $$\omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)=\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;2)+\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;4) +\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;6)+\ldots$$ Taking into account Lemma 1, obtain $$\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;0)= \dim (\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_2})_n=\omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)-\omega_n(d_1,d_2;2).$$
$(ii)$ The weight $1$ appears once in any representation $V_k,$ for even $k$, therefore $$\omega_n(d_1,d_2;1)=\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;1)+\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;3) +\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;5)+\ldots$$ Thus, $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)+\omega_n(d_1,d_2;1)=\\ \\
\displaystyle =\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;0)+\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;1) +\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;2)+\ldots
+\gamma_n(d_1,d_2;n\,\max(d_1,d_2))=\\\\
\displaystyle =\dim (S_{d_1,d_2})_n.
\end{array}$$
[**3.**]{} Simplify the system $(2)$ to $$\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
d_1\alpha_0+(d_1-2)\alpha_1+(d_1-4)\alpha_2+\cdots + (-d_1)\, \alpha_{d_1}+\\+d_2\beta_0+(d_2-2)\beta_1+(d_2-4)\beta_2+\cdots + (-d_2)\, \beta_{d_2}=i \\
\\
\alpha_0+\alpha_1+\cdots +\alpha_{d_1}+ \beta_0+\beta_1+\cdots +\beta_{d_2}=n.
\end{array}
\right.$$ It well-known that the number $\omega_n(d_1,d_2;i)$ of non-negative integer solutions of the above system is equal to the coefficient of $\displaystyle t^n z^i $ of the expansion of the series $$f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)=\frac{1}{(1-t z^{d_1})(1-t\,z^{d_1-2})\ldots (1-t\,z^{-d_1})(1-t z^{d_2})(1-t\,z^{d_2-2})\ldots (1-t\,z^{-d_2})}.$$ Denote it in such a way: $\omega_n(d_1,d_2;i):=\left[ t^n z^i\right](f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)).$ The following statement holds
$$\begin{array}{ll}
(i) & \dim (I_{d_1,d_2})_n=[t^n ](1-z^2)f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z),\\
&\\
(ii) & \dim (\mathcal{S}_{d_1,d_2})_n=[t^n ](1+z)f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z).
\end{array}$$
Taking into account the formal property $[x^{i-k}]f(x)=[x^{i}](x^k f(x)),$ we get $$\begin{array}{l}
\dim (I_{d_1,d_2})_n=\omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)-\omega_n(d_1,d_2;2)=[t^n]f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)-[t^n\,z]f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)=\\
\\
=[t^n]f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)-[t^n]z f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)=[t^n](1-z^2) f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z).
\end{array}$$ In the same way $$\begin{array}{l}
\dim (S_{d_1,d_2})_n=\omega_n(d_1,d_2;0)+\omega_n(d_1,d_2;1)=[t^n]f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)-[t^n\,z]f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)=\\
\\
=[t^n]f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)+[t^n]z f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)=[t^n](1+z) f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z).
\end{array}$$
[**4.**]{} Let us prove Springer-type formula for the Poincaré series $\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z),$ $ \mathcal{PC}_{d_1,d_2}(z)$ of the algebras joint invariants and covariants of the two binary forms. Consider the $\mathbb{C}$-algebra $\mathbb{C}[[t,z]]$ of formal power series. For arbitrary $m,n \in \mathbb{Z^+}$ define $\mathbb{C}$-linear function $$\Psi_{m,n}:\mathbb{C}[[t,z]] \to \mathbb{C}[[z]],$$ $ m,n \in \mathbb{Z}^{+} $ in the following way: $$\Psi_{m,n}\left(\sum_{i,j=0}^{\infty} a_{i,j}t^i z^j\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_{i m,i n} z^i.$$ Define by $\varphi_n$ the restriction of $\Psi_{m,n}$ to $\mathbb{C}[[z]],$ namely
$$\varphi_{n}\left(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_{i}z^i \right)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a_{i n} z^i.$$ There is an effective algorithm of calculation for the function $ \varphi_n, $ see [@B-PS]. In some cases calculation of the functions $ \Psi$ can be reduced to calculation of the functions $\varphi$. The following statements hold:
For $R(z) \in \mathbb{C}[[z]]$ and for $ m, n, k \in \mathbb{N}$ we have:
$$\begin{array}{ll}
% (i) & \text{ Для } h(t,z) \in \mathbb{C}[[t,z]]) \text{ we have } \displaystyle \Psi_{1,n}(h(t,z)) =\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \oint_{|z|=1} h\left%(\frac{t}{z^n},z\right) {\frac{dz}{z} \Bigl |_{t=z}};
%\\
(i) & \displaystyle \Psi_{1,n}\left( \frac{R(z)}{1-t z^k} \right)=\left \{ \begin{array}{l} \varphi_{n-k}(R(z)), n\geq k, \\ \\ 0, \text{ if } k>n, \end{array} \right. \\
\\
(ii) & \displaystyle \Psi_{1,n}\left( \frac{R(z)}{(1-t z^k)^2} \right)=\left \{ \begin{array}{l} (z\, \varphi_{n-k}(R(z)))', n\geq k, \\ \\ 0, \text{ if } k>n. \end{array} \right.
\end{array}$$
$(i)$ Let $R(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} r_{j} z^j.$ Then for $k < n$ we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \Psi_{1,n}\left( \frac{R(z)}{1-t z^k} \right)=\Psi_{1,n}\Big( \sum_{j,s\geq 0} r_j z^j (t z^k)^s\Big)
{=}\Psi_{1,n}\Big(\sum_{s\geq 0} r_{s(n-k)} (t z^n)^s \Big){=}\sum_{s \geq 0} r_{s(n-k)} z^s.
\end{array}$$ On other hand, $\displaystyle \varphi_{n-k}(R(z))=\varphi_{n-k}\Bigl(\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} r_{j} z^j\Bigr){=\sum_{s \geq 0} r_{s(n-k)} z^s.}$
$(ii)$ Let $R(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} r_{j} z^j.$ Observe, that $$\frac{1}{(1-x)^2}=\left(\frac{1}{1-x} \right)'=1+2x+3x^2+\ldots$$ Then for $n>k$ we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \Psi_{1,n}\left( \frac{R(z)}{(1-t z^k)^2} \right)=\Psi_{1,n}\Big( \sum_{j,s\geq 0} (s+1)\,r_j z^j (t z^k)^s\Big)=\\ \\
\displaystyle =\Psi_{1,n}\Big(\sum_{s\geq 0} (s+1) r_{s(n-k)}\, (t z^n)^s \Big){=}\sum_{s \geq 0} (s+1)\, r_{s(n-k)} z^s.
\end{array}$$ On other hand, $$\left(z \varphi_{n-k}(R(z))\right)'=\left(\sum_{s=0}^{\infty} r_{s(n-k)} z^{s+1}\right)'=\sum_{s \geq 0} (s+1) r_{s(n-k)} z^s.$$
The main idea of this calculations is that the Poincaré series $ \mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z),$ $\mathcal{PS}_{d_1,d_2}(z)$ can be expressed in terms of functions $ \Psi.$ The following simple but important statement holds
Let $d:=\max(d_1,d_2).$ Then $$\begin{array}{ll}
(i) & \mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z)=\Psi_{1,d}\left((1-z^2)f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^d,z)\right),\\
\\
(ii) & \mathcal{PS}_{d_1,d_2}(z)=\Psi_{1,d}\left((1+z)f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^d,z)\right),\\
\end{array}$$
Theorem 2 implies that $\dim\left((\mathcal{I}_{d_1,d_1})_n\right)=[t ^n](1-z^2)f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z).$ Then $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \dim(I_{d_1,d_1})_n z^n=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \bigl([t ^n](1-z^2)f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z)\bigr)z^n{=}\\
\\
\displaystyle =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \bigl([(tz^d) ^n](1-z^2)f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^d,z)\bigr)z^n{=} \Psi_{1,d}\left((1-z^2)f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^d,z)\right).
\end{array}$$ Similarly, we get the statement $(ii).$
We replace $t$ with $tz^d$ to avoid of a negative powers of $z$ in the denominator of the function $f_{d_1,d_2}(t,z).$
Write the function $f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)$ in the following way $$f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)=\frac{1}{(tz^{d_2-d_1},z^2)_{d_1+1} (t,z^2)_{d_2+1}},$$ here $(a,q)_n=(1-a) (1-a\,q)\cdots (1-a\,q^{n-1}).$
By using a representation of the function $\Psi_{1,d}$ via the contour integral , see [@B-PS], we get two new formulas for the Puancaré series: $$\displaystyle \mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(t) {=}\frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_{|z|=1} \frac{ 1-z^2}{(tz^{d_2-d_1},z^2)_{d_1+1} (t,z^2)_{d_2+1}} \frac{dz}{z},$$ $$\displaystyle \mathcal{PS}_{d_1,d_2}(t) {=}\frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_{|z|=1} \frac{ 1+z}{(tz^{d_2-d_1},z^2)_{d_1+1} (t,z^2)_{d_2+1}} \frac{dz}{z}, d_2 \geq d_1.$$ Compare the formula with the Molien-Weyl integral formula for the Poincaré series of the algebra of invariants of binary form, see [@DerK], p. 183.
Now we can present Springer-type formula for the Poincaré series $P_{d}(z)$ $\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z)$ i $\mathcal{PS}_{d_1,d_2}(z).$
Let $d_2-d_2=1 \pmod 2$ and $d_2> d_1.$ Then $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z) {=}
\sum_{d_1/2 \leq k \leq d_1}\varphi_{2k-d_1}\left( (1-z^2) A_k(z)\right)+
\displaystyle \sum_{ k=0}^{[d_2/2]}\varphi_{d_2-2k}\left( (1-z^2)B_k(z)\right),\end{array}$$ where $$A_k(z)=\frac{(-1)^{k} z^{(d_1-k)(d_1-k+1)+(d_2+1)(d_1-2k)}}{(z^2,z^2)_{k} (z^2,z^2)_{d_1-k}(z^{(d_1+d_2)-2k},z^2)_{d_2+1}},$$ $$B_k(z)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \frac{(-1)^k z^{k(k+1)}}{(z^{d_2-d_1-2k},z^2)_{d_1+1}(z^2,z^2)_k(z^2,z^2)_{d_2-k}} \text{ for } 2k<d_2-d_1,\\
\\
\displaystyle \frac{(-1)^{\frac{d_2-d_1+1}{2}} z^{k(k+2)-1/2(d_2-d_1+1)}}{(z,z^2)_{s+1}(z,z^2)_{d_1-s}(z,z^2)_k(z^2,z^2)_{d_2-k}} \text{ for } s=\frac{2k-(d_2-d_1)-1}{2}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
If the integer number $d_1,$ $d_2,$ $d_2>d_1$ have different parity then in the denominator of the function $f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)$ all factors appears in the degree 1. Then the rational function $f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)$ has the following partial fractions decomposition $$f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)=\sum_{k=0}^{d_1} \frac{A_k(z)}{1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k}}+\sum_{k=0}^{d_2} \frac{B_k(z)}{1-t z^{2k}}.$$ By direct calculations we get $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle A_k(z)=\lim_{t \to z^{2k-(d_1+d_2)}}\left(f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)(1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k}) \right)=\\
\\
\displaystyle =\frac{1}{(1-z^{2k})(1-z^{2k-2})\cdots (1-z^{2})(1-z^{-2}) \cdots (1-z^{-2(d_1-k)})(z^{2k-(d_1+d_2)},z^2)_{d_2+1}}=\\
\\
\displaystyle =\frac{(-1)^{d_1-k}z^{2+4+\ldots +2(d_1-k)}(-1)^{d_2+1}z^{(d_2+1)(d_1+d_2-2k)-2(1+2+\ldots+d_2)}}{(z^2,z^2)_k(1-z^2) \cdots (1-z^{2(d_1-k)}) (z^{(d_1+d_2)-2k},z^2)_{d_2+1}}=\\
\\
\displaystyle =\frac{(-1)^{k} z^{(d_1-k)(d_1-k+1)+(d_2+1)(d_1-2k)}}{(z^2,z^2)_{k} (z^2,z^2)_{d_1-k}(z^{(d_1+d_2)-2k},z^2)_{d_2+1}}.
\end{array}$$
In the same way, we obtain $$B_k(z)=\lim_{t \to z^{-2k}}\left(f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)(1-t z^{2k}) \right)=$$ $$=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \frac{(-1)^k z^{k(k+1)}}{(z^{d_2-d_1-2k},z^2)_{d_1+1}(z^2,z^2)_k(z^2,z^2)_{d_2-k}} \text{ for } 2k<d_2-d_1,\\
\\
\displaystyle \frac{(-1)^{\frac{d_2-d_1+1}{2}} z^{k(k+2)-1/2(d_2-d_1+1)}}{(z,z^2)_{s+1}(z,z^2)_{d_1-s}(z,z^2)_k(z^2,z^2)_{d_2-k}} \text{ for } 2k=d_2-d_1+2s+1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Using the above lemmas we obtain $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z) {=}\Psi_{1,d_2}\bigl((1-z^2)f_d(tz^d_2,z)\bigr){=}\Psi_{1,d_2}\left( \sum_{k=0}^{d_1} \frac{(1-z^2)A_k(z)}{1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k}}+\sum_{k=0}^{d_2} \frac{(1-z^2)B_k(z)}{1-t z^{2k}} \right){=}\\
\displaystyle
= \sum_{k=0}^{d_1}\Psi_{1,d_2}\left( \frac{(1-z^2)A_k(z)}{1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k}}\right)+ \sum_{ k =0}^{d_2}\Psi_{1,d_2}\left( \frac{(1-z^2)B_k(z)}{1-t z^{2k}}\right).
\end{array}$$ By substituting the expression of $A_k(z),$ $B_k(z)$ and, taking into account the Lemma 2, we get the statement of the theorem.
Let us consider the case $d_2=d_1 \mod 2$ and $d_2> d_1.$ Then $$\begin{array}{l}
f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)^{-1}=
\\
\\
\displaystyle={(1-t)\ldots(1-tz^{d_2-d_1-2})(1-tz^{d_2-d_1})^2\ldots(1-tz^{d_2+d_1})^2(1-tz^{d_2+d_1+2})\ldots (1-tz^{2d_2})}=\\
\\
\displaystyle=(t,z^2)_{(d_2-d_1)/2}(tz^{d_2-d_1},z^2)_{d_1+1}^2(tz^{d_2+d_1+2},z^2)_{(d_2-d_1)/2}.
\end{array}$$ Consider the partial fraction decomposition of the rational function $f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z):$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z)=\\
\\
\displaystyle=\sum_{k=0}^{d_1}\left(\frac{A_k(z)}{1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k}}+ \frac{B_k(z)}{(1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k})^2}\right)+\sum_{k=0}^{(d_2-d_1)/2-1} \frac{C_k(z)}{1-t z^{2k}}+\sum_{k=(d_2+d_1)/2+1}^{d_2} \frac{C_k(z)}{1-t z^{2k}}.
\end{array}$$ It is easy to see that $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle A_k(z)=-\frac{1}{z^{d_2+d_1-2k}}\lim_{t \to z^{2k-(d_1+d_2)}}\left( f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z) (1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k})^2\right)'_t,\\
\\
\displaystyle B_k(z)=\lim_{t \to z^{2k-(d_1+d_2)}}\left( f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z) (1-t z^{d_2+d_1-2k})^2\right),\\
\\
\displaystyle C_k(z):=\lim_{t \to z^{-2k}}\left( f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z) (1-t z^{2k})\right).
\end{array}$$ Thus,
For $d_1=d_2 \pmod 2$ and $d_2 > d_1$ the Poincaré series $\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z)$ is calculated by the formulas $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z) {=}\Psi_{1,d_2}((1-z^2)f_{d_1,d_2}(tz^{d_2},z))=\\
\\
=\displaystyle\sum_{d_1/2\leq k\leq d_1}\varphi_{2k-d_1}\left((1-z^2)A_k(z)\right)+\sum_{d_1/2\leq k\leq d_1} \left( z \, \varphi_{2k-d_1} \left((1-z^2)B_k(z)\right) \right)'_z+\\
\\
+\displaystyle \sum_{0\leq 2k\leq d_2-d_1-2}\varphi_{d_2-2k}\left((1-z^2)C_k(z)\right)+ \sum_{d_1+d_2+2\leq 2k\leq 2d_2}\varphi_{d_2-2k}\left((1-z^2)C_k(z)\right).
\end{array}$$
For the case $d_2=d_1=d$ we have
Let $d_2=d_1=d.$ Then $$\mathcal{PI}_{d,d}(z)=\displaystyle\sum_{0\leq k\leq d/2}\varphi_{d-2k}\left((1-z^2)A_k(z)\right)+\sum_{0\leq k\leq d/2}\left( z\, \varphi_{d-2k}\left( (1-z^2)B_k(z)\right)\right)'_z,$$ where, $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle A_k(z)=-\frac{1}{z^{2k}}\lim_{t \to z^{-2k}}\left( f_{d,d}(tz^{d},z) (1-t z^{2k})^2\right)'_t,\\
\\
\displaystyle B_k(z)=\lim_{t \to z^{d-2k}}\left( f_{d,d}(tz^{d},z) (1-t z^{2k})^2\right).\\
\end{array}$$
By replacing the factor $1-z^2$ with $1+z$ in $\mathcal{PI}_{d_1,d_2}(z)$ we get the Poincaré series $\mathcal{PS}_{d_1,d_2}(z)$
[**5.**]{} For direct computations of the functions $\varphi$ we use the following technical lemma, see [@B-PS]:
Let $R(z)$ be some polynomial of $z.$ Then $$\varphi_n\left(\frac{R(z)}{(1-z^{k_1})(1-z^{k_2})\cdots(1-z^{k_m})} \right)=
\frac{\varphi_n\bigr(R(z)Q_n(z^{k_1})Q_n(z^{k_2})Q_n(z^{k_m})\bigr)}{(1-z^{k_1})(1-z^{k_2})\cdots(1-z^{k_m})},$$ here $Q_n(z)=1+z+z^2+\ldots+z^{n-1},$ and $k_i$ are natural numbers.
[**Example.**]{} Consider the case $d_1=1,d_2=3.$ We have $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathcal{PI}_{1,3}(z)=\Psi_{1,3}\left({\frac {1-{z}^{2}}{ \left( 1-t{z}^{2} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-t{z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-t \right) \left( 1-t{z}^{6} \right) }}
\right)=
\\
\\
=\displaystyle \Psi_{1,3}\left(\frac{(1-z^2)\,A_1(z)}{(1-tz^2)} \right) + \Psi_{1,3}\left(\frac{(1-z^2)\,B_1(z)}{(1-tz^2)^2} \right)+ \Psi_{1,3}\left(\frac{(1-z^2)\,C_0(z)}{(1-t)} \right).
\end{array}$$ Since, $3=1 \mod 2$, using Teorema 4. We have $$A_1(z)={\frac {{z}^{2} \left( 3\,{z}^{4}+{z}^{2}-1 \right) }{ \left(1- {z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{3}}},B_1(z)={\frac {{z}^{2}}{ \left(1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{3} \left( 1-{z}^{4}
\right) }}, C_0(z)={\frac {1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4}\right) ^
{2} \left(1-{z}^{6}\right) }}.$$ Therefore $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathcal{PI}_{1,3}(z)=\\
\displaystyle{=}\varphi_1\left({\frac {{z}^{2} \left( 3\,{z}^{4}+{z}^{2}-1 \right) }{ \left(1- {z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{2}}}\right){+} \left( z\,\varphi_1\left({\frac {{z}^{2}}{ \left(1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) }}\right)\right)'{+}\varphi_3\left({\frac {1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{4}\right) ^{2} \left(1-{z}^{6}\right) }}\right).
\end{array}$$ Taking into account Lemma 4 and $\varphi_1(F(z))=F(z),$ obtain $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathcal{PI}_{1,3}(z)=\\ \\
\displaystyle{=}{\frac {{z}^{2} \left( 3\,{z}^{4}+{z}^{2}-1 \right) }{ \left(1- {z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{2}}}{+} \left( {\frac {{z}^{3}}{ \left(1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) }}\right)'{+} \frac{\displaystyle \varphi_3 \left( \left(\frac { 1-{z}^{6}}{1-z^2}\right) \left( \frac{ 1-{z}^{12}}{1-z^4} \right)^{2}\right)}{(1-z^2)^2 (1-z^4)^2}=\\ \\
\displaystyle ={\frac {{z}^{2} \left( 3\,{z}^{4}+{z}^{2}-1 \right) }{ \left(1- {z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{2}}}-{\frac { \left( 5\,{z}^{4}+4\,{z}^{2}+3 \right) {z}^{2}}{ \left( 1-{
z}^{2} \right) ^{4} \left( 1+{z}^{2}\right) ^{2}}}+\\ \\ \displaystyle + \frac{\varphi_3\left( {z}^{20}+{z}^{18}+3\,{z}^{16}+2\,{z}^{14}+5\,{z}^{12}+3\,{z}^
{10}+5\,{z}^{8}+2\,{z}^{6}+3\,{z}^{4}+{z}^{2}+1 \right)
}{(1-z^2)^2 (1-z^4)^2}=\\ \\
\displaystyle =-{\frac {{z}^{2} \left( 2\,{z}^{4}+3\,{z}^{2}+4 \right) }{ \left( 1-{
z}^{2} \right) ^{3} \left( 1+{z}^{2}\right) \left( {1-z}^{4} \right) }}+ \frac{{z}^{6}+5\,{z}^{4}+2\,{z}^{2}+1
}{(1-z^2)^2 (1-z^4)^2}={\frac {{z}^{4}-{z}^{2}+1}{ \left(1-{z}^{2} \right) \left(1-{z}^{4}
\right) ^{2}}}=\\ \\
=\displaystyle {\frac {(1+z^2)({z}^{4}-{z}^{2}+1)(1+z^4)}{ (1+z^2)\left(1-{z}^{2} \right) \left(1-{z}^{4}
\right) ^{2}(1+z^4)}}=\frac {{z}^{10}+{z}^{6}+{z}^{4}+1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2}
\left( 1-{z}^{8} \right)}.
\end{array}$$ By using Lemma 3 the Poncaré series of the algebras of joined invariants and covariants for the $d_1,d_2 \leq 20$ is found. Belos are results for the cases $d_1,d_2 \leq 5.$ Note that $\mathcal{PC}_{d_1,d_2}(z)=\mathcal{PS}_{d_1,d_2}(z).$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{1,1}(z)=\frac{1}{ 1-{z}^{2}},\mathcal{PI}_{1,2}(z)=\frac{1}{\left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{3} \right)},$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{1,3}(z)=\frac {{z}^{10}+{z}^{6}+{z}^{4}+1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2}
\left( 1-{z}^{8} \right)},
\mathcal{PI}_{1,4}(z)={\frac {{z}^{13}+{z}^{11}+{z}^{9}+{z}^{4}+{z}^{2}+1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{3}
\right) \left( 1-{z}^{5} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) ^{2}}},$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{1,5}(z)={\frac {{z}^{26}+2\,{z}^{20}+6\,{z}^{18}+3\,{z}^{16}+7\,{z}^{14}+7\,{z
}^{12}+3\,{z}^{10}+6\,{z}^{8}+2\,{z}^{6}+1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right)
^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{8} \right) \left( 1-{z}^
{12} \right) }},$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{2,2}(z)=\frac{1}{( 1-{z}^{2})^3}, \mathcal{PI}_{2,3}(z)={\frac {{z}^{9}+{z}^{7}+{z}^{2}+1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{3} \right) \left( 1
-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{5} \right) }},$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{2,4}(z)={\frac {{z}^{6}+1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{3}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) }},$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{2,5}(z)=\frac{pi_{2,5}(z)}{\left( 1-{z}^{3} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{5}
\right) \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{7} \right) \left( 1
-{z}^{8} \right)},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pi_{2,5}(z)={z}^{24}+{z}^{22}+{z}^{20}+{z}^{18}+2\,{z}^{17}+3\,{z}^{16}+5\,{z}^{15
}+5\,{z}^{14}+8\,{z}^{13}+7\,{z}^{12}+8\,{z}^{11}+\\+5\,{z}^{10}+5\,{z}^{
9}+3\,{z}^{8}+2\,{z}^{7}+{z}^{6}+{z}^{4}+{z}^{2}+1,
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{3,3}(z)={\frac {{z}^{8}-{z}^{6}+2\,{z}^{4}-{z}^{2}+1}{ \left( 1-{z}^{2}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{3}}},$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{3,4}(z)={\frac {pi_{3,4}}{ \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{3} \right)
\left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{5} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{7}
\right) }},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pi_{3,4}(z)={z}^{20}+{z}^{18}+{z}^{15}+{z}^{14}+3\,{z}^{13}+4\,{z}^{12}+6
\,{z}^{11}+6\,{z}^{10}+6\,{z}^{9}+4\,{z}^{8}+3\,{z}^{7}+{z}^{6}+\\+{z}^{5
}+{z}^{2}+1,
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{3,5}(z)=\frac {pi_{3,5}}{\left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{8} \right)^{3}},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pi_{3,5}(z)={z}^{34}+4\,{z}^{30}+5\,{z}^{28}+22\,{z}^{26}+34\,{z}^{24}+65\,{z}^{22
}+77\,{z}^{20}+94\,{z}^{18}+94\,{z}^{16}+77\,{z}^{14}+\\+65\,{z}^{12}+34
\,{z}^{10}+22\,{z}^{8}+5\,{z}^{6}+4\,{z}^{4}+1,
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{4,5}(z)=\frac {pi_{4,5}}{\left( 1-{z}^{3} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^
{5} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{7} \right)
\left( 1-{z}^{8} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{9} \right)
},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pi_{4,5}(z)={z}^{35}+{z}^{33}+2\,{z}^{30}+4\,{z}^{29}+8\,{z}^{28}+13\,{z}^{27}+21
\,{z}^{26}+27\,{z}^{25}+38\,{z}^{24}+47\,{z}^{23}+\\+54\,{z}^{22}+62\,{z}
^{21}+68\,{z}^{20}+70\,{z}^{19}+74\,{z}^{18}+74\,{z}^{17}+70\,{z}^{16}
+68\,{z}^{15}+62\,{z}^{14}+54\,{z}^{13}+\\+47\,{z}^{12}+38\,{z}^{11}+27\,
{z}^{10}+21\,{z}^{9}+13\,{z}^{8}+8\,{z}^{7}+4\,{z}^{6}+2\,{z}^{5}+{z}^
{2}+1,
\end{array}$$
$$\mathcal{PI}_{4,4}(z)=\frac{pi_{4,4}(z)}{ \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{3} \right) ^{3} \left( 1-{z}^
{4} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{8} \right)
}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pi_{4,4}(z)={z}^{19}+2\,{z}^{17}+{z}^{16}+3\,{z}^{15}+2\,{z}^{14}+4\,{z}^{13}+3\,{
z}^{12}+4\,{z}^{11}+4\,{z}^{10}+4\,{z}^{9}+4\,{z}^{8}+3\,{z}^{7}+\\+4\,{z
}^{6}+2\,{z}^{5}+3\,{z}^{4}+{z}^{3}+2\,{z}^{2}+1,
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PI}_{5,5}(z)=\frac{pi_{5,5}(z)}{ \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^
{6} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{8} \right) ^{3} \left( 1-{z}^{12}
\right)
}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pi_{5,5}(z)={z}^{46}+4\,{z}^{42}+5\,{z}^{40}+44\,{z}^{38}+74\,{z}^{36}+188\,{z}^{
34}+259\,{z}^{32}+452\,{z}^{30}+575\,{z}^{28}+\\+723\,{z}^{26}+773\,{z}^{
24}+773\,{z}^{22}+723\,{z}^{20}+575\,{z}^{18}+452\,{z}^{16}+259\,{z}^{
14}+188\,{z}^{12}+74\,{z}^{10}+\\+44\,{z}^{8}+5\,{z}^{6}+4\,{z}^{4}+1,
\end{array}$$
$$\mathcal{PC}_{1,1}(z)=\frac{1}{(1-z)^2(1-z^2)}, \mathcal{PC}_{1,2}(z)={\displaystyle \frac {z^{2} + 1}{(1 - z)^{2}\,(1
- z^{2})\,(1 - z^{3})}} ,$$
$$\mathcal{PC}_{1,3}(z)={\displaystyle \frac {z^{6} + z^{4} + 3\,z^{3} +
z^{2} + 1}{( 1- z )^{2}\,(1 - z^{2})\,( 1- z^{4} )^{2}}}, \mathcal{PC}_{1,4}(z)={\displaystyle \frac {z^{8} + 2\,z^{6} + 2\,z^{5}
+ 4\,z^{4} + 2\,z^{3} + 2\,z^{2} + 1}{(1 - z^{5})\,(1 - z)^{2}\,
(1 - z^{3})^{2}\,(1 - z^{2})}}$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{1,5}(z)=\frac{pc_{1,5}(z)}{ \left( 1-z \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{8
} \right)
},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pc_{1,5}(z)={z}^{22}+3\,{z}^{20}+6\,{z}^{19}+10\,{z}^{18}+18\,{z}^{17}+24\,{z}^{16
}+34\,{z}^{15}+43\,{z}^{14}+44\,{z}^{13}+57\,{z}^{12}+ \\+53\,{z}^{11}+57
\,{z}^{10}+44\,{z}^{9}+43\,{z}^{8}+34\,{z}^{7}+24\,{z}^{6}+18\,{z}^{5}
+10\,{z}^{4}+6\,{z}^{3}+3\,{z}^{2}+1,
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{2,2}(z)=\frac{1+z^2}{(1-z)^2(1-z^2)^3},\mathcal{PC}_{2,3} :={\frac {{z}^{9}+3\,{z}^{7}+3\,{z}^{6}+4\,{z}^{5}+4\,{z}^{4}+3\,{z}^{3}
+3\,{z}^{2}+1}{\left( 1-z \right) ^{2}\left( 1-z^2 \right)
\left(1-{z}^{3}\right) \left(1-{z}^{4} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{5} \right) }},$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{2,4}(z)={\frac {{z}^{6}+2\,{z}^{4}+4\,{z}^{3}+2\,{z}^{2}+1}{ \left( 1-z
\right) ^{2} \left( -{z}^{2}+1 \right) ^{3} \left( -{z}^{3}+1
\right) ^{2}}},$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{2,5}=\frac{pc_{2,5}}{\left( 1-z \right) ^{2} \left( -{z}^{3}+1 \right) \left( 1-{z}^{4}
\right) \left( 1-{z}^{5} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) \left( 1
-{z}^{7} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{8} \right)
},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pc_{2,5}(z)={z}^{26}+5\,{z}^{24}+8\,{z}^{23}+19\,{z}^{22}+31\,{z}^{21}+52\,{z}^{20
}+76\,{z}^{19}+104\,{z}^{18}+135\,{z}^{17}+162\,{z}^{16}+\\+188\,{z}^{15}
+200\,{z}^{14}+209\,{z}^{13}+200\,{z}^{12}+188\,{z}^{11}+162\,{z}^{10}
+135\,{z}^{9}+104\,{z}^{8}+76\,{z}^{7}+52\,{z}^{6}+\\+31\,{z}^{5}+19\,{z}
^{4}+8\,{z}^{3}+5\,{z}^{2}+1,
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{3,3}:={\frac {{z}^{10}+3\,{z}^{8}+6\,{z}^{7}+6\,{z}^{6}+6\,{z}^{5}+6\,{z}^{4
}+6\,{z}^{3}+3\,{z}^{2}+1}{ \left( 1-z \right) ^{2} \left(1-{z}^{2}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{3}}},$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{3,4}:= \frac{pc_{3,4}}{ \left( 1-z \right) ^{2} \left(1 -{z}^{3}\right) \left( 1-{z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{5} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right)
\left( 1-{z}^{7} \right)
},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pc_{3,4}(z)={z}^{22}+6\,{z}^{20}+8\,{z}^{19}+21\,{z}^{18}+34\,{z}^{17}+52\,{z}^{16
}+76\,{z}^{15}+95\,{z}^{14}+117\,{z}^{13}+127\,{z}^{12}+\\+134\,{z}^{11}+
127\,{z}^{10}+117\,{z}^{9}+95\,{z}^{8}+76\,{z}^{7}+52\,{z}^{6}+34\,{z}
^{5}+21\,{z}^{4}+8\,{z}^{3}+6\,{z}^{2}+1
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{4,4}:= \frac{pc_{4,4}}{\left( 1-z \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{3}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{4} \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right)
\left( 1-{z}^{8} \right)
},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pc_{4,4}(z)={z}^{22}+7\,{z}^{20}+10\,{z}^{19}+24\,{z}^{18}+42\,{z}^{17}+62\,{z}^{
16}+88\,{z}^{15}+113\,{z}^{14}+134\,{z}^{13}+145\,{z}^{12}+\\+156\,{z}^{
11}+145\,{z}^{10}+134\,{z}^{9}+113\,{z}^{8}+88\,{z}^{7}+62\,{z}^{6}+42
\,{z}^{5}+24\,{z}^{4}+10\,{z}^{3}+7\,{z}^{2}+1
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{4,5}:= \frac{pc_{4,5}}{\left( 1-z \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{3} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{5} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right)
\left( 1-{z}^{7} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{8} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{9} \right)
},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pc_{4,5}(z)={z}^{37}+8\,{z}^{35}+15\,{z}^{34}+45\,{z}^{33}+93\,{z}^{32}+181\,{z}^{
31}+324\,{z}^{30}+531\,{z}^{29}+828\,{z}^{28}+\\+1202\,{z}^{27}+1674\,{z}
^{26}+2206\,{z}^{25}+2789\,{z}^{24}+3377\,{z}^{23}+3929\,{z}^{22}+4392
\,{z}^{21}+4734\,{z}^{20}+\\+4909\,{z}^{19}+4909\,{z}^{18}+4734\,{z}^{17}
+4392\,{z}^{16}+3929\,{z}^{15}+3377\,{z}^{14}+2789\,{z}^{13}+2206\,{z}
^{12}+\\+1674\,{z}^{11}+1202\,{z}^{10}+828\,{z}^{9}+531\,{z}^{8}+324\,{z}
^{7}+181\,{z}^{6}+93\,{z}^{5}+45\,{z}^{4}+15\,{z}^{3}+8\,{z}^{2}+1
\end{array}$$ $$\mathcal{PC}_{5,5}:= \frac{pc_{5,5}}{ \left( 1-z \right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{2} \right) \left( 1-{z}^{4}
\right) ^{2} \left( 1-{z}^{6} \right) ^{3} \left( 1-{z}^{8} \right) ^
{3}
},$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
pc_{5,5}(z)={z}^{42}+8\,{z}^{40}+20\,{z}^{39}+56\,{z}^{38}+126\,{z}^{37}+257\,{z}^
{36}+506\,{z}^{35}+891\,{z}^{34}+1438\,{z}^{33}+\\+2332\,{z}^{32}+3380\,{
z}^{31}+4939\,{z}^{30}+6488\,{z}^{29}+8707\,{z}^{28}+10720\,{z}^{27}+
13175\,{z}^{26}+15010\,{z}^{25}+\\+17283\,{z}^{24}+18414\,{z}^{23}+19791
\,{z}^{22}+19578\,{z}^{21}+19791\,{z}^{20}+18414\,{z}^{19}+17283\,{z}^
{18}+\\+15010\,{z}^{17}+13175\,{z}^{16}+10720\,{z}^{15}+8707\,{z}^{14}+
6488\,{z}^{13}+4939\,{z}^{12}+3380\,{z}^{11}+2332\,{z}^{10}+\\+1438\,{z}^
{9}+891\,{z}^{8}+506\,{z}^{7}+257\,{z}^{6}+126\,{z}^{5}+56\,{z}^{4}+20
\,{z}^{3}+8\,{z}^{2}+1
\end{array}$$
[15]{}
Sylvester, J. J., Franklin, F., Tables of the generating functions and groundforms for the binary quantic of the first ten orders, Am. J. II., 223–251, 1879 Sylvester, J. J. Tables of the generating functions and groundforms of the binary duodecimic, with some general remarks, and tables of the irreductible syzigies of certain quantics. Am. J. IV. 41-62, 1881. Springer T.A., On the invariant theory of SU(2), Indag. Math. 42 (1980), 339-345.
Brouwer A., Cohen A., The Poincare series of the polynomial invariants under $SU_2$ in its irreducible representation of degree $\leq 17$, preprint of the Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1979.
Littelmann P., Procesi C., On the Poincaré series of the invariants of binary forms, J. Algebra 133, No.2, 490-499 (1990).
Drensky, V, Genov, G.K. Multiplicities of Schur functions with applications to invariant theory and PI-algebras.\[J\] C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci. 57, No. 3, 5-10, 2004. Grosshans F., Observable groups and Hilbert’s fourteenth problem. Amer. J. Math. 95 (1973), 229-253.
Pommerening, K., Invariants of unipotent groups. - A survey. In Invariant theory, Symp. West Chester/Pa. 1985, Lect. Notes Math. 1278, 8-17, 1987.
W.Fulton, J. Harris, Reptesentation theory: a first course, 1991. Derksen H., Kemper G., Computational Invariant Theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.
L. Bedratyuk The Poincaré series of the covariants of binary forms. arXiv:0904.1325
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
For positive integers $m$ and $r$, one can easily show there exist integers $N$ such that for every map ${\Delta}:\{1,2,\cdots,N\} \to \{1,2,\cdots,r\}$ there exist $2m$ integers $$x_1
< \cdots < x_m < y_1 < \cdots < y_m$$ which satisfy:
1. $\hspace{81 pt}{\Delta}(x_1) = \cdots = {\Delta}(x_m)$,
2. $\hspace{81 pt} {\Delta}(y_1) = \cdots = {\Delta}(y_m)$,
3. $\hspace{81 pt}
2(x_m-x_1) \leq y_m-x_1$.
In this paper we investigate the minimal such integer, which we call $g(m,r)$. We prove that $g(m,2) = 5(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 2$, that $g(m,3) =
7(m-1)+1+{\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}$ for $m \geq 4$, and that $g(m,4)=10(m-1)+1$ for $m
\geq 3$. Furthermore, we consider $g(m,r)$ for general $r$. Along with results that bound $g(m,r)$, we compute $g(m,r)$ exactly for the following infinite families of $r$: $$\left\{f_{2n+3}\right\}, \left\{2f_{2n+3}\right\}, \left\{18f_{2n}-7f_{2n-2}\right\}, \mbox{ and } \left\{23f_{2n}-9f_{2n-2}\right\},$$ where here $f_i$ is the $i$th Fibonacci number defined by $f_0 = 0$ and $f_1=1$.
author:
- 'Andrew Schultz[^1]'
title: 'On a modification of a problem of Bialostocki, Erdős, and Lefmann'
---
Introduction
============
Ramsey type problems regarding colorings of the natural numbers are concerned with finding the minimum number $N(r)$, if it exists, for which every coloring of the integers in $[1,N]$ by $r$ colors contains some given monochromatic configuration. Traditionally, these configurations are solutions to systems of linear equations. The general theory developed by Rado in [@16] gave rise to the determination of $N(r)$ for certain monochromatic configurations, such as Schur numbers and Van der Waerden numbers [@Gr]. Other exact results of a similar kind were determined in [@13], [@14], [@17], [@18], and [@19]. The difficulty in computing such numbers led to the consideration of inequalities instead of equations. In particular, arithmetic progressions prompted Brown, Erdős, and Freedman to define the notion of ascending waves. These and similar structures have been investigated in [@1], [@7], and [@15].
Along similar lines, Bialostocki, Erdős, and Lefmann considered in [@3] the following problem concerning monochromatic sets of nondecreasing diameter. For two positive integers $m$ and $r$, determine the minimum integer, $f(m,r)$, such that for every map ${\Delta}:\{1, \cdots, f(m,r) \to \{1,\cdots,r\}$ there exist $2m$ integers $$x_1 < \cdots < x_m < y_1 < \cdots < y_m$$ which satisfy the following conditions:
1. $\hspace{97 pt}{\Delta}(x_1) = \cdots =
{\Delta}(x_m)$,
2. $\hspace{97 pt}{\Delta}(y_1) = \cdots = {\Delta}(y_m)$,
3. $\hspace{97 pt}x_m-x_1 \leq y_m-y_1$.
They showed $f(m,2)=5m-3$ and $f(m,3)=9m-7$. Recently, Grynkiewicz proved $f(m,4)=12m-9$ in [@12]. Bollobás, Erdős, and Jin investigated in [@5] a closely related function, $f^*(2,r)$, where strict inequality is required in 3 above. They determined $f^*(2,r)$ for $r=2^k$.
In this paper we replace condition 3 by
1. $\hspace{97 pt}2(x_m-x_1) \leq
y_m-x_1$
and denote the corresponding function by $g(m,r)$. Notice that this is a relaxation of 3, since adding $x_m-x_1$ to each side of the inequality $x_m-x_1 \leq y_m-y_1$ yields $2(x_m-x_1)$ on the left and $y_m-y_1+x_m-x_1 < y_m-x_1$ on the right. It is not hard to see $g(1,r)=2$ for any $r \in \mathbb{N}$, and as such we assume throughout the sequel that $m \geq 2$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce some basic terms and develop a useful lemma that simplifies the construction of lower bounds. In Section 3 we determine $g(m,r)$ for $r \in \{2,3,4\}$. The main theorems appear in Section 4, where we develop tools that allow for either a bound or determination of $g(m,r)$ based upon the value of $g(m,j)$ for $j<r$. We conclude with some conjectures that arose from studying $g(m,r)$ using a computer program based on the theorems in Section 4.
Preliminaries
=============
If $S$ is a nonempty set of integers and ${\Delta}:S \rightarrow R$ is a mapping where $|R|=r$, then ${\Delta}$ is called an $r$-coloring of $S$. For $T \subseteq S$, we write $\Delta(T) = \{\Delta(t): t \in T\}$. We say $T$ is monochromatic if $|{\Delta}(T)|=1$.
Throughout this paper an $m$-set, denoted $Z=(z_1,\ldots,z_m)$, is a sequence of $m$ distinct positive integers such that $z_1<\cdots<z_m$. For a pair of $m$-sets $X$ and $Y$, we write $X
\prec Y$ if $x_m<y_1$. Suppose $X \prec Y$; we define $Y$ to be $X$-admissible if $2(x_m-x_1)>y_m-x_1$. Furthermore, let ${\Delta}$ be an $r$-coloring of a nonempty set $S$; we say ${\Delta}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring of $S$ if for every pair of monochromatic $m$-sets $X,Y \subset S$, either $X \nprec Y$ or $Y$ is $X$-admissible. That is, a coloring ${\Delta}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring provided there are no two monochromatic $m$-sets $X,Y \subset S$ such that $X \prec
Y$ and conditions 1,2, and 3$'$ above are satisfied.
For an $n$-set $X=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ we use the following notation:
\(i) $int_i(X)=x_i$ for $i \leq n$; (ii) $first_k(X)=\{x_1,\ldots,x_{\min\{k,n\}}\}$; and (iii) $last_k(X)=\{x_{\max\{1,n-k+1\}},\ldots,x_n\}$.
For two integers $a$ and $b$ we use $[a,b]$ to denote the set of all integers $i$ such that $a \leq i$ and $i \leq b$, and refer to it as an interval. Note that if $a>b$ then $[a,b]=\varnothing$. Furthermore, for positive integers $r$,$m$, and $s$, where $s \geq 2r(m-1)+1$, define the disjoint intervals $I_1$, $I_2$, and $I_3$ to be
1. $I_1 = [1,r(m-1)+1]$,
2. $I_2 = [r(m-1)+2,2r(m-1)]$, and
3. $I_3=[2r(m-1)+1,s]$.
Here we have used $m \geq 2$ to assume $I_1 \cap I_3 =\varnothing$.
Since $|I_1|=r(m-1)+1$ one sees that for an arbitrary $r$-coloring ${\Delta}$ there must be some monochromatic $m$-set $X \subseteq I_1$. The following proposition is immediate.
\[prop:first\] Let $s \geq 2r(m-1)+1$ be a positive integer, and let ${\Delta}: [1,s] \rightarrow [1,r]$ be a coloring. If there exists a monochromatic $m$-set $Y \subset
I_2 \cup I_3$ with $y_m \in I_3$ then ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring.
The following lemma simplifies the construction of $L(r)$-colorings by inducing an $L(r)$-coloring of $I_1 \cup I_2$ from an $L(r)$-coloring of $I_2$.
\[lem:colorextension\] Let ${\Delta}: I_2 \rightarrow [1,r]$ be an $L(r)$-coloring. Then there exists an $L(r)$-coloring ${\Delta}_e$ of $I_1 \cup I_2$ which is an extension of ${\Delta}$. Further, $\Delta_e$ satisfies $\Delta_e(1) = \Delta_e(r(m-1)+1)$ and $|\Delta_e^{-1}(t)\cap[1,r(m-1)]|=m-1$ for all $t$.
Since $|I_2|=r(m-1)-1$, it follows that there is a color $c$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I_2|<m-1$.
We define ${\Delta}_e: I_1 \cup I_2 \rightarrow [1,r]$ in two steps. First, we induce a coloring on $I_2$ and part of $I_1$ as described below:$${\Delta}_e(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
c, &\mbox{if }x=1 \mbox{ or }x=r(m-1)+1 \\
{\Delta}\left(x+r(m-1)\right), &\mbox{if } x+r(m-1) \in \cup_{t=1}^r first_{m-1} ({\Delta}^{-1}(t)\cap I_2)\\
{\Delta}(x), &\mbox{if } x \in I_2 \end{array} \right.$$
Second, we color the remaining integers of $I_1$ recursively as follows: suppose $x\in I_1$ and that ${\Delta}_e \big{|}_{[1,x-1]}$ is defined while ${\Delta}_e(x)$ is not; then ${\Delta}_e(x)=i$, where $i=\min{[1,r]}$ such that $|{\Delta}_e^{-1}(i) \cap [1,r(m-1)]|<m-1$. From the definition of ${\Delta}_e$ it is easy to verify that $|{\Delta}_e^{-1}(t)\cap [1,r(m-1)]|=m-1$ for every $t \in [1,r]$.
It is left to show that ${\Delta}_e$ is an $L(r)$-coloring of $I_1 \cup
I_2$. Let $X, Y \subset I_1 \cup I_2$ be monochromatic $m$-sets with $X \prec Y$. If $x_1 \in I_2$ then $Y$ is $X$-admissible since ${\Delta}_e \big{|}_{I_2} = {\Delta}$, which is an $L(r)$-coloring by assumption. Hence we may assume $x_1 \in I_1$.
**Case 1**. Suppose ${\Delta}_e(x_1) =t \neq c$. Then since $|{\Delta}_e^{-1}(t) \cap I_1|=m-1$ for each $t \neq c$, it follows that $x_1=int_i({\Delta}_e^{-1}(t)\cap I_1)$ for some $i \in [1,m-1]$. Hence, since ${\Delta}_e(r(m-1)+1)=c \neq t$, it follows that $|{\Delta}_e^{-1}(t)\cap [x_1,r(m-1)+1]|=m-i$, and thus $x_m \geq
int_i({\Delta}_e^{-1}(t)\cap I_2)$ and $|{\Delta}^{-1}(t)\cap I_2|\geq i$. Remembering $i \leq m-1$, it therefore follows from the definition of ${\Delta}_e$ that $$x_1=int_i({\Delta}_e^{-1}(t)\cap I_1) = int_i({\Delta}^{-1}(t)\cap I_2) -r(m-1) \leq x_m -r(m-1),$$ so that $x_m-x_1 \geq r(m-1)$. Hence, since $Y \subset I_1 \cup I_2$, $$2(x_m-x_1) \geq 2r(m-1)
\geq y_m > y_m-x_1,$$ and $Y$ is $X$-admissible.
**Case 2**. Suppose ${\Delta}_e(x_1)=c$. The argument above holds except in the case that $x_1=1$. In this case, we have $x_m \geq
r(m-1)+1=r(m-1)+x_1$, and $x_m-x_1 \geq r(m-1)$ as before.
In conjunction with Proposition \[prop:first\], Lemma \[lem:colorextension\] shows there exists an $L(r)$-coloring on $I_1 \cup I_2 \cup I_3$ provided the existence of a coloring ${\Delta}: I_2 \cup I_3 \rightarrow [1,r]$ which is an $L(r)$-coloring on $I_2$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap (I_2 \cup I_3)| \leq m-1$ for every $c \in {\Delta}(I_3)$. Henceforth, we shall let the existence of ${\Delta}: I_2 \cup I_3 \rightarrow [1,r]$ which satisfies these conditions suffice to show the existence of an $L(r)$-coloring ${\Delta}_e: I_1 \cup I_2 \cup I_3 \rightarrow [1,r]$ without explicit construction.
The function $g(m,r)$ for $r \in \{2,3,4\}$
===========================================
We first evaluate the function $g(m,r)$ for small values of $r$ and appropriate values of $m$. The case when $r=2$ is trivial.
\[thm:g(m,2)\]Let $m \geq 2$ be an integer. Then, $g(m,2) =
5m-4$.
The coloring ${\Delta}: [2m,5m-5] \rightarrow [1,2]$ given by $$1^{2m-3}2^{m-1}$$ shows that $g(m,2) \geq 5m-4$.
Next we show that $g(m,2) \leq 5m-4$. Let ${\Delta}: [1,5m-4]
\rightarrow [1,2]$ be an arbitrary $2$-coloring, and let $P=[3m-2,5m-4]$. Since $|P|=2m-1$ there exists some monochromatic $m$-set $Y \subset P$. Furthermore, since $|P \cap I_2|=m-1$, it follows that $Y \cap I_3 \neq \varnothing$. Applying Proposition \[prop:first\] completes the proof.
In evaluating $g(m,3)$ it will be beneficial to have the following
\[lem:3colorlemma\] Let $m \geq 4$ be an integer, and let ${\Delta}: [1,3m-4]
\rightarrow [1,3]$ be a $3$-coloring. If $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)| \geq 3m-
\big{\lceil} \frac{m}{2} \big{\rceil}-2$ for some $c \in [1,3]$, then ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(3)$-coloring.
Let $I=[1,3m-4]$ and $t=|[1,int_1({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I)-1]|$. Further, let $s=3m-4-|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)| \leq \lceil
\frac{m}{2} \rceil-2$, the number of integers in the interval $I$ not colored by $c$. Finally, let $w = |[int_1({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I),
int_m({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I)]|-m$. It will be important later to note that $$\label{eqn:1} w+s \leq 2s \leq 2(\left\lceil
\frac{m}{2}\right\rceil-2) \leq m-3.$$
Let $X = first_m({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I)$ (note that since ${\Delta}^{-1}(c)
\geq 3m-\lceil \frac{m}{2} \rceil -2 > m$, $X$ is in fact an $m$-set). By construction we have $x_1 = t+1$ and $x_m = t+w+m$, so that $x_m-x_1 = m+w-1$. Hence, if there is a monochromatic $m$-set $Y$ with $y_m \geq x_1+2(m-1+w) = 2m-1+t+2w$ and $X \prec
Y$, then $Y$ is not $X$-admissible and the proof is complete. We show that $$Y = last_m({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I)$$ satisfies these conditions.
First, note that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)| \geq 3m-\lceil \frac{m}{2} \rceil
-2 \geq 2m$ since $m \geq 4$, from which it follows that $Y$ is indeed an $m$-set and $X \prec Y$. We now show $last_1({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I) \geq 2m-1+t+2w$. Since there are exactly $s-(t+w)$ integers $z$ with ${\Delta}(z) \neq c$ and $z>x_m$, it follows that $last_1({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I) \geq
3m-4-\left(s-(t+w)\right)$. Hence, recalling Equation \[eqn:1\], it follows that $$\begin{split}last_1({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I) &\geq
3m-4-s+t+w \\ &\geq 3m-4-(m-3-w)+t+w
\\ &=2m-1+t+2w,\end{split}$$ and the proof is complete.
\[thm:g(m,3)\]Let $m \geq 4$ be an integer. Then, $g(m,3) = 7m +
{\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}-6$.
One may verify that the coloring ${\Delta}: [3m-1,7m + {\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}-7] \rightarrow [1,3]$ given by $$1^{m-{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}-2}2^{{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}-1}1^{2m-1}2^{{\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}}3^{m-1}$$ shows $g(m,3)
\geq 7m + {\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}-6$.
Next we show that $g(m,3) \leq 7m + {\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}-6$. Let ${\Delta}: [1,7m +
{\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}-6] \rightarrow [1,3]$ be an arbitrary $3$-coloring. Since $|I_2| = 3(m-1)-1$ it follows there exists some $c \in [1,3]$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| \geq m-1$. If ${\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I_3
\neq \varnothing$, then the proof is complete. We may therefore assume ${\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I_3 = \varnothing$ and thus $|{\Delta}(I_3)|\leq
2$. Since $|I_3|=m+{\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}$, if $|I_2|-|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| \geq
{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}-1$ then it follows from the pigeonhole principle that some monochromatic $m$-set $Y \subset I_2 \cup I_3$ exists with $Y \cap
I_3 \neq \varnothing$. In this case, an application of Proposition \[prop:first\] completes the proof.
Finally, we are left to assume that $|I_2|-|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| <
{\left\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \right\rfloor}-1$, so that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| \geq 3m-{\left\lceil \frac{m}{2} \right\rceil}-3$. Translating $I_2$ to the interval $[1,3m-4]$ and applying Lemma \[lem:3colorlemma\] completes the proof.
\[lem:4colorlemma\]Let $m \geq 3$ be an integer, and let ${\Delta}: [1,4m-5]
\rightarrow [1,4]$ be a $4$-coloring. If $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)| \geq 3m-3$ for some $c \in [1,4]$, then ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(4)$-coloring.
The proof of Lemma \[lem:4colorlemma\] is similar to that of Lemma \[lem:3colorlemma\], and we omit it.
\[thm:g(m,4)\]Let $m \geq 3$ be an integer. Then, $g(m,4)=10m-9$.
One may verify that the coloring ${\Delta}: [4m-2,10m-10]
\rightarrow [1,4]$ given by $$1^{m-3}2^{m-1}1^{2m-1}3^{m-1}4^{m-1}$$ shows $g(m,4) \geq
10m-9$.
Next we show that $g(m,4) \leq 10m-9$. Let ${\Delta}: [1,10m-9]
\rightarrow [1,4]$ be an arbitrary $4$-coloring. Since $|I_2|=4(m-1)-1$, it follows that there exists $c \in [1,4]$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| \geq m-1$. If ${\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_3
\neq \varnothing$ then the proof is complete. Otherwise we have ${\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_3 = \varnothing$, and so $|{\Delta}(I_3)|\leq 3$. Since $|I_3|=2m-1$, if $|I_2|-|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| \geq m-1$ then it follows that some monochromatic $m$-set $Y \subset I_2 \cup
I_3$ exists with $Y \cap I_3 \neq \varnothing$. In this case, an application of Proposition \[prop:first\] completes the proof.
Finally, we are left to assume that $|I_2|-|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| <
m-1$, so that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_2| \geq 3m-3$. Translating $I_2$ to the interval $[1,4m-5]$ and applying Lemma \[lem:4colorlemma\] completes the proof.
Recursion in evaluating $g(m,r)$ when $r \geq
5$
=============================================
Though the techniques used in the previous section may be duplicated in an attempt to solve $g(m,r)$ for $r > 4$, the limitations of such an approach are easily seen. In this section we instead focus our attention on a more general argument which will allow us to solve $g(m,r)$ for certain infinite families of integers.
Developing this technique will require that we know certain properties of $L(r)$-colorings. The following two lemmas give some information concerning the structure of $L(r)$-colorings on the interval $[1,g(m,r)-k]$.
\[lem:nottoomanytostartwith\] Let $m,r$ be positive integers, and let ${\Delta}: [1,g(m,r)-1]
\rightarrow [1,r]$ be an $r$-coloring. If $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap
[1,r(m-1)]| \geq m$ for some $c \in [1,r]$, then ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring.
Suppose for contradiction’s sake that $X$ is a monochromatic $m$-set with $X \subset [1,r(m-1)]$ and that ${\Delta}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring of $[1,g(m,r)-1]$. Then ${\Delta}\big{|}_{[x_m+1,g(m,r)-1]}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring such that no monochromatic $m$-set $Y$ exists with $Y \subset [x_m+1,g(m,r)-1]$ and $Y \cap [2x_m-x_1,g(m,r)-1] \neq
\varnothing$. Applying Lemma \[lem:colorextension\] and its subsequent remark allows us to extend ${\Delta}\big{|}_{[x_m+1,g(m,r)-1]}$ to an $L(r)$-coloring ${\Delta}_e$ of the interval $[x_m-r(m-1),g(m,r)-1]$. Since $x_m \leq r(m-1)$, it follows that ${\Delta}_e \big{|}_{[0,g(m,r)-1]}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring, which after an appropriate translation contradicts the definition of $g(m,r)$.
\[lem:needsomeofeachcolor\]Let $m,r$ and $k$ be positive integers, and let ${\Delta}:
[1,g(m,r)-k] \rightarrow [1,r]$ be an $r$-coloring. Let $a=\min\left\{int_m({\Delta}^{-1}(c))\right\}_{c \in [1,r]}$. For each $c \in
[1,r]$, let $A_c({\Delta})=|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap [1,a-1]|$ and $B_c({\Delta})=|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap [a+1,g(m,r)-k]|$. If $$\label{eq:needsomeofeachcolor}\sum_{c \in [1,r]}\left(A_c({\Delta})+ \min\{B_c({\Delta}),m-1\}\right) \leq r(2m-2)-k$$ then ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring.
We use induction on $k$. Suppose $k=1$, and assume for contradiction’s sake that $\Delta$ is an $L(r)$-coloring. By Lemma \[lem:nottoomanytostartwith\], it must be the case that $a=r(m-1)+1$, so that $[1,a]=I_1$ and $[a+1,g(m,r)-1]=I_2 \cup
I_3$. Hence we have $$\sum_{c \in [1,r]} A_c({\Delta})=r(m-1),$$ so by Equation \[eq:needsomeofeachcolor\] it must be the case that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap (I_2 \cup I_3)|<m-1$ for some $c \in [1,r]$. Induce a coloring ${\Delta}_e: [1,g(m,r)]
\rightarrow [1,r]$ defined by $${\Delta}_e(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\Delta}(x), &\mbox{ for }x \in [1,g(m,r)-1] \\
c, &\mbox{ for } x =g(m,r). \end{array} \right.$$
By the definition of $g(m,r)$ there exist $m$-sets $X,Y \subset
[1,g(m,r)]$ with $X \prec Y$ and $y_m-x_1 \geq 2(x_m-x_1)$. Since ${\Delta}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring, it follows that $y_m=g(m,r)$; furthermore $y_1 \in I_1$ since $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap
(I_2 \cup I_3)| < m-1$. Therefore, $X \subset [1,r(m-1)]$, a contradiction.
Assume the result holds for $k$; we show it also holds for $k+1$. Let ${\Delta}:[1,g(m,r)-k-1] \rightarrow [1,r]$ be such that $$\label{eq:inductiveassump}\sum_{c \in [1,r]}A_c({\Delta})+
\min\{B_c({\Delta}),m-1\}\leq r(2m-2)-k-1.$$ We consider two cases.
**Case 1.** If $a<r(m-1)+1$, then there must be some $t \in
[1,r]$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(t) \cap [1,a]|<m-1$. Induce a coloring ${\Delta}_e: [1,g(m,r)-k] \rightarrow [1,r]$ defined by $${\Delta}_e(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
t, &\mbox{ for } x =1 \\
{\Delta}(x-1), &\mbox{ for }x \in [2,g(m,r)-k] \end{array} \right.$$ Notice that for ${\Delta}_e$ we have $\min\{int_m({\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap[1,g(m,r)-k])\}_{c \in [1,r]} = a+1$ so that $$\sum_{c \in [1,r]}A_c({\Delta}_e)+
\min\{m-1,B_c({\Delta}_e)\} \leq r(2m-2)-k.$$ Hence, by induction there exist monochromatic $m$-sets $X,Y$ with $X \prec Y$ and $$\label{eq:thecondition}y_m-x_1 \geq 2(x_m-x_1).$$ If ${\Delta}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring it follows that $x_1=1$; furthermore $x_m > a+1$ since $|{\Delta}_e^{-1}(t) \cap [1,a+1]| \leq m-1$. Denoting the monochromatic $m$-set $first_m ({\Delta}_e(a+1)^{-1}\cap[1,a+1])$ by $Z$, we therefore have $x_1<z_1$ and $x_m > z_m$. Along with Equation \[eq:thecondition\], this gives us $$y_m+z_1 > y_m+1 \geq 2x_m > 2z_m,$$ from which it follows that $y_m-z_1 \geq 2(z_m - z_1)$, a contradiction. Therefore, ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring.
**Case 2.** If $a \geq r(m-1)+1$ (and hence $a=r(m-1)+1$), we have $$\label{eq:notmuchofeachcolor}|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap [1,r(m-1)]| = m-1$$ for every $c \in
[1,r]$. By Equation \[eq:inductiveassump\], there must be some $t \in [1,r]$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(t)\cap (I_2 \cup
I_3)|<m-1$. Induce a coloring ${\Delta}_e: [1,g(m,r)-k] \rightarrow
[1,r]$ defined by $${\Delta}_e(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\Delta}(x), &\mbox{ for }x \in [1,g(m,r)-k-1] \\
t, &\mbox{ for } x =g(m,r)-k. \end{array} \right.$$ It is easily verified for ${\Delta}_e$ that $$\sum_{c \in [1,r]}A_c({\Delta}_e)+
\min\{B_c({\Delta}_e),m-1\} \leq r(2m-2)-k.$$ Hence, by induction there exist monochromatic $m$-sets $X,Y$ with $X \prec Y$ such that $y_m-x_1 \geq 2(x_m-x_1)$. If ${\Delta}$ is an $L(r)$-coloring it follows that $y_m=g(m,r)-k$; furthermore $y_1 \leq
r(m-1)+1$ since $|{\Delta}_e^{-1}(t) \cap (I_2 \cup I_3)| \leq m-1$. Hence, $X \subset [1,r(m-1)]$, a contradiction.
We now develop a recursive technique for evaluating $g(m,r)$ given values of $g(m,j)$, $j<r$. The first theorem provides the means for evaluating $g(m,r)$ when $r$ belongs to the family of integers defined by the recurrence relation $r_{n}=3r_{n-1}-r_{n-2}$ with particular initial conditions.
\[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\] Let $m, j$ and $r$ be positive integers, with $m \geq 2$ and $j<r$. If $r(m-1)\leq g(m,j)\leq
r(m-1)+n$ for $m \geq m_0$, where $r,n$, and $m_0$ are positive integers, then $$g(m,r)=(3r-j)(m-1)+1$$ for $m \geq
\max\{m_0,n+1\}$.
By hypothesis there exists ${\Delta}_j:
[r(m-1)+2,2r(m-1)] \rightarrow [1,j]$ which is an $L(j)$-coloring for $m \geq m_0$. For convenience, let $$\mathcal{I}_i=[(2r+i-1)(m-1)+1,(2r+i)(m-1)]$$ for $i
\in[1,r-j]$. Define the function ${\Delta}_r
:[r(m-1)+2,(3r-j)(m-1)]\rightarrow [1,r]$ as follows $${\Delta}_r(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\Delta}_j(x), &\mbox{ for }x \in [r(m-1)+2,2r(m-1)] \\
j+i, &\mbox{ for } x \in \mathcal{I}_i, i
\in[1,r-j]. \end{array} \right.$$
That ${\Delta}_r$ is an $L(r)$-coloring follows since ${\Delta}_j$ is an $L(j)$-coloring. Since for each $c \in \Delta(I_3)$ we have $|\Delta^{-1}(c)\cap (I_2 \cup I_3)|=m-1$, we see that $g(m,r)>(3r-j)(m-1)$ for $m \geq m_0$.
Now, let ${\Delta}:[1,(3r-j)(m-1)+1] \rightarrow [1,r]$ be an arbitrary $r$-coloring and $m \geq \max\{m_0,n+1\}$. Let ${\Delta}(I_3)=C$ and $k=|C|$. We proceed to show that ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring by case analysis of $k$.
**Case 1.** Suppose $k \leq r-j$. Since $|I_3|=(r-j)(m-1)+1$, it follows that there must be some $c \in
[1,r]$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c) \cap I_3| \geq m$, whence $\Delta$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring by Proposition \[prop:first\].
**Case 2.** Suppose $k > r-j$. Let $S={\Delta}^{-1}(C)\cap (I_2
\cup I_3)$ and let $U=S \cap I_2$. Let $t=|{\Delta}(I_2)|-|{\Delta}(I_2) \cap
C|$, so that $t \leq r-k<j$. Assume without loss of generality that ${\Delta}(I_2) \setminus \{{\Delta}(I_2) \cap C\}=[1,t]$. Furthermore, we may assume $|S| \leq k(m-1)$, since otherwise some monochromatic $m$-set $Y$ exists with $Y \subset I_2 \cup I_3$ and $Y \cap I_3
\neq \varnothing$ and we are done. Hence, since $|I_3|=(r-j)(m-1)+1$, we have that $|U| =|S|-|I_3| \leq (k-r+j)(m-1)-1$.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a partition of $U$ into $p=j-t \geq k-r+j$ sets $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_p$ such that $|\gamma_i|\leq m-1$ for each $i \in [1,p]$. Define a coloring $\widehat {\Delta}:I_2 \rightarrow
[1,j]$ as follows:
$$\widehat {\Delta}(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\Delta}(x), &\mbox{ for }{\Delta}(x) \in [1,t] \\
t+i, &\mbox{ for } x \in \gamma_i, i
\in[1,j-t]. \end{array} \right.$$
Using the notation of Lemma \[lem:needsomeofeachcolor\] and the fact that $A_c({\Delta})+B_c({\Delta}) \leq |{\Delta}^{-1}(c)|$ when $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)|\leq m-1$, we note that $$\begin{split}\sum_{c \in [1,j]} A_c(\widehat {\Delta})
+ \min\{B_c(\widehat {\Delta}),m-1\} &\leq t(2m-2)+|U| \\ &\leq
(2t+k-r+j)(m-1)-1.\end{split}$$ Since $g(m,j)-n-1
\leq r(m-1)-1$, Lemma \[lem:needsomeofeachcolor\] implies that $\widehat {\Delta}$ is not an $L(j)$-coloring if $(2t+k-r+j)(m-1)-1 \leq
j(2m-2)-n-1$. Using $t \leq r-k<j$, this inequality is easily verified for $m \geq n+1 \geq 2$. Hence there exist monochromatic $m$-sets $X,Y \subset I_2$ where $X \prec Y$ and $2(x_m-x_1) \leq
y_m-x_1$. Moreover, $\widehat {\Delta}(X) \subseteq [1,t]$ and $\widehat {\Delta}(Y) \subseteq
[1,t]$ since $|\widehat {\Delta}^{-1}(t+i)|<m$ for each $i \in [1,p]$. Thus, $X$ and $Y$ are monochromatic in ${\Delta}$, and the proof is complete.
\[ex:1\]Consider the alternate proof that $g(m,2)=5(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq
3$: note that $g(m,1)$ is trivially $2m = 2(m-1)+2$ for all positive $m$; by the previous proof, we have $g(m,2) = 5(m-1)+1$ for all $m \geq 3$.
As another example, we have seen in Theorem \[thm:g(m,2)\] that $g(m,2)=5(m-1)+1$ for all $m \geq 2$. By the previous theorem, this implies $g(m,5)=13(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 2$, which in turn implies $g(m,13)=34(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 2$.
Likewise, we have see in Theorem \[thm:g(m,4)\] that $g(m,4)=10(m-1)+1$ for all $m \geq 3$. The previous theorem gives $g(m,10)=26(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 3$, which in turn implies $g(m,26)=68(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 3$.
More explicitly, Theorems \[thm:g(m,2)\] and \[thm:g(m,4)\] can be used in conjunction with Theorem \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\] to solve $g(m,r_n)$, when $r_n$ is in the family of integers generated by the recurrence relation $$\label{eqn:rec}r_{n}=3r_{n-1}-r_{n-2}$$ with initial conditions $r_0=2,r_1=5$ from Theorem \[thm:g(m,2)\] or $r_0=4,r_1=10$ from Theorem \[thm:g(m,4)\] .
One can solve these recurrence relations in terms of the Fibonacci numbers. In particular the initial value set $r_0 =2, r_1=5$ gives $r_n = 5f_{2n}-2f_{2n-2}$, where $f_0=0$ and $f_1=1$ are the first two Fibonacci numbers. Using properties of Fibonacci sequence simplifies this expression to $r_n = f_{2n+3}$. Of course the recurrence relation with initial conditions $r_0=4$ and $r_1=10$ then has general solution $r_n = 2f_{2n+3}$.
$\blacksquare$
Our ultimate goal is to evaluate $g(m,r)$ for as many $r$ as possible. Although Theorem \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\] is an important step in that direction, it is of no use without the proper asymptotic value $g(m,r_0)=r_1(m-1)+n$. We shall need another result to provide a bound on $g(m,r)$ so that we may apply Theorem \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\].
\[thm:moregoodresults\]Let $m, j$ and $r$ be positive integers, with $m \geq 2$ and $j+1<r$. If $(r-2)(m-1) \leq g(m,j)$ for $m \geq m_0$ and $g(m,j+1) \leq (r+1)(m-1)+n$ for $m \geq m_1$, where $r,n,m_0$, and $m_1$ are positive integers, then $$(3r-j-1)(m-1)<g(m,r) \leq (3r-j-1)(m-1)+n$$ for $m \geq
\max\{m_0,m_1\}$.
By hypothesis there exists ${\Delta}_j:[(r+1)(m-1)+2,(2r-1)(m-1)]\rightarrow[1,j]$ which is an $L(j)$-coloring for $m \geq m_0$. Define ${\Delta}_{j+1}:[r(m-1)+2,2r(m-1)]\rightarrow [1,j+1]$ as follows
$${\Delta}_{j+1}(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
j+1, &\mbox{ for } x \in [r(m-1)+2,(r+1)(m-1)+1]\\ &\mbox{ \ or } x\in [(2r-1)(m-1)+1,2r(m-1)] \\
{\Delta}_j(x), &\mbox{ otherwise. } \end{array} \right.$$
Since ${\Delta}_j$ is an $L(j)$-coloring it follows immediately that ${\Delta}_{j+1}$ is an $L(j+1)$-coloring.
As before, let $$\mathcal{I}_i=[(2r+i-1)(m-1)+1,(2r+i)(m-1)]$$ for $i \in
[1,r-j-1]$. Define the function ${\Delta}_r:I_2 \cup
[2r(m-1)+1,(3r-j-1)(m-1)] \rightarrow [1,r]$ as follows
$${\Delta}_r(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\Delta}_{j+1}(x), &\mbox{ for } x \in I_2 \\
j+1+i, &\mbox{ for } x \in \mathcal{I}_i, i
\in[1,r-j-1]. \end{array} \right.$$
From Lemma \[lem:colorextension\] and its subsequent remark, ${\Delta}_r$ can be extended to an $L(r)$-coloring of $[1,(3r-j-1)(m-1)]$, and so $g(m,r)>(3r-j-1)(m-1)$.
Let ${\Delta}:[1,(3r-j-1)(m-1)+n+1]\rightarrow [1,r]$ be a given $r$-coloring, and let $m \geq \max\{m_0,m_1\}$. Let ${\Delta}(I_3)=C$ and $k=|C|$. We proceed to show that ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring by case analysis of $k$.
**Case 1.** Suppose $k \leq r-j-1$. Since $|I_3|=(r-j-1)(m-1)+n$ where $n \geq 1$ it follows that there must be some $c \in
[1,r]$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I_3| \geq m$, whence $\Delta$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring by Proposition \[prop:first\].
**Case 2.** Suppose $k > r-j-1$. Let $S={\Delta}^{-1}(C)\cap (I_2
\cup I_3)$ and let $U=S \cap I_2$. Let $t=|{\Delta}(I_2)|-|{\Delta}(I_2) \cap
C|$, so that $t \leq r-k<j+1$. Assume without loss of generality that ${\Delta}(I_2) \setminus \{{\Delta}(I_2) \cap C\}=[1,t]$. Furthermore, we may assume $|S| \leq k(m-1)$, since otherwise some monochromatic $m$-set $Y$ exists with $Y \subset I_2 \cup I_3$ and $Y \cap I_3
\neq \varnothing$, and we are done. Since $|I_3|=(r-j-1)(m-1)+n$, we have that $|U| =|S|-|I_3| \leq (k-r+j+1)(m-1)-n$.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a partition of $U$ into $p=j+1-t \geq
k-r+j+1$ sets $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_p$ such that $|\gamma_i|\leq
m-1$ for each $i \in [1,p]$. Define a coloring $\widehat {\Delta}:I_2
\rightarrow [1,j+1]$ as follows:
$$\widehat {\Delta}(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\Delta}(x), &\mbox{ for }{\Delta}(x) \in [1,t] \\
t+i, &\mbox{ for } x \in \gamma_i, i
\in[1,j+1-t]. \end{array} \right.$$
Using the notation of Lemma \[lem:needsomeofeachcolor\] and the fact that $A_c({\Delta})+B_c({\Delta}) \leq |{\Delta}^{-1}(c)|$ when $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)|\leq m-1|$, we have $$\begin{split}\sum_{c \in [1,j+1]}
A_c(\widehat {\Delta}) + \min\{B_c(\widehat {\Delta}),m-1\} &\leq t(2m-2)+|U| \\
&\leq (2t+k-r+j+1)(m-1)-n.\end{split}$$ Since $g(m,j+1)-m-n \leq r(m-1)-1$, Lemma \[lem:needsomeofeachcolor\] implies that $\widehat {\Delta}$ is not an $L(j+1)$-coloring if $(2t+k-r+j)(m-1)-n \leq (j+1)(2m-2)-m-n$. Using $t \leq
r-k<j+1$, this is easily verified for all $m \geq 2$. Hence there exist monochromatic $m$-sets $X,Y \subset I_2$ where $X \prec Y$ and $2(x_m-x_1) \leq y_m-x_1$. Moreover, $\widehat {\Delta}(X) \in [1,t]$ and $\widehat {\Delta}(Y) \in [1,t]$ since $|\widehat {\Delta}^{-1}(t+i)|<m$ for each $i
\in [1,p]$. Thus, $X$ and $Y$ are monochromatic in ${\Delta}$, and the proof is complete.
\[ex:2\]From Theorems \[thm:g(m,2)\] and \[thm:g(m,3)\] we have that $g(m,2)=5(m-1)+1$ for $m\geq 2$ and $g(m,3) \leq 8(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 4$. We see from Theorem \[thm:moregoodresults\] that $g(m,7)=18(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 4$. Repeated use of Theorem \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\] provides another infinite family $\{r_n\}$ for which $g(m,r_n)=r_{n+1}(m-1)+1$. Here the elements $r_n$ satisfy Equation \[eqn:rec\] with initial conditions $r_0=7,r_1=18$. This family can also be expressed in terms of the Fibonacci numbers, with $$r_n = 18f_{2n}-7f_{2n-2}.$$
Likewise, from Theorems \[thm:g(m,3)\] and \[thm:g(m,4)\] we have that $g(m,3)>7(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 4$ and $g(m,4)=10(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 3$. Applying Theorem \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\], we have $g(m,9)=23(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 4$. Again, repeated use of Theorem \[thm:moregoodresults\] solves $g(m,r_n)=r_{n+1}(m-1)+1$, where here $$r_n = 23f_{2n}-9f_{2n-2}.$$
$\blacksquare$
The next result gives a fairly loose bound for $g(m,r)$ given values of $g(m,j)$, $j<r$. However, it bounds the function $g(m,r)$ such that Theorem \[thm:moregoodresults\] may be invoked.
\[thm:g(m,r) bounds\]Let $m, j$ and $r$ be positive integers, with $m \geq 2$ and $j<r$. If $(r-1)(m-1)+1 \leq g(m,j) <
r(m-1)$ for $m \geq m_0$, where $r$ and $m_0$ are positive integers, then $$(3r-j-1)(m-1)+1 < g(m,r)\leq (3r-j)(m-1)$$ for $m \geq m_0$.
We start with the lower bound. By hypothesis there exists ${\Delta}_j:[(r+1)(m-1)+1,2r(m-1)]\rightarrow[1,j]$ which is an $L(j)$-coloring for $m \geq m_0$. As before, let $$\mathcal{I}_i=[(2r+i-1)(m-1)+1,(2r+i)(m-1)]$$ for $i \in
[1,r-j-1]$. Define the function ${\Delta}_r:[r(m-1)+2,(3r-j-1)(m-1)+1]
\rightarrow [1,r]$ as follows
$${\Delta}_r(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
j+1, &\mbox{ if } x \in [r(m-1)+2,(r+1)(m-1)]\\
&\mbox{ \ or } x = (3r-j-1)(m-1)+1 \\
{\Delta}_j(x), &\mbox{ for }x \in [(r+1)(m-1)+1,2r(m-1)] \\
j+1+i, &\mbox{ for } x \in \mathcal{I}_i, i
\in[1,r-j-1]. \end{array} \right.$$
It is not difficult to see that ${\Delta}_r$ is an $L(r)$-coloring on $I_2$ such that there is no monochromatic $m$-set $Y \subset I_2 \cup I_3$ with $y_m \in I_3$. Thus, it follows from Proposition \[prop:first\] and Lemma \[lem:colorextension\] that $g(m,r)>(3r-j-1)(m-1)+1$ for every $m \geq m_0$.
To show that $g(m,r)\leq (3r-j)(m-1)$, let ${\Delta}:[1,(3r-j)(m-1)]
\rightarrow [1,r]$ be an arbitrary $r$-coloring. Let ${\Delta}(I_3)=C$ and $k=|C|$. We proceed to show that ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring by case analysis of $k$.
**Case 1.** Suppose $k < r-j$. Since $|I_3|=(r-j)(m-1)$, it follows that there must be some $c \in [1,r]$ such that $|{\Delta}^{-1}(c)\cap I_3| \geq m$, whence $\Delta$ is not an $L(r)$-coloring by Proposition \[prop:first\].
**Case 2.** Suppose $k = r-j$. Since $g(m,j)<r(m-1)$ and $|I_2|=r(m-1)-1$, if $|{\Delta}(I_2)| \leq j$ then ${\Delta}$ is not an $L(j)$-coloring. Hence ${\Delta}(I_2) > j$ so that ${\Delta}(I_2) \cap
{\Delta}(I_3) \neq \varnothing$, and it follows that there exists some $z \in {\Delta}^{-1}(C)\cap I_2$. Since $|I_3 \cup
\{z\}|=(r-j)(m-1)+1$, there must be some monochromatic $m$-set $Y$ such that $Y \subset I_2 \cup I_3$ and $y_m \in I_3$. Applying Proposition \[prop:first\] completes the proof.
**Case 3.** Suppose $k > r-j$. Let $S={\Delta}^{-1}(C)\cap (I_2
\cup I_3)$ and let $U=S \cap I_2$. Let $t=|{\Delta}(I_2)|-|{\Delta}(I_2) \cap
C|$, so that $t \leq r-k$. Assume for simplicity that ${\Delta}(I_2) \setminus
\{{\Delta}(I_2) \cap C\}=[1,t]$. Furthermore, we may assume $|S| \leq
k(m-1)$, since otherwise some monochromatic $m$-set $Y$ exists with $Y \subset I_2 \cup I_3$ and $Y \cap I_3 \neq \varnothing$. Hence, since $|I_3|=(r-j)(m-1)$, we have that $|U| \leq
(k-r+j)(m-1)$.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a partition of $U$ into $p=j-t \geq k-r+j$ sets $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_p$ such that $|\gamma_i|\leq m-1$ for each $i \in [1,p]$. Define a coloring $\widehat {\Delta}:I_2 \rightarrow
[1,j]$ as follows
$$\widehat {\Delta}(x) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\Delta}(x), &\mbox{ for }{\Delta}(x) \in [1,t] \\
t+i, &\mbox{ for } x \in \gamma_i, i
\in[1,j-t]. \end{array} \right.$$
Since $g(m,j)<r(m-1)$ and $|I_2|=r(m-1)-1$, there exist monochromatic $m$-sets $X,Y \subset I_2$ where $X \prec Y$ and $2(x_m-x_1) \leq y_m-x_1$. Moreover, $\widehat {\Delta}(X) \in [1,t]$ and $\widehat {\Delta}(Y) \in [1,t]$ since $|\widehat {\Delta}^{-1}(t+i)|<m$ for each $i
\in [1,p]$. Thus, $X$ and $Y$ are monochromatic in ${\Delta}$, and the proof is complete.
\[ex:3\]By Theorem \[thm:g(m,2)\] we have $g(m,2)=5(m-1)+1$ for $m \geq 2$. Applying Theorem \[thm:g(m,r) bounds\] we have $$15(m-1)+1 <
g(m,6)\leq16(m-1)$$ for $m \geq 2$.
Likewise, by Theorem \[thm:g(m,3)\] we have $7(m-1)+1 \leq g(m,3)<8(m-1)$ for $m \geq 5$. From this we see $$20(m-1)+1 < g(m,8)\leq 21(m-1)$$ for $m \geq 5.$
$\blacksquare$
Conclusion and Conjectures
==========================
In the previous two sections we gave either an exact solution to or a bound on $g(m,r)$ for all $r \in [2,10]$ and sufficiently large $m$. Of course, we could use Theorems \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\], \[thm:moregoodresults\], and \[thm:g(m,r) bounds\] to solve or bound $g(m,r)$ for many $r > 10$. We conjecture that for each positive integer $r$ one may find a positive integer $j_r$ such that one of Theorems \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\], \[thm:moregoodresults\], or \[thm:g(m,r) bounds\] may be used to solve or bound $g(m,r)$.
We have verified by computer the existence of some $j_r$ for each $r \leq 10^5$. This program was also used to calculate the proportions in which exact or bounded results appear in these first $10^5$ integers, finding that approximately $38.2\%$ of integers have exact solutions (generated by Theorem \[thm:g(m,j)=r(m-1)+1\]), $23.6\%$ are bounded by a constant (generated by Theorem \[thm:moregoodresults\]), and the remaining $38.2\%$ are bounded by a coefficient on $m$ (generated by Theorem \[thm:g(m,r) bounds\]). Furthermore, these proportions are represented in much smaller samples, perhaps suggesting that these values are near the asymptotic proportions.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author wishes to express his thanks to Professor A. Bialostocki for his kind supervision and to D. Grynkiewicz for fruitful discussions. He would also like to thank two anonymous referees for their careful corrections and excellent suggestions.
[XXXX]{}
Alon, N. and Spencer, J. Ascending Waves. *J. Combin. Theory* **A 52** (1989), no. 2, 275–287.
Bialostocki, A., Erdős, P., Lefmann, H. Monochromatic and zero-sum sets of non-decreasing diameter. *Discrete Math* **137** (1995), no. 1-3, 19–34.
Bollobás, B., Erdős, P., Jin, G. Strictly ascending pairs and waves. *Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Algorithms.* Vol. 1,2 (Kalamazoo, MI, 1992), 83–95.
Brown, T. C., Erdős, P., Freedman, A. R. Quasi-progressions and descending waves. *J. Combin. Theory Ser.* **A 53** (1990), no. 1, 81–95.
Graham, R., Rothschild, B., Spencer, J. Ramsey theory. Second edition. Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. A Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1990.
Grynkiewicz, D. On four color monochromatic sets with nondecreasing diameter. To appear in *Discrete Math.*
Harborth, H., Maasberg, S. All two-color Rado numbers for $a(x+y)=bz$. *16th British Combinatorial Conference* (London, 1997). *Discrete Math.* **197/198**, 397–407.
Harborth, H., Maasberg, S. Rado numbers for $a(x+y)=bz$. *J. Combin. Theory Ser.* **A 80** (1997), no. 2 356–363.
Lefmann, H. A note on monotone waves. *J. Combin. Theory Ser.* **A 50** (1989), no. 2 316–318.
Rado, R. Studien zur kombinatorik. *Math. Z.* **36** (1933), 424–480.
Roberston, A. Difference Ramsey numbers and Issai numbers. *Adv. in Appl. Math.* **25** (2000), no. 2 153–162.
Robertson, A., Schaal, D. Off-diagonal generalized Schur numbers. *Adv. in Appl. Math.* **26** (2001), no. 3 252–257.
Schaal, D. A family of 3-color Rado numbers. *Proceedings of the 26th S.E. Inter. Conf. on Combin., Graph Theory, and Comp.* (Boca Raton, FL 1995) *Congr. Numer.* **111** (1995) 150–160.
[^1]: This research was supported in part by funding from NSF grant DMS0097317
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[We study the framework of hierarchical soft terms, in which the first two generations of squarks and sleptons are heavier than the rest of the supersymmetric spectrum. This scheme gives distinctive predictions for the pattern of flavor violations, which we compare to the case of nearly degenerate squarks. Experiments in flavor physics have started to probe the most interesting parameter region, especially in $b\leftrightarrow s$ transitions, where hierarchical soft terms can predict a phase of $B_s$ mixing much larger than in the Standard Model.]{}'
title: |
[l]{}
-----------------------
[CERN–PH–TH/2008-240\
SISSA–77/2008/EP]{}
-----------------------
\
**[Hierarchical Soft Terms and Flavor Physics]{}**
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The softly-broken supersymmetric Standard Model introduces new terms in the Lagrangian with non-trivial transformation properties under the flavor symmetry group. These terms appear in the squark mass matrices and the trilinear interactions + [[D]{}\_[R]{}\^]{}[[M]{}\_[D\_R]{}\^2]{} [[D]{}\_[R]{}]{}+ [[U]{}\_[R]{}\^]{}[[M]{}\_[U\_R]{}\^2]{} [[U]{}\_[R]{}]{}+\
( [D]{}\_R\^Y\_D A\_D [Q]{}\_[L]{} H\_D + [U]{}\_R\^Y\_U A\_U [Q]{}\_[L]{} H\_U + ) . \[eq:softt\] Here $Y_{D,U}$ are the Yukawa couplings and generation indices have been suppressed. We concentrate on the quark sector, but the extension to leptons is straightforward.
Fully generic flavor-breaking structures in the soft terms are ruled out by experimental constraints. However, these constraints can be used to identify the restricted class of allowed soft terms, providing useful guidelines for model building. A broad class of theories is singled out by the hypothesis of Minimal Flavor Violation (MFV) [@mfv], which states that any flavor violation originates from Yukawa couplings. The MFV hypothesis effectively suppresses new-physics contributions to most of the flavor-violating processes. However, in the search for new effects in $K$, $D$ and $B$ physics it is useful to consider departures from exact MFV. Usually such departures are described in terms of a small expansion parameter that measures the breaking of the flavor group or of one of its subgroups. Three especially interesting examples have been studied in the literature.
[*1) Degeneracy.*]{} The starting point is the universality assumption [@dg], which states that ${\cal M}^2$ and $A$ in [eq. (\[eq:softt\])]{} behave as flavor singlets. A distortion from exact universality comes from additional contributions to ${\cal M}^2$ and $A$ which are fully generic in flavor space, but their size is characterized by a smaller mass scale, $\delta \tilde m$. The small expansion parameter is given by the ratio of these two scales, $\delta {\tilde m}^2/{\tilde m}^2$, *i.e.* the ratio between the flavor-violating and flavor-symmetric terms. The rotation angles that diagonalize the squark mass matrices are generally large, because they are neither suppressed by the expansion parameter nor related to CKM angles. The suppression of flavor-violating amplitudes arises from the near degeneracy of the quark mass eigenstates.
[*2) Alignment.*]{} The assumption is that quark and squark mass matrices are nearly simultaneously diagonalized by a supersymmetric field rotation, either in the down or in the up sector [@nirs]. The bounds from the kaon system severely constrain the case in which ${\cal M}_{Q_L}^2$ is aligned along the up direction. The bounds on $D^0$–$\bar D^0$ mixing give important constraints on the alignment along the down direction [@Nir:2007ac]. Correlations between quark and squark mass matrices leading to alignment are possible in models where some approximate flavor symmetry determines the form of Yukawa couplings and soft terms [@nirs; @modali]. Flavor alignment does not imply mass degeneracy of squarks. Thus, in this case the situation is exactly reversed with respect to the case of degeneracy. The suppression of flavor violating processes is due to the small squark mixing angles, while squark masses can be widely different.
[*3) Hierarchy.*]{} The flavor structure of the first and second generation squarks is tightly constrained by $K$ physics. On the other hand, the upper bounds on the masses of the first two generations of squarks are much looser than for the other supersymmetric particles. Therefore one can relax the flavor constraints, without compromising naturalness, by taking the first two generations of squarks much heavier than the third [@dins; @dimg; @Pomarol:1995xc; @ckn]. As discussed in more detail in Section \[sec:nat\], this procedure alleviates, but does not completely solve, the flavor problem and a further suppression mechanism for the first two generations must be present. However, it is not difficult to conceive the existence of such a mechanism which operates if, for instance, the soft terms respect an approximate U(2) symmetry acting on the first two generations [@Pomarol:1995xc; @u2]. In the case of hierarchy, the small expansion parameter describing the flavor violation is the mismatch between the third-generation quarks identified by the Yukawa coupling and the third-generation squarks identified by the light eigenstates of the soft-term mass matrix. This small mismatch can be related to the hierarchy of scales present in the squark mass matrix and to CKM angles. However, for the phenomenological implications we are interested in, we do not have to specify any such relation and we can work in an effective theory where the first two generations of squarks have been integrated out. Their only remnant in the effective theory is the small mismatch between third-generation quarks and squarks.
In this paper, we will revisit the properties of hierarchical soft terms, concentrating especially on their implications in flavor physics. We will show how the hypothesis of hierarchy predicts correlations between $\Delta F=1$ and $\Delta F=2$ processes which are different from the correlations found in scenarios with degeneracy. We will present the bounds on the expansion parameters of the hierarchy case and compare them with the case of degeneracy. As a particularly interesting example we will study the phase of $B_s$ mixing, for which there are some claims [@dev; @CKMfitter; @hfag] that experiments have measured an excess with respect to the SM prediction. We will show that the case of hierarchy is compatible with much larger phases of $B_s$ mixing than the case of degeneracy, and thus a hierarchical squark spectrum has more room to explain the alleged effect.
Hierarchical Soft Terms and Naturalness {#sec:nat}
=======================================
The hypothesis of hierarchical soft terms states that the first two generations of squarks and sleptons are much heavier than the rest of the supersymmetric particles, assumed to lie near the electroweak scale. We will denote by ${\tilde m}_h$ the mass of the heavy squarks and sleptons and by ${\tilde m}_\ell$ the mass scale of the other “light" supersymmetric particles. The original motivation of this hypothesis [@ckn] is that ${\tilde m}_h$ is more weakly bound by naturalness arguments than other supersymmetric parameters, because its radiative effect on the Higgs mass parameter $m_H^2$ is rather moderate. The leading effect comes from a one-loop renormalization of $m_H^2$ proportional to an induced hypercharge Fayet-Iliopoulos term (Y[m]{}\^2)= [Tr]{}([m]{}\_Q\^2+[m]{}\_D\^2-2[m]{}\_U\^2-[m]{}\_L\^2+[m]{}\_E\^2). \[eq:fy\] Assuming that soft terms are generated at the GUT scale, this term leads to a naturalness bound on ${\tilde m}_h$ just below the TeV scale [@dimg]. Nevertheless, the term in [eq. (\[eq:fy\])]{} vanishes if, at some energy scale, scalar masses are universal or satisfy a GUT condition where hypercharge is embedded in a non-abelian group. Since the term in [eq. (\[eq:fy\])]{} is only multiplicatively renormalized, it will remain zero at any scale.
If the Fayet-Iliopoulos term vanishes, then the leading renormalization of $m_H^2$ proportional to ${\tilde m}_h^2$ comes from two-loop effects. In [Fig. \[fig:nat\]]{} we show an upper bound on ${\tilde m}_h$, assuming that first and second generation scalars are degenerate at a matching scale $M_{\rm susy}$, where we start the renormalization group flow. The bound corresponds to an upper limit $\Delta < 10$ on the fine-tuning parameter $\Delta$ [@Barbieri:1987fn], which is optimistic in the light of the present naturalness status of the supersymmetric SM. Still, multi-TeV squarks are allowed by naturalness. It is also possible to reach values of ${\tilde m}_h$ in the range of 10 TeV, but only if soft terms are generated at a very low scale $M_{\rm susy}$.
![Upper bound on ${\tilde m}_h$, assuming that first and second generation scalars are degenerate at a matching scale $M_{\rm susy}$. The bound corresponds to an upper limit $\Delta < 10$ on the fine-tuning parameter.[]{data-label="fig:nat"}](nat.pdf){width="66.00000%"}
Another bound on the hierarchy of soft terms comes from the requirement that ${\tilde m}_h$ does not drive the squared masses of third-generation squarks to negative values, through its two-loop renormalization-group effect [@2loopp]. This bound, although weaker than the previous one, is independent of naturalness arguments. Assuming complete degeneracy of the heavy states with mass ${\tilde m}_h$ and of the light states with mass ${\tilde m}_\ell$, the condition that color remains unbroken imposes ${\tilde m}_h/{\tilde m}_\ell \lsim 15$, if $M_{\rm susy}$ is close to the GUT scale. In the case of low $M_{\rm susy}$, where the effect is due to two-loop threshold effects not log enhanced, the bound becomes ${\tilde m}_h/{\tilde m}_\ell \lsim 25$. However, these bounds can be avoided by choosing appropriate boundary conditions of the soft terms at the scale $M_{\rm susy}$. For instance, all sfermions could be heavy at $M_{\rm susy}$, but Yukawa effects could dynamically bring the third generation to be light [@fprun]. It is also possible to introduce new states that approximately cancel the two-loop renormalization-group contribution to ${\tilde m}^2_\ell$ proportional to ${\tilde m}^2_h$ and maintain the stability of the soft-term hierarchy against large radiative corrections [@paz].
These upper bounds on ${\tilde m}_h$ have to be compared with the lower limits coming from flavor-violating effects in the $K$ system. Assuming that the heavy squark sector is neither degenerate nor aligned, we find the bound[^1] \_h > 35from the real part of the $\Delta S=2$ transition, and \_h > 800from $\epsilon_K$.
This shows that the hypothesis of hierarchical soft terms is not sufficient to solve the flavor problem, unless one is willing to give up naturalness, in the spirit of Split Supersymmetry [@split], assuming that the first two generations of sfermions are directly coupled to the supersymmetry-breaking sector. More concretely, we can retain naturalness and rely on a scheme for suppressing the flavor transitions in the heavy sector, as can be achieved by an approximate U(2) symmetry acting on the first two generations. In this respect, the hierarchical structure of soft terms can be a useful way of parametrizing supersymmetric theories which, for model-dependent reasons, have a certain separation of scales in the scalar sector. Moreover, hierarchical soft terms are interesting because they make specific predictions in flavor physics controlled by relatively few parameters related to physical quantities, like the mass hierarchy. As we will show, hierarchical soft terms offer a well-defined benchmark to be compared with the new experimental results in flavor physics.
Hierarchy versus Degeneracy in $\Delta F=1$ and $\Delta F=2$ Processes {#sec:hiedeg}
======================================================================
Let us first consider the gluino contribution to a $\Delta F = 1$ process in the left-handed down quark sector, $d^L_i\rightarrow d^L_j$, neglecting for simplicity chirality changes. The amplitude of such a process is proportional to $$\label{eq:ampl}
A(\Delta F=1)\equiv f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}_D}{M_3^2}\right)_{d^L_id^L_j} = {\mathcal{W}}_{d^L_i\tilde D_I}
f\left(\frac{m^2_{\tilde D_I}}{M_3^2}\right) {\mathcal{W}}^*_{d^L_j \tilde D_I }.$$ Here $f$ is a loop function, $M_3$ is the gluino mass and ${\mathcal{W}}$ is the unitary matrix diagonalizing the 6$\times$6 down squark squared mass matrix ${\mathcal{M}^2}_D$ in a basis in which the down quark mass matrix is diagonal. We can simplify [eq. (\[eq:ampl\])]{} by using a perturbative expansion in the small off-diagonal entries of the squark mass matrix. It is often sufficient to keep the first order in the expansion. However, the second order can become important and even dominate in the case of 1–2 transitions, depending on the relative size of the 12 expansion parameter compared to the product of the 13 and 23 ones, and on the relative sizes of the sfermion masses. One important example of the case in which the second order dominates is the hierarchy case discussed below, in which the first order is suppressed because of the heaviness of the sfermions of the first two families. Then, [eq. (\[eq:ampl\])]{} becomes [@BRS] $$\label{eq:PT}
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}_D}{M_3^2}\right)_{d^L_id^L_j} = \frac{\tilde m^2}{M_3^2}
f\big(x_{d^L_i},x_{d^L_j}\big) \delta^{LL}_{ij} ,$$ where $x_i \equiv m^2_i /M_3^2$, $\delta^{LL}_{ij} \equiv \left({\mathcal{M}^2}_D\right)_{d^L_id^L_j}/\tilde m^2$, and $$\label{eq:rec}
f(x,y) = \frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y} .$$ The “mass insertion” $\delta^{LL}_{ij}$ is the expansion parameter and we have normalized it to a mass $\tilde m$ which can be chosen to be a typical scale of squark masses. This parameter effectively accounts (at first order) for the flavor transition.
The “degenerate” case is obtained in the limit in which the squark masses in the loop function coincide, $$\label{eq:D}
m^2_{\tilde d^L_i} = m^2_{\tilde d^L_j} \equiv \tilde m^2 .$$ With this assumption, we obtain $$\label{eq:DMI}
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}_D}{M_3^2}\right)_{d^L_id^L_j} = x f^{(1)}(x) \, \delta^{LL}_{ij},
\qquad
\text{(degenerate case)}$$ where $x = \tilde m^2/M_3^2$ and $f^{(n)}$ is the $n$-th derivative of the function. The $\delta$ parameters are in this case normalized to the universal scalar mass $\tilde m^2$.
In the “hierarchical” limit, the contribution to the loop function in [eq. (\[eq:ampl\])]{} from the heavy squarks is negligible. Therefore [eq. (\[eq:ampl\])]{} becomes $$\label{eq:HMI}
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}_D}{M_3^2}\right)_{d^L_id^L_j}=
f(x) \, \hat\delta^{LL}_{ij}. \qquad
\text{(hierarchical case)}$$ Here $x = \tilde m^2/M^2_3$ as before, where now $\tilde m^2$ is interpreted as the third-generation squark mass. We have defined $\hat\delta^{LL}_{ij} \equiv {\mathcal{W}}_{d^L_i\tilde b_L} {\mathcal{W}}^*_{d^L_j \tilde b_L}$. Note that $\hat\delta^{LL}_{a3} \approx - ({\mathcal{M}^2}_D)_{d^L_ad^L_3}/\tilde m^2_{a}$, so that $\hat\delta^{LL}_{a3}$ is again a normalized mass insertion. Also, $\hat\delta^{LL}_{12} = \hat\delta^{LL}_{13}(\hat\delta^{LL}_{23})^*$. [Eq. (\[eq:HMI\])]{} can also be obtained from an extension of [eq. (\[eq:PT\])]{} to the second order in $\delta$.
Equations (\[eq:DMI\]) and (\[eq:HMI\]) show that for $\delta = \hat\delta$ the difference between the two schemes, the degenerate and the hierarchical one, is given by the order one difference between a function and its derivative. However, this ${\mathcal{O}\left( 1 \right)}$ difference becomes larger when we consider $\Delta F = 2$ processes and turns out to affect the predicted correlation between $\Delta F = 1$ and $\Delta F = 2$. In fact, let us now consider the gluino contribution to a $\Delta F = 2$ $d^L_i\leftrightarrow d^L_j$ process. The amplitude is proportional to $$\label{eq:MI2}
A(\Delta F=2)\equiv {\mathcal{W}}_{d^L_i\tilde D_I} {\mathcal{W}}_{d^L_i\tilde D_J}
g\left(\frac{m^2_{\tilde D_I}}{M_3^2}, \frac{m^2_{\tilde D_J}}{M_3^2}\right)
{\mathcal{W}}^*_{d^L_j \tilde D_I} {\mathcal{W}}^*_{d^L_j \tilde D_J},
\eeq
where the loop function $g(x,y)$ is of the form\footnote{This decomposition follows from the form of the loop integral
$$
g(x,y)=\int dk \frac{G(k)}{(k^2-x)(k^2-y)}=\frac{1}{x-y} \int dk ~G(k)\left( \frac{1}{k^2-x}-\frac{1}{k^2-y}\right) \equiv \frac{g(x)-g(y)}{x-y}. \nonumber
$$}
\beq
g(x,y)=\frac{g(x)-g(y)}{x-y}.
\eeq
Expanding in the small off-diagonal elements of the squark mass matrix and assuming, as in the case of $\Delta F=1$, the dominance of $2\times 2$ transitions, we obtain that {eq.~(\ref{eq:MI2})} can be written as
\beq
A(\Delta F=2)= \frac{\tilde m^4}{M_3^4} {\hat g}\big( x_{\tilde d^L_i}, x_{\tilde d^L_j}\big)
(\delta^{LL}_{ij})^2,$$ (x,y) =. Thus, [eq. (\[eq:MI2\])]{} becomes $$\label{eq:DHMI}
A(\Delta F=2) =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
\frac{x^2}{3!} g^{(3)}(x) (\delta^{LL}_{ij})^2 &
\text{(degenerate case)} \\[3mm]
g^{(1)}(x) (\hat\delta^{LL}_{ij})^2 &
\text{(hierarchical case).}
\end{cases}$$ Therefore, if $\tilde m^2$ is the same in the two cases we find that the amplitudes for $\Delta F=1$ and $\Delta F=2$ processes satisfy the relation $$\label{eq:2vs1}
\left.\frac{A(\Delta F = 2)}{[A(\Delta F = 1)]^2}\right|_{\text{degenerate}} =
\frac{g^{(3)}}{6g^{(1)}} \left(\frac{f}{f^{(1)}}\right)^2
\left.\frac{A(\Delta F = 2)}{[A(\Delta F = 1)]^2}\right|_{\text{hierarchical}}.$$ This result is independent of the values of the mass insertions in the two cases. Partly due to the different factorials involved, the ratio $R = (g^{(3)}/6g^{(1)})(f/f^{(1)})^2$ is typically small, easily ${\mathcal{O}\left( 10^{-1} \right)}$ for $x=1$. As a consequence, the bounds on the $\Delta F=2$ processes inferred from $\Delta F=1$, or viceversa, may be significantly different in the two frameworks. The factor $R$ is shown in [Fig. \[fig:ratio\]]{} as a function of $x = \tilde m^2/M^2_3$. The loop functions entering the factor $R$ plotted in [Fig. \[fig:ratio\]]{} are the ones entering the coefficients of the LL insertions in the $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ oscillation amplitude and in the ${B\to X_s\gamma}$ decay amplitude.
![Dependence of the factor $R = (g^{(3)}/6g^{(1)})(f/f^{(1)})^2$ on $x = \tilde m^2/M^2_3$. The loop functions enter the coefficients of the LL insertions in the $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ oscillation amplitude and in the ${B\to X_s\gamma}$ decay amplitude.[]{data-label="fig:ratio"}](ratio.pdf){width="66.00000%"}
Another interesting point has to do with the relation between the $s\leftrightarrow d$, $b\leftrightarrow d$, $b\leftrightarrow s$ $\Delta F=2$ processes. In the degenerate case, such processes are proportional (for given chiralities and charge of the gaugino involved) to the a priori independent three quantities $\delta_{sd}^2$, $\delta_{bd}^2$, $\delta_{bs}^2$. A partial correlation among the three processes could in principle be generated by higher order contributions to the $s\leftrightarrow d$ transitions, [*e.g.*]{} the ones proportional to $\delta_{sb}^2\delta_{bd}^2$. However, such contributions turn out to be always small. This is because of the limits on the two factors $\delta_{bs}$ and $\delta_{bd}$ and because the four-insertions $\delta_{sb}^2\delta_{bd}^2$ contribution is proportional to $(x^4/5!)\, g^{(5)}$, *i.e.* it is suppressed by the factor 5! = 120. On the other hand, in the hierarchical case, a correlation does arise because $\hat\delta_{ds} = \hat\delta_{db}\hat\delta_{sb}^*/ |{\mathcal{W}}_{b\tilde b}|^2 \approx \hat\delta_{db}\hat\delta_{sb}^*$. Moreover, the higher-order contribution proportional to $\hat\delta_{db}^2\hat\delta_{sb}^{*2}$ is now proportional to $g^{(1)}(x)$, with no factorials involved.
The Flavor Structure for Hierarchical Soft Terms {#sec:def}
================================================
In this Section we define the setting of hierarchical soft terms in greater detail. In order to obtain the expressions for the amplitude of a generic flavor process in the hierarchical case, it suffices to consider the case of a one-variable loop function, as in $\Delta F=1$ transitions. The generalization to more variables is straightforward. Let us then consider an amplitude whose dependence on sfermion masses comes through $$\label{eq:ampl2}
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Ai,Bj} = {\mathcal{W}}_{Ai,I}
f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_I}{M^2}\right) {\mathcal{W}}^*_{Bj,I} .$$ In the expression above, $M$ is the mass of the relevant gaugino, ${\mathcal{M}^2}$ is the $6\times 6$ sfermion squared mass matrix in the up squark, down squark, or charged slepton sector (the extension to sneutrinos is again straightforward), written in a basis in which the corresponding fermion mass matrix is diagonal and positive. The amplitude corresponds to a flavor transition between two fermions with chirality $A,B = L,R$ of families $i, j = 1,2,3$, $i\neq j$ and ${\mathcal{W}}$ is the unitary matrix diagonalizing ${\mathcal{M}^2}$, so that ${\mathcal{W}}_{Ai,I}$ is the mixing between the fermion “$Ai$” and the $I$-th sfermion mass eigenstate, $I=1\ldots6$.
According to our assumption, 4 out of the 6 squarks are much heavier than the others or the gaugino mass. Their contribution to the loop function is then suppressed by the light-to-heavy ratio of squared masses $\tilde m^2_\ell/\tilde m^2_h$ (at least, up to logarithms) with respect to the contribution from third-generation squarks. However, for flavor transitions between quarks of the first two families, the exchange of third-generation squarks comes at the price of mixing angles, also suppressed by powers of the heavy mass scale $\tilde m^2_h$. Nevertheless, as shown in the Appendix, the contribution of heavy squarks to [eq. (\[eq:ampl2\])]{} is subdominant, as long as some GIM mechanism is operative in the first two generation squark sector. Since this must be the case in order to evade the strong constraints from $\epsilon_K$, we can neglect the effect of the heavy squarks in the summation of [eq. (\[eq:ampl2\])]{}. Alternatively, the assumption of neglecting the heavy-state exchange is justified when the first two generations of squarks are completely decoupled and the flavor mixing of the third-generation squarks are determined by quark rotation angles (see Appendix).
We are then left with two light squarks with masses $\tilde m_{\ell_\alpha}$ and mixings ${\mathcal{W}}_{Ai,\alpha}$, where $\alpha=1,2$ is the index of the light eigenstates. This gives a total of 2+20 real parameters. However, since the mixings always appear in the combination ${\mathcal{W}}_{Ai,\alpha}{\mathcal{W}}^*_{Bj,\alpha}$, the overall phases of the mixing parameters (for any value of $\alpha$) do not affect [eq. (\[eq:ampl2\])]{} and the number of effective parameters is 2+18.
This is still more general than needed. In fact, the decoupling of the first two sfermion families leads (under certain assumptions) to two additional constraints, as discussed in the Appendix. First, in the limit in which the 4 heavy sfermions decouple, the 2$\times$2 matrix ${\mathcal{W}}_{A3,\alpha}$ that diagonalizes the 2$\times$2 third-family sfermion mass matrix is approximately unitary. It is then always possible to describe it in terms of an angle $0\leq \theta\leq \pi/2$ and a phase $\phi$. The angle $\theta$ corresponds to the usual mixing angle between the two chiral components of third-generation squarks. Second, the chirality-changing mixing is subdominant with respect to the chirality-conserving one, except within the third family. This means that the leading effect in any chirality-changing transition comes from the combination of a chirality-conserving one times a $\theta$-angle rotation. We are then left with 4 parameters describing the third generation squarks (${\tilde m}_{\ell_\alpha}$, $\theta$, $\phi$) and the four complex chirality-conserving “insertions” $\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3}$, $\hat\delta^{RR}_{i3}$, $i=1,2$ defined as follows: [\[eq:defins\]]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} &\equiv \sum_{\alpha=1,2} {\mathcal{W}}_{Li,\alpha}{\mathcal{W}}^*_{L3,\alpha} &
\hat\delta^{LL}_{3i} & = \hat\delta^{LL*}_{i3} {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
\hat\delta^{RR}_{i3} &\equiv \sum_{\alpha=1,2} {\mathcal{W}}_{Ri,\alpha}{\mathcal{W}}^*_{R3,\alpha} &
\hat\delta^{RR}_{3i} & = \hat\delta^{RR*}_{i3} . {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ Using the expression of the matrix ${\mathcal{W}}$ derived in the Appendix, at first order in the insertion $\hat \delta$, [eq. (\[eq:ampl2\])]{} becomes [\[eq:fLO2\]]{} $$\begin{aligned}
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,Lj} &=
\left[\cos^2\theta ~ f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_1}}{M^2}\right) +
\sin^2\theta ~f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_2}}{M^2}\right) \right]
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} {\hat\delta^{LL*}_{j3}}
{\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,Rj} &=
\sin\theta\cos\theta e^{i\phi} \left[f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_1}}{M^2}\right) -
f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_2}}{M^2}\right) \right]
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} {\hat\delta^{RR*}_{j3}} {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,L3} &=
\left[\cos^2\theta ~f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_1}}{M^2}\right) +
\sin^2\theta ~f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_2}}{M^2}\right) \right]
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3}
{\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,R3} &=
\sin\theta\cos\theta e^{i\phi} \left[f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_1}}{M^2}\right) -
f\left(\frac{\tilde m^2_{\ell_2}}{M^2}\right) \right]
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} . {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[eq:fLO2\]) further simplify if the mixing angle $\theta$ is small, as in the case of the down squark sector in the moderate $\tan\beta$ regime. By taking, for simplicity, equal masses for the third generation squarks, $\tilde m_{\ell_1} \approx \tilde m_{\ell_2} \equiv \tilde m$, we obtain [\[eq:fLO4\]]{} $$\begin{aligned}
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,Lj} &=
f\left(x\right)
\hat\delta^{LL}_{ij}
{\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,Rj} &=
x\, f^{(1)}\left(x \right)
\hat\delta^{LR}_{ij} {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,L3} &=
f\left(x \right)
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3}
{\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
f\left(\frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}}{M^2}\right)_{Li,R3} &=
x f^{(1)}\left(x \right)
\hat\delta^{LR}_{i3} ,
{\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $x = \tilde m^2/M^2$ and we have defined [\[eq:effins\]]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\delta^{LL}_{ij} &\equiv \hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} {\hat\delta^{LL*}_{j3}} {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\[1.8mm]
\hat\delta^{LR}_{ij} &\equiv \frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}_{L3,R3}}{\tilde m^2}
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} {\hat\delta^{RR*}_{j3}}
\qquad i,j=1,2 {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\\
\hat\delta^{LR}_{i3} &\equiv \frac{{\mathcal{M}^2}_{L3,R3}}{\tilde m^2}
\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} . {\stepcounter{mysubequation}\tag{\theequation\protect{{\alph{mysubequation}}}}}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have written $e^{i\phi}\sin\theta$ as ${\mathcal{M}^2}_{L3,R3}/(\tilde m^2_{\ell_1} - \tilde m^2_{\ell_2})$. Equations (\[eq:effins\]) express two important results of the flavor structure of hierarchical soft terms. The flavor transition between the first two generations ($\hat\delta^{LL}_{ij}$) is determined by the product of the transitions involving the third generation ($\hat\delta^{LL}_{i3} {\hat\delta^{LL*}_{j3}}$). The chiral-violating flavor transitions ($\hat\delta^{LR}_{ij}$ and $\hat\delta^{LR}_{i3}$) are determined by the product of chiral-conserving flavor transitions and the chiral violation in the third family (${{\mathcal{M}^2}_{L3,R3}}/{\tilde m^2}$).
Bounds on Flavor-Violating Parameters {#sec:bounds}
=====================================
We now illustrate the bounds on the flavor-violating parameters $\hat \delta$ and $\delta$ in the hierarchical and degenerate cases, respectively. An early analysis of the hierarchical case was presented in ref. [@Cohen:1996sq]. Our results for the LL insertions are summarized in Table \[tab:bounds\]. For definitess, here and below we set the $A$-terms to zero and we consider the case $\tilde m = M_3 = \mu$, with $\tilde m$ normalized to $350{\,\mathrm{GeV}}$. This choice allows a direct comparison with several results in the literature and is appropriate for the sbottom mass. For simplicity we use the same value for the stop mass, relevant in the case of $D^0$–$\bar D^0$ oscillations, although that is barely compatible with the Higgs mass bound. For sufficiently large $\tan\beta$, the leading chiral flip in the sbottom sector comes from $\mu v \tan\beta$. The limits on the RR insertions are the same, except the one from ${\text{BR}({B\to X_s\gamma})}$, which is much weaker. This is because the contribution of the LL insertion to the ${B\to X_s\gamma}$ amplitude interferes with the SM one, while the RR contribution does not. The bounds have been computed by constructing two-dimensional likelihood functions in the $\operatorname{Re}{\delta}$–$\operatorname{Im}{\delta}$ planes. Such functions have been obtained using a standard bayesian approach. The real and imaginary parts of the insertions are varied with flat distributions and the input parameters, summarized in Table \[tab:inputs\], are varied according to their distributions. The likelihood function is then constructed from a fit of the relevant experimental values, also shown in Table \[tab:inputs\]. The expressions for the supersymmetry contributions to the Wilson coefficients in terms of the hierarchical insertions have been obtained from [@BBMR; @greub]. They have been used at the scale $\tilde m$ and then runned at lower scales according to [@greub; @magici; @magici2].
$$\begin{array}{|c|}
\hline
\\
\textrm{$D_0-\bar{D}_0$ mixing}\\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
\left| \hat \delta^{LL}_{ut} \hat \delta^{LL*}_{ct}\right| <
8.0 \times 10^{-3} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{t}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) &
\left| \delta^{LL}_{uc} \right| <
3.4 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \\
\hline
\end{array}\\
\\
B \to X_s \gamma \\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
\big| \operatorname{Re}\big( \hat \delta^{LL}_{sb} \big) \big| <
2.2 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{10}{\tan \beta} \right) &
\left| \operatorname{Re}\left( \delta^{LL}_{sb} \right) \right| <
3.8 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{10}{\tan \beta} \right) \\
\big| \operatorname{Im}\big( \hat \delta^{LL}_{sb} \big) \big| <
6.7 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{10}{\tan \beta} \right) &
\left| \operatorname{Im}\left(\delta^{LL}_{sb} \right) \right| <
1.1 \times 10^{-1} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{10}{\tan \beta} \right) \\
\hline
\end{array} \\
\\
\Delta m_{B_s} \\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
\big| \operatorname{Re}\big( \hat \delta^{LL}_{sb} \big) \big| < 9.4 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) &
\left| \operatorname{Re}\left( \delta^{LL}_{sb} \right) \right| < 4.0 \times 10^{-1} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \\
\big| \operatorname{Im}\big( \hat \delta^{LL}_{sb} \big) \big| < 7.2 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) &
\left| \operatorname{Im}\left( \delta^{LL}_{sb} \right) \right| < 3.1 \times 10^{-1} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \\
\hline
\end{array} \\
\\
B_d^0\text{--}\bar B_d^0 \text{ mixing} \\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
\big| \operatorname{Re}\big( \hat \delta^{LL}_{db} \big) \big| < 4.3 \times 10^{-3} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right)&
\left| \operatorname{Re}\left( \delta^{LL}_{db} \right) \right| < 1.8 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \\
\big| \operatorname{Im}\big( \hat \delta^{LL}_{db} \big) \big| < 7.3 \times 10^{-3} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) &
\left| \operatorname{Im}\left(\delta^{LL}_{db} \right) \right| < 3.1 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \\
\hline
\end{array} \\
\\
\Delta m_{K} \\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
\sqrt{ \Big| \operatorname{Re}\big( \hat{\delta}^{LL}_{db} \hat{\delta}^{LL*}_{sb} \big)^2 \Big|} < 1.0 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) &
\sqrt{ \left| \operatorname{Re}\left( \delta^{LL}_{ds} \right)^2 \right|} < 4.2 \times 10^{-2} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \\
\hline
\end{array} \\
\\
\epsilon_{K} \\
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2}
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
\sqrt{ \Big| \operatorname{Im}\big( \hat{\delta}^{LL}_{db} \hat{\delta}^{LL*}_{sb} \big)^2 \Big|} < 4.4 \times 10^{-4} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{b}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) &
\sqrt{ \left| \operatorname{Im}\left( \delta^{LL}_{ds} \right)^2 \right|} < 1.8 \times 10^{-3} \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{q}}}{350 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \\
\hline
\end{array} \\
\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
The bounds on $s\leftrightarrow d$ transitions are obtained using the constraints from the kaon mass difference $\Delta m_K$ and the kaon mixing CP-violation parameter $\epsilon_K$. Because of the large theoretical uncertainty on the long-distance part of $\Delta m_K$, the absolute value of the supersymmetry contribution to $\Delta m_K$ has been allowed to be as large as its experimental value, with a flat probability distribution. For each parameter $\delta$ (degenerate or hierarchical, LL or RR) a combined two-dimensional likelihood function is first built in the $\operatorname{Re}{\delta}$–$\operatorname{Im}{\delta}$ plane. The likelihood for $\sqrt{|\operatorname{Re}(\delta^2)|}$ (or $\sqrt{|\operatorname{Im}(\delta^2)|}$) is then obtained as the section along the $\sqrt{|\operatorname{Im}(\delta^2)|} = 0$ (or $\sqrt{|\operatorname{Re}(\delta^2)|} = 0$) direction and is used to determine the 95% CL limits shown in Table \[tab:bounds\]. The limit from $\Delta m_K$ is compatible with the limit in [@GGMS], whereas the limit from $\epsilon_K$ is stronger. This is because the allowed range for the supersymmetric contribution to $\epsilon_K$ is now smaller, in particular it is not anymore allowed to take values as large as the SM contribution.
The bounds on $b\leftrightarrow d$ transitions are obtained using the constraint from the $B^0_d$–$\bar B^0_d$ system mass difference $\Delta m_{B_d}$ and on the phase of the corresponding amplitude. Again, a two-dimensional likelihood is constructed. The corresponding 95% CL and 68% CL regions in the $\operatorname{Re}{\delta}$–$\operatorname{Im}{\delta}$ plane are shown in [Fig. \[fig:bd\]]{}. The bounds on $\operatorname{Re}{\delta}$ ($\operatorname{Im}{\delta}$) in Table \[tab:bounds\] are obtained from the one-dimensional section of the two-dimensional likelihood corresponding to $\operatorname{Im}{\delta} = 0$ ($\operatorname{Re}{\delta} = 0$). Choosing $\operatorname{Im}{\delta} = 0$ makes the limit on $\operatorname{Re}\delta$ in Table \[tab:bounds\] much stronger than the size of the allowed region in the Figure. The corresponding constraint in Table \[tab:bounds\] should therefore be considered as optimistic. [Fig. \[fig:bd\]]{} also shows that the point $\hat\delta^{LL}_{db} = 0$ ($\delta^{LL}_{db} = 0$) is excluded at more than $1\sigma$. This is a consequence of the mild deviation from the SM or MFV hypothesis observed in $b\leftrightarrow d$ transitions (see e.g. [@CKMfitter]).
![95% CL (light shading) and 68% CL (dark shading) bounds on the real and imaginary parts of $\delta^{LL}_{db}$ (left, blue) and $\hat\delta^{LL}_{db}$ (right, red) from the measurements of $\Delta m_{B_d}$ for $\tilde m = M_3 = \mu = 350{\,\mathrm{GeV}}$.[]{data-label="fig:bd"}](13.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
In the case of $b\leftrightarrow s$ transitions, the constraints we have considered are the mass difference $\Delta m_{B_s}$ and the ${B\to X_s\gamma}$ branching ratio. We have used ref. [@misiak] to compute the SM contribution to ${\text{BR}({B\to X_s\gamma})}$. We have constructed two separate likelihoods because of the different $\tan\beta$ dependence of the two constraints. In fact, the $\Delta m_{B_s}$ constraint is $\tan\beta$ independent, while the ${B\to X_s\gamma}$ constraint has a linear dependence on $\tan\beta$ for moderately large $\tan\beta$.[^2] The 95% CL contours corresponding to the two constraints are shown in [Fig. \[fig:bs\]]{} for $\tan\beta = 10$. As mentioned, the ${B\to X_s\gamma}$ constraint is relevant for the LL insertions, whose contribution interferes with the SM one, but not for the RR insertions. The bounds on $\operatorname{Re}(\delta)$ and $\operatorname{Im}(\delta)$ in Table \[tab:bounds\] are obtained as in the case of $b\leftrightarrow d$ transitions. Because of the “holes” in the two-dimensional likelihood function shown in [Fig. \[fig:bs\]]{}, the one-dimensional likelihood for $\operatorname{Im}(\delta)$ corresponding to $\operatorname{Re}(\delta) = 0$ has three almost disconnected parts. We calculated the bounds in Table \[tab:bounds\] by using the central part of the likelihood only. A comment on this procedure is in order. It is of course possible to obtain the one-dimensional likelihood for $\operatorname{Im}(\delta)$ by a proper projection of the two-dimensional one. However, this would not take into account the fact that in the region at largest $|\operatorname{Im}(\delta)|$ the agreement of the SM with data, $\Delta m_{B_s} \sim 2|A^\text{SM}_s|$, is reproduced through an accidental cancellation: $\Delta m_{B_s} = 2|A^\text{SM}_s + A^\text{NP}_s e^{2i\phi^\text{NP}_s}|$, where $A^\text{NP}_s e^{2i\phi^\text{NP}_s} \sim -2 A^\text{SM}_s$. Our recipe “empirically” discards such possibilities, and it seems appropriate for the purpose of calculating the bounds in Table \[tab:bounds\].
![95% CL bounds on the real and imaginary parts of $\delta^{LL}_{sb}$ (left, blue) and $\hat\delta^{LL}_{sb}$ (right, red) from the measurements of $\Delta m_{B_s}$ (lighter shading) and ${\text{BR}({B\to X_s\gamma})}$ (darker shading) for $\tilde m = M_3 = \mu = 350{\,\mathrm{GeV}}$ and $\tan\beta =10$. Switching the sign of $\mu$ approximately corresponds to switching the sign of $\operatorname{Re}( \delta^{LL}_{sb})$ and $\operatorname{Re}( \hat \delta^{LL}_{sb})$ in the two figures. In the background, the contour lines of the phase $\phi_{B_s}$ are shown. The darker regions correspond to the 90% CL range presently favoured by the experiment [@hfag]. The axis of the two figures are chosen in such a way that the contour lines are the same for the degenerate and hierarchical cases.[]{data-label="fig:bs"}](23.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Finally, we show in [Fig. \[fig:cu\]]{} the bound on the $c\leftrightarrow u$ transitions obtained from $D^0$–$\bar D^0$ mixing. The theoretical prediction for the SM contribution to the mixing amplitude is affected by a large uncertainty due to long-distance contributions and it is assumed to lie in the interval $(-0.02,0.02)\,\text{ps}^{-1}$ [@Ciuchini:2007cw], with flat probability distribution. We translate in this case the likelihood in a bound on $|\delta|$ by considering the one-dimensional section of the two-dimensional likelihood along the $|\operatorname{Re}(\delta)| = |\operatorname{Im}(\delta)|$ line.
![95% CL (light shading) and 68% CL (dark shading) bounds on the real and imaginary parts of $\delta^{LL}_{uc}$ (left, blue) and $\hat\delta^{LL}_{uc}\equiv \hat\delta^{LL}_{ut}\hat\delta^{LL*}_{ct}$ (right, red) from $D^0$–$\bar D^0$ oscillations for $\tilde m = M_3 = \mu = 350{\,\mathrm{GeV}}$.[]{data-label="fig:cu"}](Dmix.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
$$\begin{array}{c|ccc|c}
\hline
\hline
\textrm{Parameter} & \textrm{Value} & \textrm{Gaussian ($\sigma$)} & \textrm{Uniform ($\frac{\Delta}{2}$)} & \textrm{Reference}\\
\hline
\hline
|\eps_K| & 2.229 \times 10^{-3} & 0.012 \times 10^{-3} & - & \cite{Amsler:2008zz} \\
\Delta m _K \, ( \textrm{ps}^{-1}) & 5.292 \times 10^{-3} & 0.009 \times 10^{-3} & - & \cite{Amsler:2008zz} \\
\text{BR}(B \to X_s\gamma) & 3.55 \times 10^{-4} & 0.26 \times 10^{-4} & - & \cite{Barberio:2007cr} \\
\Delta m_{B_s} \, (\textrm{ps}^{-1}) & 17.77 & 0.12 & - & \cite{Amsler:2008zz} \\
\Delta m_{B_d} \, (\textrm{ps}^{-1}) & 0.507 & 0.005 & - & \cite{Amsler:2008zz} \\
\phi_{B_d} [^\text{o}] & -4.1 & 2.1 & - & \cite{magici} \\
\left| M^D_{12} \right| \, ( \textrm{ps}^{-1}) & 7.7 \times 10^{-3} & 2.5 \times 10^{-3} & - & \cite{Ciuchini:2007cw} \\
\hline
\bar{\rho} & 0.167 & 0.051 & - & \cite{Bona:2006sa} \\
\bar{\eta} & 0.386 & 0.035 & - & \cite{Bona:2006sa} \\
\lambda & 0.2255 & 0.010 & - & \cite{Amsler:2008zz}\\
|V_{cb}| & 41.2 \times 10^{-3} & 1.1 \times 10^{-3} & - & \cite{Amsler:2008zz}\\
\hline
F_K \, (\textrm{GeV})& 0.160 & - & - & \cite{Amsler:2008zz} \\
F_{B_d} \, (\textrm{MeV}) & 189 & 27 & -& \cite{Hashimoto:2004hn} \\
F_{B_s} \sqrt{B_s} \, (\textrm{MeV}) & 262 & 35 & -& \cite{Hashimoto:2004hn} \\
F_{D} \, (\textrm{MeV}) & 201 & 3& 17& \cite{Bona:2007vi} \\
\hat{B}_K & 0.79 & 0.04 & 0.08 & \cite{Bona:2007vi}\\
B_1^B & 0.88 & 0.04 & 0.10 & \cite{Bona:2007vi} \\
\eta_{cc} & 0.47 & 0.04 & - & \cite{Buras:2008nn} \\
\eta_{ct} & 0.5765 & 0.0065 & - & \cite{Buras:2008nn} \\
\eta_{tt} & 1.43 & 0.23 & - & \cite{Buras:2008nn} \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
In the hierarchical case, the bound from the $s\leftrightarrow d$ transitions apply to the product $\hat\delta^{LL}_{db} \hat\delta^{LL*}_{sb} \equiv \hat\delta^{LL}_{ds}$. It is therefore possible to compare that bound with the indirect one obtained from the constraints on $\hat\delta^{LL}_{sb}$ and $\hat\delta^{LL}_{db}$. It turns out that the combined bound is stronger than the direct one in the case of $\Delta m_K$ but not in the case of $\epsilon_K$.
If the parameters $\hat \delta$ are related to the hierarchy according to the relation $\hat \delta \sim {\tilde m}^2_\ell / {\tilde m}^2_h$, from the results in Table \[tab:bounds\] we obtain a lower bound on the heavy mass scale \_h ( )\^[1/2]{} 5 . As discussed in the Appendix, it is plausible to expect that, independently of the value of the hierarchy ${\tilde m}_\ell / {\tilde m}_h$, the size of the parameters $\hat\delta^{LL}_{sb}$, $\hat\delta^{LL}_{db}$ cannot be smaller than the corresponding CKM angles, $|V_{td}|$, $|V_{ts}|$ respectively. Thus, it is particularly interesting to probe experimentally flavor processes up to the level of $|\hat\delta^{LL}_{db}|\approx 8\times 10^{-3}$, $|\hat\delta^{LL}_{sb}|\approx 4\times 10^{-2}$ and $|\hat\delta^{LL}_{ds}|=|\hat\delta^{LL}_{db} \hat\delta^{LL*}_{sb} |\approx 3\times 10^{-4}$. The present constraints on the $b \leftrightarrow d$ transitions and on $\epsilon_K$ are at the edge of probing this region. An interesting conclusion is that hierarchical soft terms predict that new-physics effects in $b \leftrightarrow s$ transitions can be expected just beyond the present experimental sensitivity.
The Phase of the $B_s$ Mixing {#sec:phase}
=============================
Let us now discuss the implications for the phase of the $B_s$ mixing. In the hierarchical scenario, the new-physics effects in $b\leftrightarrow s$ transitions are particularly promising. We have already pointed out that the value of $\hat\delta^{LL}_{bs}$ might be not so far from saturating the bound in Table \[tab:bounds\]. On top of that, a value of the insertion parameter close to its $\Delta B = 1$ bound gives rise to effects in $\Delta B = 2$ observables that are more pronounced in the hierarchical than in the degenerate case. The reason goes back to [eq. (\[eq:2vs1\])]{}. For most values of $\tan\beta$, the bound on the insertions is mainly due to the ${B\to X_s\gamma}$ constraint. Its translation into a constraint on $\Delta B=2$ observables such as $\Delta m_{B_s}$ or the phase $\phi_{B_s}$ of the $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing depends on the scenario we consider. [Eq. (\[eq:2vs1\])]{} shows that for $(g^{(3)}/g^{(1)})(f/f^{(1)})^2\sim 1$ the bound on $\Delta B=2$ observables is expected to be looser in the hierarchical case. This is confirmed by the relative size of the $\Delta B=1$ and $\Delta B=2$ constraints in [Fig. \[fig:bs\]]{}.
The previous considerations have interesting implications on the possible size of new-physics effects in the phase of $B_s$ mixing. The $B_s$–$\bar B_s$ mixing amplitude in the presence of new physics can be parameterized as $$\label{eq:HfullSM}
\langle B_s | H^\text{full}_\text{eff} | \bar B_s \rangle = C_{B_s} e^{2i\phi_{B_s}}
\langle B_s | H^\text{SM}_\text{eff} | \bar B_s \rangle ,$$ where $H^\text{full}_\text{eff} = H^\text{SM}_\text{eff}+ H^\text{NP}_\text{eff}$, $\langle B_s | H^\text{SM}_\text{eff} | \bar B_s \rangle = A^\text{SM}_s e^{-2i\beta_s}$, $\langle B_s | H^\text{NP}_\text{eff} | \bar B_s \rangle = A^\text{NP}_s e^{2i(\phi^\text{NP}_s-\beta_s)}$, and $\beta_s = \arg(-(V_{ts}V^*_{tb})/(V_{cs}V_{cb}^*)) = 0.018\pm 0.001$. Recent measurements from the CDF [@Aaltonen:2007he] and D0 [@:2008fj] collaborations have shown a mild tension between the experimental value $\phi_{B_s} \sim -20^\text{o}$ (for the allowed region closer to the origin) and its SM prediction, $\phi_{B_s} = 0^\text{o}$, at the $2.5\,\sigma$ level [@dev; @CKMfitter; @hfag]. In the supersymmetric scenarios under consideration, the value of the phase $\phi_{B_s}$ can be read from the contour lines in [Fig. \[fig:bs\]]{}. The lines have been obtained by fixing all the relevant parameters to their central values. They converge in the two points corresponding to a vanishing total amplitude $A^\text{SM}_s + A^\text{NP}_s e^{2i\phi^\text{NP}_s}$. The figure shows that in the region allowed by both the ${\text{BR}({B\to X_s\gamma})}$ and $\Delta m_{B_s}$ constraints, the phase reaches larger values in the hierarchical case. This is apparent in [Fig. \[fig:phase\]]{}, where the expectation for $\phi_{B_s}$ in the two scenarios has been shown in the form of an histogram (for a fixed value of $\tan\beta = 10$). The hierarchical case allows values of the phase $\phi_{B_s}$ about three times larger than in the degenerate case, in agreement with the generic expectation from [eq. (\[eq:2vs1\])]{}. The range of $\phi_{B_s}$ presently favored by the experiment is shown in [Fig. \[fig:bs\]]{}.
![Expected distribution of the phase $\phi_{Bs}$, as determined by the ${\text{BR}({B\to X_s\gamma})}$ and $\Delta m_{B_s}$ constraints in the degenerate (blue) and hierarchical (red), for $\tan\beta = 10$.[]{data-label="fig:phase"}](isto.pdf){width="66.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
Hierarchical soft terms describe a class of supersymmetric theories which is characterized by the existence of two separated mass scales: a large mass ${\tilde m}_h$ for the first two generations of squarks and sleptons and a smaller mass ${\tilde m}_\ell$, of electroweak-scale size, for the rest of the spectrum. A certain hierarchy of the ratio $ {\tilde m}_h/{\tilde m}_\ell$ is not incompatible with naturalness, and it is welcome to relax constraints from $K^0$-${\bar K}^0$ mixing and $\epsilon_K$.
This class of theories includes radical proposals in which ${\tilde m}_h$ is in the range of hundreds of TeV, fully addressing the supersymmetric flavor problem at the price of a certain amount of unnaturalness. However, the pattern of hierarchical soft terms is also useful to describe less extreme scenarios in which there is a more modest mass separation in the squark sector, nevertheless sufficient to make the degeneracy assumption a poor starting point.
Hierarchical soft terms make well-defined and interesting predictions in flavor physics. Flavor-violating effects in the down sector are described by four complex numbers: ${\hat \delta}^{LL}_{db}$, ${\hat \delta}^{LL}_{sb}$, ${\hat \delta}^{RR}_{db}$, ${\hat \delta}^{RR}_{sb}$. There are fewer free parameters than in the ordinary case of degenerate squarks, mostly because the $d \leftrightarrow s$ transition is determined by the product of $d \leftrightarrow b$ and $b \leftrightarrow s$ transitions. Also, under certain assumptions, flavor and chiral violating transitions are specified in terms of $\hat \delta$ and of the same parameters that describe squark mixing in the third generation. Another interesting peculiarity is the correlation between $\Delta F=1$ and $\Delta F=2$ transitions, which is characteristic of the hierarchical soft term pattern and distinct from the one derived in the case of degeneracy.
In this paper we have analyzed how present experiments constrain the parameters ${\hat \delta}$. The limits are derived by calculating the likelihood function for new-physics effects and combining the different experimental data and theory parameters with their relative errors. We have also applied the same procedure to the case of degeneracy, revisiting the limits on the mass insertion parameters $\delta$.
For a degenerate spectrum, the mass insertions $\delta$ are the appropriate way to parametrize new flavor-violating effects. The coefficients $\delta$ describe the small deviations from universality but, lacking the knowledge of a complete theory of soft terms, they can only be treated as free parameters and do not provide information on the required experimental sensitivity to discover new-physics effects. The analogous quantities in the hierarchical scheme, ${\hat \delta}$, are related either to the $ {\tilde m}_\ell/{\tilde m}_h$ hierarchy or to CKM angles, because of the special assumptions made on the pattern of soft terms. Therefore the quantities ${\hat \delta}$ are associated to physical parameters and they provide a defined target for the required experimental sensitivity. In particular, we expect that each ${\hat \delta}_{i3}$ is larger than the maximum between $ {\tilde m}^2_\ell/{\tilde m}^2_h$ and the CKM elements $V^*_{3i}$. The results obtained in Table \[tab:bounds\] show that present experiments have not yet probed $u \leftrightarrow c$ transitions at the level required by ${\hat \delta}_{i3}=V^*_{3i}$, and have only marginally tested the case of $d \leftrightarrow s$ and $d \leftrightarrow b$ transitions. On the other hand, experiments have begun to explore the crucial range of values for ${\hat \delta}_{sb}$ in $s \leftrightarrow b$ transitions. In this respect, it is tantalizing that there are claims for a deviation from the SM predictions in the phase of $B_s$ mixing, $\phi_{B_s}$ [@dev; @CKMfitter; @hfag]. Hierarchical soft terms could account for such new-physics effect, compatibly with the other constraints in the $b$-$s$ system. Actually we have proved that, because of the correlation between $\Delta F=1$ and $\Delta F=2$ transitions, hierarchical soft terms can lead to larger values of $\phi_{B_s}$ than degenerate ones, for an equal value of $\tan\beta$. Independently of the reliability of the alleged anomaly in $\phi_{B_s}$, the hypothesis of hierarchical soft terms represents an interesting benchmark to confront experimental searches in flavor physics.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Marco Ciuchini for useful discussions.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this Appendix we compute the fermion-sfermion mixing matrix ${\mathcal{W}}$ in the limit of hierarchical soft terms. We also discuss the conditions under which the heavy-squark contribution can be neglected in the amplitude of [eq. (\[eq:ampl2\])]{} and the natural size of the flavor-violating parameters $\hat \delta$.
In a general basis in which the quark mass matrix is not necessarily diagonal, ${\mathcal{W}}$ is a combination of the matrices that diagonalize the quark and squark mass matrices $M$ and ${\mathcal{M}^2}$ respectively, $$\label{eq:Wdef}
{\mathcal{W}}= \begin{pmatrix}
U_L & 0 \\
0 & U_R
\end{pmatrix}
{\mathcal{W}}^\prime ,
\quad
U_R M U_L^\dagger = {\rm diagonal} ,
\quad
{\mathcal{W}}^{\prime \dagger} {\mathcal{M}^2}{\mathcal{W}}^{\prime} = {\rm diagonal}.$$
Because the relevant amplitudes will turn out to be dominated by loops with only third-generation squark exchange, we are justified to neglect chiral-violating entries in the squark mass matrix involving first or second generation indices. Under this assumption and working at leading order in an expansion in inverse powers of the heavy-squark mass scale, we obtain \^=
[U]{}\_L & \^[LL]{} & 0 & -\^[LL]{} e\^[i]{}\
- \^[LL]{}[U]{}\_L & & 0 & -e\^[i]{}\
0 & \^[RR]{} e\^[-i]{} & [U]{}\_R & \^[RR]{}\
0 & e\^[-i]{} & -\^[RR]{}[U]{}\_R &
, \[eq:wpr\] where we have omitted the generation indices of the first two generations. The $2\times 2$ unitary matrices ${\tilde U}_{L,R}$ diagonalize the $2\times 2$ blocks of the heavy states in the squark mass matrix (which we call ${\mathcal{M}^2}_{hL}$ and ${\mathcal{M}^2}_{hR}$) according to \_[L]{}\^[\^2]{}\_[hL]{} [U]{}\_[L]{} = [diagonal]{}, [U]{}\_[R]{}\^[\^2]{}\_[hR]{} [U]{}\_[R]{} = [diagonal]{}. The two-component vectors ${\hat \delta}^{LL,RR}_{i3}$ $(i=1,2)$ are given by \^[LL]{}\_[i3]{}-\_[j=1]{}\^2 ( [[M]{}\_[hL]{}\^[-2]{}]{} )\_[ij]{} [\^2]{}\_[Lj,3]{}, \^[RR]{}\_[i3]{}-\_[j=1]{}\^2 ( [[M]{}\_[hR]{}\^[-2]{}]{} )\_[ij]{} [\^2]{}\_[Rj,3]{}. \[eq:defd\] It is easy to verify that this definition coincides with [eq. (\[eq:defins\])]{}, at the leading order in the expansion and neglecting quark rotation effects. Finally, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the parameters determining the diagonalization of the light-squark sector and are defined by 2, e\^[i]{} .
The result presented in the text in [eq. (\[eq:fLO2\])]{} can now be easily derived by replacing [eq. (\[eq:wpr\])]{} into [eq. (\[eq:ampl2\])]{}. Moreover, we can use [eq. (\[eq:wpr\])]{} to compare the contributions to flavor-violating amplitudes from heavy and light squarks . For instance, the flavor transition between the first and second generations in the down-left sector, obtained from [eq. (\[eq:ampl2\])]{}, is given by f( )\_[d\_Ls\_L]{} = \_h f\^[(1)]{}( ) +\_[13]{}\^[LL]{}\_[23]{}\^[LL\*]{}f( ) . \[eq:exx\] Here, for simplicity, we have neglected quark rotations and we have considered near degeneracy among the heavy squark states (with a common mass ${\tilde m}_h$) and among the light squark states (with a common mass ${\tilde m}_\ell$). We have defined $\Delta_h \equiv ({\mathcal{M}^2}_{hL})_{12}/{\tilde m}_h^2$ to parametrize the mass insertion in the heavy sector. Using the property that, for large $x$, $f(x)\sim 1/x$ (and therefore $f^{(1)}(x)\sim 1/x^2$), we obtain that the second term in [eq. (\[eq:exx\])]{} dominates over the first one when \^[LL]{} \_h\^[1/2]{} . \[eq:cond\] Analogous considerations hold for ${\hat \delta}^{RR}$. When the condition in [eq. (\[eq:cond\])]{} is satisfied, we are allowed to neglect the heavy-squark contribution in the loop diagram.
To establish if the condition is satisfied we have to discuss what is the natural range of values for ${\hat \delta}^{LL}$. A lower limit on ${\hat \delta}^{LL}$ is obtained from [eq. (\[eq:defd\])]{} with the requirement that any chiral-conserving entry of ${\mathcal{M}^2}_D$ is at least of size ${\tilde m}_\ell^2$, \^[LL]{} . \[eq:natd1\] An upper limit on ${\hat \delta}^{LL}$ is derived by observing that the light left squark receives a contribution from the heavy sector to its mass square equal to -\^[LL]{}[\^2]{}\_[hL]{}\^[LL]{}\^2 -\^[RR]{}[\^2]{}\_[hR]{}\^[RR]{}\^2\~. Thus, barring special cancellations, the hierarchical separation between the light and heavy sectors is maintained only if \^[LL]{} . \[eq:natd2\]
The natural range for ${\hat \delta}^{LL}$ (or ${\hat \delta}^{RR}$) is defined by [eq. (\[eq:natd1\])]{} and [eq. (\[eq:natd2\])]{}. In the absence of any GIM suppression in the heavy sector (*i.e.* when $\Delta_h \approx 1$), the natural values of ${\hat \delta}^{LL}$ are nearly inconsistent with the condition in [eq. (\[eq:cond\])]{}. However, as discussed in the text, the constraint from $\epsilon_K$ require that $\Delta_h < 10^{-2} {\tilde m}_h/(3{\,\mathrm{TeV}})$. In presence of a mechanism justifying the smallness of $\Delta_h$ (like, for instance, an approximate U(2) symmetry), the condition in [eq. (\[eq:cond\])]{} can be satisfied.
When the ratio ${\tilde m}_h/{\tilde m}_\ell$ becomes very large, the quark rotation angles in $U_{L,R}$ can dominate over those of ${\mathcal{W}}^\prime$ in [eq. (\[eq:Wdef\])]{}. In this case, [eq. (\[eq:cond\])]{} is automatically satisfied, and the assumption of neglecting heavy squarks in the loop diagram is perfectly justified. Assuming that the CKM matrix $V=U_L^uU_L^{d\dagger}$ is dominated by the rotation in the down sector, we obtain \^[LL]{}\_[db]{} V\^\*\_[td]{}, \^[LL]{}\_[sb]{} V\^\*\_[ts]{}. \[eq:uff\] Thus, excluding unexpected cancellations, ${\hat \delta}^{LL}$ cannot be smaller than the maximum between ${\tilde m}^2_\ell/{\tilde m}^2_h$ and what given in [eq. (\[eq:uff\])]{}. Although we cannot directly relate $U_R$ to CKM angles, we expect that the result in [eq. (\[eq:uff\])]{} will hold approximately for ${\hat \delta}^{RR}$ too if, for instance, the quark mass matrix is nearly symmetric.
[99]{}
G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B [**645**]{} (2002) 155 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0207036\]. S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B [**193**]{} (1981) 150. Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B [**309**]{} (1993) 337 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9304307\]. Y. Nir, JHEP [**0705**]{} (2007) 102 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0703235\]. M. Leurer, Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B [**420**]{} (1994) 468 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9310320\]. M. Dine, A. Kagan and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. B [**243**]{} (1990) 250. S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B [**357**]{} (1995) 573 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9507282\]. A. Pomarol and D. Tommasini, Nucl. Phys. B [**466**]{}, 3 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9507462\]. A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B [**388**]{} (1996) 588 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9607394\]. M. Dine, R. G. Leigh and A. Kagan, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{} (1993) 4269 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9304299\]; P. Pouliot and N. Seiberg, Phys. Lett. B [**318**]{} (1993) 169 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9308363\]; R. Barbieri, G. R. Dvali and L. J. Hall, Phys. Lett. B [**377**]{} (1996) 76 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9512388\]; R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, S. Raby and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B [**493**]{} (1997) 3 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9610449\]; R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and A. Romanino, Phys. Lett. B [**401**]{} (1997) 47 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9702315\]. M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], arXiv:0803.0659 \[hep-ph\]; Maurizio Pierini, talk at ICHEP08.
O. Deschamps, arXiv:0810.3139 \[hep-ph\]. E. Barberio [*et al.*]{} \[Heavy Flavor Averaging Group\], arXiv:0808.1297 \[hep-ex\]; R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B [**306**]{}, 63 (1988). N. Arkani-Hamed and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 6733 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9703259\]; K. Agashe and M. Graesser, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999) 015007 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9801446\]. J. L. Feng, C. F. Kolda and N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**546**]{} (1999) 3 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9810500\]; J. Bagger, J. L. Feng and N. Polonsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**563**]{} (1999) 3 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9905292\]; J. A. Bagger, J. L. Feng, N. Polonsky and R. J. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B [**473**]{} (2000) 264 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9911255\]. J. Hisano, K. Kurosawa and Y. Nomura, Nucl. Phys. B [**584**]{} (2000) 3 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0002286\]. R. Contino and I. Scimemi, Eur. Phys. J. C [**10**]{} (1999) 347 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9809437\]. N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, JHEP [**0506**]{} (2005) 073 \[arXiv:hep-th/0405159\]; G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B [**699**]{} (2004) 65 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406088\]; N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B [**709**]{} (2005) 3 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0409232\]. A. J. Buras, A. Romanino and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B [**520**]{}, 3 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712398\]. A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, F. Lepeintre and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} (1997) 2300 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9610252\]. S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B [**353**]{}, 591 (1991). F. Borzumati, C. Greub, T. Hurth and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 075005 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9911245\]. M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], JHEP [**0803**]{}, 049 (2008) \[arXiv:0707.0636 \[hep-ph\]\];
D. Becirevic [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**634**]{}, 105 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0112303\]; M. Ciuchini [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**9810**]{}, 008 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9808328\]. F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B [**477**]{} (1996) 321 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9604387\]. M. Misiak [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{} (2007) 022002 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609232\]; M. Misiak and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B [**764**]{} (2007) 62 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609241\]. M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, D. Guadagnoli, V. Lubicz, M. Pierini, V. Porretti and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B [**655**]{} (2007) 162 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0703204\]. C. Amsler [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Lett. B [**667**]{} (2008) 1. E. Barberio [*et al.*]{} \[Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) Collaboration\], arXiv:0704.3575 \[hep-ex\]. M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 151803 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0605213\], as updated at `http://www.utfit.org`; J. Charles, “CKMFitter update, short status of New Physics in $B\bar B$ mixing”, Capri 2008 conference, Anapri, Capri island (2008). To appear in the Proceedings Supplements of Nuclear Physics B. S. Hashimoto, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**20**]{} (2005) 5133 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0411126\]. M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], JHEP [**0803**]{} (2008) 049 \[arXiv:0707.0636 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. J. Buras and D. Guadagnoli, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 033005 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.3887 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Misiak, arXiv:0808.3134 \[hep-ph\]. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 161802 \[arXiv:0712.2397 \[hep-ex\]\]. V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], arXiv:0802.2255 \[hep-ex\].
[^1]: These numbers are based on the analysis presented in Section \[sec:bounds\]. The effect of QCD corrections for heavy squarks has been considered in ref. [@contino].
[^2]: The reason is that the leading contribution to ${\text{BR}({B\to X_s\gamma})}$ comes from the product of an LL insertion times an LR transition between sbottom states, which grows linearly with $\tan\beta$. At large $\tan\beta$, this dominates over the amplitude where the chiral transition occurs in the bottom quark line.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'When an unbiased estimator of the likelihood is used within a Metropolis–Hastings chain, it is necessary to trade off the number of Monte Carlo samples used to construct this estimator against the asymptotic variances of averages computed under this chain. Many Monte Carlo samples will typically result in Metropolis–Hastings averages with lower asymptotic variances than the corresponding Metropolis–Hastings averages using fewer samples. However, the computing time required to construct the likelihood estimator increases with the number of Monte Carlo samples. Under the assumption that the distribution of the additive noise introduced by the log-likelihood estimator is Gaussian with variance inversely proportional to the number of Monte Carlo samples and independent of the parameter value at which it is evaluated, we provide guidelines on the number of samples to select. We demonstrate our results by considering a stochastic volatility model applied to stock index returns.'
author:
- |
Arnaud Doucet\
Department of Statistics,\
University of Oxford,\
`[email protected]`
- |
Michael Pitt\
Department of Economics,\
University of Warwick\
`[email protected]`
- |
George Deligiannidis\
Department of Statistics,\
University of Oxford\
`[email protected]`
- |
Robert Kohn\
Department of Economics,\
University of New South Wales\
`[email protected]`
title:
- Efficient implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo when using an unbiased likelihood estimator
- Efficient implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo when using an unbiased likelihood estimator
---
=1
*Keywords:* Intractable likelihood, Metropolis-Hastings algorithm, Particle filter, Sequential Monte Carlo, State-space model.
Introduction\[section:introduction\]
====================================
The use of unbiased estimators within the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm was initiated by [@lin:2000], with a surge of interest in these ideas since their introduction in Bayesian statistics by [@beaumont2003estimation]. In a Bayesian context, an unbiased likelihood estimator is commonly constructed using importance sampling as in [@beaumont2003estimation] or particle filters as in [@andrieu:doucet:holenstein:2010]. [@andrieu2009pseudo] call this method the pseudo-marginal algorithm, and establish some of its theoretical properties.
Apart from the choice of proposals inherent to any Metropolis–Hastings algorithm, the main practical issue with the pseudo-marginal algorithm is the choice of the number, $N$, of Monte Carlo samples or particles used to estimate the likelihood. For any fixed $N$, the transition kernel of the pseudo-marginal algorithm leaves the posterior distribution of interest invariant. Using many Monte Carlo samples usually results in pseudo-marginal averages with asymptotic variances lower than the corresponding averages using fewer samples, as established by @AV14 for likelihood estimators based on importance sampling. Empirical evidence suggests this result also holds when the likelihood is estimated by particle filters. However, the computing cost of constructing the likelihood estimator increases with $N$. We aim to select $N$ so as to minimize the computational resources necessary to achieve a specified asymptotic variance for a particular pseudo-marginal average. This quantity, which is referred to as the computing time, is typically proportional to $N$ times the asymptotic variance of this average, which is itself a function of $N$. Assuming that the distribution of the additive noise introduced by the log-likelihood estimator is Gaussian, with a variance inversely proportional to $N$ and independent of the parameter value at which it is evaluated, this minimization was carried out in [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)] and in @Sherlock2013efficiency. However, [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)] assume that the Metropolis–Hastings proposal is the posterior density, whereas @Sherlock2013efficiency relax the Gaussian noise assumption, but restrict themselves to an isotropic normal random walk proposal and assume that the posterior density factorizes into $d$ independent and identically distributed components and $d\rightarrow\infty$.
Our article addresses a similar problem but considers general proposal and target densities and relaxes the Gaussian noise assumption. In this more general setting, we cannot minimize the computing time, and instead minimize explicit upper bounds on it. Quantitative results are presented under a Gaussian assumption. In this scenario, our guidelines are that $N$ should be chosen such that the standard deviation of the log-likelihood estimator should be around $1.0$ when the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm using the exact likelihood is efficient and around $1.7$ when it is inefficient. In most practical scenarios, the efficiency of the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm using the exact likelihood is unknown as it cannot be implemented. In these cases, our results suggest selecting a standard deviation around $1.2$.
Metropolis–Hastings method using an estimated likelihood\[SS: sim likelihood\]
===============================================================================
We briefly review how an unbiased likelihood estimator may be used within a Metropolis–Hastings scheme in a Bayesian context. Let $y\in\mathsf{Y}$ be the observations and $\theta\in\Theta\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{d}$ the parameters of interest. The likelihood of the observations is denoted by $p(y\mid\theta)$ and the prior for $\theta$ admits a density $p(\theta)$ with respect to Lebesgue measure so the posterior density of interest is $\pi
(\theta)\propto p(y\mid\theta)p(\theta)$. We slightly abuse notation by using the same symbols for distributions and densities.
The Metropolis–Hastings scheme to sample from $\pi$ simulates a Markov chain according to the transition kernel$$Q_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) =q\left(
\theta,\vartheta\right) \alpha_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta
)\mathrm{d}\vartheta+\left\{ 1-\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta\right) \right\} \delta_{\theta}\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right),
\label{eq:Q_EX}$$ where $$\alpha_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)=\min\{1,r_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)\}\text{, \ \ }\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta\right) =\int q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) \alpha
_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)\mathrm{d}\vartheta,\label{eq: accept EX}$$ with $r_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)=\pi(\vartheta)q\left(
\vartheta,\theta\right) /\left\{ \pi(\theta)q\left( \theta,\vartheta
\right) \right\}$. This Markov chain cannot be simulated if $p(y\mid\theta)$ is intractable.
Assume $p(y\mid\theta)$ is intractable, but we have access to a non-negative unbiased estimator $\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,U)$ of $p(y\mid\theta)$, where $U\sim m\left( \cdot\right) $ represents all the auxiliary random variables used to obtain this estimator. In this case, we introduce the joint density $\overline{\pi}(\theta,u)$ on $\Theta\times\mathcal{U}$, where$$\overline{\pi}(\theta,u)=\pi(\theta)m(u)\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,u)/p(y\mid
\theta). \label{eq:norm_jd}$$ This joint density admits the correct marginal density $\pi(\theta)$, because $\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,U)$ is unbiased. The pseudo-marginal algorithm is a Metropolis–Hastings scheme targeting (\[eq:norm\_jd\]) with proposal density $q\left( \theta,\cdot\right) m\left( \cdot\right) $, yielding the acceptance probability $$\min\left\{ 1,\frac{\widehat{p}(y\mid\vartheta,v)p\left( \vartheta\right)
q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) }{\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,u)p\left(
\theta\right) q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) }\right\} =\min\left\{
1,\frac{\widehat{p}(y\mid\vartheta,v)/p(y\mid\vartheta)}{\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,u)/p(y\mid\theta)}r_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta
)\right\}, \label{eq:jointutheta}$$ for a proposal $\left( \vartheta,v\right) $. In practice, we only record $\left\{ \theta,\log\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,u)\right\} $ instead of $\left\{ \theta,u\right\} $. We follow [@andrieu2009pseudo] and [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)] and analyze this scheme using additive noise, $Z=\log\widehat{p}(y\mid\theta,U)-\log p(y\mid\theta)=\psi(\theta,U)$, in the log-likelihood estimator, rather than $U$. In this parameterization, the target density on $\Theta\times\mathbb{R}$ becomes$$\overline{\pi}(\theta,z)=\pi(\theta)\exp\left( z\right) g(z\mid\theta),
\label{eq:jointztheta}$$ where $g(z\mid\theta)$ is the density of $Z$ when $U\sim m(\cdot)$ and the transformation $Z=\psi(\theta,U)$ is applied.
To sample from $\overline{\pi}(\theta,z)$, we could use the scheme previously described to sample from $\overline{\pi}(\theta,u)$ and then set $z=\psi(\theta,u)$. We can equivalently use the transition kernel$$\begin{aligned}
Q\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta,\mathrm{d}w\right) \right\} & =q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) g(w\mid
\vartheta)\alpha_{Q}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} \mathrm{d}\vartheta\mathrm{d}w\label{eq:transitionkernelQ}\\
& \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }+\left\{ 1-\varrho
_{Q}\left( \theta,z\right) \right\} \delta_{\left( \theta,z\right)
}\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta,\mathrm{d}w\right) ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\alpha_{Q}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta,w\right)
\right\} =\min\{1,\exp(w-z)\text{ }r_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)\}
\label{eq:acceptanceprobaQ}$$ is (\[eq:jointutheta\]) expressed in the new parameterization. Henceforth, we make the following assumption.
\[assumption:noiseorthogonal\]The noise density is independent of $\theta$ and is denoted by $g\left( z\right) $.
Under this assumption, the target density (\[eq:jointztheta\]) factorizes as $\pi(\theta)\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) $, where$$\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) =\exp\left( z\right) g(z). \label{eq:targetinz}$$ Assumption \[assumption:noiseorthogonal\] allows us to analyze in detail the performance of the pseudo-marginal algorithm. This simplifying assumption is not satisfied in practical scenarios. However, in the stationary regime, we are concerned with the noise density at values of the parameter which arise from the target density $\pi\left(\theta\right)$ and the marginal density of the proposals at stationarity $\int \pi\left(\mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left(\vartheta, \theta \right) $. If the noise density does not vary significantly in regions of high probability mass of these densities, then we expect this assumption to be a reasonable approximation. In Section \[sect:applications\], we examine experimentally how the noise density varies against draws from $\pi\left(\theta\right)$ and $\int \pi\left(\mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left(\vartheta, \theta \right) $.
Main results
============
Outline\[sec:Qstar\]
--------------------
This section presents the main contributions of the paper. All the proofs are in Appendix 1 and in the Supplementary Material. We minimize upper bounds on the computing time of the pseudo-marginal algorithm, as discussed in Section \[section:introduction\]. This requires establishing upper bounds on the asymptotic variance of an ergodic average under the kernel $Q$ given in (\[eq:transitionkernelQ\]). To obtain these bounds, we introduce a new Markov kernel $Q^{\ast}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{\ast}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta
,\mathrm{d}w\right) \right\} & =q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right)
g(w)\alpha_{Q^{\ast}}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} \mathrm{d}\vartheta\mathrm{d}w
\label{eq:MarkovchainQstar}\\
& \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }+\left\{ 1-\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta\right) \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) \right\}
\delta_{\left( \theta,z\right) }\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta,\mathrm{d}w\right) ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{Q^{\ast}}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} & =\alpha_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta
)\alpha_{\textsc{z}}(z,w)\text{, \ \ }\alpha_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z,w\right) =\min\{1,\exp(w-z)\},\label{eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ*}\\
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) & =\int g\left( w\right)
\alpha_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,w\right) \mathrm{d}w.
\label{eq:acceptanceprobaz}$$
As $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$ are reversible with respect to $\overline{\pi}$ and the acceptance probability (\[eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ\*\]) is always smaller than (\[eq:acceptanceprobaQ\]), an application of the theorem in [@peskun1973optimum] ensures that the variance of an ergodic average under $Q^{\ast}$ is greater than or equal to the variance under $Q$. We obtain an exact expression for the variance under the bounding kernel $Q^{\ast}$ and simpler upper bounds by exploiting a non-standard representation of this variance, the factor form of the acceptance probability (\[eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ\*\]) and the spectral properties of an auxiliary Markov kernel.
Inefficiency of Metropolis–Hastings type chains \[sec:knownlik\]
----------------------------------------------------------------
This section recalls and establishes various results on the integrated autocorrelation time of Markov chains, henceforth referred to as the inefficiency. In particular, we present a novel representation of the inefficiency of Metropolis–Hastings type chains, which is the basic component of the proof of our main result.
Consider a Markov kernel $\Pi$ on the measurable space $\left( \mathsf{X},\mathcal{X}\right) =\left\{ \mathbb{R}^{n},\mathcal{B}\left(
\mathbb{R}^{n}\right) \right\} $, where $\mathcal{B}\left( \mathbb{R}^{n}\right) $ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. For any measurable real-valued function $f$, measurable set $A$ and probability measure $\mu$, we use the standard notation: $\mu\left( f\right) =\int_{\mathsf{X}}\mu\left(
\mathrm{d}x\right) f\left( x\right) $, $\mu\left( A\right) =\mu\left\{
\mathbb{I}_{A}\left( \cdot\right) \right\} ,$ $\Pi f\left( x\right)
=\int_{\mathsf{X}}\Pi\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) f\left( y\right) $ and for $n\geq2$, $\Pi^{n}\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) =\int_{\mathsf{X}}\Pi^{n-1}\left( x,\mathrm{d}z\right) \Pi\left( z,\mathrm{d}y\right) $, with $\Pi^{1}=\Pi$. We introduce the Hilbert spaces $$L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu\right) =\left\{ f:\mathsf{X\rightarrow
}\mathbb{R}\text{\ : }\mu\left( f^{2}\right) <\infty\right\} ,\text{ }L_{0}^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu\right) =\left\{ f:\mathsf{X\rightarrow
}\mathbb{R}\text{\ : }\mu\left( f\right) =0,\text{ }\mu\left( f^{2}\right)
<\infty\right\}$$ equipped with the inner product $\left\langle f,g\right\rangle _{\mu}=\int
f\left( x\right) g\left( x\right) \mu\left( \mathrm{d}x\right) $. A $\mu$-invariant and $\psi$-irreducible Markov chain is said to be ergodic; see [@Tierney94] for the definition of $\psi$-irreducibility. The next result follows directly from [@kipnis1986central] and Theorem 4 and Corollary 6 in [@rosenthalCLT2007].
\[prop:kipnisvaradhan\]Suppose $\Pi$ is a $\mu$-reversible and ergodic Markov kernel. Let $(X_{i})_{i\geqslant 1}$ be a stationary Markov chain evolving according to $\Pi$ and let $h\in L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu \right) $ be such that $\mu \left( \bar{h}^{2}\right)>0$ where $\bar{h}=h-\mu \left( h\right)$. Write $\phi _{n}\left( h,\Pi \right) =\left \langle \bar{h},\Pi^{n}\bar{h}\right \rangle _{\mu}/\mu \left( \bar{h}^{2}\right) $ for the autocorrelation at lag $n\geq0$ of $\left \{ h\left( X_{i}\right) \right \} _{i\geq1}$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)=1+2{\textstyle \sum \nolimits_{n=1}^{\infty}}
\phi _{n}\left( h,\Pi \right) $ for the associated inefficiency. Then,
1. there exists a probability measure $e\left( h,\Pi \right)$ on $[-1,1)$ such that the autocorrelation and inefficiency satisfy the spectral representations $$\phi_{n}\left( h,\Pi \right) ={\textstyle \int \nolimits_{-1}^{1}}
\lambda^{n}e\left( h,\Pi \right) \left( \mathrm{d}\lambda \right) ,\quad \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)={\textstyle \int \nolimits_{-1}^{1}}
(1+\lambda)(1-\lambda)^{-1}e\left( h,\Pi \right) \left( \mathrm{d}\lambda \right); \label{eq:spectral}$$
2. if $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h}, {\Pi})<\infty$, then as $n\rightarrow \infty$$$n^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left \{ h(X_{i})-\mu \left( h\right) \right \}
{\longrightarrow } \mathcal{N}\left \{ 0;\mu \left( \bar{h}^{2}\right)
\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)\right \}, \label{eq:CLTKipnisVaradhan}$$ in distribution, where $\mathcal{N}\left( a;b^2\right) $ denotes the normal distribution with mean $a$ and variance $b^2$.
When estimating $\mu\left( h\right) $, equation (\[eq:CLTKipnisVaradhan\]) implies that we need approximately $n$ $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)$ samples from the Markov chain $\left( X_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$ to obtain an estimator of the same precision as an average of $n$ independent draws from $\mu$.
We consider henceforth a $\mu$-reversible kernel given by$$P\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) =q\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) \alpha\left(
x,y\right) +\left\{ 1-\varrho\left( x\right) \right\} \delta_{x}\left(
\mathrm{d}y\right) \text{, \ \ }\varrho\left( x\right) =\int q\left(
x,\mathrm{d}y\right) \alpha\left( x,y\right) ,$$ where the proposal kernel is selected such that $q(x,\{ x\})=0$, $\alpha\left( x,y\right) $ is the acceptance probability and we assume there does not exist an $x$ such that $\mu\left( \left\{ x\right\} \right) =1$. We refer to $P$ as a Metropolis–Hastings type kernel since it is structurally similar to the Metropolis–Hastings kernel, but we do not require $\alpha\left( x,y\right) $ to be the Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probability. This generalization is required when studying the kernel $Q^{\ast}$ as the acceptance probability $\alpha_{Q^{\ast}}\left\{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta
,w\right) \right\} $ in (\[eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ\*\]) is not the Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probability.
Let $( X_{i}) _{i\geq1}$ be a Markov chain evolving according to $P$. We now establish a non-standard expression for $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)$ derived from the associated jump chain representation $(\widetilde{X}_{i},\tau
_{i})_{i\geq1}$ of $\left( X_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$. In this representation, $(\widetilde{X}_{i})_{i\geq1}$ corresponds to the sequence of accepted proposals and $(\tau_{i})_{i\geq1}$ the associated sojourn times, that is $\widetilde{X}_{1}=X_{1}=\cdots=X_{\tau_{1}},$ $\widetilde{X}_{2}=X_{\tau
_{1}+1}=\cdots=X_{\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}}$ etc., with $\widetilde{X}_{i+1}\neq\widetilde{X}_{i}$. Some properties of this jump chain are now stated; see Lemma 1 in [@douc2011vanilla].
\[lemm:jumpchain\]Let $P$ be $\psi$-irreducible. Then $\varrho \left(
x\right) >0$ for any $x\in \mathsf{X}$ and $(\widetilde{X}_{i},\tau_{i})_{i\geq1}$ is a Markov chain with a $\overline{\mu}$-reversible transition kernel $\overline{P}$, where$$\overline{P}\left \{ \left( x,\tau \right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}y,\zeta \right) \right \} =\widetilde{P}\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) G\left \{
\zeta;\varrho \left( y\right) \right \}, \quad \overline{\mu
}\left( \mathrm{d}x,\tau \right) =\widetilde{\mu}\left( \mathrm{d}x\right)
G\left \{ \tau;\varrho \left( x\right) \right \} ,\text{ }
\label{eq:transitionjumpjoint}$$ with $$\widetilde{P}\left( x,\mathrm{d}y\right) =\frac{q(x,\mathrm{d}y)\alpha(x,y)}{\varrho \left( x\right) },\quad \widetilde{\mu}\left(
\mathrm{d}x\right) =\frac{\mu \left( \mathrm{d}x\right) \varrho \left(
x\right) }{\mu \left( \varrho \right) }, \label{eq:transitionjump}$$ and $G\left( \cdot;\upsilon \right) $ denotes the geometric distribution with parameter $\upsilon$.
The next proposition gives the relationship between $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})$.
\[prop:IACTequality\] Assume that $P$ and $\widetilde{P}$ are ergodic, that $h\in L_{0}^{2}\left(\mathsf{X},\mu \right)$ and that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)<\infty$. Then $h/\varrho \in L_{0}^2(\mathsf{X},\tilde{\mu})$, $$\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)\right \} =\mu \left(
\varrho \right) \widetilde{\mu}\left( h^{2}/\varrho^{2}\right) \left \{
1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})\right \}, \label{eq:equalityIACT}$$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)$.
Lemma \[lemm:jumpchain\] and Proposition \[prop:IACTequality\] are used in Section \[sec:bound1\] to establish a representation of the inefficiency for the kernel $P=Q^{\ast}$.
We conclude this section by establishing some results on the positivity of the Metropolis–Hastings kernel and its associated jump kernel. Recall that a $\mu$-invariant Markov kernel $\Pi$ is positive if $\left\langle \Pi
h,h\right\rangle _{\mu}\geq0$ for any $h\in L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu\right) $. If $\Pi$ is reversible, then positivity is equivalent to $e\left( h,\Pi\right) \left( \left[ 0,1\right) \right) =1$ for all $h\in
L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu\right) $, where $e\left( h,\Pi\right) $ is the spectral measure, and it implies that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)\geq1$; see, for example, [@geyer1992practical]. The positivity of the jump kernel $\widetilde{P}$ associated with a Metropolis-Hastings kernel $P$ is useful here as several bounds on the inefficiency established subsequently require the spectral measure of $\widetilde{P}$ to be supported on $ \left[ 0,1\right) $. We now give sufficient conditions ensuring this property by extending Lemma 3.1 of [@baxendale2005]. This complements results of @rudolf2013.
\[prop:positivityMHjumpMH\]Assume $\alpha \left( x,y\right) $ is the Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probability and $\mu \left( \mathrm{d}x\right) =\mu \left( x\right) \mathrm{d}x$. If $P$ is $\psi$-irreducible, then $\widetilde{P}$ and $P$ are both positive if one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
1. $q(x, \mathrm{d}y)=q(x,y)\mathrm{d}y$ is a $\nu$-reversible kernel with $\nu(\mathrm{d}x)=\nu(x)\mathrm{d}x$, $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$, and there exists $r:\mathsf{X\times Z\rightarrow}\mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that $\nu \left(
x\right) q( x,y) =\int r( x,z) r( y,z)
\chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $, where $\chi$ is a measure on $\mathsf{Z};$
2. $q( x,\mathrm{d}y) =q( x,y) \mathrm{d}y$ and there exists $s:\mathsf{X\times Z\rightarrow}\mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that $q( x,y) =\int s( x,z) s( y,z)\chi(\mathrm{d}z)$, where $\chi$ is a measure on $\mathsf{Z.}$
Condition (i) is satisfied for an independent proposal $q\left( x,y\right) =\nu \left( y\right)$ by taking $\mathsf{Z=}\left \{ 1\right \} $, $\chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right)
=\delta_{1}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $ and $r\left( x,1\right) =\nu(
x).$ It is also satisfied for autoregressive positively correlated proposals with normal or Student-t innovations. Condition (ii) holds if $q\left(
x,y\right) $ is a symmetric random walk proposal whose increments are multivariate normal or Student-t.
Inefficiency of the bounding chain\[sec:bound1\]
------------------------------------------------
This section applies the results of Section \[sec:knownlik\] to establish an exact expression for $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$. The next lemma shows that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$ is an upper bound on $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q)$.
\[Lemma:Peskun\]The kernel $Q^{\ast}$ is $\overline{\pi}$-reversible and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q)\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$ for any $h\in L^{2}\left( \Theta \times \mathbb{R},\overline{\pi}\right) $.
In practice, we are only interested in functions $h\in L^{2}\left( \Theta
,\pi\right) $. To simplify notation, we write $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q)$ in this case, instead of introducing the function $\widetilde{h}\in L^{2}\left(
\Theta\times\mathbb{R},\overline{\pi}\right) $ satisfying $\widetilde{h}\left( \theta,z\right) =h\left( \theta\right) $ for all $z\in\mathbb{R}$ and writing $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(\widetilde{h},Q)$. Proposition \[prop:IACTequality\] shows that it is possible to express $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$ as a function of the inefficiency of its jump kernel $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$, which is particularly useful as $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ admits a simple structure.
\[Lemma:jumpchainQ\*\]Assume $Q^{\ast}$ is $\overline{\pi}$-irreducible. The jump kernel $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ associated with $Q^{\ast}$ is$$\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\left \{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta,\mathrm{d}w\right) \right \} =\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta \right) \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z,\mathrm{d}w\right), \label{eq:transitionkerneljumpchainQ*1}$$ where $$\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta \right)
=\frac{q\left( \theta,\vartheta \right) \alpha_{\textsc{ex}}(\theta,\vartheta)\mathrm{d}\vartheta}{\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta \right) },\quad \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,\mathrm{d}w\right) =\frac{g\left(
w\right) \alpha_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,w\right) \mathrm{d}w}{\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) }.
\label{eq:transitionkernelsofjumpchainQ*}$$ The kernel $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta,\mathrm{d}\vartheta \right) $ is reversible with respect to $\widetilde{\pi}\left( \mathrm{d}\theta \right)
$ and the kernel $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,\mathrm{d}w\right)$ is positive and reversible with respect to $\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right)$, where $$\widetilde{\pi}\left( \mathrm{d}\theta \right) =\frac{\pi \left(
\mathrm{d}\theta \right) \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left( \theta \right)}{\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}})},\quad \widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left(\mathrm{d}z\right) =\frac{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(\mathrm{d} z\right) \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right)}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }.$$ If $Q^{\ast}$ is ergodic, $h\in L_{0}^{2}\left( \Theta,\pi \right) $, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})<\infty$ and $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ is ergodic, then $h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\in L_{0}^{2}\left( \Theta,\widetilde{\pi}\right)$, $\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) <\infty$, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\} <\infty$ and$$\pi \left( h^{2}\right) \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h}, {Q^{\ast}})\right \} =\pi \left(
\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_\textsc{z}
\right) \widetilde{\pi}\left( h^{2}/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{2}\right) \left[ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} \right].
\label{eq:equalityIACTQ*}$$ Additionally, $\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) <\infty$ ensures that $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$ is geometrically ergodic and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}) < \infty$.
The following theorem provides an expression for $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$ which decouples the contributions of the parameter and the noise components. The proof exploits the relationships between $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\{h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\}$ and the spectral representation (\[eq:spectral\]) of $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\{h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\}$. This spectral representation admits a simple structure due to the product form (\[eq:transitionkerneljumpchainQ\*1\]) of $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$.
\[Th:ineff boundedness theorem\] Let $h\in L^{2}\left( \Theta ,\pi
\right) $. Assume that $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$, $Q^{\ast },\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$, $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast }$ are ergodic with $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast })<\infty $. Then, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q)\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast })$ and$$\begin{gathered}
\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast }\right)
=\frac{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho _{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\\
+\frac{2\left\{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right\} }{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho _{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left\{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho _{\textsc{z}}\right) -\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho _{\textsc{z}}\right) }\right\}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\phi _{n}(h/\varrho _{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \phi _{n}(
1/\varrho _{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}).\label{eq:mainequality}\end{gathered}$$
\[remark:exactproposal\] If $q\left( \theta ,\vartheta \right) =\pi \left( \vartheta \right)$, then $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})=\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho _{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})=1$ and $\phi _{n}( h/\varrho _{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) =0$ for $n\geq 1$. It follows from Theorem \[Th:ineff boundedness theorem\] that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q^{\ast })=2\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho _{\textsc{z}}\right) -1$. This result was established in Lemma 4 of [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)].
Theorem \[Th:ineff boundedness theorem\] requires $Q_{\textsc{ex}},Q^{\ast},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ and $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ to be ergodic. The following proposition, generalizing Theorem 2.2 of [@robertstweedie1996], provides sufficient conditions ensuring this.
\[Proposition:Q\*andQ\*JHarrisergodic\]Suppose $\pi \left( \theta \right) $ is bounded away from $0$ and $\infty$ on compact sets, and there exist $\delta>0$ and $\varepsilon>0$ such that, for every $\theta$, $$\left \vert \theta-\vartheta \right \vert \leq \delta \Rightarrow q\left(
\theta,\vartheta \right) \geq \varepsilon. \label{eq:assumptionproposaltheta}$$ Then $Q_{\textsc{ex}},Q^{\ast},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ and $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$ are ergodic.
Bounds on the relative inefficiency of the pseudo-marginal chain\[sec:pseudomarginalbounds\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For any kernel $\Pi$, we define the relative inefficiency $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,\Pi)=\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,\Pi)/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$, which measures the inefficiency of $\Pi$ compared to that of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$. This section provides tractable upper bounds for $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)$. From Lemma \[Lemma:Peskun\], $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)\leq \mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})$, but the expression of $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})$ that follows from Theorem \[Th:ineff boundedness theorem\] is intricate and depends on the autocorrelation sequence $\{ \phi_{n}(
h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})
\} _{n\geq1}$, as well as other terms. The next corollary provides upper bounds on $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)$ that depend only on $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}})$. To simplify the notation, we write $\phi_{\textsc{z}}=\phi_{1}(1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})$.
\[corollary:boundsQex\]Under the assumptions of Theorem \[Th:ineff boundedness theorem\],
1. $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)\leq{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{1}(h)$, where$$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{1}\left( h\right) & =\{1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}})\}[\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) +(1-\phi
_{\textsc{z}})\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
\}]\label{eq:maininequalityloser}\\
& \quad-1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}});\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
2. if, in addition, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\geq1$, then $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q)\leq{\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}}_{2}(h)\leq{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{1}(h)$, where $$\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{2}\left( h\right) =\left \{ 1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF} \left( {h},Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \} \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}}).
\label{eq:pos_jumpchain}$$
Proposition \[prop:positivityMHjumpMH\] gives sufficient conditions for the condition $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\geq1$ of Part 2 of Corollary \[corollary:boundsQex\] to hold.
The bounds above are tight in two cases. First, if $\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \to 1$, then $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}({h},Q)$, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{1}(h)$, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_{2}(h)\rightarrow1$. Second, if $q\left( \theta,\vartheta \right) =\pi \left( \vartheta
\right) $, then $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}({h},Q)=\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{2}(h)$. \[remark:IFZto1\]
We now provide upper bounds on $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q)$ and lower bounds on $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})$ in terms of $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$.
\[corollary:boundsQexjump\]Under the assumptions of Theorem \[Th:ineff boundedness theorem\],
1. $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q)\leq{\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}}_{3}(h)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{3}\left( h\right)
& =\left \{ 1+ \frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\right \}
\left[
\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}( \varrho_{\textsc{z}})} +\phi_{\textsc{z}}\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}) -\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}( \varrho_{\textsc{z}})} \right \} \right]
\label{eq:RIFh3}\\
& \quad+2\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} (1-\phi
_{\textsc{z}})/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{{ex}}})-1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}});\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
2. $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q)\leq{\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}}_{4}(h)$, where$$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{4}\left( h\right) & =\frac{\left \{ 1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) }\left \{
\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} \{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})\} \label{eq:RIFh4}\\
& + 1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) +\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\right \};\quad \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
3. if $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ is positive, then $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})\geq{\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{1}(h)}$, where $$\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{1}(h)
=\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }
+\frac{2}{1+\textsc{{\small IF}}
(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}
\big\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(1/ \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \big\};
\label{eq:newlowerboundonRIFQ*}$$
4. $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast})\geq{\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}}$, where $$\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}=1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
,\label{eq:lowerboundonRIFQ*}$$ and $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RIF}}(h,Q^{\ast}), {\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}}_4(h)\rightarrow{\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}}$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\rightarrow \infty$.
Proposition \[prop:positivityMHjumpMH\] gives sufficient conditions for $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ to be positive. Section \[sec:optim\] discusses these bounds in more detail.
Optimizing the computing time under a Gaussian assumption\[sec:optim\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This section provides quantitative guidelines on how to select the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the noise density, under the following assumption.
\[assumption:Gaussiannoise\]The noise density is $g^{\sigma
}\left( z\right) ={\varphi}\left( z;-\sigma^{2}/2,\sigma^{2}\right) $, where ${\varphi}(z;a,b^{2})$ is a univariate normal density with mean $a$ and variance $b^{2}$.
Assumption \[assumption:Gaussiannoise\] ensures that $\int\exp\left(
z\right) g^{\sigma}\left( z\right) dz=1$ as required by the unbiasedness of the likelihood estimator. Consider a time series $y_{1:T}=\left( y_{1},\ldots,y_{T}\right) $, where the likelihood estimator $\widehat{p}(y_{1:T}\mid\theta)$ of $p(y_{1:T}\mid\theta)$ is computed through a particle filter with $N$ particles. Theorem 1 of an unpublished technical report (arXiv:1307.0181) by Bérard et al. shows that, under regularity assumptions, the log-likelihood error is distributed according to a normal density with mean $-\delta\gamma^{2}/2$ and variance $\delta\gamma^{2}$ as $T\rightarrow\infty$, for $N=\delta^{-1}T$. Hence, in this important scenario, the noise distribution satisfies approximately the form specified in Assumption \[assumption:Gaussiannoise\] for large $T$ and the variance is asymptotically inversely proportional to the number of samples. This assumption is also made in [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)], where it is justified experimentally. Section \[sect:applications\] below provides additional experimental results.
The next result is Lemma 4 in [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)] and follows from Assumption \[assumption:Gaussiannoise\], equation (\[eq:targetinz\]) and Remark \[remark:exactproposal\]. We now make the dependence on $\sigma$ explicit in our notation.
\[corr:IF\_Z\_gauss\]Under Assumption \[assumption:Gaussiannoise\], $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma }(z)={\varphi }\left( z;\sigma ^{2}/2,\sigma ^{2}\right) $, $$\varrho _\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\left( z\right) =1-\Phi (z/\sigma
+\sigma /2)+\exp (-z)\Phi (z/\sigma -\sigma /2),\text{ \ }\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( 1/\varrho_\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\right) =\int \frac{\varphi ( w;0,1) }{1-\overline{\varrho }_\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\left( w\right) }\mathrm{d}w,$$where $\overline{\varrho }_\textsc{z}^{\sigma }\left( w\right) =\Phi (w+\sigma )-\exp
(-w\sigma -\sigma ^{2}/2)\Phi (w)$ and $\Phi (\cdot )$ is the standard Gaussian cumulative distribution function. Additionally, $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( \varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma }\right) =2\Phi (-\sigma
/\surd 2)$.
The terms $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left(1/ \varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma }\right) $, $\phi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma },{\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{{z}}}})$, appearing in the bounds of Corollaries \[corollary:boundsQex\] and \[corollary:boundsQexjump\], do not admit analytic expressions, but can be computed numerically. We note that $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left(1/ \varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma }\right)$ is finite, and thus by Lemma \[Lemma:jumpchainQ\*\] $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho _\textsc{{z}}^{\sigma },{\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{{z}}}})$ is also finite. Consequently, for specific values of $\sigma,$ $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$, these bounds can be calculated.
We now use these bounds to guide the choice of $\sigma$. The quantity we aim to minimize is the relative computing time for $Q$ defined as $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q;\sigma\right) /\sigma^{2}$ because $1/\sigma^{2}$ is usually approximately proportional to the number of samples $N$ used to estimate the likelihood and the computational cost at each iteration is typically proportional to $N$, at least in the particle filter scenario described previously. We define $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)$ similarly. As $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q;\sigma\right)$ is intractable, we instead minimize the upper bounds ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_{i}(h;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{i}\left( h;\sigma\right) /\sigma^{2}$, for $i=1,\dots,4$. We similarly define the quantities ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}_{1}}(h; \sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{1}(h;\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$ and ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}_{2}}(\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$, which bound $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^{\ast
};\sigma)$ from below. Figure \[fig:theory\] plots these bounds against $\sigma$ for different values of $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$.
Prior to discussing how these results guide the selection of $\sigma$, we outline some properties of the bounds. First, as the corresponding inefficiency increases, the upper bounds ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_{i}(h;\sigma)$ displayed in Fig. \[fig:theory\] become flatter as functions of $\sigma$, and the corresponding minimizing argument $\sigma_\text{opt}$ increases. This flattening effect suggests less sensitivity to the choice of $\sigma$ for the pseudo-marginal algorithm. Second, for given $\sigma$, all the upper bounds are decreasing functions of the corresponding inefficiency, which suggests that the penalty from using the pseudo-marginal algorithm drops as the exact algorithm becomes more inefficient. Third, in the case discussed in Remark 2, where $q(\theta, \vartheta)= \pi( \vartheta)$, so that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})=\textsc{\protect\small IF}
(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})=1$, we obtain ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_2(h;\sigma)={\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_3(h;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)=\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q;\sigma)$. Fourth, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_4(h;\sigma)$ agrees with the lower bound ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}_2}(\sigma)$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\to \infty$ as indicated by Part 2 of Corollary \[corollary:boundsQexjump\]. In this case, these two bounds, as well as $\textsc{\protect \small uRCT}_1(h;\sigma)$, are sharp for $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)$. Fifth, ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_2(h;\sigma)$ is sharper than ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_1(h;\sigma)$ for $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}({h},Q^\ast;\sigma)$, but requires a mild additional assumption.
[Relative computing time against $\sigma$ for different inefficiencies of the exact chain.]{}
[.4]{}
-10pt ![[Theoretical results for relative computing time against $\sigma$. Top: The bounds ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ (right) are displayed. Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). The solid line corresponds to the perfect proposal, as discussed in Remark 2. Bottom: The lower bound ${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_2(\sigma)$ (solid line) is shown together with ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$ (right). Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). ]{}[]{data-label="fig:theory"}](./RCT_eff1.eps "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[.4]{}
-10pt ![[Theoretical results for relative computing time against $\sigma$. Top: The bounds ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ (right) are displayed. Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). The solid line corresponds to the perfect proposal, as discussed in Remark 2. Bottom: The lower bound ${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_2(\sigma)$ (solid line) is shown together with ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$ (right). Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). ]{}[]{data-label="fig:theory"}](./RCT_eff2.eps "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[Relative computing time against $\sigma$ for different inefficiencies of the exact jump chain.]{}
[.4]{}
-10pt ![[Theoretical results for relative computing time against $\sigma$. Top: The bounds ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ (right) are displayed. Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). The solid line corresponds to the perfect proposal, as discussed in Remark 2. Bottom: The lower bound ${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_2(\sigma)$ (solid line) is shown together with ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$ (right). Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). ]{}[]{data-label="fig:theory"}](./RCT_eff3.eps "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[.4]{}
-10pt ![[Theoretical results for relative computing time against $\sigma$. Top: The bounds ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ (right) are displayed. Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). The solid line corresponds to the perfect proposal, as discussed in Remark 2. Bottom: The lower bound ${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_2(\sigma)$ (solid line) is shown together with ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$ (left) and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$ (right). Different values of $\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ are taken as $1$ (squares), $4$ (crosses), $20$ (circles) and $80$ (triangles). ]{}[]{data-label="fig:theory"}](./RCT_eff4.eps "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
-20pt
As the likelihood is intractable, it is necessary to make a judgment on how to choose $\sigma$, because $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ are unknown and cannot be easily estimated. Consider two extreme scenarios. The first is the perfect proposal $q\left( \theta,\vartheta\right) =\pi\left( \vartheta\right) $, so that by Corollary \[corr:IF\_Z\_gauss\] and Remark \[remark:exactproposal\], $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q;\sigma\right) =\{2\pi_\textsc{z}^\sigma(1/\varrho_\textsc{z}^\sigma)-1\}/\sigma^2$, which we denote by $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q_\pi;\sigma\right)$, is minimized at $\sigma_\text{opt}=0.92$. The second scenario considers a very inefficient proposal corresponding to Part 4 of Corollary \[corollary:boundsQexjump\] so that $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q^{\ast};\sigma\right) ={\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}}_2(\sigma)$, which is minimized at $\sigma_\text{opt}=1.68$. If we choose $\sigma_\text{opt}=1.68$ over $\sigma_\text{opt}=0.92$ in scenario $1$, then $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q_\pi;\sigma\right)$ rises from $5.36$ to $12.73$. Conversely, if we choose $\sigma_\text{opt}=$ $0.92$ over $\sigma_\text{opt}=1.68$ in scenario $2$, the relative computing time $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q^{\ast};\sigma\right) $ rises from $1.51$ to $2.29$. This suggests that the penalty in choosing the wrong value is much more severe if we incorrectly assume we are in scenario $2$ than if we incorrectly assume we are in scenario $1$. This is because as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}( h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ increases, ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}}_2(\sigma)$ is very flat relative to $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}\left( h,Q_\pi;\sigma\right)$, as a function of $\sigma$. In practice, choosing $\sigma_\text{opt}$ slightly greater than $1.0$ appears sensible. For example, a value of $\sigma=1.2$ leads to an increase in ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}({h},Q_{\pi};\sigma)$ from the minimum value of $5.36$ to $6.10$ and an increase in ${\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}}_2(\sigma)$ from the minimum value of $1.51$ to $1.75$. In Appendix 2, we compute lower and upper bounds for the minimizing argument of ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^\ast; \sigma)$ for various values of $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$.
Some caution should be exercised in interpreting these results as the lower bounds apply to ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma)$, but not in general to ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q;\sigma)$. Similarly, whilst $\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}_4(h;\sigma)$ and the lower bounds become exact for ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma)$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\to\infty$, they only provide upper bounds for ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q;\sigma)$.
However, in an important class of problems $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ is large, for instance when $q(\theta, \vartheta)$ is a random walk proposal with small step size. In this case, we expect that as the step size gets smaller the acceptance probability $\alpha_{\textsc{ex}}$ of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$ will tend towards unity and hence asymptotically $\alpha_{Q^\ast}= \alpha_Q$. This suggests that, for small enough step size, ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma)\approx{\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q;\sigma)$. The numerical results in this section are based on Assumption 2. However, the bounds on the relative inefficiences of $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$ presented in Corollaries \[corollary:boundsQex\] and \[corollary:boundsQexjump\] can be calculated for any other noise distribution $g\left( z\right) $, subject to $\int\exp\left(z\right) g\left( z\right) dz=1$. These bounds can in turn be used to construct corresponding bounds on the relative computing times of $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$, provided that an appropriate penalization term is employed to account for the computational effort of obtaining the likelihood estimator.
Discussion
----------
We now compare informally the bound $\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)=1/\{2\Phi
(-\sigma/\surd2)\}$ of Part 4 of Corollary \[corollary:boundsQexjump\] to the results in @Sherlock2013efficiency. These authors make Assumption \[assumption:noiseorthogonal\], assume that the target factorises into $d$ independent and identically distributed components and that the proposal is an isotropic Gaussian random walk of jump size $d^{-1/2}l$. In the Gaussian noise case, for $h\left( \theta\right)
=\theta_{1}$ where $\theta=\left( \theta_{1},...,\theta_{d}\right) $, their results and a standard calculation with their diffusion limit, suggest that as $d\rightarrow\infty$ the relative inefficiency satisfies $$\frac{\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q;\sigma,l\right) }{\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}};l\right) }=\textsc{\protect\small RIF}(h,Q;\sigma,l)\rightarrow
\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}(\sigma,l)=\frac{J_{\sigma^{2}=0}(l)}{J_{\sigma^{2}}(l)}=\frac{\Phi(-l/2)}{\Phi\left\{ -\left( 2\sigma^{2}+l^{2}\right)
^{1/2}/2\right\} }, \label{eq:RIF_gr}$$ where the expression for $J_{\sigma^{2}}(l)$ is given by equations (3.3) and (3.4) of @Sherlock2013efficiency. We observe that $\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}(\sigma,l)$ converges to $\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)$ as $l\rightarrow0$. This is unsurprising. As $d\rightarrow\infty$, we conjecture that in this scenario the conditions of Part 4 of Corollary \[corollary:boundsQexjump\] apply, in particular that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(
h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})
\rightarrow\infty$ for any $l>0$. Therefore, in this case, $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q^{\ast};\sigma,l\right) \rightarrow\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)$. As $l\rightarrow0$, we have informally that $\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\left(
\theta\right) \rightarrow1$, so that it is reasonable to conjecture that $\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q;\sigma,l\right) /\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q^{\ast
};\sigma,l\right) \rightarrow1$. If one of these limits holds uniformly, then $\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}(\sigma,l)\rightarrow\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)$.
Application\[sect:applications\]
================================
Stochastic volatility model and pseudo-marginal algorithm
---------------------------------------------------------
This section examines a multivariate partially observed diffusion model, which was introduced by [@ChernovGallantGhyselsTauchen(03)], and discussed in [@HuangTauchen(05)]. The regularly observed log price $P(t)$ evolves according to,$$\begin{aligned}
&\mathrm{d\log}P(t) =\mu_{y}\mathrm{d}t+\text{s-}\exp\left[ \left\{
v_{1}(t)+\beta_{2}v_{2}(t)\right\} /2\right] \mathrm{d}B(t),\\
&\mathrm{d}v_{1}(t) =-k_{1}\left\{ v_{1}(t)-\mu_{1}\right\}
\mathrm{d}t+\sigma_{1}\mathrm{d}W_{1}(t), \text{ }\mathrm{d}v_{2}(t)=-k_{2}v_{2}(t)\mathrm{d}t+\left\{ 1+\beta_{12}v_{2}(t)\right\} \mathrm{d}W_{2}(t),\end{aligned}$$ and the leverage parameters corresponding to the correlations between the driving Brownian motions are $\phi_{1}=$corr$\left\{ B(t),W_{1}(t)\right\} $ and $\phi_{2}=$corr$\left\{ B(t),W_{2}(t)\right\} $. The function s-$\exp\left( \cdot\right) $ is a spliced exponential function to ensure non-explosive growth, see [@HuangTauchen(05)]. The two components for volatility allow for quite sudden changes in log price whilst retaining long memory in volatility. We note that the Brownian motion of the price process may be expressed as $\mathrm{d}B(t)=a_{1}\mathrm{d}W_{1}(t)+a_{2}\mathrm{d}W_{2}(t)+\surd b\mathrm{d}\overline{B}(t)$, where $a_{1}=\phi
_{1}(1-\phi_{2}^{2})/(1-\phi_{1}^{2}\phi_{2}^{2})$, $a_{2}=\phi_{2}(1-\phi
_{1}^{2})/(1-\phi_{1}^{2}\phi_{2}^{2})$ and $b=(1-\phi_{1}^{2})(1-\phi_{2}^{2})/(1-\phi_{1}^{2}\phi_{2}^{2})$. Here $\overline{B}(t)$ is an independent Brownian motion. Suppose the log prices are observed at equally spaced times $\tau_{1}<\tau_{2}<$ $\tau_{2}<\ldots<\tau_{T}<\tau_{T+1}$ and $\Delta
=\tau_{s+1}-\tau_{s}$ for any $s$ which gives returns $Y_{s}=\log P(\tau_{s+1})-\log P(\tau_{s})$, for $s=1,\ldots,T$. The distribution of these returns conditional upon the volatility paths and the driving processes $W_{1}(t)$ and $W_{2}(t)$ is available in closed form as $Y_{s}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( \mu_{y}\Delta+a_{1}Z_{1,s}+a_{2}Z_{2,s};b\sigma_{s}^{2\ast}\right),$ where$$Z_{1,s}=\int_{\tau_{s}}^{\tau_{s+1}}\sigma(u)\mathrm{d}W_{1}(u)\text{,
}Z_{2,s}=\int_{\tau_{s}}^{\tau_{s+1}}\sigma(u)\mathrm{d}W_{2}(u),\text{
}\sigma_{s}^{2\ast}=\int_{\tau_{s}}^{\tau_{s+1}}\sigma^{2}(u)du,
\label{exact_intvol}$$ and $\sigma(t)=$s-$\exp\left[ \left\{ v_{1}(t)+\beta_{2}v_{2}(t)\right\}
/2\right] $. An Euler scheme is used to approximate the evolution of the volatilities $v_{1}(t)$ and $v_{2}(t)$ by placing a number, $M-1$, of latent points between $\tau_{s}$ and $\tau_{s+1}$. The volatility components are denoted by $v_{1,1}^{s},...,v_{1,M-1}^{s}$ and $v_{2,1}^{s},...,v_{2,M-1}^{s}$. For notational convenience, the start and end points are set to $v_{1,0}^{s}=v_{1}(\tau_{s})$ and $v_{1,M}^{s}=v_{1}(\tau_{s+1}),$ and similarly for $v_{2}(t)$. These latent points are evenly spaced in time by $\delta=\Delta
/M$. The equation for the Euler evolution, starting at $v_{1,0}^{s}=v_{1,M}^{s-1}$ and $v_{2,0}^{s}=v_{2,M}^{s-1}$, is $$\begin{aligned}
v_{1,m+1}^{s} & =v_{1,m}^{s}-k_{1}(v_{1,m}^{s}-\mu_{1})\delta+\sigma
_{1}\surd\delta u_{1,m},\\
v_{2,m+1}^{s} & =v_{2,m}^{s}-k_{2}v_{2,m}^{s}\delta+\left( 1+\beta
_{12}v_{2,m}^{s}\right) \surd{\delta}u_{2,m},\text{ }m=0,\ldots,M-1,\end{aligned}$$ where $u_{1,m}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( 0,1\right) $ and $u_{2,m}\sim
\mathcal{N}\left( 0,1\right) $. Conditional upon these trajectories and the innovations, the distribution of the returns has a closed form so that $Y_{s}\sim\mathcal{N}\left( \mu_{y}\Delta+a_{1}\widehat{Z}_{1,s}+a_{2}\widehat{Z}_{2,s};b\widehat{\sigma}_{s}^{2\ast}\right) ,$ where $\widehat{Z}_{1,s}$, $\widehat{Z}_{2,s}$ and $\widehat{\sigma}_{s}^{2\ast}$ are the Euler approximations to the corresponding expression in (\[exact\_intvol\]).
We consider $T$ daily returns, $y=\left( y_{1},...,y_{T}\right) $, from the S&P 500 index. Bayesian inference is performed on the $9$-dimensional parameter vector $\theta=(k_{1},\mu_{1},\sigma_{1},k_{2},\beta_{12},\beta
_{2},\mu_{y},\phi_{1},\phi_{2})$ to which we assign a vague prior. We simulate from the posterior density $\pi(\theta)$ using the pseudo-marginal algorithm where the likelihood is estimated using the bootstrap particle filter with $N$ particles. A multivariate Student-t random walk proposal on the parameter components transformed to the real line is used.
Empirical results for the error of the log-likelihood estimator\[sec:estimator\_perf\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section investigates empirically Assumptions 1 and 2 by examining the behaviour of $Z=\log\widehat{p}_{N}(y\mid\theta)-\log p(y\mid\theta)$ for $T=40$, 300 and 2700. Corresponding values of $N$ are selected in each case to ensure that the variance of $Z$ evaluated at the posterior mean $\overline{\theta}$ is approximately unity. We use $\delta=0.5$ in the Euler scheme.
The three plots on the left of Fig. \[fig:2fact\_hist\] display the histograms corresponding to the density of $Z$ for $\theta=\overline{\theta}$ denoted $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$, which is obtained by running $S=6000$ particle filters at this value. As $p(y\mid\overline{\theta})$ is unknown, it is estimated by averaging these estimates. The Metropolis–Hastings algorithm is then used to obtain the histograms corresponding to $\pi_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})=\exp\left( z\right) g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$. We overlay on each histogram a kernel density estimate together with the corresponding assumed density, $g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( z\right) $ or $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left( z\right) $, where $\sigma^{2}$ is the sample variance of $Z$ over the $S$ particle filters. For $T=40$, there is a discrepancy between the assumed Gaussian densities and the true histograms representing $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$ and $\pi_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$. In particular, whilst $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta
})$ is well approximated over most of its support, it is slightly lighter tailed than the assumed Gaussian in the right tail and much heavier tailed in the left tail. This translates into a smaller discrepancy between $g_{N}(z\mid\theta)$ and $\pi_{N}(z\mid\theta)$ and a higher acceptance rate for the pseudo-marginal algorithm than the Gaussian assumption suggests. For $T=300$ and $T=2700$, the assumed Gaussian densities are very accurate.
We also examine $Z$ when $\theta$ is distributed according to $\pi(\theta)$. We record $200$ samples from $\pi
(\theta)$, for $T=40$, 300 and 2700. For each of these samples, we run the particle filter $300$ times in order to estimate the true likelihood at these values. The resulting histograms, corresponding to the densities ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\theta\right) g_{N}(z\mid\theta)$ and ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\theta\right) \pi_{N}(z\mid\theta)$, are displayed in the middle column of Fig. \[fig:2fact\_hist\]. We similarly examine the density of $Z$ when $\theta$ is distributed according to the marginal proposal density in the stationary regime ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $. Here $q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $ is a multivariate Student-t random walk proposal, with step size proportional to $T^{-1/2}$. The right hand column of Fig. \[fig:2fact\_hist\] shows the resulting histograms. In both scenarios, Assumptions 1 and 2 are problematic for $T=40$ as $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$ is not close to being Gaussian as $T\ $is too small for the central limit theorem to provide a good approximation. Moreover, since $T$ is small, $\pi(\theta)$ and ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $ are relatively diffuse. Consequently, $g_{N}(z\mid\overline{\theta})$ is not close to $g_{N}(z\mid\theta)$ marginalized over $\pi(\theta)$ or ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $. For $T=300$ and $T=2700$, the assumed densities $g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left( z\right) $ and $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
}\left( z\right) $ are close to the corresponding histograms and Assumptions 1 and 2 appear to capture reasonably well the salient features of the densities associated with $Z$. In particular, the approximation suggested by the central limit theorem becomes very good. Additionally, $\pi(\theta)$ and ${\textstyle\int}\pi\left( \mathrm{d}\vartheta\right) q\left( \vartheta,\theta\right) $ are sufficiently concentrated to ensure that the variance of $Z$ as a function of $\theta$ exhibits little variability.
![[Huang and Tauchen two factor model for S&P 500 data. Top to bottom: ]{}${T=40,}$ $N=4$ (top), $T=300,$ $N=80$ (middle), $T=2700,$ $N=700$ (bottom). Left to right: histograms and theoretical densities associated with $g_{N}(z\mid \theta)$ and $\pi_{N}(z\mid \theta)$ evaluated at the posterior mean $\overline{\theta}$ (left), over values from the posterior $\pi(\theta)$ (middle) and over values from $\int\pi(\mathrm{d}\vartheta) q(\vartheta,\theta)$ (right). The densities $g_\textsc{z}^\sigma(z)$ and $\pi_\textsc{z}^\sigma(z)$ are overlaid (solid lines).[]{data-label="fig:2fact_hist"}](./histograms_PFHGmodel.eps){height="2.4in" width="\textwidth"}
-10pt
Empirical results for the pseudo-marginal algorithm
---------------------------------------------------
We apply the pseudo-marginal algorithm with $\delta=0.05$, $T=300$ and various values of $N$. The standard deviation $\sigma\left( \overline{\theta};N\right)$ of $\log\widehat{p}_{N}(y\mid\overline{\theta})$ is evaluated by Monte Carlo simulations, where $\overline{\theta}$ is the posterior mean. For each value of $N$, we compute the inefficiencies, denoted by $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small IF}}$, and the corresponding approximate relative computing times, denoted by $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}$, of all parameter components. The quantity $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}$ is computed as $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small IF}}/{\sigma^{2}\left( \overline{\theta};N\right)}$ divided by the inefficiency of $Q$ when $N=2000$, the latter being an approximation of the inefficiency of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$. The results are very similar for all parameter components and so, for ease of presentation, Fig. \[fig:theory2\] shows the average quantities over the $9$ components. For most parameters, the optimal value for $\sigma\left( \overline{\theta};N\right)$ is between $1.2$ and $1.5$, corresponding to $N=40$ and $60$. The results agree with the bound ${\textsc{\protect\small uRCT}}_4(h;\sigma)$ in Section 3.5. This can be partly explained because the inefficiencies associated with $\widetilde{Q}$ for $N=2000$ are large, suggesting that the inefficiencies associated with $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ are large. As all the bounds in the paper are based on $Q^{\ast}$, it is useful to assess the discrepancy between $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$. One approach to explore this discrepancy is to examine the marginal acceptance probability $\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\text{{\tiny Q}}})$ under $Q$ against $\sigma=\sigma(\overline{\theta},N)$ as $N$ varies. Using the acceptance criterion (\[eq:acceptanceprobabilityQ\*\]) of $Q^{\ast}$, we obtain under Assumptions \[assumption:noiseorthogonal\] and \[assumption:Gaussiannoise\] that $\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\textsc{{q}}})\geq2\Phi(-\sigma/\surd2)\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}})$. If $Q$ and $Q^{\ast}$ are close in the sense of having similar marginal acceptance probabilities, then we expect $\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\text{{\tiny Q}}})$ to have a similar shape as its lower bound where $\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}})$ is approximated using $\overline{\pi}(\varrho_{\text{{\tiny Q}}})$ with $N=2000$. For this model, the two functions on either side of the inequality, displayed in Fig. \[fig:theory2\], are similar.
[.32]{}
-10pt ![[ Huang and Tauchen two factor model for S&P 500 data, $T=300$. Inefficiencies (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">if</span>) and Relative Computing Times (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rct</span>) against $\sigma$, where $\textsc{if}$ is computed by averaging over the 9 parameter components. Right panel: The marginal acceptance probability $\overline{\pi
}(\varrho_{\text{{\protect \tiny Q}}})$ (crosses) against $\sigma$ together with the lower bound (squares) $2\Phi(-\sigma/\surd2)\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}})$.]{}[]{data-label="fig:theory2"}](./HG_IFnew1.eps "fig:"){height="3cm" width="1\linewidth"}
[.32]{}
-10pt ![[ Huang and Tauchen two factor model for S&P 500 data, $T=300$. Inefficiencies (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">if</span>) and Relative Computing Times (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rct</span>) against $\sigma$, where $\textsc{if}$ is computed by averaging over the 9 parameter components. Right panel: The marginal acceptance probability $\overline{\pi
}(\varrho_{\text{{\protect \tiny Q}}})$ (crosses) against $\sigma$ together with the lower bound (squares) $2\Phi(-\sigma/\surd2)\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}})$.]{}[]{data-label="fig:theory2"}](./HG_IFnew2.eps "fig:"){height="3cm" width="1\linewidth"}
[.32]{}
-10pt ![[ Huang and Tauchen two factor model for S&P 500 data, $T=300$. Inefficiencies (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">if</span>) and Relative Computing Times (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rct</span>) against $\sigma$, where $\textsc{if}$ is computed by averaging over the 9 parameter components. Right panel: The marginal acceptance probability $\overline{\pi
}(\varrho_{\text{{\protect \tiny Q}}})$ (crosses) against $\sigma$ together with the lower bound (squares) $2\Phi(-\sigma/\surd2)\pi(\varrho_{\textsc{{ex}}})$.]{}[]{data-label="fig:theory2"}](./HG_IFnew5.eps "fig:"){height="3cm" width="1\linewidth"}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank the editor, the associate editor and the reviewers for their comments which helped to improve the paper significantly. Arnaud Doucet was partially supported by EPSRC and Robert Kohn was partially supported by an ARC Discovery grant.
Appendix 1\[A: Proofs\] {#appendix-1a-proofs .unnumbered}
=======================
\[Proof of Lemma \[Lemma:Peskun\]\]It is straightforward to establish that $Q^{\ast
}$ is $\overline{\pi}$-reversible. Moreover, for any $a,b\geq0$, $\min(1,a)\min(1,b)\leq\min(1,ab)$ so $\alpha_{Q^{\ast}}\left\{ \left(
\theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta,w\right) \right\} \leq\alpha_{Q}\left\{
\left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( \vartheta,w\right) \right\} $ for any $\theta,z,\vartheta,w$. Hence, Theorem 4 in [@tierney1998note], which is a general state-space extension of [@peskun1973optimum], applies and yields the result.
\[Proof of Theorem \[Th:ineff boundedness theorem\]\]Without loss of generality, let $h\in L_{0}^{2}\left( \Theta,\pi\right) $. By Theorem 6 of @AV12, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \leq\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q\right) $ and, by Lemma \[Lemma:Peskun\], $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q\right) \leq\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) $, where $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) <\infty$ by assumption. Hence, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) <\infty$ and Proposition \[prop:IACTequality\] applied to $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$ yields that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}( h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) ,$ $\widetilde{\pi}\left( h^{2}/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}}^{2}\right) <\infty$ and $$\pi\left( h^{2}\right) \left\{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right\} =\pi\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\right)
\widetilde{\pi}\left( h^{2}/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{2}\right) \left\{
1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}( h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right\} . \label{eq:relationshipIACTexact}$$ Since the assumptions of Lemma \[Lemma:jumpchainQ\*\] are satisfied, we can substitute (\[eq:relationshipIACTexact\]) into (\[eq:equalityIACTQ\*\]) to obtain $$1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) =\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) \frac{\left\{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right\} }{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(
h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})
}\left[ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} \right] .
\label{eq:identityoninefficiencyQ*}$$ We now provide a spectral representation for $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\{h/\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\}$. With $\widetilde{\pi}\otimes\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\mathrm{d}\theta,\mathrm{d}z\right) =\widetilde{\pi}\left( \mathrm{d}\theta\right) \widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $, $$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} & =1+2\sum
_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left\langle \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-1}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}h,\left( \widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right)
^{n}\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-1}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}h\right\rangle _{\widetilde{\pi}\otimes\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}}}{\widetilde{\pi
}\otimes\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-2}\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-2}h^{2}\right) } \label{eq:identityIACTmfinite}\\
& =1+2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left\langle \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1},\left( \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\right) ^{n}\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right\rangle _{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}}\left\langle
\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-1}h,\left( \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\right) ^{n}\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-1}h\right\rangle _{\widetilde{\pi
}}}{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-2}\right)
\widetilde{\pi}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-2}h^{2}\right)
}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and, as $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$ and $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ are reversible, the following spectral representations, as in (\[eq:spectral\]), hold
$$\begin{split}
\phi_{n}( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})
&=\frac{\left\langle \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1},\left( \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\right) ^{n}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right\rangle
_{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}}-\left\{ \widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \right\} ^{2}}{\mathbb{V}_{\widetilde{\pi
}_{\textsc{z}}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) }
=
\int_{-1}^1
\lambda^{n}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda),\\
\phi_{n}( h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})&=
\frac{\left\langle \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-1}h,\left(
\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}\right) ^{n}\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{-1}h\right\rangle _{\widetilde{\pi}}}{\widetilde{\pi}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{ex}}^{-2}h^{2}\right) }
=
\int_{-1}^1
\omega^{n}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega),
\end{split}
\label{eq:spectralmeasures}$$
where we define $\mathbb{V}_{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) =\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left[ \left\{
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}-\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \right\} ^{2}\right] $, $\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)=e( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}) (\mathrm{d}\lambda)$ and $\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)=e( \varrho
_{\textsc{ex}}^{-1}h,\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})
(\mathrm{d}\omega)$ to simplify notation. Using $\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) =1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) $, we can rewrite (\[eq:identityIACTmfinite\]) as$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} =1+2\sum
_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-2}\right) }\left\{ \mathbb{V}_{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \int\lambda^{n}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)+\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)^{2} }\right\} \int\omega^{n}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)}\notag\\
& =1+2\left( 1-\gamma\right) \int\frac{\omega}{1-\omega}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)+2\gamma\iint\frac{\lambda\omega
}{1-\lambda\omega}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda
)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\notag\\
&=-1+2\left( 1-\gamma\right) \int\left( 1+\frac{\omega}{1-\omega}\right)
\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)+2\gamma\iint\left(
1+\frac{\omega\lambda}{1-\lambda\omega}\right) \widetilde{e}_{\textsc{{z}}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega),
\label{eq:exactexpressionIFQ*}$$ where the second expression is finite since $\int(1+\omega)\left(
1-\omega\right) ^{-1}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)=\textsc{\protect\small IF}( h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) <\infty$ and $$\gamma={\mathbb{V}_{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{{z}}}^{-1}\right) }/{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-2}\right) }=\left\{
{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }\right\}/{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) }. \label{eq:identitygamma}$$
Rearranging (\[eq:exactexpressionIFQ\*\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} & =\left\{
1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right\} \left( 1-\gamma\right) +\gamma
\beta\nonumber\\
& =\frac{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) }{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) }+\left\{
\frac{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) }\right\} \beta, \label{eq:identityB}$$ with $$\frac{\beta}{2}=\iint\frac{\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)}{1-\omega\lambda
}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\phi_{n}( h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \phi_{n}( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}). \label{eq:betadefn}$$ By substituting (\[eq:identityB\]) into (\[eq:identityoninefficiencyQ\*\]), we obtain the result since $$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) & =\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) \frac{\{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\textsc{{ex}}}\right) \}}{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left[ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) ,\widetilde{Q}^{\ast
}\right\} \right] -1\nonumber\\
& =\frac{\left\{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right\}
}{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) -\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
}\right\} \beta+\frac{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1. \label{eqn:exact_RIF_Qstar}$$
\[Proof of Corollary \[corollary:boundsQex\]\] Dividing (\[eqn:exact\_RIF\_Qstar\]) by $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) & =\frac{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\}}A-\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})},\label{eq:RIF_equal}
$$ where $A$ is the quantity in (\[eq:identityB\]) and can be expressed in terms of $\gamma$, defined in (\[eq:identitygamma\]), as $$\begin{aligned}
A & =1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})-2\gamma \iint \left \{ \frac{1}{(1-\omega)}-\frac
{1}{(1-\lambda \omega)}\right \} \widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega
)\nonumber \\
& =1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})-2\gamma \iint \frac{\omega \left( 1-\lambda \right)
}{\left( 1-\omega \right) (1-\omega \lambda)}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Lemma \[Lemma:jumpchainQ\*\] ensures that the kernel $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$ is positive, implying that $\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}\left \{ \left[
0,1\right) \right \} =1$. Hence, $$\iint \left \{ \frac{\omega \left( 1-\lambda \right) }{\left( 1-\omega \right)
(1-\omega \lambda)}-\frac{\omega \left( 1-\lambda \right) }{\left(
1-\omega \right) }\right \} \widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)=\iint \frac
{\omega^{2}(1-\lambda)\lambda}{\left( 1-\omega \right) (1-\omega \lambda
)}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\geq 0.\text{ }$$ We can now bound $A$ from above by $$\begin{aligned}
A&\leq1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})-2\gamma \iint \frac{\omega \left( 1-\lambda \right)
}{\left( 1-\omega \right) }\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\nonumber \\
& =1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})-\gamma \left \{ 1-\int \lambda \widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\right \} \int \frac{2\omega}{\left(
1-\omega \right) }\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega
)\nonumber \\
& =1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})-\gamma(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})\left \{ \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) -1\right \} \nonumber \\
& =\left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right \} \left \{ \phi_{\textsc{z}}+(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})(1-\gamma)\right \} +2(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})\gamma \label{eq:inequal_one}\\
& \leq \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right \} \left \{ \phi
_{\textsc{z}}+(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})(1-\gamma)+2(1-\phi
_{\textsc{z}})\gamma \right \} \nonumber \\
& =\left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right \} \left \{ 2(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}}/2)-\frac{(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
}\right \},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the identity $\phi_{\textsc{{z}}}=\int \lambda \widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)$. The last inequality is established by noting that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ and $\gamma$ are non-negative. Substituting the expression into (\[eq:RIF\_equal\]) establishes Part 1. To establish the inequality of Part 2, we note that if $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(
h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \geq
1$, then (\[eq:inequal\_one\]) is bounded from above by $$\begin{aligned}
& \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right \} \left[ \phi_{\textsc{z}}+\frac{(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{{z}}}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }+(1-\phi
_{\textsc{z}})\left \{ 1-\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)
}\right \} \right] \\
& = 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) .\end{aligned}$$
\[Proof of Corollary \[corollary:boundsQexjump\]\] We establish the upper bound $\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{3}\left( h\right)$ of Part 1 by first noting that (\[eq:inequal\_one\]) implies $$A\leq \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right \} \left \{ \phi_{\textsc{z}}+(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})(1-\gamma)\right \} +2(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})\gamma,$$ with $A$ is the quantity in (\[eq:identityB\]), $\gamma$ given by (\[eq:identitygamma\]) and $\phi_{\textsc{{z}}}=\int \lambda \widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)$. Upon substituting into (\[eq:RIF\_equal\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) +\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})} & \leq \frac{\left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \phi_{\textsc{z}}\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) +\frac{(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }\right \} \\
&\qquad +\frac{2(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})\left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}) \right \} }\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) -\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }\right \},\end{aligned}$$ and, after further manipulations, $$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) & \leq \phi_{\textsc{z}}\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\pi
_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} +1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \\
&\qquad +\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\left[ \phi
_{\textsc{z}}\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \}
+\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\right] \\
&\qquad\qquad +2\frac{\{1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}})\}}{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{
\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} (1-\phi_{\textsc{z}})\\
& \leq \phi_{\textsc{z}}\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} +1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)\\
&\qquad +\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left[ \phi_{\textsc{z}}\left \{ \pi
_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} +\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\right] \\
&\qquad\qquad +\frac{2}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{{z}}}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \}
(1-\phi_{\textsc{z}}),\end{aligned}$$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},Q_{\textsc{ex}})$ from Proposition 2.
To establish the upper bound $\textsc{\protect\small uRIF}_{4}\left( h\right) $ of Part 2, we use that, in the right hand side of the equality of (\[eq:RIF\_equal\]), the term $\beta$ defined in (\[eq:betadefn\]) and appearing in $A$ satisfies the inequality$$\beta=\iint \frac{2}{(1-\lambda \omega)}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{ex}}(\mathrm{d}\omega
)\leq \int \frac{2}{(1-\lambda)}\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)=1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}),\label{eq:beta_inequal}$$ where $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})=\int(1+\lambda)/(1-\lambda)\widetilde{e}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}\lambda)<\infty$, by assumption. Therefore, upon substituting into (\[eq:RIF\_equal\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{\protect\small RIF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right)
&\leq \frac{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \left \{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\}}\left \{ 1-\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }\right \} \{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})\} \\
&\qquad +\frac{\left \{
1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-\frac
{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\\
& =\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }+\frac{\left \{ 1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right \}
}{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \}
\{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})\} \\
&\qquad +\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \frac{1}{\pi
_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\right \} \\
& \leq \frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }+\frac{\left \{ 1+1/\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\right \} }{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \pi
_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) -1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right \} \{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})\} \\
& \qquad +\frac{1}{\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left \{ \frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\right) }-1\right \} ,\end{aligned}$$ as $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})
\leq \textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$.
To establish the inequality of Part 3, we combine (\[eq:identityB\]) and (\[eq:RIF\_equal\]) to obtain$$\begin{aligned}
\textsc{{\small RIF}}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right)
&=\frac{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \left\{ 1+1/\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right\} }{1+\textsc{{\small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\gamma\beta+(1-\gamma)\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \left\{ 1+1/\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right\} -\frac{1}{\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }+\frac{\left\{ 1+1/\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right\}
}{1+\textsc{{\small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right\} \beta
+\frac{\{1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1\}}{\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\notag\\
&\geq\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }+\frac{2\left\{ 1+1/\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\right\}
}{1+\textsc{{\small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right\}
+\frac{\{1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) -1\}}{\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})}\label{eq:rifineqthirdline}\\
&\geq\frac{1}{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }+\frac
{2}{1+\textsc{{\small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})}\left\{ \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right)
-1/\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \right\}\notag.\end{aligned}$$ The first inequality follows because the identity for $\beta$ given in (\[eq:beta\_inequal\]) shows that $\beta\geq2$ when $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ is positive. The second inequality follows from $\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})\geq0$.
From (\[eq:RIF\_equal\]), we have $\textsc{{\small RIF}}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right)\geq1/{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) }$ as the second and third terms on the left hand side of the inequality are both positive. This establishes the inequality of Part 4. We examine the limit of $\textsc{{\small RIF}}\left( h,Q^{\ast
}\right) $ as $\textsc{{\small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\rightarrow\infty$, again noting that $\textsc{{\small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\leq\textsc{{\small IF}}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$. Using the inequality for $\beta$ given by (\[eq:beta\_inequal\]) and the fact that $\textsc{{\small IF}}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})<\infty$ by Lemma [3]{}, we obtain the limiting form, as $\textsc{{\small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\rightarrow\infty,$ given by (\[eq:lowerboundonRIFQ\*\]) for $\textsc{{\small RIF}}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) $.
Appendix 2 {#appendix-2 .unnumbered}
==========
We exploit the two upper bounds ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$ and ${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$, together with the lower bound ${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$, in order to find an interval where the optimal value $\sigma_\text{opt}$ for ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma)$ lies. We consider how this interval varies as $\textsc{\protect \small IF}(h/\varrho_\textsc{ex},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ increases. To do this, we compute the interval where ${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$ lies below the minimum of $\inf_{\sigma}{\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$, and $\inf_{\sigma}{\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$. Table \[tab:sandwich\] displays this interval together with the minimum of the two upper bounds and the minimum of the lower bound. It is straightforward to see that $\sigma_\text{opt}$ is contained in this interval and ${\textsc{\protect\small RCT}}(h, Q^{\ast};\sigma_\text{opt})$ is contained in the corresponding interval in Table \[tab:sandwich\]. It is apparent that the intervals tighten as $\textsc{\protect \small IF}(h/\varrho_\textsc{ex},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ increases. Similarly the endpoints of the interval containing $\textsc{\protect\small RCT}(h, Q^\ast;\sigma_\text{opt})$ both decrease whilst the lower endpoint of the interval containing $\sigma_\text{opt}$ increases.
-15pt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
$\textsc{\protect \small IF}(h/\varrho_\textsc{ex},\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$ 1 10 25 100 1000
$\textsc{\protect\small RCT}(h, Q^\ast;\sigma_\text{opt})$ (3.201, 5.327) (2.020, 2.256) (1.773, 1.876) (1.595, 1.625) (1.518, 1.522)
$\sigma_\text{opt}$ (0.548, 1.572) (1.018, 1.598) (1.205, 1.658) (1.421, 1.730) (1.607, 1.730)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
: *[Sandwiching results based upon different values of ]{}$\textsc{{\protect \small IF}}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}},\widetilde
{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})$. [These are based upon the upper bounds for ]{}$\textsc{{\protect \small RCT}}({h},Q^{\ast};\sigma)$ [given by ]{}${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{3}(h;\sigma)$ [and ]{}${\textsc{{\protect \small uRCT}}}_{4}(h;\sigma)$ [and upon the lower bound ]{}${\textsc{{\protect \small lRCT}}}_{1}(h;\sigma)$.*
\[tab:sandwich\]-12pt
[**Supplementary Material**]{}
Contents
========
This supplement provides some technical proofs and an additional example for the paper Efficient implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo when using an unbiased likelihood estimator. Section \[Sec:ProofofProposition2\] presents the proof of Proposition 2. Section \[sec:technicalresultsmainpaper\] presents the proofs of Propositions 3 and 4 and Lemmas 1 and 3. Section \[sec:technicalresultssupplementary\] presents some auxiliary technical results. Section \[section:asymptoticupperbound\] illustrates the upper bound on the inefficiency of Part 4 of Corollary 2 and compares it to the results in [@Sherlock2013efficiency]. Section \[SS: AR plus noise\] applies the pseudo-marginal algorithm to a linear Gaussian state-space model and presents additional simulation results for the stochastic volatility model discussed in the main paper. Section \[Sec:Numericalprocedures\] explains how the bounds on the inefficiency introduced in Section 3.5 of the main paper are computed.
All code was implemented in the `Ox` language with pre-compiled `C` code for computationally intensive routines.
Proof of Proposition 2\[Sec:ProofofProposition2\]
=================================================
The proof of Proposition 2 relies on Lemmas 5 to 8, which are given below. Lemmas 5 to 7 establish that $h/\varrho \in L^2(\mathsf{X},\tilde{\mu})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{{\tilde{P}}})<\infty$ whenever $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)<\infty$. To prove this result, we define the map that sends the functional $h$ to $h/\varrho$ as a linear operator between two Hilbert spaces, $\mathcal{H}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ defined below. The space $\mathcal{H}$, respectively $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$, corresponds to the set of functions having finite inefficiencies under $P$, respectively under $\tilde{P}$. We then exploit the structure of the Metropolis–Hastings type kernel $P$ to prove that this linear operator is bounded on a dense subspace $\mathcal{H}_P\subset \mathcal{H}$, which allows us to extend the operator to $\mathcal{H}$. The proof is then completed by checking that the unique extension constructed this way is the one required. Lemma 8 is a general result on the central limit theorem for reversible and ergodic Markov chains which are not started in their stationary regime. The proof of Proposition 2 uses these preliminary results to establish the identity of interest.
Using the notation of Proposition 2, we write $\Vert \cdot \Vert_{\mu}$, $\langle \cdot,\cdot
\rangle_{\mu}$ for the norm and inner product of $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\mu)$, with a similar notation for $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$. By reversibility of $P$ and $\tilde{P}$ with respect to $\mu$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ respectively, it is easy to check that $(I-P)$ and $(I-\tilde{P})$ are positive, self-adjoint operators on $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\mu)$ and $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$ respectively. By Theorem 13.11 in [@Rud91], the inverses $(I-P)^{-1}$ and $(I-\tilde{P})^{-1}$ are densely defined and self-adjoint. They are also positive, since for any $f\in \mathrm{Domain}\{ (I-P)^{-1}\}$, there exists a function $g$ such that $f= (I-P)g$, and thus $$\langle (I-P)^{-1}f, f\rangle_{\mu} = \langle (I-P)^{-1} (I-P)g, (I-P)g\rangle_{\mu} =
\langle g, (I-P)g\rangle_{\mu} \geq 0,$$ since $I-P$ is positive. Therefore, by Theorem 13.31 in [@Rud91], there exists a unique, self-adjoint, positive operator $(I-P)^{-1/2}$ such that $(I-P)^{-1} = (I-P)^{-1/2} (I-P)^{-1/2}$. Finally, since $(I-P)^{-1}$ is densely defined, so is $(I-P)^{-1/2}$. Similar considerations show the existence and uniqueness of the positive, self-adjoint operator $(I-\tilde{P})^{-1/2}$, which is densely defined on $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$.
We now introduce the inner product spaces $(\mathcal{H},\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{\mathcal{H}})$ and $(\tilde{\mathcal{H}},\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{\tilde{\mathcal{H}}})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} & =\{f\in L_{0}^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\mu):\Vert f\Vert_{\mu}^{2}+\Vert(I-P)^{-1/2}f\Vert_{\mu}^{2}<\infty \},\\
\langle f,g\rangle_{\mathcal{H}} & =\langle f,g\rangle_{\mu}+\langle
(I-P)^{-1/2}f,(I-P)^{-1/2}g\rangle_{\mu},\\
\tilde{\mathcal{H}} & =\{f\in L_{0}^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu}):\Vert f\Vert
_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}+\Vert(I-\widetilde{P})^{-1/2}f\Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}<\infty \},\\
\langle f,g\rangle_{\tilde{\mathcal{H}}} & =\langle f,g\rangle_{\tilde{\mu}}+\langle(I-\widetilde{P})^{-1/2}f,(I-\widetilde{P})^{-1/2}g\rangle_{\tilde
{\mu}}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly the space $\mathcal{H}$, respectively $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$, corresponds to the set of functions having finite inefficiencies under $P$, respectively under $\tilde{P}$.
\[lem:hilbert\] Let $P$ and $\widetilde{P}$ be ergodic. Then $(\mathcal{H},\langle \cdot
,\cdot \rangle_{\mathcal{H}})$ and $(\tilde{\mathcal{H}},\langle \cdot,\cdot
\rangle_{\tilde{\mathcal{H}}})$ are Hilbert spaces.
Since $P$ and $\widetilde{P}$ are ergodic, the only solutions in $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\mu)$ and $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$, of $h=Ph$, respectively $g=\widetilde{P}g$, are almost surely constant with respect to $\mu$ and $\tilde{\mu}$. If $f=Pf$ $\mu-$almost surely, then $$0=\Vert f-Pf\Vert_{\mu}^{2}=\int_{-1}^1 (1-\lambda)^2 e(f,P)(\mathrm{d}\lambda),$$ where $e(f,P)$ is the spectral measure of $P$ with respect to the function $f$, and therefore $e(f,P)$ must be an atom at 1, which is impossible as $P$ is ergodic; see the proof of Lemma 17 in @rosenthalCLT2007 and Proposition 17.4.1 in @MT09. Since $I-P$ and $I-\tilde{P}$ are injective in $L_{0}^{2}(\mu)$ and $L_{0}^{2}(\tilde{\mu})$ respectively, $(I-P)^{1/2}$ and $(I-\widetilde{P})^{1/2}$ must also be injective on the corresponding spaces, because $(I-P)^{1/2}h=0$ implies $(I-P)h=0$. In addition, as mentioned above, these operators are self-adjoint and thus their inverses, $(I-P)^{-1/2}$ and $(I-\widetilde
{P})^{-1/2}$, are densely defined and self-adjoint by Theorem 13.11 in [Rud91]{}.
By Theorem 13.9 in [@Rud91], $(I-P)^{-1/2}$ and $(I-\widetilde
{P})^{-1/2}$ are *closed operators* on $L_{0}^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\mu)$ and $L_{0}^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$ respectively because they are self-adjoint. By Section 13.1 in @Rud91, a possibly unbounded operator $T$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{F}$ is said to be closed if and only if its graph $$\mathfrak{G}(T)=\{ (x,Tx): x\in \mathcal{F} \},$$ is a closed subset of $\mathcal{F}\times \mathcal{F}$. Equivalently $T$ is closed if $x_{n}\rightarrow x$ and $Tx_{n}\rightarrow y$ implies $Tx=y$. In particular, $x$ is in the domain of $T$. It follows that $(\mathcal{H},\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle
_{\mathcal{H}})$ and $(\tilde{\mathcal{H}},\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{\tilde{\mathcal{H}}})$ are Hilbert spaces by Proposition 1.4 in @Schm12.
The linear space $$\mathcal{H}_{P}=\mathrm{Range}\big \{(I-P)\big \}=\{h\in L_{0}^{2}(\mathsf{X},\mu):h=(I-P)g,\, \,g\in L^{2}(\mathsf{X},\mu)\}$$ is dense in $\mathcal{H}$ in the norm induced by $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_\mathcal{H}$.
For $h\in \mathcal{H}$, we have $$\|(I-P)^{-1/2} h\|_{\mu}=\int_{-1}^{1}\frac{e(h,P)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)}{1-\lambda}<\infty,$$ where $e(h,P)$ is the spectral measure associated with $h$ and $P$. For $\epsilon>0$, define $$h_{\epsilon}=(I-P)\big \{(1+\epsilon)I-P\big \}^{-1}h\in \mathcal{H}_{P}.$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert(I-P)^{-1/2}(h_{\epsilon}-h)\Vert_{\mu}^{2}
&= \Big\|(I-P)^{-1/2}\Big[ (I-P)\{(1+\epsilon)I-P\}^{-1}-I\Big]h\Big\|_{\mu}^{2}\\
& =\int_{-1}^{1}\frac{1}{1-\lambda}\Big( \frac{1-\lambda}{1+\epsilon-\lambda}-1\Big) ^{2} e(h,P)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\\
& =\int_{-1}^{1}(1-\lambda)\left( \frac{1}{1+\epsilon-\lambda}-\frac
{1}{1-\lambda}\right) ^{2}e(h,P)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\\
& =\int_{-1}^{1}\frac{\epsilon^{2} e(h,P)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)}{(1+\epsilon-\lambda)^{2}(1-\lambda)}.\end{aligned}$$ The integrand is bounded above by $1/(1-\lambda)$, since $|\lambda|\leq 1$ implies that $\epsilon^2/(1+\epsilon -\lambda)^2 \leq 1$, and thus, by dominated convergence, the integral vanishes as $\epsilon \rightarrow0$. Since $I-P$ is bounded, $\Vert h_{\epsilon}-h\Vert_{\mu}$ also vanishes. Therefore, $h_{\epsilon}\rightarrow h$ in $\mathcal{H}$. In particular, $\mathcal{H}_{P}$ is dense in $\mathcal{H}$.
\[lem:finiteIF\] If $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,P)<\infty$, then $h/\varrho \in L^2(\mathsf{X},\tilde{\mu})$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{{\tilde{P}}})<\infty$.
For $h\in \mathcal{H}_{P}$, there exists $g\in L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\mu)$ such that $$h(x)=(I-P)g(x)=\varrho(x)(I-\widetilde{P})g(x).$$ Therefore, $h(x)/\varrho(x)=(I-\widetilde{P})g(x)\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}$, since $\Vert g\Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}\leq \Vert g\Vert_{\mu}^{2}/\mu(\varrho)$. Thus, we can define the multiplication operator $T:\mathcal{H}_{P}\rightarrow
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ by $T:h\rightarrow h/\varrho$.
Let $h\left( x\right) =(I-P)g(x)$. Then, $$\Vert h\Vert_{\mathcal{H}}^{2}=\Vert h\Vert_{\mu}^{2}+\langle h,(I-P)^{-1}(I-P)g\rangle_{\mu}\geq \langle h,g\rangle_{\mu},$$ because $I-P$ is self-adjoint. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert Th\Vert_{\tilde{\mathcal{H}}}^{2} & =\Vert h/\varrho \Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}+\Vert(I-\widetilde{P})^{-1/2}(h/\varrho)\Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}\\
& =\Vert(I-\widetilde{P})g\Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}+\Vert(I-\widetilde
{P})^{1/2}g\Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}\leq K\Vert(I-\widetilde{P})^{1/2}g\Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2},$$ where $K=1+\Big \Vert ( I-\widetilde{P}) ^{1/2} \Big\Vert $ with $ \Vert ( I-\widetilde{P}) ^{1/2} \Vert $ the finite norm of the operator $( I-\widetilde{P}) ^{1/2}$. Recalling that $h(x)=(I-P)g(x)=\varrho(x)(I-\widetilde{P})g(x)$, we obtain $$\Vert(I-\widetilde{P})^{1/2}g\Vert_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}=\int g(x)(I-\widetilde
{P})g(x)\frac{\varrho(x)\mu(\mathrm{d}x)}{\mu(\varrho)}=\frac{\langle
g,h\rangle_{\mu}}{\mu(\varrho)}.$$ It follows that $T:\mathcal{H}_{P}\rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ is bounded as $$\sup_{h\in \mathcal{H}_{P}}\frac{\Vert Th\Vert_{\tilde{\mathcal{H}}}^{2}}{\Vert
h\Vert_{\mathcal{H}}^{2}}\leq \frac{K\Vert(I-\widetilde{P})^{1/2}g\Vert
_{\tilde{\mu}}^{2}}{\Vert h\Vert_{\mu}^{2}+\langle h,g\rangle_{\mu}}=\frac
{K}{\mu(\varrho)}\frac{\langle g,h\rangle_{\mu}}{\Vert h\Vert_{\mu}^{2}+\langle g,h\rangle_{\mu}}\leq \frac{K}{\mu(\varrho)}.$$
Since $\mathcal{H}_{P}$ is dense, given $h\in \mathcal{H}$, there is a sequence $h_{n}\in \mathcal{H}_{P}$ such that $\Vert h_{n}-h\Vert_{\mathcal{H}}\rightarrow0$, as $n\rightarrow \infty$. This, in particular, implies that $h_{n}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $\mathcal{H}$, that is $$\Vert h_{n}-h_{m}\Vert_{\mathcal{H}}\rightarrow0,\quad \text{as }n\geq
m\rightarrow \infty.$$ Since $h_{n}$ and $h_{n}-h_{m}$ are in $\mathcal{H}_{P}$, $Th_{n},T(h_{n}-h_{m})\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ and, from the above calculation, $$\Vert Th_{n}-Th_{m}\Vert_{\tilde{\mathcal{H}}}\leq \frac{K}{\mu(\varrho)}\Vert
h_{n}-h_{m}\Vert_{\mathcal{H}}\rightarrow0,$$ as $m,n\rightarrow \infty$. Therefore, $Th_{n}$ forms a Cauchy sequence in $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$; in particular $h_{n}$ and $(I-\widetilde{P})^{-1/2}h_{n}$ are Cauchy in $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$. Since $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu
})$ is complete, we have $h_{n}\rightarrow g\in L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$ and $(I-\widetilde{P})^{-1/2}h_{n}\rightarrow f\in
L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$. Since $Q=(I-\widetilde{P})^{-1/2}$ is a closed operator, we can conclude that $$g\in \mathrm{Domain}\left \{ Q\right \} ,\quad Qg=f,$$ and, in particular, $g\in \tilde{\mathcal{H}}$.
To complete the proof, we need to show that $g=h/\varrho$. Recall that $h_{n}\rightarrow h$ in $\mathcal{H}$ implies that $\Vert h_{n}-h\Vert_{\mu
}\rightarrow0$. We can then choose a subsequence $n(k)$ such that $h_{n(k)}\rightarrow h$ $\mu$-almost surely. Since $\tilde{\mu}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$, we also have $h_{n(k)}/\varrho \rightarrow
h/\varrho$ $\tilde{\mu}$-almost surely.
In addition, we know that $Th_{n}=h_{n}/\varrho \rightarrow g$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$ and thus in $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$. Therefore, $h_{n(k)}/\varrho \rightarrow g$ in $L^{2}(\mathsf{X,}\tilde{\mu})$. We can now choose a further subsequence $n^{\prime}(k)$ such that $h_{n^{\prime}(k)}/\varrho \rightarrow g$ $\tilde{\mu}$-almost surely. Since $h_{n(k)}/\varrho$ also converges to $h/\varrho$ $\tilde{\mu}$-almost surely, and $n^{\prime}(k)$ is a subsequence of $n(k)$, we conclude that $g=h/\varrho$ $\tilde{\mu}$-almost surely.
\[Lemma:absolutecontinuityCLT\]Assume $\Pi$ is $\mu
$-reversible and ergodic, $h\in L_{0}^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu \right) $ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,{\Pi})<\infty$. Let $\left( X_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$ be a Markov chain evolving according to $\Pi$. If $X_{1}\sim \nu$, where $\nu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$ then, as $n\rightarrow \infty$, $$n^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}h(X_{i})\longrightarrow \mathcal{N}\left \{ 0;\mu \left(
h^{2}\right) \mathrm{IF}({h}, {\Pi})\right \} .$$
\[Proof of Lemma \[Lemma:absolutecontinuityCLT\]\]Let $e(h,\Pi)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)$ be the associated spectral measure and define $S_{n}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}h\left( X_{i}\right) $. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{E}_{\mu}\left \{ \mathrm{E}\left( \left. S_{n}\right \vert
X_{1}\right) ^{2}\right \} & =\frac{1}{n}\int \mu \left( dx\right) \left \{
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\Pi^{i}h\left( x\right) \right \} ^{2}=\frac{1}{n}\int
_{-1}^{1}\left( \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\lambda^{i}\right) ^{2}e(h,\Pi)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\\
& =\int_{-1}^{1}\left( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\lambda^{i}\right)
\frac{1-\lambda^{n}}{1-\lambda}e(h,\Pi)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)\rightarrow0\end{aligned}$$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$ by dominated convergence, since $\int \left(
1-\lambda \right) ^{-1}e(h,\Pi)(\mathrm{d}\lambda)<\infty$ by assumption. Hence, equation (4) in [@wuwoodroofe2004] holds with $\sigma_{n}^{2}=\mathrm{E}_{\mu}\left( S_{n}^{2}\right) \sim \sigma^{2}n$, where $\sigma^{2}=\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \mathrm{IF}({h},{\Pi})$. It is straightforward to check, with calculations similar to the above, that the solution to the approximate Poisson equation given in the proof of Theorem 1.3 in [@kipnis1986central],$$h_{n}\left( x\right) =\left \{ \left( 1+\frac{1}{n}\right) I-\Pi \right \}
^{-1}h\left( x\right) ,$$ satisfies equation (5) in [@wuwoodroofe2004], while equation (1.10) in [@kipnis1986central] shows that $H_{n}\left( x_{0},x_{1}\right)
:=h_{n}\left( x_{1}\right) -\Pi h_{n}\left( x_{0}\right) $ converges in $L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X\times X,}\text{ }\mu \otimes \Pi \right) $. Therefore, the conditions of Corollary 2 in [@wuwoodroofe2004] are satisfied so the statement of the lemma follows from their equation (10); see their comments after this equation.
\[Proof of Proposition 2\]Let $\left( X_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$ be a Markov chain evolving according to $P$ and $(\widetilde{X}_{i},\tau_{i})_{i\geq1}$ the associated jump chain representation evolving according to $\overline{P}$, as defined in Lemma 1. We denote by $\mathrm{P}_{\nu,\Pi}$ the law of a Markov chain with initial distribution $\nu$ and transition kernel $\Pi$. By Theorem 1.3 in [@kipnis1986central], we have under $\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}$ $$S_{n}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}h(X_{i})=M_{n}+\xi_{n},
\label{eq:representationsumbymartingaleandremainder}$$ where $M_{n}$ is a square integrable martingale with respect to the natural filtration of $\left( X_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$, while we have the following convergence in probability $$n^{-1/2}\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}\text{ }\left \vert \xi_{i}\right \vert
\overset{\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}}{\longrightarrow}0.
\label{eq:asymptoticnegligibility}$$ Define $T_{n}=\tau_{1}+\cdots+\tau_{n}$. The kernel $\overline{P}$ is ergodic because $\widetilde{P}$ is ergodic. Hence, $\mathrm{P}_{\widetilde{\mu
},\widetilde{P}}-$almost surely, $$\frac{T_{n}}{n}\rightarrow \widetilde{\mu}\left( 1/\varrho \right) =\frac
{1}{\mu \left( \varrho \right) }. \label{eq:renewal}$$ The above limit also holds $\mathrm{P}_{\mu,\widetilde{P}}$-almost surely, since $\mathrm{P}_{\mu,\widetilde{P}}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mathrm{P}_{\widetilde{\mu},\widetilde{P}}$. We first show that $$\left \{ n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \} ^{-1/2}(M_{T_{n}}-M_{\left \lfloor n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor })\overset
{\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}}{\longrightarrow}0. \label{eq:convergenceinprobaforMTn}$$ Let $\epsilon>0$ be arbitrary and define the event$$A_{n}=\big \{(1-\epsilon)\frac{n}{\mu \left( \varrho \right) }\leq
T_{n}<(1+\epsilon)\frac{n}{\mu \left( \varrho \right) }\big \}.$$ By (\[eq:renewal\]), we have $\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}(A_{n})\rightarrow1$. The following inequality holds on the event $A_{n}$, $$\begin{aligned}
|M_{T_{n}}-M_{\left \lfloor n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor }| &
\leq|M_{T_{n}}-M_{\left \lfloor (1-\epsilon)n/\mu \left( \varrho \right)
\right \rfloor }|+|M_{\left \lfloor n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor
}-M_{\left \lfloor (1-\epsilon)n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor }|\\
& \leq2\sup_{1\leq i\leq2\left \lfloor \epsilon n/\mu \left( \varrho \right)
\right \rfloor +1}|\tilde{M}_{i}|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{M}_{i}:=M_{\left \lfloor (1-\epsilon)n/\mu \left( \varrho \right)
\right \rfloor +i}-M_{\left \lfloor (1-\epsilon)n/\mu \left( \varrho \right)
\right \rfloor }$ is a square integrable martingale with stationary increments. Thus, for any $\delta>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}\Bigg(\Big|M_{T_{n}}-M_{\left \lfloor n/\mu \left(
\varrho \right) \right \rfloor }\Big| & >\delta \left \{ n/\mu \left(
\varrho \right) \right \} ^{1/2}\Bigg)\\
& \leq \mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}\Bigg(\bigg \{ \big|M_{T_{n}}-M_{\left \lfloor
n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor }|>\delta \left \{ n/\mu \left(
\varrho \right) \right \} ^{1/2}\bigg \} \cap A_{n}\Bigg)+\mathrm{P}_{\mu
,P}(A_{n}^{c})\\
& \leq \mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}\Bigg(2\sup_{1\leq i\leq2\left \lfloor \epsilon
n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor +1}|\tilde{M}_{i}|>\delta \left \{
n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \} ^{1/2}\Bigg)+o(1)\\
& \leq C_{1}\frac{\mathrm{E}_{\mu,P}\left( \tilde{M}_{2\left \lfloor \epsilon
n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor +1}^{2}\right) }{\delta^{2}n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) }+o(1)\\
& \leq C_{2}\frac{\epsilon n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) }{\delta^{2}n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) }+o(1)\leq C_{3}\epsilon/\delta^{2}+o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{1},C_{2},C_{3}<\infty$. The third inequality follows from Doob’s maximal inequality. The last inequality follows because, for any square integrable martingale $\left( N_{i}\right) _{i\geq1}$ with stationary increments, $\mathrm{E}_{\mu,P}\left( N{_{n}^{2}}\right) =\mathrm{E}_{\mu
,P}\left( N{_{1}^{2}}\right) $ $n$ holds. This bound is uniform in $n$, and therefore $$\underset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\limsup \text{ }}\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}\Bigg(\Big|M_{T_{n}}-M_{\left \lfloor n/\mu \left( \varrho \right)
\right \rfloor }\Big|>\delta \left \{ n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \}
^{1/2}\Bigg)\leq \epsilon/\delta^{2}.$$ As $\epsilon>0$ is arbitrary, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}\Bigg(\Big|M_{T_{n}}-M_{\left \lfloor n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor }\Big|>\delta
\left \{ n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \} ^{1/2}\Bigg)=0,$$ for any $\delta>0$, and therefore (\[eq:convergenceinprobaforMTn\]) holds. Now, by Proposition 1, $n^{-1/2}S_{n}\longrightarrow \mathcal{N}\left \{
0;\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},{P})\right \} $. By the asymptotic negligibility (\[eq:asymptoticnegligibility\]) of $\xi_{n}$ and (\[eq:convergenceinprobaforMTn\]), we have by Slutsky’s theorem that $$\left \{ n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \} ^{-1/2}M_{T_{n}}\longrightarrow \mathcal{N}\left \{ 0;\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \textsc{\protect\small IF}
({h},{P})\right \},$$ equivalently $n^{-1/2}M_{T_{n}}\longrightarrow
\mathcal{N}\left \{ 0;\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},{P})/\mu \left(
\varrho \right) \right \} $. Finally, note that for any $\delta>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}(|\xi_{T_{n}}|>\delta n^{1/2}) & \leq \mathrm{P}_{\mu
,P}(\{|\xi_{T_{n}}|>\delta n^{1/2}\} \cap A_{n})+\mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}(A_{n}^{c})\\
& \leq \mathrm{P}_{\mu,P}(\sup_{1\leq i\leq \left \lfloor (1+\epsilon
)n/\mu \left( \varrho \right) \right \rfloor }|\xi_{i}|>\delta n^{1/2})+o(1)\rightarrow0\text{ by (\ref{eq:asymptoticnegligibility}).}$$ Therefore, using (\[eq:representationsumbymartingaleandremainder\]) and Slutsky’s theorem, $n^{-1/2}S_{T_{n}}\rightarrow \mathcal{N}\left \{
0;\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},{P})/\mu \left( \varrho \right)
\right \} $ when $\widetilde{X}_{1}=X_{1}\sim \mu$. However, this result also holds when $\widetilde{X}_{1}\sim \widetilde{\mu}$, as established in Lemma \[Lemma:absolutecontinuityCLT\]. In particular, the asymptotic variance is the same. Moreover, $(\tilde{X}_{i},\tau_{i})_{i\geq1}$ is reversible and ergodic, while Lemma \[lem:finiteIF\] guarantees that $h/\varrho \in
L_{0}^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\widetilde{\mu}\right) $ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})<\infty$. Hence, Proposition 1 applied to $(\tilde{X}_{i},\tau_{i})_{i\geq1}$ ensures that the asymptotic variance is also given by the integrated autocovariance time. Equating the two expressions, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mu \left( h^{2}\right) \textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},{P})/\mu \left( \varrho \right) &
=\overline{\mu}\left( \tau^{2}h^{2}\right) +2\sum_{n\geq1}\left \langle \tau
h,\overline{P}^{n}\tau h\right \rangle _{\overline{\mu}}\\
& =\widetilde{\mu}\left( \frac{2-\varrho}{\varrho^{2}}h^{2}\right)
+2\sum_{n\geq1}\left \langle \frac{h}{\varrho},\widetilde{P}^{n}\frac
{h}{\varrho}\right \rangle _{\widetilde{\mu}}\\
& =\widetilde{\mu}\left( h^{2}/\varrho^{2}\right) +\widetilde{\mu}\left(
h^{2}/\varrho^{2}\right) \textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})-\mu \left(
h^{2}\right) /\mu \left( \varrho \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the equality in the second line follows from the expression of $\overline{\mu}$ and $\overline{P}$, given in Lemma 1, and the properties of the geometric distribution. This yields the equality of Proposition 2, which can also be written as$$\frac{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})}{1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},{P})}=\frac{\mu \left( h^{2}\right) }{\mu \left( \varrho \right) \widetilde{\mu
}\left( h^{2}/\varrho^{2}\right) }=\frac{\mu \left( h^{2}\right) }{\mu \left( h^{2}/\varrho \right) }\leq1;$$ as $0<\varrho \leq1$, implying that $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h/\varrho},{\widetilde{P}})\leq
\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h},{P})$.
Proofs of other technical results in the main paper\[sec:technicalresultsmainpaper\]
====================================================================================
\[Proof of Lemma 1\]As $P$ is $\psi$-irreducible, it is also $\mu$-irreducible as it is $\mu$-invariant; see, for example, [@Tierney94], p. 1759. Hence, for any $x\in \mathsf{X}$ and $A\in \mathcal{X}$ with $\mu \left( A\right) >0$, there exists an $n\geq1$ such that $P^{n}\left( x,A\right) >0$. As $\mu$ is not concentrated on a single point by assumption, this implies that $\varrho
\left( x\right) >0$ for any $x\in \mathsf{X}$. The rest of the proposition follows directly from Lemma 1 in [@douc2011vanilla].
\[Proof of Lemma 3\]Equations (17) and (18) and the expressions of their associated invariant distributions follow from a direct application of Lemma 1. The positivity of $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$ follows directly from Proposition 3, see Remark 1. We write $\widetilde{\pi}\otimes\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}\theta
,\mathrm{d}z\right) =\widetilde{\pi}\left( \mathrm{d}\theta\right)
\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $. By applying Proposition 2 to $Q^{\ast}$, we obtain for any $h\in
L_{0}^{2}\left( \Theta,\pi\right) $ that $h/(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}})\in L_{0}^{2}(\Theta\times\mathbb{R},\tilde{\pi}\otimes\tilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}})$, $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/(\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}),\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} <\infty$ and$$\begin{aligned}
\pi\left( h^{2}\right) \left\{ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right)
\right\} & =\overline{\pi}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \text{ }\widetilde{\pi}\otimes
\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left\{ h^{2}/\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}^{2}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{2}\right) \right\} \left[ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/(\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}),\widetilde{Q}^{\ast
}\right\} \right] \\
& =\pi\left( \varrho_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) \widetilde{\pi}\left( h^{2}/\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}}^{2}\right) \widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{2}\right) \left[ 1+\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left\{ h/(\varrho
_{\textsc{ex}}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}),\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\right\} \right] .\end{aligned}$$ The identity follows easily as $\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{2}\right) =\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) /\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right)$ and $\pi_{\text{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\text{z}}\right) <\infty$ .
To prove the geometric ergodicity of $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$, we follow @MT09 [Chapter 15]. Notice first that $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,{\mathrm{d}}w\right) & =\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right)
\alpha\left( z,w\right) }{\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) }
\geq g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) \left\{ e^{w-z}\mathbb{I}\left( w<z\right)
+\mathbb{I}\left( w\geq z\right) \right\} ,\end{aligned}$$ and consider the set $C=\left( -\infty,z_{0}\right] $, where $z_{0}>0$ and $\int_0^{z_0}g(w) {\mathrm{d}}w>0$. For any $z\in C$ and $w\geq0$,$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z, {\mathrm{d}}w\right) & \geq g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right)
\left\{ e^{w-z_{0}}\mathbb{I}\left( w<z\right) +\mathbb{I}\left( w\geq
z\right) \right\} \\
& \geq e^{-z_{0}}g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) =\varepsilon\text{ }\nu\left(
{\mathrm{d}}w\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\varepsilon=e^{-z_{0}}\int_{0}^{z_{0}}g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) \leq1,$$ and $\nu$ is the probability measure concentrated on $\left[ 0,z_{0}\right]
\subset C$, given by $$\nu\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) =\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) \mathbb{I}\left( 0\leq w\leq
z_{0}\right) }{\int_{0}^{z_{0}}g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }.$$ Hence, $C$ is a small set.
To complete the proof of geometric ergodicity of $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$, we check that $V\left( z\right) =1/\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( z\right) $ satisfies a geometric drift condition. Note that $V\left( z\right) \geq1$ for any $z$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\int\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z, {\mathrm{d}}w\right) V\left( w\right)
}{V\left( z\right) } & =e^{-z}\int_{-\infty}^{z}\frac{e^{w}g\left(
{\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }+\int_{z}^{\infty}\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }\nonumber\\
& =e^{-z}\int_{-\infty}^{z}\frac{\pi_{\text{z}}\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }+\int_{z}^{\infty}\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }.\label{eq:Lyapunovfunction}$$ We have $\pi_{\text{z}}\left( 1/\varrho_{\text{z}}\right) <\infty$, as established earlier, because $\textsc{\protect \small IF}\left( h,Q^{\ast}\right) <\infty$ by assumption. It follows that the first integral on the right hand side of (\[eq:Lyapunovfunction\]) is bounded. To prove that the second integral is bounded, we use the fact that $\varrho_{\text{z}}\left(
z\right) $ is a non-increasing function. We have $$\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( z\right) = 1-G\left( z\right) +e^{-z}\Pi\left(
z\right),$$ where $G$, respectively $\Pi$, is the cumulative distribution function of $g$, respectively $\pi_{\text{z}}$, so its derivative with respect to $z$ is equal to $$\varrho_{\text{z}}^{\prime}\left( z\right)=-g(z)+ e^{-z}\pi(z)-e^{-z}\Pi\left( z\right) =-e^{-z}\Pi\left( z\right)\leq 0 .$$ It follows that the second term on the right hand side of (\[eq:Lyapunovfunction\]) is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{z}^{\infty}\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) } & \leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{g\left(
{\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }=\int_{-\infty}^{0}\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }+\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right)
}\\
& \leq\frac{1}{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( 0\right) }\int_{-\infty}^{0}g\left(
{\mathrm{d}}w\right) +\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-w}\pi_{\text{z}}\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right)
}{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for any $0<\lambda<1$, there exists $z_{0}^{\prime}>0$ such that $$\frac{\int\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z, {\mathrm{d}}w\right) V\left( w\right)
}{V\left( z\right) }\leq\lambda,$$ for all $z\geq$ $z_{0}^{\prime}$. We now establish that $$\underset{z\leq z_{0}^{\prime}}{\sup}\int\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z, {\mathrm{d}}w\right) V\left( w\right) <\infty.$$ As $\varrho_{\text{z}}\left(z\right) $ is a non-increasing function, it follows that for $z\leq z_{0}^{\prime}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\int\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z, {\mathrm{d}}w\right) V\left( w\right) &
=\int\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) \alpha\left( z,w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( z\right) \varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }\\
& \leq\frac{1}{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( z_{0}^{\prime}\right) }\int\frac{g\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) \alpha\left( z,w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }\\
& =\frac{1}{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( z_{0}^{\prime}\right) }\frac
{\int\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,{\mathrm{d}}w\right) V\left( w\right)
}{V\left( z\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ We now show that $$\sup_z\frac{\int\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,{\mathrm{d}}w\right)
V\left( w\right) }{V\left( z\right) }<\infty.$$ The first term on the right hand side of (\[eq:Lyapunovfunction\]) is bounded by $$e^{-z}\int_{-\infty}^{z}\frac{\pi_{\text{z}}\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right) }{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( w\right) }\leq\frac{e^{-z}}{\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( z\right) }\int_{-\infty}^{z}\pi_{\text{z}}\left( {\mathrm{d}}w\right)
\leq\frac{e^{-z}}{e^{-z}\Pi\left( z\right) }\Pi\left( z\right) =1,$$ while we have already shown that the second term on right hand side of (\[eq:Lyapunovfunction\]) is bounded.
Hence, we can conclude that, for any $0<\lambda<1$, there exists $z_{0}>0$ and $b<\infty$ such that $$\int\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}\left( z,{\mathrm{d}}w\right) V\left( w\right)
\leq\lambda V\left( z\right) +b\mathbb{I}_{C}\left( z\right),$$ where $C=\left( -\infty,z_{0}\right]$.
The inequality $\textsc{\protect \small IF}(1/\varrho_\textsc{z}, \widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}})<\infty$ now follows because $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{z}}$ is geometrically ergodic with drift function $V\left( z\right) =1/\varrho_{\text{z}}\left( z\right) $ and $\widetilde{\pi}_\textsc{z}(1/\varrho_\textsc{z}^2)<\infty$.
\[Proof of Proposition 3\]If $\langle f,\widetilde{P}f\rangle_{\widetilde{\mu}}\geq0$ for any $f\in L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\widetilde{\mu}\right) $, then $\widetilde{P}$ is positive by definition, implying the positivity of $P$ as $L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\mu \right) \subseteq L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\widetilde{\mu}\right) $ and $$\langle f,Pf\rangle_{\mu}=\mu \left( \varrho \right) \langle f,\widetilde
{P}f\rangle_{\widetilde{\mu}}+\mu \left \{ \left( 1-\varrho \right)
f^{2}\right \} .$$ For a proposal of the form $q\left( x,y\right) =\int s\left( x,z\right)
s\left( y,z\right) \chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $, Lemma 3.1 in [@baxendale2005] establishes that $\langle f,\widetilde{P}f\rangle
_{\widetilde{\mu}}\geq0$ for any $f\in L^{2}\left( \mathsf{X},\widetilde{\mu
}\right) $. For a $\nu$-reversible proposal such that $\nu \left( x\right)
q\left( x,y\right) =\int r\left( x,z\right) r\left( y,z\right)
\chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $, we have for any $f\in L^{2}\left(
\mathsf{X},\widetilde{\mu}\right) $, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mu \left( \varrho \right) \langle f,\widetilde{P}f\rangle_{\widetilde{\mu
}}\\
& =\iint f\left( x\right) f\left( y\right) \nu \left( x\right) q\left(
x,y\right) \min \left \{ \frac{\mu \left( x\right) }{\nu \left( x\right)
},\frac{\mu \left( y\right) }{\nu \left( y\right) }\right \} \mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y\\
& =\iint f\left( x\right) f\left( y\right) \nu \left( x\right) q\left(
x,y\right) \left[ \int_{0}^{\infty}\mathbb{I}_{\left \{ 0,\mu \left(
x\right) /\nu \left( x\right) \right \} }\left( t\right) \mathbb{I}_{\left \{ 0,\mu \left( y\right) /\nu \left( y\right) \right \} }\left(
t\right) \mathrm{d}t\right] \mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y\\
& =\int_{0}^{\infty}\left[ \iiint f\left( x\right) r\left( x,z\right)
f\left( y\right) r\left( y,z\right) \mathbb{I}_{\left \{ 0,\mu \left(
x\right) /\nu \left( x\right) \right \} }\left( t\right) \mathbb{I}_{\left \{ 0,\mu \left( y\right) /\nu \left( y\right) \right \} }\left(
t\right) \mathrm{d}x\mathrm{d}y\text{ }\chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right)
\right] \mathrm{d}t\\
& =\int_{0}^{\infty}\left( \int \left[ \int f\left( x\right) r\left(
x,z\right) \mathbb{I}_{\left \{ 0,\mu \left( x\right) /\nu \left( x\right)
\right \} }\mathrm{d}x\right] ^{2}\text{ }\chi \left( \mathrm{d}z\right)
\right) \mathrm{d}t\geq0,\end{aligned}$$ by a repeated application of Fubini’s theorem.
\[Proof of Proposition 4\] Theorem 2.2 in [@robertstweedie1996] establishes the ergodicity of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$. We extend their argument to prove the ergodicity of $Q^{\ast}$. For the ball $B\left( \theta,L\right) $ centred at $\theta$ of radius $L$, we define $$\eta \left( \theta,L\right) =\left \{ \underset{\vartheta \in B\left(
\theta,L\right) }{\sup}\pi \left( \vartheta \right) \right \} ^{-1}\underset{\vartheta \in B\left( \theta,L\right) }{\inf}\pi \left(
\vartheta \right),$$ which, by assumption, is such that $0<\eta \left( \theta,L\right) <\infty$. Then, we have for any $\left( \theta,z\right) \in \Theta \times \mathbb{R},$ $\vartheta \in B\left( \theta,\delta \right) $ and $w\in \mathbb{R}$, $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{\ast}\left \{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( d\vartheta,{\mathrm{d}}w\right)
\right \} & \geq q\left( \theta,\vartheta \right) \alpha_{\text{{\tiny EX}}}(\theta,\vartheta)g(w)\alpha_{\textsc{z}}(z,w)\mathrm{d}\vartheta \mathrm{d}w\nonumber \\
& \geq \varepsilon \eta \left( \theta,\delta \right) \min \{g(w),e^{-z}\pi
_{\textsc{z}}(w)\} \mathrm{d}\vartheta \mathrm{d}w \label{eq:minorQ*1},$$ which is strictly positive on $S:=\left \{ w:g(w)>0\right \} =\left \{
w:\pi_{\textsc{z}}(w)>0\right \} $. Hence, the $n$-step density part of $\left(
Q^{\ast}\right) ^{n}$ is strictly positive for all $\left( \vartheta
,z\right) \in B\left( \theta,n\delta \right) \times S$. This establishes the $\mathrm{d}\vartheta \times \pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right) $ irreducibility of $Q^{\ast}$, and hence its ergodicity as it is $\overline{\pi}$-invariant. For $\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}$, we have for any $\left( \theta,z\right) \in
\Theta \times \mathbb{R},$ $\vartheta \in B\left( \theta,\delta \right) $ and $w\in \mathbb{R}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{Q}^{\ast}\left \{ \left( \theta,z\right) ,\left( d\vartheta
,{\mathrm{d}}w\right) \right \} & =\frac{q\left( \theta,\vartheta \right)
\alpha_{\text{{\tiny EX}}}(\theta,\vartheta)g(w)\alpha_{\textsc{z}}(z,w)}{\varrho_{\text{{\tiny EX}}}\left( \theta \right) \varrho
_{\textsc{z}}\left( z\right) }\mathrm{d}\vartheta \mathrm{d}w\\
& \geq \varepsilon \eta \left( \theta,\delta \right) \min \{g(w),e^{-z}\pi
_{\textsc{z}}(w)\} \mathrm{d}\vartheta \mathrm{d}w,\end{aligned}$$ using calculations as in (\[eq:minorQ\*1\]) and the fact that $0<\varrho
_{\text{{\tiny EX}}}\left( \theta \right) \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z\right) \leq1$ for any $\left( \theta,z\right) \in \Theta \times \mathbb{R}$, as $Q^{\ast}$ is irreducible. Finally, the ergodicity of $\widetilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}}$ follows, using similar arguments, from the ergodicity of $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$.
Statements and proofs of auxiliary technical results\[sec:technicalresultssupplementary\]
=========================================================================================
\[Cor:CT\] Define the relative computing time ${\textsc{\small uRCT}}_2(h;\sigma)$ $${\textsc{\small uRCT}}_{2}(h;\sigma)
=\frac{{\textsc{\small uRIF}}_{2}(h;\sigma)}{\sigma^{2}},$$ where ${\textsc{\small uRIF}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ is the relative inefficiency. Using the same assumptions as in Theorem 1,
1. If $\textsc{\protect\small IF}({h}, Q_{\textsc{ex}})=1$, then ${\textsc{\small uRCT}}_2(h; \sigma)$ is minimized at $\sigma_{\text{opt}}=0.92$ and $\textsc{\small RIF}(h, Q;\sigma_{opt})=
\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h, Q_\pi; \sigma_{opt})
=4.54$, $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma_{opt}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma_{opt}}\right) =0.51$*.*
2. If $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h/\varrho_{\textsc{ex}}, \tilde{Q}_{\textsc{ex}})\geq
1$, $\sigma_{opt}$ increases to $\sigma_{opt}=1.02$ as $\textsc{\small IF}({h}, Q_{\textsc{ex}})\longrightarrow \infty.$
3. ${\textsc{\small uRIF}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ and ${\textsc{\small uRCT}}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ are decreasing functions of $\textsc{\small IF}({h}, Q_{\textsc{ex}})$.
\[Proof of Proposition \[Cor:CT\]\]We consider minimizing $\textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ with respect to $\sigma$. Then, $$\textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)=\frac{\left \{ 1+\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \} }{2\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) }\frac{\textsc{\small IF}(h,Q_{\pi};\sigma)}{\sigma^{2}}+\frac{\textsc{\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) -1}{2\sigma^{2}\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) }.$$ To obtain Part (i), we note that $\textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)=\textsc{\small IF}(h,Q_{\pi};\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$ when $\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) =1$. We define $H(\sigma)=\textsc{\small IF}(h,Q_{\pi};\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$. Using Lemma 5 in [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)], one can verify that $H(\sigma)$ is minimized at $\sigma_{\text{opt}}=0.92$ and that $\partial^{2}\left \{ H(\sigma)\ \right \} /\left( \partial \sigma \right)
^{2}>0$. The numerical values of Part (i) at $\sigma_{\text{opt}}=0.92$ can be found in [@PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)]. To obtain Part (ii), we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial \textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)/\partial \sigma & =\left \{ 1+\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \} /\left \{ 2\textsc{\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \} \partial H(\sigma)/\partial \sigma
\label{eq:RCT_1stderiv}\\
& \qquad-\left \{ \textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) -1\right \}
/\left \{ \sigma^{3}\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \}
,\nonumber \\
\partial^{2}\textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)/\left( \partial \sigma \right) ^{2}
& =(1+\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) )/(2\textsc{\small IF}\left(
h,Q^{\text{EX}}\right) )\partial^{2}H(\sigma)/\left( \partial \sigma \right)
^{2}\nonumber \\
& \qquad+3\left \{ \textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) -1\right \}
/\left \{ \sigma^{4}\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \}
,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so that $\partial^{2}\textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)/\left( \partial
\sigma \right) ^{2}>0$ if $\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \geq1$. For the limiting case of Part (ii), $$\lim_{\textsc{\small IF}_{\textsc{ex}}\uparrow \infty}\partial \textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)/\partial \sigma=\{ \partial H(\sigma)/\partial \sigma
\}/2-1/\sigma^{3},$$ which we can verify numerically is equal to $0$ at $\sigma_{\text{opt}}=1.02$. For general values of $\textsc{\small IF}_{\textsc{ex}}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\partial \left \{ \left. \partial \textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma)/\partial
\sigma \right \vert _{\sigma=\sigma_{\text{opt}}}\right \} /\partial
\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \\
=-1/\left \{ \textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) \right \} ^{2}\left(
\left. \partial H(\sigma)/\partial \sigma \right \vert _{\sigma=\sigma
_{\text{opt}}}/2+1/\sigma_{opt}^{3}\right) <0,\end{gathered}$$ where $\partial H(\sigma)/\partial \sigma>0$ for $\sigma>0.92$. Hence, $\sigma_{\text{opt}}$ increases with $\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $, which verifies Part (ii). Finally, to obtain Part (iii), it is straightforward to see that $$\textsc{\small uRIF}_{2}(h;\sigma)=\frac{\textsc{\small IF}(h,Q_{\pi};\sigma)+1}{2}+\frac{\textsc{\small IF}(h,Q_{\pi};\sigma)-1}{2\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) },$$ so that $\textsc{\small uRIF}_{2}(h;\sigma)$ and $\textsc{\small uRCT}_{2}(h;\sigma
)=\textsc{\small uRIF}_{2}(h;\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$ are decreasing functions of $\textsc{\small IF}\left( h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $, holding $\sigma$ constant.
Asymptotic upper bound\[section:asymptoticupperbound\]
======================================================
This section illustrates, in the Gaussian noise case, the lower bound on the inefficiency $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small lRIF}_{2}}(\sigma)=1/\{2\Phi(-\sigma/\surd{2})\}$ and the exact relative inefficiency $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}}(\sigma,l)=\Phi(-l/2)/\Phi\left \{
-\left( 2\sigma^{2}+l^{2}\right) ^{1/2}/2\right \}$ obtained in [@Sherlock2013efficiency] and discussed in Section 3.6 of the main paper. Recall that $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}}(\sigma,l)\rightarrow \textsc{\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)$ as $l\rightarrow0$ and note that $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}}(\sigma,l)\rightarrow
\Psi \left( \sigma \right) =\exp \left( \sigma^{2}/4\right) /\sigma^{2}$ as $l\rightarrow \infty$. Figure \[fig:roberts\_ifct\] displays the corresponding relative computing times $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small lRCT}_{2}}(\sigma)=\textsc{\small lRIF}_{2}(\sigma)/\sigma^{2}$ and $\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small aRCT}}(\sigma;l)=\mathrm{\textsc{\protect\small aRIF}}(\sigma,l)/\sigma^{2}$. They are very similar in shape as a function of $\sigma$, regardless of $l$, and are also minimized at similar values: $\textsc{\small lRCT}_{2}(\sigma)$ is minimized at $\sigma_{1}=1.68$ and $\Psi \left(
\sigma \right) $ is minimized at $\sigma_{2}=2.00$, and $\textsc{\small lRCT}_{2}(\sigma_{1})=1.51$, $\textsc{\small lRCT}_{2}(\sigma_{2})=1.59$, $\Psi \left(\sigma_{1}\right) =0.72$, $\Psi \left(\sigma_{2}\right) =0.68$.
![Theoretical results for relative computing time. $\textsc{\protect\small{lRCT}}_{2}(\sigma)$ (solid black) is displayed together with $\textsc{\protect\small aRCT}(\sigma,l)$ against $\sigma$. $\textsc{\protect\small aRCT}(\sigma,l)$, the relative computing time for the limiting case of a random walk proposal, is evaluated for $l=0.5$ (dotted black), $1$ (dashed black), $2.5$ (solid grey) and $10$ (dashed grey), where $l$ is the scaling factor in the proposal.[]{data-label="fig:roberts_ifct"}](GR_plot1.eps){height="2.2in" width="\textwidth"}
Simulation results\[SS: AR plus noise\]
=======================================
This section applies the pseudo-marginal algorithm to a linear Gaussian state-space model and presents additional simulation results for the stochastic volatility model discussed in the main paper. The linear Gaussian state-space model we consider is a first order autoregression AR$(1)$ observed with noise. In this case, $Y_{t}=X_{t}+\sigma _{\varepsilon }\varepsilon _{t}$, and the state evolution is $X_{t+1}=\mu _{x}(1-\phi )+\phi X_{t}+\sigma _{\eta
}\eta _{t}$, where $\varepsilon _{t}$ and $\eta _{t}$ are standard normal and independent. We take $\phi =0.8,$ $\mu _{x}=0.5,$ $\sigma _{\eta
}^{2}=1-\phi ^{2}$, so that the marginal variance $\sigma _{x}^{2}$ of the state $X_{t}$ is $1$. We consider a series of length $T$, where $\sigma _{\varepsilon }^{2}=0.5$ is assumed known. The parameters of interest are therefore $\theta =(\phi ,\mu _{x},\sigma
_{x})$. The analysis is very similar to that of Section 4 of the main paper. However, for this state-space model, the likelihood can be calculated by using the Kalman filter. This facilitates the analysis of sections \[sec:emp\_AR1\] and \[sec:full\_AR1\] in two ways. First, in the calculation of the log-likelihood error $Z=\log \widehat{p}_{N}(y\mid \theta )-\log
p(y\mid \theta )$, the true likelihood term is known rather than estimated. Second, because the likelihood is known, we can directly examine the exact chain $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$ and estimate the inefficiency $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(h,Q_{\textsc{ex}})$.
Empirical results for the error of the log-likelihood estimator \[sec:emp\_AR1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis in this section mirrors that of Section 4.2 of the main paper. We investigate empirically Assumptions 1 and 2 by examining the behaviour of $Z=\log \widehat{p}_{N}(y\mid \theta )-\log p(y\mid \theta )$ for $T=40$, $300$ and $2700$. Corresponding values of $N$ are selected in each case to ensure that the variance of $Z$ evaluated at the posterior mean $\overline{\theta }$ is approximately unity. The three plots on the left of Fig. [fig:AR1\_hist]{} display the histograms corresponding to the density $g_{N}(z\mid \overline{\theta })$ of $Z$ for $\theta =\overline{\theta }$, which is obtained by running $S=6000$ particle filters at this value. We overlay on each histogram a kernel density estimate together with the corresponding assumed density, $g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma }\left( z\right) $ of Assumption 2, where $\sigma ^{2}$ is the sample variance of $Z$ over the $S$ particle filters. For $T=40$, there is a slight discrepancy between the assumed Gaussian densities and the true histograms representing $g_{N}(z\mid
\overline{\theta })$. In particular, whilst $g_{N}(z\mid \overline{\theta })$ is well approximated over most of its support, it is heavier tailed in the left tail. For $T=300$ and $T=2700$, the assumed Gaussian densities are very accurate.
![AR(1) plus noise model experiment. Top to bottom: ${T=40,}$ $N=4$ (top), $T=300,$ $N=50$ (middle), $T=2700,$ $N=500$ (bottom). Left to right: histograms and theoretical densities associated with $g_{N}(z\mid \theta)$ evaluated at the posterior mean $\overline{\theta}$ (left), over values from the posterior $\pi(\theta)$ (right). The densities $g_\textsc{z}^\sigma(z)$ are overlaid (solid lines). []{data-label="fig:AR1_hist"}](hist_ar1.eps){height="2.5in" width="5.5in"}
![AR(1) plus noise model experiment. Top to bottom: $T=300,$ $N=50$ (top), $T=2700,$ $N=500$ (bottom). Left to right: mean (squares) and variance (circles) associated with $g_{N}(z\mid \theta)$ for $100$ different values of $\theta$ from $\pi(\theta)$ (left). The corresponding estimates of the third (squares) and fourth (circles) moments are displayed. []{data-label="fig:AR_cond_momentsZ"}](./analyse_new_graph_ar2.eps){height="2.5in" width="5.5in"}
We also examine $Z$ when $\theta $ is distributed according to $\pi (\theta )
$. We record $100$ samples from $\pi (\theta )$, for $T=40$, $300$ and $2700$. For each of these samples, we run the particle filter $300$ times in order to estimate the true likelihood at these values. The resulting histograms, corresponding to the density ${\textstyle \int }\pi \left( \mathrm{d}\theta
\right) g_{N}(z\mid \theta )$ are displayed on the right panel of Fig. [fig:AR1\_hist]{}. For $T=300$ and $T=2700$, the assumed densities $g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma }\left( z\right) $ are close to the corresponding histograms and Assumptions 1 and 2 again appear to capture reasonably well the salient features of the densities associated with $Z$.
![Huang and Tauchen two factor model experiment for S&P 500 data. Top to bottom: $T=300,$ $N=80$ (top), $T=2700,$ $N=700$ (bottom). Left to right: mean (squares) and variance (circles) associated with $g_{N}(z\mid \theta)$ for $100$ different values of $\theta$ from $\pi(\theta)$ (left). The corresponding estimates of the third (squares) and fourth (circles) moments are displayed.[]{data-label="fig:HG_cond_momentsZ"}](./analyse_new_graphHG2.eps){height="2.5in" width="5.5in"}
It is important, in examining departures from Assumption 1, to consider the heterogeneity of the conditional density $g_{N}(z\mid \theta )$ as $\theta $ varies over $\pi \left( \theta \right) $. In Fig. \[fig:AR\_cond\_momentsZ\], the conditional moments associated with the density $g_{N}(z\mid \theta )$ are estimated, based on running the particle filter independently $S=300$ times for each of $100$ values of $\theta $ from $\pi (\theta )$. We record the estimates of the mean, the variance and the third and fourth central moments at each value of $\theta $, for $T=300$ and $T=2700$. There is a small degree of variability for $T=300$ around the values that we would expect which are $-0.5,$ $1,0$ and $3$ corresponding to $g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma }\left( z\right) $ where $\sigma =1$. This variability reduces as $T$ rises to $2700$. A small degree variability is expected as these are moments estimated from $S=300$ samples. This lack of heterogeneity explains why the values of $Z$, marginalized over $\pi \left( \theta \right) $, on the right hand side of Fig. \[fig:AR1\_hist\], are close to $g_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma }\left( z\right) $ for time series of moderate and large length. Figure \[fig:HG\_cond\_momentsZ\] records a similar experiment for the stochastic volatility model and data considered in Section 4 of the main paper. There is rather more variability as the true value of the likelihood in this case is unknown and has to be estimated. However, the results are similar and the variability again reduces as $T$ rises to $2700$.
Empirical results for the pseudo-marginal algorithm[sec:full\_AR1]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The pseudo-marginal algorithm is applied to $T=300$ data. The true likelihood of the data is computed by the Kalman filter as the model is a linear Gaussian state space model. This allows the exact Metropolis–Hastings scheme $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$ to be implemented so that the corresponding inefficiency $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left(
h,Q_{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ can be easily estimated. We consider varying $N$ so that the standard deviation $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)$ of the log-likelihood estimator varies. The grid of values that we consider for $N$ is $\{11$, $16$, $22$, $31$, $43$, $60$, $83$, $116$, $161$, $224$, $312\}$, see Table [tab:AR1\_CTIF]{}. The value $N=60$ results in $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)=0.92
$.
\[c\][lllllllll]{} & IF$(\phi)$ & IF$(\mu)$ & IF$(\sigma
_{x})$ & & & & pr$(Acc)$\
& & $2.5845$ & $2.5040$ & $2.4163$ & & & & $0.7678$\
& & & & & & &\
$N$ & $\sigma(\overline{\theta};N)$ & IF$(\phi)$ & IF$(\mu)$ & IF$(\sigma_{x})$ & CT$(\phi)$ & CT$(\mu)$ & CT$(\sigma_{x})$ & pr$(Acc)$\
$11$ & $2.2886$ & $136.32$ & $132.41$ & $128.66$ & $1499.5$ & $1456.5$ & $1415.3$ & $0.11424$\
$16$ & $1.8692$ & $61.403$ & $63.756$ & $66.609$ & $982.45$ & $1020.1$ & $1065.7$ & $0.19036$\
$22$ & $1.6063$ & $37.256$ & $40.486$ & $37.367$ & $819.63$ & $890.68$ & $822.07$ & $0.25549$\
$31$ & $1.3412$ & $15.880$ & $18.099$ & $19.135$ & $492.29$ & $561.08$ & $593.20$ & $0.32622$\
$43$ & $1.1096$ & $11.320$ & $9.7400$ & $10.710$ & $486.75$ & $418.82$ & $460.54$ & $0.39347$\
$60$ & $0.9197$ & $7.5040$ & $8.0428$ & $7.6168$ & $450.24$ & $482.57$ & $457.01$ & $0.45933$\
$83$ & $0.8058$ & $5.7253$ & $5.5841$ & $5.9348$ & $475.20$ & $463.48$ & $492.59$ & $0.50885$\
$116$ & $0.6828$ & $4.3756$ & $4.7106$ & $4.1693$ & $507.57$ & $546.43$ & $483.63$ & $0.56621$\
$161$ & $0.5828$ & $3.8112$ & $4.2379$ & $3.6388$ & $613.61$ & $682.30$ & $585.84$ & $0.60160$\
$224$ & $0.4838$ & $3.2711$ & $3.1605$ & $3.3134$ & $732.73$ & $707.94$ & $742.19$ & $0.63562$\
$312$ & $0.4096$ & $3.0774$ & $3.4768$ & $2.8355$ & $960.14$ & $1084.8$ & $884.67$ & $0.65793$
\[c\][lllllllll]{} & IF$(\phi)$ & IF$(\mu)$ & IF$(\sigma
_{x})$ & & & & pr$(Acc)$\
& & $25.59$ & $22.21$ & $24.44$ & & & & $0.87717$\
& & & & & & &\
$N$ & $\sigma(\overline{\theta};N)$ & IF$(\phi)$ & IF$(\mu)$ & IF$(\sigma_{x})$ & CT$(\phi)$ & CT$(\mu)$ & CT$(\sigma_{x})$ & pr$(Acc)$\
$11$ & $2.2886$ & $594.64$ & $488.30$ & $639.04$ & $6541.1$ & $5371.3$ & $7029.5$ & $0.12579$\
$16$ & $1.8692$ & $157.49$ & $183.78$ & $182.07$ & $2519.9$ & $2940.4$ & $2913.1$ & $0.20410$\
$22$ & $1.6063$ & $126.87$ & $115.84$ & $125.37$ & $2791.2$ & $2548.6$ & $2758.2$ & $0.27279$\
$31$ & $1.3412$ & $69.541$ & $67.421$ & $71.982$ & $2155.9$ & $2089.9$ & $2231.5$ & $0.35385$\
$43$ & $1.1096$ & $53.053$ & $62.344$ & $58.002$ & $2281.1$ & $2680.9$ & $2494.0$ & $0.42577$\
$60$ & $0.9197$ & $49.351$ & $47.476$ & $45.194$ & $2961.1$ & $2848.6$ & $2711.6$ & $0.49610$\
$83$ & $0.8058$ & $37.709$ & $29.550$ & $38.266$ & $3129.8$ & $2452.7$ & $3176.1$ & $0.55764$\
$116$ & $0.6828$ & $29.360$ & $36.943$ & $34.892$ & $3405.8$ & $4285.4$ & $4047.4$ & $0.61174$\
$161$ & $0.5828$ & $28.277$ & $27.883$ & $29.864$ & $4552.6$ & $4489.2$ & $4808.1$ & $0.65704$\
$224$ & $0.4838$ & $27.770$ & $29.471$ & $30.533$ & $6220.5$ & $6601.5$ & $6839.4$ & $0.69674$\
$312$ & $0.4096$ & $29.231$ & $25.549$ & $29.967$ & $9120.2$ & $7971.4$ & $9349.8$ & $0.73057$
We transform each of the parameters to the real line so that $\Psi =k(\theta
)$, where both $\theta $ and $\Psi $ are three dimensional vectors, and place a Gaussian prior on $\Psi $ centred at zero with a large variance. We use the autoregressive Metropolis proposal $q(\Psi ,\Psi ^{\ast })$ $$\Psi ^{\ast }=(1-\rho )\widehat{\Psi }+\rho \Psi +(1-\rho ^{2})^{1/2}\{(\nu
-2)/\nu \}^{1/2}\Sigma ^{1/2}t_{\nu },$$for both the pseudo-marginal algorithm and exact likelihood schemes, where $\widehat{\Psi }$ is the mode of the log-likelihood obtained from the Kalman filter and the covariance $\Sigma $ is the negative inverse of the second derivative of the log-likelihood at the mode.$\ $Here $t_{\nu }$ denotes a standard multivariate t-distributed random variable with $\nu $ degrees of freedom. We set $\nu =5$. We use this autoregressive proposal with the scalar autoregressive parameter $\rho $ chosen as one of $\{0$, $0.4
$, $0.6$, $0.9\}$. We first apply this proposal, for the four values of $\rho $, using the known likelihood in the Metropolis scheme and estimate the inefficiency for each of the parameters $\theta =(\mu _{x},\phi ,\sigma
_{\eta })$.
![ AR(1) plus noise example with $T=300,\phi=0.8,\mu=0.5,\sigma_{x}^{2}=1,\sigma_{\varepsilon}^{2}$ fixed at $0.5$. Marginal acceptance probabilities displayed against $\sigma(\overline{\theta};N)$. The estimated (constant) marginal probabilities of acceptance for $Q_{\textsc{ex}}$ are shown (solid line) together with the estimated probabilities (circles) from $Q$. The lower bound (squares) is given as the probability from the exact scheme times $2\Phi
(-\sigma/\surd{2})$. The proposal autocorrelations are $\rho
=0,0.4,0.6$ and $0.9$. See Tables \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\] and \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\_rho\_pt9\]. Bottom: Histograms for the accepted and proposed values of $Z$, the log-likelihood error for $\rho=0$ (left) and for $\rho=0.9$ (right). The theoretical Gaussian densities for the proposal $\varphi ( -\sigma
^{2}/2,\sigma^{2})$ and the accepted values $\varphi ( \sigma^{2}/2,\sigma^{2})$ are overlaid where $\sigma=\sigma(\overline{\theta};N)$. []{data-label="fig:prA_AR1_allphi"}](./PrAccept_allrho_AR1_2.eps){height="2.5in" width="5.5in"}
![AR(1) plus noise example with $T=300,$ $\protect\phi =0.8,\protect\mu =0.5,$ $\protect\sigma _{x}^{2}=1$ and $\protect\sigma _{\protect\varepsilon }^{2}$ fixed at $0.5$. Left: Logarithm $\textsc{rif}$ against $\protect\sigma (\overline{\protect\theta };N)$. Right: $\textsc{rct}$* *$=\textsc{rif}/\protect\sigma ^{2}(\overline{\protect\theta };N)$ against $\protect\sigma (\overline{\protect\theta };N)$. The three plots on all graphs are for $\protect\phi $ (square), $\protect\mu $ (circle) and $\protect\sigma _{x}$ (cross). From Top to bottom: $\protect\rho =0,$ $0.4,0.6$ and $0.9$. Here $\protect\sigma (\overline{\protect\theta };N)$ is the standard deviation of the log-likelihood estimator evaluated at the posterior mean $\overline{\protect\theta }$. See Tables \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\] and \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\_rho\_pt9\].[]{data-label="fig:AR1_RCT"}](./theor_IF_CT_AR1_3.eps){height="2.5in" width="5.5in"}
Figure \[fig:prA\_AR1\_allphi\] shows the acceptance probability for the pseudo-marginal algorithm against $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)$ for the four values of the proposal parameter $\rho $. The lower bound for the acceptance probabilities, as discussed at the end of Section 4.3 of the main paper, is also displayed and there is close correspondence in all cases. The histograms for the accepted and rejected values of $Z$, for $N=60$ when $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)=0.92$, are also displayed. The approximating asymptotic Gaussian densities, with $\sigma =0.92$, are superimposed. This figure shows that the approximating densities correspond very closely to the two histograms. It should be noted that these are the marginal values for $Z$ over the draws from the posterior $\pi (\theta )$ obtained by running the pseudo-marginal scheme, rather than being based upon a fixed value of the parameters.
Tables \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\] and \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\_rho\_pt9\] show the pseudo-marginal algorithm results for $\rho =0$ and $\rho =0.9$. For the independent Metropolis–Hastings proposal, it is clear from Table [tab:AR1\_CTIF]{}, that the computing time in minimised around $N=43$ or $60$, depending on which parameter is examined, with the corresponding values of $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)$ being $1.11$ and $0.92$, supporting the findings that when an efficient proposal is used the optimal value of $\sigma $ is close to unity. This is again supported by Fig. \[fig:AR1\_RCT\], for which the relative computing time ($\rho =0$ is the top right plot) is shown against $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)$. We note that the relative inefficiencies and computing times are straightforward to calculate as the exact chain inefficiencies for the three parameters have been calculated and are given in the top row of Table \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\]. Table \[tab:AR1\_CTIF\_rho\_pt9\] shows the results for the more persistent proposal where $\rho =0.9$. In this case, for all three parameters the optimal value of $N$ is around $31$, at which $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)=1.34$, the corresponding graph of the relative computing time being given by the bottom right of Fig. [fig:AR1\_RCT]{}. It is clear that again the findings are consistent with the discussion of 3.5 in the main paper. In particular, as $\rho $ increases, then $\textsc{\protect\small IF}\left( h,Q^{\textsc{ex}}\right) $ should increase, and, from Fig. \[fig:AR1\_RCT\], it is clear that the optimal value of $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)$ increases, the relative computing time decreases for any given $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)$. In addition, the relative computing time becomes more flat as a function of $\sigma (\overline{\theta };N)$ as $\rho $ increases.
Numerical procedures {#Sec:Numericalprocedures}
====================
Under the Gaussian assumption, Corollary 3 specifies the function $\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}$ and the term $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left(
1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\right) $ can be accurately evaluated using numerical quadrature. This section explains how we numerically evaluate the terms $\phi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}$ and $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma},{\widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}})$ which appear in the bounds of Corollaries 1 and 2. The inefficiency $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma},{\widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}})$ is finite by Lemma 3, because $\pi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\left( 1/\varrho
_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}\right) $ is finite. The autocorrelations quickly descend to zero as a function of $n$, for all $\sigma$. Hence, it is straightforward to estimate $\textsc{\protect\small IF}(1/\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma
},{\widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}})$ by the appropriate summation of the autocorrelations, and to tabulate it against $\sigma$ for use in the bounds of Corollaries 1 and 2. The autocorrelation $\phi_{\textsc{z}}^{\sigma}$, for $n=1$, is similarly tabulated.
From Lemma 3, $$\widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}\left( z,\mathrm{d}w\right) =\frac{g\left(
w\right) \min\{1,\exp(w-z)\}\mathrm{d}w}{\varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z\right) },\text{ \ }\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right)
=\frac{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \mathrm{d}z\right) \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\left(
z\right) }{\pi_{\textsc{z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}\right) },$$ so the autocorrelation at lag $n$ is$$\phi_{n}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1},\widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}\right)
=\frac{\left\langle \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1},\left( \widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}\right) ^{n}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right\rangle
_{\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}}{-}\left\{ \widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}\left(
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) \right\} ^{2}}{\mathbb{V}_{\widetilde{\pi
}_{Z}}\left( \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right) }$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1},\left( \widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}\right) ^{n}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}\right\rangle _{\widetilde{\pi
}_{\textsc{z}}} & ={\textstyle\int}
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}(z_{0})\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}(z_{n})\widetilde{\pi
}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}z_{0})\left( \widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}\right)
^{n}\left( z_{0},\mathrm{d}z_{n}\right) \nonumber\\
& =\pi_{\textsc{z}}(\varrho_{\textsc{z}})^{-1}{\textstyle\int}
\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}(z_{n})\widetilde{\pi}_{\textsc{z}}(\mathrm{d}z_{0})\left( \widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}\right) ^{n}\left( z_{0},\mathrm{d}z_{n}\right) .\label{eq:autocorrelationpho}$$ The term $\pi_{\textsc{z}}(\varrho_{\textsc{z}})$ can be computed by quadrature. The term (\[eq:autocorrelationpho\]) can be also accurately calculated by Monte Carlo integration, by simulating a large number $M$ of i.i.d. samples $Z_{0}^{i}\sim\pi_{\textsc{z}}$ and then propagating each sample through the transition kernel ${\widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}}$ $n$ times to obtain $Z_{n}^{i}\sim\pi_{\textsc{z}}( \widetilde{Q}^{\textsc{z}}) ^{n}$, yielding the estimate $\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}\varrho_{\textsc{z}}^{-1}(Z_{n}^{i}).$
[99]{} [andrieu:doucet:holenstein:2010]{}<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Andrieu, C.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Doucet, A.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Holenstein, R.</span> (2010). . *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B* **72**, 1–33.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Andrieu, C.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Vihola, M.</span> (2014). , arXiv:1404.6909.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Andrieu, C.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Vihola, M.</span> (2012). . *Annals of Applied Probability*, *to appear*.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Andrieu, C.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Roberts, G. O.</span> (2009). . *The Annals of Statistics* **37**, 697–725.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Baxendale, P.</span> (2005). Renewal theory and computable convergence rates for geometrically ergodic arkov chains. *The Annals of Applied Probability* **15**, 700–738.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Beaumont, M.</span> (2003[a]{}). . *Genetics* **164**, 1139.
[ChernovGallantGhyselsTauchen(03)]{}<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chernov, M.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Gallant, A. R.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ghysels, E.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tauchen, G.</span> (2003). Alternative models of stock price dynamics. *Journal of Econometrics* **116**, 225–257.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Douc, R.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Robert, C. P.</span> (2011). A vanilla ao–lackwellization of etropolis–astings algorithms. *The Annals of Statistics* **39**, 261–277.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Geyer, C. J.</span> (1992). Practical arkov chain onte arlo. *Statistical Science* **7**, 473–483.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Häggström, O.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rosenthal, J. S.</span> (2007). On variance conditions for arkov chain central limit theorems. *Electronic Communications in Probability* **12**, 454–64.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Huang, X.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tauchen, G.</span> (2005). The relative contribution of jumps to total price variation. *Journal of Financial Econometrics* **3**, 456–499.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lin, L.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Liu, K. F.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sloan, J.</span> (2000). A noisy onte arlo algorithm. *Physical Review D* **61**, 074505.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Peskun, P. H.</span> (1973). . *Biometrika* **60**, 607–612.
[PittSilvaGiordaniKohn(12)]{}<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pitt, M. K.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Silva, R.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Giordani, P.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kohn, R.</span> (2012). On some properties of arkov chain onte arlo simulation methods based on the particle filter. *Journal of Econometrics* **171**, 134–151.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Roberts, G.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tweedie, R.</span> (1996). Geometric convergence and central limit theorems for multidimensional astings and etropolis algorithms. *Biometrika* **83**, 95–110.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rudolf, D.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ullrich, M.</span> (2013). Positivity of hit-and-run and related algorithms. *Electronic Communications in Probability* **18**, 1–8.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tierney, L.</span> (1994). Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions (with discussion). *The Annals of Statistics* **21**, 1701–62.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tierney, L.</span> (1998). A note on etropolis–astings kernels for general state spaces. *The Annals of Applied Probability* **8**, 1–9.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kipnis, C.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Varadhan, S.</span> (1986). Central limit theorem for additive functionals of reversible arkov processes and applications to simple exclusions. *Communications in Mathematical Physics* **104**, 1–19.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Meyn, S.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Tweedie, R.L.</span> (1991). *Markov Chains and Stochastic Stability.* Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rudin, W.</span> (1991). *Functional Analysis.* International series in pure and applied mathematics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
[Sherlock2013efficiency]{}<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sherlock, C.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Thiery, A.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Roberts, G.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rosenthal, J.</span> (2013). On the efficiency of pseudo-marginal random walk etropolis algorithms. *ArXiv e-prints* URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.7209.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schmüdgen, K.</span> (2012). *Unbounded Self-adjoint Operators on Hilbert Space*. Graduate Text in Mathematics, Springer.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wu, W.</span> & <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Woodroofe, M.</span> (2004). Martingale approximations for sums of stationary processes. *The Annals of Probability* **32**, 1674–1690.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The estimation of multivariate GARCH time series models is a difficult task mainly due to the significant overparameterization exhibited by the problem and usually referred to as the “curse of dimensionality". For example, in the case of the VEC family, the number of parameters involved in the model grows as a polynomial of order four on the dimensionality of the problem. Moreover, these parameters are subjected to convoluted nonlinear constraints necessary to ensure, for instance, the existence of stationary solutions and the positive semidefinite character of the conditional covariance matrices used in the model design. So far, this problem has been addressed in the literature only in low dimensional cases with strong parsimony constraints (see for instance [@altay:pinar:leyffer] for the diagonal three-dimensional [VEC]{} handled with ad-hoc techniques). In this paper we propose a general formulation of the estimation problem in any dimension and develop a Bregman-proximal trust-region method for its solution. The Bregman-proximal approach allows us to handle the constraints in a very efficient and natural way by staying in the primal space and the Trust-Region mechanism stabilizes and speeds up the scheme. Preliminary computational experiments are presented and confirm the very good performances of the proposed approach.'
author:
- 'Stéphane Chrétien$^{1}$ and Juan-Pablo Ortega$^{2}$'
bibliography:
- '/Users/JP17/JPO\_synch/BiblioData/bibliography\_econometry.bib'
title: '**Multivariate GARCH estimation via a Bregman-proximal trust-region method**'
---
**Key Words:** multivariate GARCH, VEC model, volatility modeling, multivariate financial time series, Bregman divergences, Burg’s divergence, LogDet divergence, constrained optimization.
Introduction
============
Autoregressive conditionally heteroscedastic (ARCH) models [@engle:arch] and their generalized counterparts (GARCH) [@bollerslev:garch] are standard econometric tools to capture the leptokurticity and the volatility clustering exhibited by financial time series. In the one dimensional situation, a large collection of parametric models that account for various stylized features of financial returns is available. Additionally, adequate model selection and estimation tools have been developed, as well as explicit characterizations of the conditions that ensure stationarity or the existence of higher moments.
One of the advantages of GARCH models that makes them particularly useful is that once they have been calibrated they provide an estimate of the dynamical behavior of volatility which, in principle, is not directly observable. This feature makes desirable the extension of the GARCH prescription to the multivariate case since such a generalization provides a dynamical picture of the correlations between different assets which are of major importance, in the context of financial econometrics, for pricing and hedging purposes, asset allocation, and risk management in general.
This generalization is nevertheless not free from difficulties. The most general multivariate GARCH models are the VEC prescription proposed by Bollerslev [*et al*]{} [@bollerslev:vec] and the BEKK model by Engle [*et al*]{} [@engle:bekk]; both families of models present satisfactory properties that match those found in univariate GARCH models, nevertheless their lack of parsimony, even in low dimensions makes them extremely difficult to calibrate; for example, VEC(1,1) models require $n(n+1)(n(n+1)+1)/2 $ parameters, where $n$ is the dimensionality of the modeling problem; BEKK(1,1,1) requires $n(5n+1)/2 $. Indeed, due to the high number of parameters needed, it is rare to find these models at work beyond two or three dimensions and even then, ad hoc estimation techniques are used and additional limitations are imposed on the model to make it artificially parsimonious; see for example [@altay:pinar:leyffer] for an illustration of the estimation of a three dimensional DVEC model (VEC model with diagonal parameter matrices [@bollerslev:vec]) using constrained non-linear programming. These difficulties have lead to the search for more parsimonious but still functioning models like for example CCC [@bollerslev:ccc], DCC [@tse:dcc; @engle:dcc] or GDC [@kroner:ng]. On a different vein, a number of different signal separation techniques have been tried out in the financial time series context with the aim of reducing this intrinsically multivariate problem to a collection of univariate ones. For example, principal component analysis is used in the O-GARCH model [@ding:thesis; @alexander:chibumba; @alexander:ogarch; @alexander:covariance_matrices] and independent component analysis in the ICA-GARCH model [@wu:PCA; @pena:ica]. We advice the reader to check with the excellent reviews [@bauwens:garch_review; @review:multivariate:GARCH:handbook] for a comprehensive description of these and other models.
Despite the overparameterization problem we will concentrate in this work on full fledge VEC models. This decision is taken not for the pure sake of generality but because the intrinsic difficulties of this parametric family of models make them an ideal benchmark for testing optimization techniques subjected to potentially complex matrix constraints. Stated differently, it is our belief that, independently from the pertinence of the VEC family in certain modeling situations, any optimization algorithm developed to estimate them will work smoothly when applied to more elementary situations. Hence, the work that we present in this paper is capable of increasing the range of dimensions in which VEC models can be estimated in practice by improving the existing technology in two directions:
- Explicit matrix formulation of the model and of the associated stationarity and positivity constraints: the works in the literature usually proceed by expressing the constraints in terms of the entries of the parameter matrices (see for example [@altay:pinar:leyffer] in the DVEC case). A global matrix formulation is necessary in order to obtain a dimension independent encoding of the problem. This task is carried out in Sections \[Preliminaries on matrices and matrix operators\] and \[The VEC-GARCH model\]
- Use of a Bregman-type proximal optimization algorithm that efficiently handles the constraints in the primal space. More specifically, we will be using [**Burg’s matrix divergence**]{}; this divergence is presented, for example, in [@kulis:sustik:dhillon] and it is a particular instance of a [**Bregman divergence**]{}. Bregman divergences are of much use in the context of machine learning (see for instance [@dhillon:tropp; @kulis:sra:dhillon] and references therein). In our situation we have opted for this technique as it allows for a particularly efficient treatment of positive definiteness constraints, as those in our problem, avoiding the need to solve additional secondary optimization problems that appear, for example, had we used Lagrange duality. It is worth emphasizing that even though the constraints that we handle in the estimation problem admit a simple and explicit conic formulation well adapted to the use of Lagrange multipliers, the associated dual optimization problem is in this case of difficulty comparable to that of the primal so avoiding this extra step is a major advantage. This approach is presented in Sections \[Constrained optimization via Bregman divergences\] and \[Bregman divergences for VEC models\]. In Section \[Performance improvement: BFGS and trust-region corrections\] we couple the use of Bregman divergences with a refinement of the local penalized model using quadratic BFGS type terms and with a trust-region iteration acceptance rule that greatly stabilizes the primal trajectory and improves the convergence speed of the algorithm. Finally, given the non-linear non-convex nature of estimation via quasi-loglikelihood optimization, the availability of good preliminary estimation techniques is of paramount importance in order to avoid local minima; this point is treated in Section \[Preliminary estimation\] where some of the simpler modeling solutions listed above are used to come up with a starting point to properly initialize the optimization algorithm.
In Section \[numerical experiments\] we illustrate the estimation method proposed in Section \[Calibration via Bregman matrix divergences\] with various numerical experiments that prove its applicability and support the following statements:
- The trust-region correction speeds up the algorithm and the BFGS modification makes the convergence rate dimensionally independent.
- More importantly, VEC seems to be a performing modeling tool for stock market log-returns when compared with other more parsimonious parametric families, [*even in dimensions where the high number of parameters in comparison with the sample size would make us expect a deficient modeling behavior*]{}. Our conjecture is that this better than expected results have to do with the spectral sparsity (in the dimensions we work on we should rather say spectral concentration) of the correlation matrices exhibited by stock market log-returns; this empirically observed feature imposes nonlinear constraints on the model parameters that invalidate the hypotheses necessary to formulate the standard results on the asymptotic normality of the quasi-loglikelihood parameter estimator (see later on expressions (\[estimator properties 1\]) and (\[estimator properties 2\])) and make it more favorable with respect to its use with standard sample sizes. In a forthcoming publication we plan to provide a detailed study of the convergence and complexity properties of the proposed algorithm, together with dimension reduction techniques based on the use of the spectral sparsity that, as we said, is empirically observed in actual financial time series.
[**Notation and conventions:**]{} In order to make the reading of the paper easier, most of the proofs of the stated results have been gathered at the end in the form of appendices. All along the paper, bold symbols like $\mathbf{r} $ denote column vectors, $ \mathbf{r} ^T $ denotes the transposed vector. Given a filtered probability space $(\Omega, \mathbb{P}, \mathcal{F}, \{ \mathcal{F} _t\}_{t \in \mathbb{N}})$ and $X,Y $ two random variables, we will denote by $E _t[X]:=E[X| \mathcal{F} _t]$ the conditional expectation, ${\rm cov} _t(X,Y):= {\rm cov}(X,Y| \mathcal{F} _t):=E_t[XY]-E_t[X]E _t[Y]$ the conditional covariance, and by ${\rm var} _t(X):=E_t[X ^2]-E _t[X] ^2 $ the conditional variance. A discrete-time stochastic process $\{X _t\}_{t \in \mathbb{N}} $ is predictable when $X _t $ is $\mathcal{F} _{t-1} $-measurable, for any $t \in \mathbb{N} $.
Preliminaries on matrices and matrix operators {#Preliminaries on matrices and matrix operators}
==============================================
[**Matrices:**]{} Let $n,m \in \mathbb{N} $ and denote by $\mathbb{M}_{n,m}$ the space of $n \times m $ matrices. When $n=m $ we will just write $\mathbb{M} _n$ to refer to the space of $n \times n $ square matrices. Unless specified otherwise, all the matrices in this paper will contain purely real entries. The equality $A = \left(a_{ij} \right)$ denotes the matrix $A$ with components $a_{ij}\in \mathbb{R}$. The symbol $\Bbb S_n $ denotes the subspace of $\mathbb{M} _n $ that contains all symmetric matrices $$\Bbb S_n=\{ A \in \mathbb{M}_m\mid A ^T=A\}$$ and $\Bbb S_n^+ $ (respectively $\Bbb S_n^-$) is the cone in $\Bbb S _n $ containing the positive (respectively negative) semidefinite matrices. The symbol $A\succeq 0 $ (respectively $A\preceq 0 $) means that $A$ is positive (respectively negative) semidefinite.
We will consider $\mathbb{M}_{n,m}$ as an inner product space with the pairing $$\label{frobenius inner product}
\langle A,B\rangle= {\rm trace}(AB ^T)$$ and denote by $\|A\|= \langle A,A\rangle^ \frac{1}{2}$ the associated Frobenius norm. Given a linear operator $\mathcal{A}:\mathbb{M}_{n,m} \rightarrow \mathbb{M}_{p,q} $ we will denote by $\mathcal{A} ^\ast : \mathbb{M}_{p,q} ^\ast \rightarrow \mathbb{M}_{n,m}^\ast $ its adjoint with respect to the inner product (\[frobenius inner product\]).
[**The vec, vech, mat, and math operators and their adjoints:**]{} The symbol ${\rm vec}:\mathbb{M}_n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n ^2}$ denotes the operator that stacks all the columns of a matrix into a vector. Let $N= \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$ and let ${\rm vech}: \mathbb{S}_n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{N}$ be the operator that stacks only the lower triangular part, including the diagonal, of a symmetric matrix into a vector. The inverse of the vech (respectively vec)operator will be denoted by ${\rm math}: \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \Bbb S_n $ (respectively ${\rm mat}: \mathbb{R}^{n^2} \rightarrow \Bbb M_n $).
Given $n \in \mathbb{N} $ and $N= \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$, let $S=\{(i,j)\in \{1, \ldots, n\}\times \{1, \ldots, n\}\mid i\geq j\} $ we define $\sigma: S \rightarrow \{1, \ldots, N\}$ as the map that yields the position of component $(i,j), i\geq j,$ of any symmetric matrix in its equivalent vech representation. The symbol $\sigma^{-1}:\{1, \ldots, N\} \rightarrow S $ will denote its inverse and $\widetilde{\sigma}:\{1, \ldots, n\}\times \{1, \ldots, n\} \rightarrow \{1, \ldots, N\} $ the extension of $\sigma$ defined by: $$\label{extension of sigma}
\widetilde{\sigma}(i,j)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sigma(i,j) &i \geq j\\
\sigma(j,i) &i < j.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The proof of the following result is provided in the Appendix.
\[vec identities\] Given $n \in \mathbb{N} $ and $N= \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$, let $A \in \Bbb S _n $ and $m \in \mathbb{R}^N $ arbitrary. The following identities hold true:
(i)
: $\langle {\rm vech}(A), m\rangle= \frac{1}{2}\langle A+ {\rm diag}(A), {\rm math}(m) \rangle. $
(ii)
: $\langle A, {\rm math}(m)\rangle= 2\langle {\rm vech}(A- \frac{1}{2} {\rm diag}(A)), m \rangle,$
where ${\rm diag}(A) $ denotes the diagonal matrix obtained out of the diagonal entries of $A$. Let ${\rm vech}^\ast :\mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \Bbb S_n $ and $ {\rm math}^\ast :\Bbb S_n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N $ be the adjoint maps of ${\rm vech} $ and ${\rm math}$, respectively, then: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm math}^\ast(A)&=&2\, {\rm vech} \left( A- \frac{1}{2} {\rm diag}(A)\right), \label{expression maths}\\
{\rm vech}^\ast(m) &= &\frac{1}{2} \left( {\rm math}(m) +{\rm diag}({\rm math}(m))\right). \label{expression vechs}\end{aligned}$$ The operator norms of the mappings that we just introduced are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\rm vech}\|_{op} &=&1\label{operator norm vech}\\
\| {\rm math}\|_{op} &=&\sqrt{2}\label{operator norm math}\\
\| {\rm vech^\ast }\|_{op} &=&1\label{operator norm math2}\\
\| {\rm math}^\ast \|_{op} &=&\sqrt{2}\label{operator norm math3}\\
\| {\rm diag}\|_{op} &=&1\label{operator norm math4}\end{aligned}$$
[**Block matrices and the $\Sigma$ operator:**]{} let $n \in \mathbb{N} $ and $B \in \mathbb{M}_{n ^2}$. The matrix $B$ can be divided into $n^2 $ blocks $B_{ij} \in \mathbb{M}_n $ and hence its components can be labeled using a blockwise notation by referring to the $(k,l)$ element of the $(i,j)$ block as $(B_{ij})_{kl}$. This notation makes particularly accessible the interpretation of $B$ as the coordinate expression of a linear endomorphism of the tensor product space $\mathbb{R}^n\otimes \mathbb{R}^n$. Indeed if $\{ \mathbf{e}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{e}_n \} $ is the canonical basis or $\mathbb{R} ^n $, we have $$\label{components block matrices}
B (\mathbf{e}_i \otimes \mathbf{e}_k)=\sum_{j,l=1}^n (B_{ij})_{kl} (\mathbf{e}_j \otimes \mathbf{e}_l).$$
\[sigma operator\] Let $A\in \Bbb M_N$ with $N= \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$. We define $\Sigma (A) \in \Bbb S_{n ^2} $ blockwise using the expression $$\label{sigma definition}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\text{If $k\geq l $}&(\Sigma (A)_{kl})_{ij} &=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{2}A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}, &\text{if \quad}i>j\\
A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}, &\text{if \quad}i=j\\
\frac{1}{2}A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(j,i)}, &\text{if \quad}i<j
\end{array}
\right.\\
\ &\ & \\
\text{If $k\leq l $}&\Sigma (A)_{kl} &=\Sigma (A)_{lk},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\sigma $ is the map defined above that yields the position of component $(i,j), i\geq j,$ of any symmetric matrix in its equivalent vech representation. By construction $(\Sigma (A)_{kl})_{ij} $ is symmetric with respect to transpositions in the $(k,l)$ and $(i,j)$ indices; this implies that $\Sigma (A) $ is both symmetric and blockwise symmetric. We will refer to any matrix in $\Bbb S_{n ^2}$ with this property as [**$n$-symmetric**]{} and will denote the corresponding space by $\Bbb S_{n ^2}^n$.
The proofs of the next two results are provided in the Appendix.
\[property of sigmaa statement\] Given $H \in \Bbb S _n $ and $A\in \Bbb M_N$, with $N= \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$, the $n$-symmetric matrix $\Sigma(A) \in \Bbb S_{n ^2}^n $ that we just defined satisfies: $$\label{property of sigmaa}
A \, {\rm vech}(H)= {\rm vech}( \Sigma(A)\bullet H),$$ where $\Sigma(A)\bullet H \in \Bbb S_n $ is the symmetric matrix given by $$(\Sigma(A)\bullet H)_{kl}= \langle\Sigma(A)_{kl},H\rangle= \operatorname{trace}(\Sigma (A)_{kl}H).$$
\[sigma dual\] Let $\Sigma: \mathbb{M}_N \rightarrow \Bbb M_{n^2}$ be the operator defined in the previous proposition, $N= \frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$. Then, for any $\mathcal{B} \in M_{n^2}$, the corresponding dual map $\Sigma^\ast : \Bbb M_{n^2} \rightarrow \mathbb{M}_N $ is given by $$\label{expression sigma dual}
\Sigma^\ast (\mathcal{B})=2B- \widetilde{B},$$ where $B, \widetilde{B} \in \mathbb{M}_N $ are the matrices defined by $$B_{pq}=((\mathbb{P}_{n ^2 }^n(\mathcal{B}))_{\sigma ^{-1}(p)})_{\sigma^{-1}(q)}, \quad\text{and} \quad \widetilde{B}_{pq}=B_{pq} \delta_{{\rm pr}_1(\sigma ^{-1}(p)),{\rm pr}_2(\sigma ^{-1}(p))}.$$ The symbol $\mathbb{P}_{n ^2 }^n(\mathcal{B}) $ denotes the orthogonal projection of $\mathcal{B} \in \mathbb{M}_{n ^2} $ onto the space $\Bbb S_{n ^2 } ^n $ of $n$-symmetric matrices that we spell out in Lemma \[orthogonal projection n symmetric\]. As we saw in Proposition \[property of sigmaa statement\], $\Sigma $ maps into the space $\Bbb S_{n ^2 } ^n $ of symmetric matrices; let $ \widetilde{\Sigma}:\mathbb{M}_N \rightarrow \Bbb S_{n^2}^n $ be the map obtained out of $\Sigma $ by restriction of its range. The map $\widetilde{\Sigma} $ is a bijection with inverse $\widetilde{\Sigma}^{-1}:\Bbb S_{n^2}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{M}_N $ given by $$\label{sigma inverse expression}
\left(\widetilde{\Sigma}^{-1}(B)\right)_{p,q}= \left(B_{\sigma^{-1}(p)}\right)_{\sigma^{-1}(q)}\left(2-\delta_{{\rm pr}_1(\sigma ^{-1}(q)),{\rm pr}_2(\sigma ^{-1}(q))}\right).$$
The VEC-GARCH model {#The VEC-GARCH model}
===================
Consider the $n$-dimensional conditionally heteroscedastic discrete-time process $\{ \mathbf{z}_t \} $ determined by the relation $$\mathbf{z}_t = H_t^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\epsilon _t} \quad\quad\text{with}\quad\quad
\{\boldsymbol{\epsilon _t}\}\sim {\rm IIDN}({\boldsymbol 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_n).$$ In this expression, $\{H_t\} $ denotes a predictable matrix process, that is for each $t \in \mathbb{N} $, the matrix random variable $H_t $ is $\mathcal{F}_{t-1} $-measurable, and $H_t^{1/2} $ is a square root of $H_t $, hence it satisfies $H_t^{1/2}(H_t^{1/2})^T=H_t $. In these conditions it is easy to show that the conditional mean $E_t[{\bf z} _t]=\boldsymbol{0} $ and that the conditional covariance matrix process of $\{ {\bf z}_t \} $ coincides with $\{H_t\} $.
Different prescriptions for the time evolution of the conditional covariance matrix $\{H_t\} $ determine different vector conditional heteroscedastic models. In this paper we will focus on the [**VEC-GARCH model**]{} (just VEC in what follows). This model was introduced in [@bollerslev:vec] as the direct generalization of the univariate GARCH model [@bollerslev:garch] in the sense that every conditional variance and covariance is a function of all lagged conditional variances and covariances as well as all squares and cross-products of the lagged time series values. More specifically, the VEC(q,p) model is determined by $$\boldsymbol{h}_t={\bf c}+\sum_{i=1}^q A _i\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-i}+\sum_{i=1}^p B _i \boldsymbol{h}_{t-i},$$ where $\boldsymbol{h}_t:= {\rm vech}(H _t) $, $ \boldsymbol{\eta}_t:= {\rm vech}({\bf z}_t {\bf z}^T )$, ${\bf c} $ is a $N$-dimensional vector, with $N:=n(n+1)/2 $ and $A _i, B _i \in \mathbb{M}_N $.
In the rest of the paper we will restrict to the case $p=q=1$, that is: $$\label{vec11 model}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
\mathbf{z}_t &=& H_t^{1/2}\boldsymbol{\epsilon _t}\quad\quad\text{with}\quad\quad
\{\boldsymbol{\epsilon _t}\}\sim {\rm IIDN}({\boldsymbol 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_n),\\
\boldsymbol{h}_t&=&{\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B \boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ In this case the model needs $N(2N+1) = \frac{1}{2}(n ^2+ n)(n ^2+n+1)$ parameters for a complete specification.
Positivity and stationarity constraints
---------------------------------------
The general prescription for the VEC model spelled out in (\[vec11 model\]) does not guarantee that it has stationary solutions. Moreover, as we saw above, the resulting matrices $\{H _t\}_{t \in \mathbb{N}}$ are the conditional covariance matrices of the resulting process and therefore, additional constraints should be imposed on the parameter matrices ${\bf c}, A $, and $B$ in order to ensure that they are symmetric and positive semidefinite. Unlike the situation encountered in the one-dimensional case, necessary and sufficient conditions for positivity and stationarity seem very difficult to find and we will content ourselves with sufficient specifications.
[**Positivity constraints:**]{} we will use the sufficient conditions introduced by Gourieroux in [@gourieroux:book] that, as we show in the next proposition, can be explicitly formulated using the map $\Sigma $ introduced in Definition \[sigma operator\].
\[positivity constraint\] If the parameter matrices ${\bf c}, A$, and $B$ in (\[vec11 model\]) are such that ${\rm math}({\bf c}), \Sigma(A) $, and $\Sigma(B) $ are positive semidefinite then so are the resulting conditional covariance matrices $\{H _t\}_{t \in \mathbb{N}}$, provided the initial condition $H _0 $ is positive semidefinite.
[**Second order stationarity constraints:**]{} Gourieroux [@gourieroux:book] has stated sufficient conditions in terms of the spectral radius of $A+B $ that we will make more restrictive in order to ensure the availability of a formulation in terms of positive semidefiniteness constraints.
\[Second order stationarity constraints\] The VEC model specified in (\[vec11 model\]) admits a unique second order stationary solution if all the eigenvalues of $A+B $ lie strictly inside the unit circle. This is always the case whenever the top singular eigenvalue $\sigma_{{\rm max}}(A+B)$ of $A+B $ is smaller than one or, equivalently, when the matrix $\mathbb{I}_N-(A+B)(A+B)^T $ is positive definite. If any of these conditions is satisfied, the marginal variance of the model is given by $$\label{stationary variance}
\Gamma(0)={\rm math}(E[ {\bf h}_t])={\rm math}((\mathbb{I}_N-A-B) ^{-1}{\bf c}).$$
The likelihood function, its gradient, and computability constraints
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Given a sample ${\bf z}=\{{\bf z}_1, \ldots, {\bf z}_T\} $, the quasi-loglikelihood associated to (\[vec11 model\]) is: $$\label{likelihood vec11}
{\rm log}L({\bf z}; \boldsymbol{\theta})=- \frac{TN}{2}\log 2 \pi- \frac{1}{2}\sum_{t=1}^T\log(\det H _t)- \frac{1}{2}\sum_{t=1}^T {\bf z}_t ^TH _t ^{-1}{\bf z} _t$$ where $\boldsymbol{\theta}:= \left({\bf c}, A, B\right)$. In this expression, the matrices $H _t $ are constructed out of $\boldsymbol{\theta} $ and the sample ${\bf z} $ using the second expression in (\[vec11 model\]). This implies that the dependence of ${\rm log}L $ on $\boldsymbol{\theta} $ takes place through the matrices $H _t$. Notice that these matrices are well defined once initial values $H _0$ and ${\bf z}_0 $ have been fixed. This initial values are usually taken out of a presample; if this is not available it is customary to take the mean values associated to the stationary model, namely ${\bf z}= {\bf 0} $ and $H _0={\rm math}((\mathbb{I}_N-A-B) ^{-1}{\bf c}) $ (see (\[stationary variance\])). Once the initial conditions have been fixed, it can be shown by induction that $$\label{explicit formula for h}
{\bf h} _t= \left(\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}B ^i\right){\bf c}+\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}B ^iA \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-i-1}+B ^t {\bf h} _0.$$ The maximum likelihood estimator $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}} $ of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ is the value that maximizes (\[likelihood vec11\]) for a given sample ${\bf z} $. The search of that extremal is carried out using an optimization algorithm that we will discuss later on in the paper and that requires the gradient $\nabla_ {\boldsymbol{\theta}}{\rm log}L({\bf z}; \boldsymbol{\theta})$ of ${\rm log}L $. In order to compute it we write the total quasi-loglikelihood as a sum of $T$ conditional loglikelihoods $$l _t({\bf z}_t; A,B,c)=- \frac{N}{2}\log 2 \pi- \frac{1}{2}\log(\det H _t)- \frac{1}{2} {\bf z}_t ^TH _t ^{-1}{\bf z} _t$$A lengthy calculation shows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla _{{\bf c}}l_t&=&\left[\left(\gamma_t -\Gamma_t \right)^T\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}B ^{i} \right]^T,\label{grad1}\\
\nabla _Al_t&=&\left[\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-i-1}\left(\gamma_t -\Gamma_t \right)^TB ^i \right]^T,\label{grad2}\\
\nabla _Bl_t&=&\left[\sum_{i=0}^{t-1}\left[\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}B ^j({\bf c}+A\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-i-1})\left(\gamma_t -\Gamma_t \right)^TB ^{i-j-1}
+B ^j {\bf h} _0\left(\gamma_t -\Gamma_t \right)^TB ^{t-j-1}\right]\right]^T,\label{grad3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Gamma _t:= \frac{1}{2}{\rm math} ^\ast (H _t^{-1}), \quad \gamma _t:= \frac{1}{2}{\rm math} ^\ast (\Lambda _t), \quad\text{and }\quad
\Lambda _t:= H _t^{-1} {\bf z} _t{\bf z} _t^T H _t^{-1}.$$ These formulas for the gradient were obtained by using the explicit expression of the conditional covariance matrices (\[explicit formula for h\]) in terms of the sample elements and the coefficient matrices. Such a closed form expression is not always available as soon as the model becomes slightly more complicated; for example, if one adds to the model (\[vec11 model\]) a drift term like in [@duan:GARCH:pricing] for the one dimensional GARCH case, an expression like (\[explicit formula for h\]) ceases to exist. That is why, in the next proposition, we introduce an alternative iterative method that can be extended to more general models, it is well adapted to its use under the form of a computer code and, more importantly, suggests the introduction of an additional estimation constraint that noticeably shortens the computation time needed for its numerical evaluation.
\[gradient by recursion\] Let ${\bf z}=\{{\bf z}_1, \ldots, {\bf z}_T\} $ be a sample, $\boldsymbol{\theta}:=({\bf c},A,B) $, and let $ {\rm log}L({\bf z}; \boldsymbol{\theta}) $ be the quasi-loglikelihood introduced in (\[likelihood vec11\]). Then, for any component $\theta $ of the three-tuple $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, we have $$\label{general expression of gradient}
\nabla _{ \boldsymbol{\theta} } \log L=\sum_{t=1}^T \nabla_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} l _t =\sum_{t=1}^T T^\ast _{\boldsymbol{\theta}} H _t \cdot \nabla_{H _t} l _t, \quad\text{where}$$ $$\label{gradient with respect to Ht}
\nabla_{H _t} l _t= - \frac{1}{2} \left[H _t ^{-1}- H _t ^{-1} {\bf z} _t{\bf z} _t^T H _t ^{-1} \right],$$ and the differential operators $T^\ast _{ \theta } H _t $ are determined by the recursions: $$\begin{aligned}
T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta&=& {\rm math}^\ast(\Delta)+T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H_{t-1}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^T{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ), \label{tht1}\\
T _A^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta&=& {\rm math}^\ast(\Delta)\cdot \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}^T+T _A^\ast H_{t-1}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^T{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ),\label{tht2}\\
T _B^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta&=& {\rm math}^\ast(\Delta)\cdot {\rm vech}(H_{t-1})^T+T _B^\ast H_{t-1}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^T{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ),\label{tht3}\end{aligned}$$ with $ \boldsymbol{\eta}_t= {\rm vech}({\bf z}_t {\bf z}^T )$, $\Delta \in \Bbb S_n$ and setting $T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H _0= {\bf 0}$, $T _A^\ast H _0=T _B^\ast H _0= {\bf 0} $. The operators $T^\ast _{ \theta } H _t $ constructed in (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]) are the adjoints of the partial tangent maps $T _{{\bf c}}H _t: \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \Bbb S _n $, $T _{A}H _t: M_N \rightarrow \Bbb S _n $, and $T _{B}H _t: M_N \rightarrow \Bbb S _n $ to $H _t({\bf c},A,B):= {\rm math}({\bf h} _t({\bf c},A,B)) $, with ${\bf h} _t({\bf c},A,B) $ as defined in (\[explicit formula for h\]).
[**Matrix expression of the recursions (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]):**]{} the use of Proposition \[gradient by recursion\] requires translating the operator recursions (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]) into matrix recursions. In this particular case this can be achieved by writing $\Delta \in \Bbb S _n $ as $\Delta= {\rm vech}^\ast(\mathbf{v})$, with $\mathbf{v} = {\rm math}^\ast( \Delta) \in \mathbb{R}^N$. With this change of variables, the expression (\[tht1\]) becomes $$\label{rec 1}
T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H _t \cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(\mathbf{v})=\mathbf{v}+ T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H _{t-1} \cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^T \mathbf{v}).$$ Let $c _t \in \mathbb{M}_N$ be the matrix associated to the linear operator $T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H _t \circ {\rm vech}^\ast: \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R} ^N $. In view of (\[rec 1\]), the matrices $\{c _t\}_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}}$ are determined by the recursions $$\label{recuc}
c _t= \mathbb{I} _N+ c_{t-1}B ^T.$$ Once the family $\{c _t\}_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}}$ has been computed, it can be used in (\[general expression of gradient\]) by noticing that $$T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta=c _t \cdot {\rm math}^\ast (\Delta).$$ Regarding (\[tht2\]), let $A _t\in \mathbb{M}_{N ^2,\, N} $ be the matrix associated to the linear operator ${\rm vec} \circ T _{A}^\ast H _t \circ {\rm vech}^\ast: \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R} ^{N ^2} $. Given that $${\rm vec}(\mathbf{v} \boldsymbol{\eta}^T_{t-1})={\rm vec}(\mathbb{I}_N\mathbf{v} \boldsymbol{\eta}^T_{t-1})= \left(\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}\otimes \mathbb{I}_N\right) {\rm vec}(\mathbf{v})=\left(\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}\otimes \mathbb{I}_N\right) \mathbf{v},$$ the recursion (\[tht2\]) implies that the family $\{A _t\}_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}}$ is determined by $$\label{recuA}
A _t= \left(\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}\otimes \mathbb{I}_N\right)+A_{t-1}B ^T$$ and hence, once it has been computed, it can be used in (\[general expression of gradient\]) by noticing that $$T _{A}^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta={\rm mat} \left(A_t \cdot {\rm math}^\ast (\Delta)\right),$$ where we recall that mat denotes the inverse of the vec operator. Finally, let $B _t\in \mathbb{M}_{N ^2,\, N} $ be the matrix associated to the linear operator ${\rm vec} \circ T _{B}^\ast H _t \circ {\rm vech}^\ast: \mathbb{R}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R} ^{N ^2} $. The family $\{B _t\}_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}}$ is determined by $$\label{recuB}
B _t= \left( {\rm vech}(H_{t-1})\otimes \mathbb{I}_N\right)+B_{t-1}B ^T, \quad \mbox{and hence,} \quad T _{B}^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta={\rm mat} \left(B_t \cdot {\rm math}^\ast (\Delta)\right).$$
[**The computability constraints.**]{} In the particular case of the [VEC]{}(1,1) model, the existence of the matrix recursions (\[recuc\])–(\[recuB\]) associated to (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]) makes the computation of (\[general expression of gradient\]) relatively easy. For more general models, the matrix recursions are not easily available and one is forced to work directly with (the analog of) (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]). In those cases, if we deal with a long time series sample, the computation of the gradient (\[general expression of gradient\]) may turn out numerically very expensive since it consists of the sum of $T$ terms $T^\ast _{ \theta } H _t \cdot \nabla_{H _t} l _t $, each of which is made of the sum of the $t$ terms recursively defined in (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]). A major simplification can be obtained if we restrict ourselves in the estimation process to matrices $B$ whose top eigenvalue is in norm smaller than one. The defining expressions for the differential operators $T ^\ast _\theta H _t $ show that in that situation, only a certain number of iterations, potentially small, is needed to compute the gradients with a prescribed precision. This is particularly visible in the expressions (\[grad1\])–(\[grad3\]) where the dependence on the powers of $B$ makes very small many of the involved summands whenever the spectrum of $B$ is strictly contained in the unit disk. This is the reason why we will impose this as an additional estimation constraint. The details of this statement are spelled out in the proposition below that we present after the summary of the constraints that we will impose all along the paper on the model (\[vec11 model\]):
(SC)
: [**Stationarity constraints:**]{} $\mathbb{I}_N(1- \epsilon_{AB})-(A+B)(A+B)^T\succeq 0 $ for some small $\epsilon_{AB}>0 $.
(PC)
: [**Positivity constraints:**]{} ${\rm math}({\bf c})- \epsilon_{{\bf c}}\mathbb{I} _n\succeq 0 $, $\Sigma(A)- \epsilon_A \mathbb{I}_{n ^2}\succeq 0 $, and $\Sigma(B)- \epsilon_B \mathbb{I}_{n ^2}\succeq 0 $, for some small $\epsilon_A, \epsilon_B, \epsilon_{{\bf c}} >0 $.
(CC)
: [**Computability constraints:**]{} $\mathbb{I}_N(1- \widetilde{\epsilon}_{B})-BB^T\succeq 0 $ for some small $\widetilde{\epsilon}_{B}>0 $.
\[estimate number iterations\] Let $t \in \mathbb{N} $ be a fixed lag and let $T^\ast _{ \theta } H _t $ be the differential operators defined by applying $t$ times the recursions (\[tht1\])-(\[tht3\]). Consider now the operators $T^\ast _{ \theta } H _t ^k$ obtained by truncating the recursions (\[tht1\])-(\[tht3\]) after $k$ iterations, $k< t $. If we assume that the coefficients ${\bf c}, A $, and $B$ satisfy the constraints [**(SC)**]{}, [**(PC)**]{}, and [**(CC)**]{} then the error committed in the truncations can be estimated using the following inequalities satisfied by the operator norms: $$\begin{aligned}
\|T^\ast _{{\bf c} } H _t -T^\ast _{ {\bf c} } H _t ^k\|_{{\rm op}}&\leq & \frac{2(1- \widetilde{\epsilon } _B)^k}{\widetilde{\epsilon } _B},\label{ub1}\\
\|E\left[T^\ast _{A } H _t -T^\ast _{ A } H _t ^k\right]\|_{{\rm op}}&\leq & \frac{2(1- \widetilde{\epsilon } _B)^k\| {\bf c}\|}{\epsilon _{AB}},\label{ub2}\\
\|E\left[T^\ast _{B} H _t -T^\ast _{B} H _t ^k\right]\|_{{\rm op}}&\leq & \frac{2(1- \widetilde{\epsilon } _B)^k\| {\bf c}\|}{\epsilon _{AB}}.\label{ub3}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the last two inequalities estimate the error committed in mean. As consequence of these relations, if we allow a maximum expected error $\delta$ in the computation of the gradient (\[general expression of gradient\]) then a lower bound for the number $k$ of iterations that need to be carried out in (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]) is: $$\label{k estimate}
k=\max \left\{\frac{\log \left(\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon} _B\delta}{2}\right)}{\log (1- \widetilde{\epsilon} _B)}, \frac{\log \left(\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon} _B\epsilon_{AB}\delta}{2 \epsilon_{{\bf c}}}\right)}{\log (1- \widetilde{\epsilon} _B)}\right\}.$$
The estimate (\[k estimate\]) for the minimum number of iterations needed to reach a certain precision in the computation of the gradient is by no means sharp. Numerical experiments show that the figure produced by this formula is in general too conservative. Nevertheless, this expression is still very valuable for it explicitly shows the pertinence of the computability constraint [**(CC)**]{}.
We emphasize that the constraints [**(SC)**]{}, [**(PC)**]{}, and [**(CC)**]{} are sufficient conditions for stationarity, positivity, and computability, respectively, but by no means necessary. For example [**(SC)**]{} and [**(CC)**]{} could be replaced by the more economical (but also more restrictive) condition that imposes $A, B \in \Bbb S_N^+ $ with $\lambda_{{\rm max}}(A+B)\leq(1- \epsilon_{AB})$. In this situation it can be easily shown that $\lambda_{{\rm max}}(B)<1 $ and hence the computability constrained is automatically satisfied.
Calibration via Bregman matrix divergences {#Calibration via Bregman matrix divergences}
==========================================
In this section we present an efficient optimization method that, given a sample ${\bf z}$, provides the parameter value $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}} $ corresponding to the [VEC]{}(1,1) model that fits it best by maximizing the quasi-loglikelihood (\[likelihood vec11\]) subjected to the constraints [**(SC)**]{}, [**(PC)**]{}, and [**(CC)**]{}. It can be proved under certain regularity hypotheses (see [@gourieroux:book page 119]) that the quasi-loglikelihood estimator $\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}} $ is consistent and asymptotically normal: $$\label{estimator properties 1}
\sqrt{T}(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}- \boldsymbol{\theta}_0)\xrightarrow[{\rm dist}]{}N(0, \Omega_0) \quad \mbox{where} \quad \Omega_0= A _0^{-1}B _0A _0^{-1}, \quad \mbox{with} \quad$$ $$\label{estimator properties 2}
A _0= E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_0} \left[- \frac{\partial ^2 l _t (\boldsymbol{\theta}_0)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}^T}\right]\quad \mbox{ and } \quad B _0= E_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_0} \left[\frac{\partial l _t (\boldsymbol{\theta}_0)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}}\frac{\partial l _t (\boldsymbol{\theta}_0)}{\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}^T}\right].$$ These matrices are usually consistently estimated by replacing the expectations by their empirical means and the true value of the parameter $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0 $ by the estimator $ \widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}$: $$\widehat{A} _0= - \frac{1}{T}\sum_{i=1}^T\frac{\partial ^2 l _t (\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}^T}, \qquad \widehat{B} _0= \frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=1}^T\frac{\partial l _t (\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}}\frac{\partial l _t (\widehat{\boldsymbol{\theta}})}{\partial \boldsymbol{\theta}^T}.$$
Constrained optimization via Bregman divergences {#Constrained optimization via Bregman divergences}
------------------------------------------------
The optimization method that we will be carrying out to maximize the quasi-loglikelihood is based on the use of [**Burg’s matrix divergence**]{}. This divergence is presented, for example, in [@kulis:sustik:dhillon] and it is a particular instance of a Bregman divergence. Bregman divergences are of much use in the context of machine learning (see for instance [@dhillon:tropp; @kulis:sra:dhillon] and references therein).
In our situation we have opted for this technique as it allows for a particularly efficient treatment of the constraints in our problem, avoiding the need to solve additional secondary optimization problems. In order to make this more explicit it is worth mentioning that we also considered different approaches consisting of optimizing quadratically penalized local first or second order models with the positive semidefinite constraints [**(PS)**]{}, [**(SC)**]{}, and [**(CC)**]{}; since we were not able to find a closed form expression for the optimization step induced by this constrained local model, we were forced to use Lagrange duality. Even though the constraints admit a simple conic formulation that allowed us to explicitly formulate the problem, this approach finally resulted in a problem that is much more computationally demanding than just incorporating the constraints into the primal scheme using Bregman divergences, as we propose below.
Let $X,Y \in \Bbb S_n $ and $\phi: \Bbb S_n\longrightarrow \mathbb{R} $ a strictly convex differentiable function. The [**Bregman matrix divergence**]{} associated to $\phi$ is defined by $$D_\phi(X,Y):= \phi(X)- \phi(Y)- \operatorname{trace} \left(\nabla \phi(Y) ^T(X-Y) \right).$$
Bregman divergences are used to measure distance between matrices. Indeed, if we take the squared Frobenius norm as the function $\phi $, that is $\phi(X):=\| X\| ^2 $, then $D_\phi(X,Y):=\| X-Y\| ^2 $. Other example is the [**von Neumann divergence**]{} which is the Bregman divergence associated to the entropy of the eigenvalues of a positive definite matrix; more explicitly, if $X$ is a positive definite matrix with eigenvalues $\{ \lambda _1, \ldots, \lambda _n\} $, then $\phi(X):=\sum_{i=1}^n (\lambda _i\log \lambda _i- \lambda_i) $. In our optimization problem we will be using [**Burg’s matrix divergence**]{} (also called the [**LogDet divergence**]{} or [**Stein’s loss**]{} in the statistics literature [@james:stein]) which is the Bregman divergence obtained out of the Burg entropy of the eigenvalues of a positive definite matrix, that is $\phi(X):=-\sum_{i=1}^n\log \lambda _i $, or equivalently $\phi(X):= -\log\det (X) $. The resulting Bregman divergence over positive definite matrices is $$\label{burg divergence}
D_B(X,Y):= \operatorname{trace}(XY ^{-1})-\log\det(XY ^{-1})-n.$$ The three divergences that we just introduced are examples of [**spectral**]{} divergences, that is, the function $\phi $ that defines them can be written down as the composition $\phi=\varphi \circ \lambda $, where $ \varphi: \mathbb{R}^n\longrightarrow \mathbb{R} $ is differentiable strictly convex function and $\lambda :\Bbb S_n \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n $ is the function that lists the eigenvalues of $X$ in algebraically decreasing order. It can be seen (see Appendix A in [@kulis:sustik:dhillon]) that spectral Bregman matrix divergences are invariant by orthogonal conjugations, that is, for any orthogonal matrix $Q \in \mathbb{O}_n $: $$D_{\phi}(Q ^TXQ,Q ^TYQ)=D_{\phi}(X,Y).$$ Burg divergences are invariant by an even larger group since $$D_{B}(M ^TXM,M ^TYM)=D_{B}(X,Y),$$ for any square non-singular matrix $M $. Additionally, for any non-zero scalar $\alpha$: $$D_{B}(\alpha X,\alpha Y)=D_{B}(X,Y).$$
The use of Bregman divergences in matrix constrained optimization problems is substantiated by replacing the quadratic term in the local model, that generally uses the Frobenius distance, by a Bregman divergence that places the set outside the constraints at an infinite distance. More explicitly, suppose that the constraints of a optimization problem are formulated as a positive definiteness condition $A\succeq 0 $ and that we want to find $$\mathop{\rm arg\, min}_{A\succeq 0}\, f(A),$$ by iteratively solving the optimization problems associated to penalized local models of the form $$\label{local model}
f_{A^{(n)}}(A):=f \left(A^{(n)}\right)+\left\langle \nabla f\left(A^{(n)}\right),A-A^{(n)}\right\rangle+ \frac{L}{2} D_\phi(A,A^{(n)}).$$ If in this local model we take $\phi(X):=\| X\| ^2 $ and the elastic penalization constant $L$ is small enough, the minimizer $\mathop{\rm arg\, min}_{A\succeq 0}\, f_{A^{(n)}}(A) $ is likely to take place outside the constraints. However, if we use Burg’s divergence $D_B $ instead, and $A ^{(n)}$ is positive definite, then so is $\mathop{\rm arg\, min}_{A\succeq 0}\, f_{A^{(n)}}(A) $ for no matter what value of the parameter $L$. This is so because as $A $ approaches the constraints, the term $D_\phi(A,A^{(n)}) $ becomes increasingly close to infinity producing the effect that we just described; see Figure \[fig:localmodel\] for an illustration. The end result of using Bregman divergences is that [*they reduce a constrained optimization problem to a series of local unconstrained ones*]{}.
![The blue function is subjected to the constraint $x\geq 400$ and, being strictly increasing, attains its minimum at $x=400 $. On the left hand side we use a standard quadratically penalized local model of the function and we see that its minimum is attained outside the constrained domain. On the right hand side we replace the quadratic penalization by a Bregman divergence that forces the local model to exhibit its optimum at a point that satisfies the constraints.[]{data-label="fig:localmodel"}](localmodels.pdf)
Bregman divergences for VEC models {#Bregman divergences for VEC models}
----------------------------------
Before we tackle the VEC estimation problem, we add to [**(SC)**]{}, [**(PC)**]{}, and [**(CC)**]{} a fourth constraint on the variable ${\bf c} \in \mathbb{R}^N$ that makes compact the optimization domain:
(KC)
: [**Compactness constraint:**]{} $K \mathbb{I}_N- {\rm math}({\bf c})\succeq 0 $ for some $K \in \mathbb{R}$.
In practice the constant $K$ is taken as a multiple of the Frobenius norm of the covariance matrix of the sample. This is a reasonable choice since by (\[stationary variance\]), in the stationary regime ${\bf c}= (\mathbb{I}_N-A-B){\rm vech}(\Gamma (0))$; moreover, by the constraint ${\bf (SC)} $ and (\[operator norm vech\]) we have $$\|{\bf c}\|= \|(\mathbb{I}_N-A-B){\rm vech}(\Gamma (0))\|\leq \|\mathbb{I}_N-A-B\|_{{\rm op}}\| {\rm vec}\|_{{\rm op}}\|\Gamma (0)\|\leq 2 \|\Gamma (0)\|.$$
Now, given a sample ${\bf z} $ and a starting value for the parameters $ \boldsymbol{\theta}_0=({\bf c}_0, A _0 , B _0)$, our goal is finding the minimizer of minus the quasi-loglikelihood $f(\boldsymbol{\theta}):=-{\rm log}L({\bf z}; \boldsymbol{\theta}) $, subjected to the constraints [**(SC)**]{}, [**(PC)**]{}, [**(CC)**]{}, and [**(KC)**]{}. We will worry about the problem of finding a preliminary estimation $\boldsymbol{\theta} _0 $ later on in Section \[Preliminary estimation\]. As we said before, our method is based on recursively optimizing penalized local models that incorporate Bregman divergences that ensure that the constraints are satisfied. More specifically, the estimate of the optimum $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n+1)} $ after $n$ iterations is obtained by solving $$\label{local optimization problem}
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n+1)} = \mathop{\rm arg\, min}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\in \mathbb{R}^N\times \mathbb{M}_N \times \mathbb{M}_N ,}\, \tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}),$$ where $\tilde{f}^{(n)} $ is defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) &= &f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)})+\langle\nabla f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)} ), \boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)} \rangle+ \frac{L _1}{2} D_B(\mathbb{I}_N-(A+B)^T(A+B),\mathbb{I}_N-(A^{(n)}+B^{(n)})^T(A^{(n)}+B^{(n)}))\notag\\
&+ & \frac{L _2}{2} D_B(\Sigma(A), \Sigma(A^{(n)}))+\frac{L _3}{2} D_B(\Sigma(B), \Sigma(B^{(n)}))+\frac{L _4}{2} D_B(\mathbb{I}_N-B^TB,\mathbb{I}_N-B^{(n)\,T}B^{(n)})\notag\\
&+&\frac{L _5}{2} D_B({\rm math}({\bf c}), {\rm math}({\bf c}^{(n)}))+\frac{L _6}{2} D_B(K \mathbb{I}_N-{\rm math}({\bf c}), K \mathbb{I}_N-{\rm math}({\bf c}^{(n)})).\label{definition local model}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that for the sake of simplicity we have incorporated the constraints in the divergences with the constraint tolerances $\epsilon_{AB}, \epsilon_A, \epsilon _B, \widetilde{\epsilon}_B$, and $\epsilon_{{\bf c}}$ set equal to zero.
The local optimization problem in (\[local optimization problem\]) is solved by finding the value $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0 $ for which $$\label{solution local model}
\nabla \tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_0) =0.$$ A long but straightforward computation shows that the gradient $\nabla \tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) $ is given by the expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla _A\tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta})&= &\nabla_A f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)} )-L _1(A+B) \left(\left(\mathbb{I}_N-(A^{(n)}+B^{(n)})^T(A^{(n)}+B^{(n)}) \right)^{-1}- \left( \mathbb{I}_N-(A+B)^T(A+B)\right)^{-1}\right)\notag\\
& & +\frac{L _2}{2} \Sigma^\ast \left(\Sigma(A^{(n)})^{-1}-\Sigma(A)^{-1}\right),\label{gradi1}\\
\nabla _B\tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta})&= &\nabla_B f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)} )-L _1(A+B) \left(\left(\mathbb{I}_N-(A^{(n)}+B^{(n)})^T(A^{(n)}+B^{(n)}) \right)^{-1}- \left( \mathbb{I}_N-(A+B)^T(A+B)\right)^{-1}\right)\notag\\
& & +\frac{L _3}{2} \Sigma^\ast \left(\Sigma(B^{(n)})^{-1}-\Sigma(B)^{-1}\right)-L _4B \left(\left(\mathbb{I}_N-B^{(n)\, T}B^{(n)} \right)^{-1}- \left( \mathbb{I}_N-B^TB\right)^{-1}\right),\label{gradi2}\\
\nabla _{{\bf c}} \tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta})&= &\nabla _{{\bf c}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)} )+ \frac{L _5}{2} {\rm math}^\ast\left({\rm math}({\bf c}^{(n)})^{-1}-{\rm math}({\bf c})^{-1}\right)\notag\\
& &- \frac{L _6}{2}{\rm math}^\ast\left((K \mathbb{I}_N-{\rm math}({\bf c}^{(n)}))^{-1}-(K \mathbb{I}_N-{\rm math}({\bf c}))^{-1}\right),\label{gradi3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)} ) =-\nabla_{\boldsymbol{\theta}} {\rm log}L({\bf z}; \boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)})$ is provided by the expressions in Proposition \[gradient by recursion\]. We will numerically find the solution of the equation (\[solution local model\]) using the Newton-Raphson algorithm, which requires computing the tangent map to $\nabla \tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) $. In order to do so, let $g _1 ^{(n)}(A,B)$, $g _2 ^{(n)}(A,B) $, and $g _3 ^{(n)}({\bf c})$ be the functions in the right hand side of the expressions (\[gradi1\]), (\[gradi2\]), and (\[gradi3\]), respectively, and $g ^{(n)}(A,B, {\bf c}):= \left(g _1 ^{(n)}(A,B),g _2 ^{(n)}(A,B), g _3 ^{(n)}({\bf c}) \right)$; additionally, define the map $\Lambda(A): \mathbb{M}_N \rightarrow \mathbb{M} _N $ by $\Lambda(A):= \mathbb{I} _N-A ^T A $, as well as $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi_{A}^{(n)}(\Delta)&= &- \Delta\left(\Lambda \left(A ^{(n)}\right)^{-1}- \Lambda(A)^{-1}\right)+A\Lambda (A)^{-1}\left(\Delta^T(A)+A^T \Delta\right)\Lambda(A)^{-1},\label{xi function}\\
\mathfrak{X}_A(\Delta)&=&\Sigma^\ast \left(\Sigma(A)^{-1} \Sigma(\Delta)\Sigma(A)^{-1}\right),\label{german x formula}\end{aligned}$$ for any $A, \Delta \in \mathbb{M} _N $. A straightforward computation shows that: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{(A,B)}g _1^{(n)}\cdot (\Delta_A, \Delta_B) &= &\left(L _1\Xi_{A+B}^{(n)}(\Delta_A)+ \frac{L _2}{2}\mathfrak{X}_A(\Delta_A), L _1\Xi_{A+B}^{(n)}(\Delta_B)\right), \label{jacobian1}\\
T_{(A,B)}g _2^{(n)}\cdot (\Delta_A, \Delta_B) &= &\left(L _1\Xi_{A+B}^{(n)}(\Delta_A),L _1\Xi_{A+B}^{(n)}(\Delta_B)+ \frac{L _3}{2}\mathfrak{X}_B(\Delta_B)+L _4\Xi_{B}^{(n)}(\Delta_B)\right), \label{jacobian2}\\
T_{{\bf c}}g _3^{(n)} \cdot \Delta_{{\bf c}}&= &\frac{L _5}{2} {\rm math}^\ast\left({\rm math}({\bf c})^{-1}{\rm math}(\Delta_{{\bf c}}){\rm math}({\bf c})^{-1}\right)\notag\\
& &+\frac{L _6}{2}{\rm math}^\ast\left((K \mathbb{I}_N-{\rm math}({\bf c}))^{-1}{\rm math}(\Delta_{{\bf c}})(K \mathbb{I}_N-{\rm math}({\bf c}))^{-1}\right).\label{jacobian3}\end{aligned}$$ In obtaining these equalities we used that the tangent map to the matrix inversion operation ${\rm inv} (X):= X ^{-1} $ is given by $T_X {\rm inv} \cdot \Delta=- X ^{-1}\Delta X ^{-1} $ and hence $$T _A \Lambda(A)^{-1} \cdot \Delta_A= \Lambda(A)^{-1}\left(\Delta_A^T A+A ^T\Delta_A\right)\Lambda(A)^{-1}\quad \mbox{and} \quad T _A\Sigma(A)^{-1}\cdot \Delta_A=- \Sigma(A)^{-1}\Sigma(\Delta_A)\Sigma(A)^{-1}.$$ The use of the tangent maps (\[jacobian1\])–(\[jacobian3\]) in a numerical routine that implements the Newton-Raphson method requires computing the matrix associated to the linear map $T_{(A,B, {\bf c})}g ^{(n)} $. A major part in this task, namely the matrix associated to the map $\Xi ^{(n)} $ in (\[xi function\]), admits a closed form expression that avoids a componentwise computation. Indeed: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm vec}(\Xi^{(n)}_A(\Delta)) &= & -\left[\left(\Lambda \left(A ^{(n)}\right)^{-1}- \Lambda(A)^{-1}\right)\otimes \mathbb{I}_N\right]{\rm vec}(\Delta)+ \left[\left(A \Lambda(A)^{-1}\right)^T\otimes A \Lambda(A)^{-1}\right]K_{NN}{\rm vec}(\Delta)\notag\\
& &+\left[\Lambda(A)^{-1\, T}\otimes A \Lambda(A)^{-1} A ^T\right]{\rm vec}(\Delta),\label{for matrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_{NN}$ is the $(N,N)$-commutation matrix (see [@magnus:neudecker]). This expression implies that the matrix $\widetilde{\Xi^{(n)}_A} \in \mathbb{M} _{N ^2}$ associated to the linear map $\Xi^{(n)}_A: \mathbb{M}_N \rightarrow \mathbb{M}_N $ is given by $$\label{part matrix of xi}
\widetilde{\Xi^{(n)}_A}=-\left[\left(\Lambda \left(A ^{(n)}\right)^{-1}- \Lambda(A)^{-1}\right)\otimes \mathbb{I}_N\right]+ \left[\left(A \Lambda(A)^{-1}\right)^T\otimes A \Lambda(A)^{-1}\right]K_{NN}+\left[\Lambda(A)^{-1\, T}\otimes A \Lambda(A)^{-1} A ^T\right].$$ In order to obtain (\[for matrix\]), we used the following properties of the [vec]{} operator: $${\rm vec}(AB)= \left(B ^T\otimes \mathbb{I}\right) {\rm vec}(A), \quad {\rm vec}(ABC)= \left(C ^T\otimes A\right) {\rm vec}(A)\quad \mbox{and} \quad {\rm vec}(A ^T)=K_{NN} {\rm vec}(A),$$ for any $A,B,C \in \mathbb{M}_N$. We have not found a closed formula for the matrices associated to the other linear maps that constitute (\[jacobian1\])–(\[jacobian3\]) and hence they need to be obtained in a componentwise manner by applying them to all the elements of a canonical basis. Let $\widetilde{\mathfrak{X} _A} $, $\widetilde{T_{(A,B, {\bf c})} g ^{(n)}}$, and $\widetilde{T_{{\bf c}} g_3 ^{(n)}}$ be the matrices associated to $\mathfrak{X} _A$, $T_{(A,B, {\bf c})} g ^{(n)}$, and $T_{{\bf c}} g_3 ^{(n)}$, respectively. Then, by (\[jacobian1\])–(\[jacobian3\]), we have: $$\label{matrix of jacobian}
\widetilde{T_{(A,B, {\bf c})} g ^{(n)}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
L _1\widetilde{\Xi^{(n)}_{A+B}}+ \frac{L _2}{2}\widetilde{\mathfrak{X} _A} &L _1\widetilde{\Xi^{(n)}_{A+B}} &\boldsymbol{0}\\
L _1\widetilde{\Xi^{(n)}_{A+B}} &L _1\widetilde{\Xi^{(n)}_{A+B}} + \frac{L _3}{2}\widetilde{\mathfrak{X} _B}+L _4 \widetilde{\Xi^{(n)}_{B}}&\boldsymbol{0}\\
\boldsymbol{0} &\boldsymbol{0} &\widetilde{T_{{\bf c}} g_3 ^{(n)}}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Using this matrix, the solution $\boldsymbol{\theta} _0 $ of (\[solution local model\]) is the limit of the sequence $\{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}:=\{(A ^{(n,\,k)},B ^{(n,\,k)}, {\bf c}^{(n,\,k)})\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ constructed using the prescription $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,1)}=\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}=(A ^{(n)},B ^{(n)}, {\bf c}^{(n)}) $ and by iteratively solving the linear systems: $$\label{newton raphson iteration}
\widetilde{T_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}} g ^{(n)}}\cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\rm vec}(A^{(n,\,k+1)})\\
{\rm vec}(B^{(n,\,k+1)})\\
{\bf c}^{(n,\,k+1)}
\end{array}
\right)=
-{\rm vec}\left(\nabla \tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)})\right)+
\widetilde{T_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}} g ^{(n)}}\cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\rm vec}(A^{(n,\,k)})\\
{\rm vec}(B^{(n,\,k)})\\
{\bf c}^{(n,\,k)}
\end{array}
\right).$$
Since the tangent map $T_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}g ^{(n)} $ can be assimilated to the Hessian of $\tilde{f}^{(n)} $, its matricial expression $\widetilde{T_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}g ^{(n)} }$ in (\[matrix of jacobian\]) should be symmetric. When this matrix is actually numerically constructed, the part resulting from the matrix identity (\[part matrix of xi\]) is automatically symmetric. The rest, that comes out of a componentwise study, may introduce numerical differences that slightly spoil symmetricity and that, in practice, has a negative effect in the performance of the optimization algorithm as a whole. That is why we strongly advice to symmetrize by hand $\widetilde{T_{\boldsymbol{\theta}}g ^{(n)} }$ once it has been computed.
Performance improvement: BFGS and trust-region corrections {#Performance improvement: BFGS and trust-region corrections}
----------------------------------------------------------
The speed of convergence of the estimation algorithm presented in the previous section can be significantly increased by enriching the local model with a quadratic BFGS (Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno) type term and by only accepting steps of a certain quality measured by the ratio between the actual descent and that predicted by the local model (see [@trust:region] and references therein).
The BFGS correction is introduced by adding to the local penalized model $\tilde{f}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})$ defined in (\[definition local model\]), the BFGS Hessian proxy $H ^{(n)} $ iteratively defined by: $$H^{(n)}=H ^{(n-1)}+ \frac{y^{(n-1)}y^{(n-1)\, T}}{y^{(n-1)\, T}s^{(n-1)}}- \frac{H ^{(n-1)}s ^{(n-1)}s ^{(n-1)\, T}H ^{(n-1)}}{s ^{(n-1)\, T}H ^{(n-1)}s ^{(n-1)}}.$$ with $H^{(0)} $ an arbitrary positive semidefinite matrix and where $s ^{(n-1)}:= \boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}- \boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n-1)} $ and $y ^{(n-1)}:=\nabla f (\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)})-\nabla f (\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n-1)}) $. More specifically, we replace the local penalized model $\tilde{f}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})$ by $$\hat{f}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta}):=\tilde{f}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})+ \frac{1}{2}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}\right)^TH^{(n)}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}\right),$$ whose gradient is obviously given by: $$\hat{g}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}):=\nabla \hat{f}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})=\nabla\tilde{f}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})+H^{(n)}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}\right)=\widetilde{g}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})+H^{(n)}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}\right),$$ with $\widetilde{g}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})=\nabla\tilde{f}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta})$ given by (\[gradi1\])–(\[gradi3\]). Using this corrected local penalized model, the solution of the optimization problem will be obtained by iteratively computing $$\label{local optimization problem bfgs}
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n+1)} = \mathop{\rm arg\, min}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}\in \mathbb{R}^N\times \mathbb{M}_N \times \mathbb{M}_N ,}\, \hat{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}).$$ This is carried out by finding the solution $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0 $ of the equation $$\label{solution local model bfgs}
\hat{g}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_0)=\widetilde{g}^{(n)} (\boldsymbol{\theta}_0)+H^{(n)}\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_0-\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}\right) =0.$$ using a modified version of the Newton-Raphson iterative scheme spelled out in (\[newton raphson iteration\]). Indeed, it is easy to show that $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0 $ is the limit of the sequence $\{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ constructed exactly as in Section \[Bregman divergences for VEC models\] where the linear systems (\[newton raphson iteration\]) are replaced by $$\label{newton raphson iteration bfgs}
\left(\widetilde{T_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}} g ^{(n)}}+\widetilde{H ^{(n)}}\right)\cdot \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\theta} ^{(n,\,k+1)}}
=
-{\rm vec}\left(\nabla \tilde{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)})\right)+\widetilde{H ^{(n)}}\cdot \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\theta} ^{(n)}}+
\widetilde{T_{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}} g ^{(n)}}\cdot \widetilde{\boldsymbol{\theta} ^{(n,\,k)}}.$$ where $\widetilde{\boldsymbol{\theta} ^{(n,\,k+1)}}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\rm vec}(A^{(n,\,k+1)})\\
{\rm vec}(B^{(n,\,k+1)})\\
{\bf c}^{(n,\,k+1)}
\end{array}
\right) $ and $\widetilde{H ^{(n)}} \in \mathbb{M}_{2N ^2+N}$ denotes the matrix associated to $H ^{(n)} $ that satisfies $${\rm vec}\left( H ^{(n)}\cdot \boldsymbol{\theta} \right)=\widetilde{H ^{(n)}} \cdot
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\rm vec}(A )\\
{\rm vec}(B )\\
{\bf c}
\end{array}
\right)\quad \mbox{for any} \quad \boldsymbol{\theta}=(A,B, {\bf c}).$$
[**Important remark: the Newton-Raphson method and the constraints.**]{} In Section \[Constrained optimization via Bregman divergences\] we explained how the use of Bregman divergences ensures that at each iteration, the extremum of the local penalized model satisfies the constraints of the problem. However, the implementation of the Newton-Raphson method that provides the root of the equation (\[solution local model bfgs\]) does not, in general, respect the constraints, and hence this point requires special care.
In the construction of our optimization algorithm we have used the following prescription in order to ensure that all the elements of the sequence $\{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ that converge to the root $\boldsymbol{\theta}_0 $ satisfy the constraints: given $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,1)}=\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)} $ (that satisfies the constraints) let $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} $ be the second value in the Newton-Raphson sequence obtained by solving the linear system (\[newton raphson iteration bfgs\]). If the value $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} $ thereby constructed satisfies the constraints it is then accepted and we continue to the next iteration; otherwise we set $$\label{nr correction}
\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} :=\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,1)}+ \frac{\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} -\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,1)} }{2}$$ iteratively until $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} $ satisfies the constraints. Notice that by repeatedly performing (\[nr correction\]), the value $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} $ hence constructed is closer and closer to $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,1)} $; since this latter point satisfies the constraints, so will at some point $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} $. This manipulation that took us from $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,1)}$ to $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,2)} $ in a constraint compliant fashion has to be carried out at each iteration to go from $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k)}$ to $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n,\,k+1)} $.
[**Trust-region iteration acceptance correction:**]{} given an starting point $\boldsymbol{\theta}^0 $ we have given a prescription for the construction of a sequence $\{ \boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}\} _{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ that converges to the constrained minimizer of minus the quasi-loglikelihood $f(\boldsymbol{\theta}):=-{\rm log}L({\bf z}; \boldsymbol{\theta}) $. We now couple this optimization routine with a trust-region technique. The trust-region algorithm provides us with a systematic method to test the pertinence of an iteration before it is accepted and to adaptively modify the strength of the local penalization in order to speed up the convergence speed. In order to carefully explain our use of this procedure consider first the local model (\[local optimization problem\]) in which all the constants $L _1, \ldots, L _6 $ that manage the strength of the constraint penalizations are set to a common value $L$. At each iteration of (\[local optimization problem bfgs\]) compute the [**adequacy ratio**]{} $\rho ^{(n)} $ defined as $$\label{adequacy ratio}
\rho ^{(n)}:= \frac{f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)})-f(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n-1)})}{\hat{f} ^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)})-\hat{f}^{(n)}(\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n-1)})}$$ which measures how close the descent in the target function in the present iteration is to the one exhibited by the local model $\hat{f}^{(n)} $. The values that can be obtained for $\rho^{(n)} $ are classified into three categories that determine different courses of action:
1. [**Too large step**]{} $\rho ^{(n)}<0.01 $: there is too much dissimilarity between the local penalized model and the actual target function. In this situation, the iteration update is rejected by setting $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n)}=\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(n-1)}$ and the penalization is strengthened by doubling the constant: $L=2L $
2. [**Good step**]{} $0.01\leq\rho ^{(n)}\leq 0.9 $: the iteration update is accepted and the constant $L$ is left unchanged.
3. [**Too small step**]{} $0.9\leq \rho ^{(n)}$: the iteration update is accepted but given the very good adequacy between the local penalized model and the target function we can afford loosening the penalization strength by setting $L= \frac{1}{2}L $ as the constant that will be used in the next iteration.
Even though the definition of the adequacy ratio in (\[adequacy ratio\]) uses the full penalized local models $\hat{f}^{(n)} $, we have seen that in practice the linear approximation suffices to obtain good results.
Preliminary estimation {#Preliminary estimation}
----------------------
As any optimization algorithm, the one that we just presented requires a starting point $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)} $. The choice of a good preliminary estimation of $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)} $ is particularly relevant in our situation since the quasi-loglikelihood exhibits generically local extrema and hence initializing the optimization algorithm close enough to the solution may prove to be crucial in order to obtain the correct solution.
Given a sample ${\bf z}=\{ {\bf z}_1, \ldots, {\bf z}_T \} $, a reasonable estimation for $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)} $ can be obtained by using the following two steps scheme:
[**1. Find a preliminary estimation of the conditional covariance matrices sequence**]{} $\{H _1, \ldots, H _T\} $ out of the sample ${\bf z} $. This can be achieved by using a variety of existing non-computationally intensive techniques. A non-exhaustive list is:
(i)
: Orthogonal GARCH model (O-GARCH): introduced in [@ding:thesis; @alexander:chibumba; @alexander:ogarch; @alexander:covariance_matrices]; this technique is based on fitting one-dimensional GARCH models to the principal components obtained out of the sample marginal covariance matrix of ${\bf z}$.
(ii)
: Generalized orthogonal GARCH model (GO-GARCH) [@gogarch]: similar to O-GARCH, but in this case the one-dimensional modeling is carried out not for the principal components of ${\bf z} $ but for its image with respect to a transformation $V$ which is assumed is assumed to be just invertible (in the case of O-GARCH is also orthogonal) and it is estimated directly via a maximum likelihood procedure, together with the parameters of the one-dimensional GARCH models. GO-GARCH produces better empirical results than O-GARCH but it lacks the factoring estimation feature that O-GARCH has, making it more complicated for the modeling of large dimensional time series and conditional covariance matrices.
(iii)
: Independent component analysis (ICA-GARCH): [@wu:PCA; @pena:ica] this model is based on a signal separation technique [@comon:ica; @fastica] that turns the time series into statistically independent components that are then treated separately using one dimensional GARCH models.
(iv)
: Dynamic conditional correlation model (DCC): introduced in [@tse:dcc; @engle:dcc], this model proposes a dynamic behavior of the conditional correlation that depends on a small number of parameters and that nevertheless is still capable of capturing some of the features of more complicated multivariate models. Moreover, a version of this model [@engle:sheppard:dcc] can be estimated consistently using a two-step approach that makes it suitable to handle large dimensional problems.
Another method that is widely used in the context of financial log-returns is the one advocated by Riskmetrics [@riskmetrics] that proposes exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) models for the time evolution of variances and covariances; this comes down to working with IGARCH type models with a coefficient that is not estimated but proposed by Riskmetrics and that is the same for all the factors.
[**2. Estimation of $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)} $ out of ${\bf z} $ and $H=\{H _t\}_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}} $ using constrained ordinary least squares.**]{} If we have the sample ${\bf z} $ and a preliminary estimation of the conditional covariances $\{H _t\}_{t \in \{1, \ldots, T\}} $, a good candidate for $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)}=(A^{(0)},B^{(0)}, {\bf c}^{(0)}) $ is the value that minimizes the sum of the Euclidean norms $s _t:=\|{\bf h} _t- \left( {\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B {\bf h}_{t-1}\right)\| ^2 $, that is, $$s(A,B, {\bf c}; {\bf z}, H)=\sum_{t=2}^T s_t(A,B, {\bf c}; {\bf z}, H)=\sum_{t=2}^T \|{\bf h} _t- \left( {\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B {\bf h}_{t-1}\right)\| ^2,$$ subjected to the constraints [**(SC)**]{}, [**(PC)**]{}, [**(CC)**]{}, and [**(KC)**]{}. This minimizer can be efficiently found by using the Bregman divergences based method introduced in Sections \[Constrained optimization via Bregman divergences\] through \[Performance improvement: BFGS and trust-region corrections\] with the function $s(A,B, {\bf c}; {\bf z}, H) $ replacing minus the log-likelihood. However, we emphasize that unlike the situation in the log-likelihood problem, the choice of a starting point in the optimization of $s(A,B, {\bf c}; {\bf z}, H) $ is irrelevant given the convexity of his function.
As a consequence of these arguments, the preliminary estimation $\boldsymbol{\theta}^{(0)} $ is obtained by iterating (\[local optimization problem bfgs\]) where in the local model (\[definition local model\]) the map $f$ is replaced by $s$. This scheme is hence readily applicable once the gradient of $s$, provided by the following formulas, is available: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_A s&=&2\sum_{t=2}^T\left[A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}^T+ {\bf c} \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}^T+B {\bf h}_{t-1}\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1} ^T- {\bf h}_t\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1} ^T\right],\\
\nabla_B s&=&2\sum_{t=2}^T\left[{\bf c}{\bf h}_{t-1}^T+A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1} {\bf h}_{t-1} ^T+B {\bf h}_{t-1} {\bf h}_{t-1} ^T- {\bf h}_{t} {\bf h}_{t-1} ^T\right],\\
\nabla_{{\bf c}}s &= &2\sum_{t=2}^T \left[{\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B {\bf h}_{t-1}- {\bf h}_t\right].\end{aligned}$$
Numerical experiments {#numerical experiments}
=====================
In this section we illustrate the estimation method presented in Section \[Calibration via Bregman matrix divergences\] with various simulations that give an idea of the associated computational effort and of the pertinence of the VEC model in different dimensions.
[**The data set.**]{} We have used in our experiments the daily closing prices between January 3, 2005 and December 31, 2009 (that is, 1258 date entries) of the stock associated to the companies Alcoa, Apple, Abbott Laboratories, American Electric, Allstate, Amgen, Amazon.com, and Avon. All these stocks are traded at the NYSE in US dollars and, in the last date of our sample, they were all constituents of the S&P500 index. The quotes are adjusted with respect to dividend payments and stock splits. Figure \[fig:prices\] represents graphically the data set.
![Stock quotes used in the numerical experiments. The quotes represent closing prices adjusted with respect to dividend payments and stock splits. Source: Yahoo Finance.[]{data-label="fig:prices"}](prices.png)
[**Computational effort associated to the estimation method.**]{} In table \[fig:numerical performance\] we have gathered the required computing time and the necessary gradient calls to fit VEC(1,1) models to the log-returns of our data set in different dimensions. In the $n=1 $ column we present the results associated to fitting a VEC model to the log-returns of the first element of the data set; the same in the $n=2$ column with respect to the log-returns of the first two elements of the data set, and so on. The stopping criterion for the algorithm is established by setting a termination tolerance on the function value equal to $10^{-5} $. The last row of the table shows how the algorithm becomes increasingly costlier with the dimensionality of the problem when the BFGS correction is dropped.The results of this experiment suggest that the trust-region correction speeds up the algorithm and the BFGS modification makes the convergence rate dimensionally independent.
[**Variance minimizing portfolios, proxy replication, and spectral sparsity.**]{} As we have already pointed out several times, the main concern when using VEC models lays in the overabundance of parameters, whose number may easily be bigger than the sample size in standard applications, even when dealing with low dimensional problems. This lack of parsimony already appears when dealing with our data set for it contains 1257 historical log-returns, while the VEC(1,1) model requires 1596 parameters in dimension seven and 2628 in dimension 8.
The goal of the following experiment consists of assessing how serious this problem is. More explicitly, we will study how the pertinence of VEC as a modeling tool evolves with the increase in dimensionality, when compared with other more parsimonious and widely used alternatives, namely:
- Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) model for the conditional covariance matrices with the autroregressive coefficient $ \lambda=0.94 $ proposed by Riskmetrics [@riskmetrics] for daily data.
- Orthogonal GARCH model (OGARCH), as in [@ding:thesis; @alexander:chibumba; @alexander:ogarch; @alexander:covariance_matrices].
- Dynamic conditional correlation model (DCC) of [@tse:dcc; @engle:dcc].
These modeling approaches will be tested by evaluating:
- [**Comparative performance in the construction of dynamic variance minimizing portfolios:**]{} all the models that we just enumerated and that take part in our comparison share the form $$\label{model for logreturns}
\mathbf{z}_t = H_t^{1/2} \boldsymbol{\epsilon _t} \quad\quad\text{with}\quad\quad
\{\boldsymbol{\epsilon _t}\}\sim {\rm IIDN}({\boldsymbol 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_n),$$ where $\{H_t\} $ is a predictable matrix process. What changes from model to model is the specification that determines the dynamical behavior of $\{H_t\} $; in the particular case of [VEC]{}(1,1), that specification is spelled out in (\[vec11 model\]). When (\[model for logreturns\]) is fitted to the log-returns associated to our data set, the matrices $\{H_t\} $ provide an (model dependent) estimate of the conditional covariance of the log-returns process. Moreover, it is not difficult to show that if $\mathbf{w}=(w _1, \ldots , w _n)' $ is a weights vector such that $\sum_{i=1}^n w _i=1 $, then the conditional variance of the net returns process of the associated portfolio is given by $\{\mathbf{w}^TA _t \mathbf{w}\} $, where $A _t $ is the matrix whose $(i,j)$ entry $A _{ij}^t $ is given by $$A _{ij}^t=\exp \left(\sum _{k=1}^n h_{ik}h_{jk}\right)-1,$$ with $h ^t_{ij} $ the $(i,j)$ entry of the matrix $H _t $. A dynamic variance minimizing portfolio is a weights vector $\mathbf{w}_t $ defined as the solution at each time step of the optimization problem $$\label{dynamic variance minimizing portfolio}
\mathop{\rm arg\, min}_{\mathbf{w}\in \mathbb{R}^n, \, \sum_{i=1}^n w _i=1}\, \mathbf{w}^TA _t \mathbf{w}.$$ A straightforward application of Lagrange duality shows that the solutions $\mathbf{w}_t $ of (\[dynamic variance minimizing portfolio\]) are given by either the zero eigenvectors of $A _t $, or by $$\label{solution variance minimizing}
\mathbf{w} _t= \frac{1}{\mathbf{i}^T A_t ^{-1} \mathbf{i}} A_t ^{-1} \mathbf{i},$$ when $A _t $ is invertible, where $\mathbf{i} $ is an $n $-dimensional vector made exclusively out of ones. In our numerical experiment we will always fall in the situation contemplated in (\[solution variance minimizing\]) and it is this expression that we will use to construct the dynamic variance minimizing portfolios associated to each of the different models that we are testing. Figure \[fig:variance\_minimizing\] shows the conditional variance of the net returns process associated to the variance minimizing portfolios corresponding to the different models under consideration. It is tempting to say that the most performing model is the one for which the conditional variance is consistently smaller; however, given that the conditional variance is model dependent, [*these quantities are not directly comparable*]{} and it is only the marginal variances of the optimal portfolios that can be put side to side. This comparison is carried out in table \[fig:Variance of optimal portfolios table\] in which we see that VEC allows the construction of portfolios with smaller variances than those corresponding to the other models in all the dimensions considered.
![Conditional volatility of the net returns associated to the dynamic variance minimizing portfolios constructed by fitting different models to the log-returns of our eight dimensional data set. The VEC estimation was carried out setting a termination tolerance on the function value equal to $10^{-5} $ and using an OGARCH based OLS preliminary estimation, as explained in Section \[Preliminary estimation\].[]{data-label="fig:variance_minimizing"}](variance_minimizing.png)
- [**Goodness of fit between the associated conditional volatilities and the absolute values of the log-returns used as a proxy for conditional volatility:**]{} following [@mincer:zarnowitz; @granger:newbold; @andersen:bollerslev; @manganelli:sav:ecb], we evaluate the performance of the different models by considering the absolute values of portfolio returns as a proxy for conditional volatility and by checking how the different proposals coming from the models under scrutiny fit this proxy. Even though it is well known [@andersen:bollerslev] that this is a very noisy proxy for volatility, this approach provides us with quick and simple to implement ways to compare different modeling approaches. The first one consists of fitting each of the models to the first $i$ assets with $i\in \left\{1, 2, \ldots ,8\right\}$ and computing the mean Euclidean distance (MSE) between the model associated conditional volatility and the proxy values; the results of this experiment are presented in table \[fig:proxy errors table\] where we see that VEC produces a smaller MSE in all the dimensions considered, even surprisingly at dimensions $7$ and $8$ where the number of parameters to be estimated is bigger than the sample size. The plausibility of this result is visually emphasized in figure \[fig:volatilities\] where we have depicted the conditional volatilities of one of the assets in our data set (AA) obtained out of the models under consideration in dimension $8$, as well as of a one-dimensional GARCH model; these volatilities are graphically compared with the proxy.
![Conditional volatility of the asset Alcoa (AA) obtained out of eight dimensional modelings. The graphics EWMA, OGARCH, DCC, and VEC represent the volatility obtained as the square root of the $(1,1)$ components of the $8 \times 8 $ conditional covariance matrices associated to those models. GARCH represents the volatility associated to a one-dimensional GARCH modeling of the log-returns of AA, and PROXY shows the absolute value of the AA log-returns.[]{data-label="fig:volatilities"}](volatilities.png)
Finally, we have ranked the different models by studying their efficiency in modeling the volatility of constant random portfolios; more especifically, at each dimension $i$, $i\in \left\{1, 2, \ldots ,8\right\}$, we randomly choose $i$ weights using standard normally distributed variables and we appropriately normalize them so that their sum equals to one. We then use the conditional covariance matrices provided by each of the models under consideration to compute the (model based) conditional volatility of the portfolio. We then regress the proxy for the portfolio volatility, namely the absolute value of the portfolio returns, on the various portfolio volatilities provided by the different models and, using the suggestion in [@manganelli:sav:ecb] we declare as the best model the one that produces the highest coefficient of determination $R^2$. As the chosen proxy is know to be very noisy [@andersen:bollerslev] the obtained $R ^2$ coefficients are rather small (typically between $0.2$ and $0.3 $). Using this criterion, we randomly generated 5,000 portfolios at each dimension, and we recorded the percentage rate of relative success of each model with respect to the others. The results of the experiment are presented in table \[fig:Success rate in modeling\] and show the superiority of VEC in all the dimensions considered.
- [**Spectral sparsity and high dimensional estimation:**]{} a major surprise revealed by these numerical experiments is that the estimated models provide good empirical performance despite the highly unfavorable ratio between the sample size and the number of parameters to be estimated. In order to investigate the reasons for such a counterintuitive but pleasing phenomenon, we plotted the eigenvalues of $\Sigma(A)$ and $\Sigma(B)$ for $n$ between 4 to 8. These plots, displayed in Figure \[fig:eigenvalues\_sigma\], show that the estimators $\Sigma(\hat{A})$ and $\Sigma(\hat{B})$ of $\Sigma(A)$ and $\Sigma(B)$ are spectrally very sparse, that is, have a very low rank. Thus, the solutions of the estimation problem are exactly the same as the ones we would have obtained under additional a priori rank constraints, a setting that would have implicitly reduced the dimension of the parameter space by a large factor. This suggests that in our particular empirical situation, the number of parameters that are actually independent is much smaller than the number of entries in the coefficient matrices $A$, $B$ and ${\bf c}$, which makes possible the use of small relative sample sizes in the VEC context. The most obvious explanation for this phenomenon stems from the well-known fact that the conditional covariance matrices $H_t$ corresponding to stock market returns present spectral accumulation (in small dimensional settings) or sparsity (in large dimensions). This seems to make the positive semi-definiteness constraints on $\Sigma(A)$ and $\Sigma(B)$ highly active, which enforces a large number of eigenvalues to be equal to zero.
Notice further that the proportion of nonzero eigenvalues of $\Sigma(\hat{A})$ and $\Sigma(\hat{B})$ decreases very slowly as a function of the parameter space dimension and shows no particular abrupt transition when the dimension/sample size ratio becomes large. This phenomenon suggests that the constrained maximum likelihood approach is very stable for this hard estimation problem. On the other hand, pushing theses ideas further along the lines of recent works in sparse estimation and matrix completion problems [@CandesRecht:FondCompMath09; @CandesTao:IEEEIT10], one might expect that explicitly enforcing the spectral sparsity of the estimators might improve their performance for dimensions much larger than the ones explored in the present work. A rigorous treatment of these observations is needed and will be the subject of further research in a forthcoming paper.
![Eigenvalues of $\Sigma(A)$ and $\Sigma(B)$ for $n$ between 4 to 8. The spectral sparsity evidenced in these plots suggests nonlinear constraints in the parameter space which explain the good empirical performance of the models despite the highly unfavorable ratio between the sample size and the number of parameters to be estimated.[]{data-label="fig:eigenvalues_sigma"}](eigenvalues_sigma.png){width="6.5in" height="7in"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we provided an adequate explicit formulation of the estimation problem for VEC models and developed a Bregman-proximal trust-region method to solve it. This combination of techniques provides a robust optimization method that can be surely adapted with good results to more parsimonious multivariate volatility models.
We carried out numerical experiments based on stock market returns that show the applicability of the proposed estimation method in specific practical situations. Additionally, our numerical experiments reveal how the empirically well documented spectral accumulation in the covariance structure of stock quotes implies, in the context of VEC modeling, implicit nonlinear constraints in the parameter space that make this parametric family competitive even in the presence of a highly unfavorable ratio between the sample size and the number of parameters to be estimated. The comparison has been carried out with respect to other standard and more parsimonious multivariate conditionally heteroscedastic families, namely, EWMA, DCC, and OGARCH. An in-depth study of this phenomenon will be the subject of a forthcoming publication.
Appendix
========
Proof of Proposition \[vec identities\]
---------------------------------------
We start with the proof of [**(i)**]{} by using the following chain of equalities in which we use the symmetric character of both $A$ and ${\rm math}(m)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A+ {\rm diag}(A), {\rm math}(m) \rangle &=& \operatorname{trace}(A\, {\rm math}(m))+ \operatorname{trace}({\rm diag}(A){\rm math}(m))\\
&=&\sum_{i,j=1}^n A_{ij}{\rm math}(m)_{ji}+A_{ij}\delta _{ij}{\rm math}(m)_{ji}\\
&=&\sum_{i<j} A_{ij}{\rm math}(m)_{ij}+\sum_{i>j} A_{ij}{\rm math}(m)_{ij}+2 \sum_{i=j=1}^n A_{ij}{\rm math}(m)_{ij}\\
&= &2 \sum_{i\geq j} A_{ij}{\rm math}(m)_{ij}=2 \sum_{i\geq j} A_{ij}m_{\sigma(i,j)}=2 \sum_{q=1}^N A _{\sigma^{-1}(q)} m _q\\
&= &2\langle {\rm vech}(A),m\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ as required. In order to prove [**(ii)**]{}, note that the identity that we just showed ensures that $$\label{intermediate vecid}
\langle A, {\rm math}(m)\rangle=2 \langle {\rm vech}(A),m\rangle- \langle{\rm diag}(A), {\rm math}(m)\rangle.$$ At the same time $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\rm diag}(A), {\rm math}(m)\rangle&= &\operatorname{trace}({\rm diag}(A){\rm math}(m))=\sum_{i=1}^n A_{ii} {\rm math}(m)_{ii}=\sum_{i=1}^n A_{ii} m_{\sigma(i,i)}\\
&=&\sum_{i\geq j}{\rm diag}(A)_{ij} m_{\sigma(i,j)}=\sum_{q=1}^N{\rm diag}(A)_{\sigma^{-1}(q)} m_{q}\\
&=&\sum_{q=1}^N{\rm vech}({\rm diag}(A))_{q} m_{q}= \langle{\rm vech}({\rm diag}(A)),m\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which substituted in the right hand side of (\[intermediate vecid\]) proves the required identity. Finally, expression (\[expression maths\]) follows directly from [**(ii)**]{} and as to (\[expression vechs\]) we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\langle A+ {\rm diag}(A), {\rm math}(m) \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2}\operatorname{trace}((A+ {\rm diag}(A)){\rm math}(m))\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\operatorname{trace}(A {\rm math}(m))+ \frac{1}{2}\operatorname{trace}({\rm diag}(A) {\rm math}(m))\\
&= &\frac{1}{2}\left(\operatorname{trace}(A {\rm math}(m))+\operatorname{trace}(A{\rm diag}( {\rm math}(m)))\right)\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \langle A, {\rm math}(m)+ {\rm diag}({\rm math}(m))\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which proves (\[expression vechs\]). Regarding the operator norms we will just prove (\[operator norm vech\]) and (\[operator norm math\]) as the rest can be easily obtained out of these two combined with the expressions (\[expression maths\]) and (\[expression vechs\]). We start by noticing that for any nonzero $A=(a_{ij}) \in \Bbb S_n $: $$\frac{\|{\rm vech}(A)\| ^2}{\|A\| ^2}= \frac{\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2+\sum_{i=1}^n a_{ii}^2}{2\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2+\sum_{i=1}^n a_{ii}^2}=1-\frac{\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2}{2\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2+\sum_{i=1}^n a_{ii}^2}.$$ Since the last summand in the previous expression is always positive we have that $$\| {\rm vech}\|_{op}=\sup_{A \in \Bbb S _n, A\neq 0}\frac{\|{\rm vech}(A)\| }{\|A\| }=1,$$ the supremum being attained by any diagonal matrix ($\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2=0 $ in that case). Consider now $v= {\rm vech}(A)$. Then: $$\label{from a to v}
\frac{\| {\rm math}(v)\| ^2}{\|v\| ^2}= \frac{\|A\| ^2}{\|{\rm vech}(A)\| ^2}= \frac{2\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2+\sum_{i=1}^n a_{ii}^2}{\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2+\sum_{i=1}^n a_{ii}^2}=1+\frac{\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2}{\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2+\sum_{i=1}^n a_{ii}^2}.$$ When we let $A \in \Bbb S_n $ vary in the previous expression, we obtain a supremum by considering matrices with zeros in the diagonal ($\sum_{i=1}^n a_{ii}^2=0 $) and by choosing $\sum_{i>j=1}^n a_{ij}^2 \rightarrow \infty $, in which case $ \frac{\|A\| ^2}{\|{\rm vech}(A)\| ^2} \rightarrow 2 $. Finally, as the map ${\rm vech}: \Bbb S _n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^N$ is an isomorphism, (\[from a to v\]) implies that $$\| {\rm math}\|_{op}=\sup_{v \in \mathbb{R}^N, v\neq 0} \frac{\| {\rm math}(v)\| }{\|v\| }= \sup_{A \in \Bbb S _n, A\neq 0} \frac{\|A\| }{\|{\rm vech}(A)\| }=\sqrt{2}.\quad \blacksquare$$
Proof of Proposition \[property of sigmaa statement\]
-----------------------------------------------------
We just need to verify that (\[sigma definition\]) satisfies (\[property of sigmaa\]). Let $k, l \in \{1, \ldots,n\} $ be such that $k\geq l $. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
(A \, {\rm vech}(H))_{\sigma(k,l)}&=& \sum_{i\geq j} A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}H_{ij}= \sum_{i\geq j} A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}\frac{H_{ij}+H_{ji}}{2}\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\geq j} A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}H_{ij}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\geq j} A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}H_{ji}\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i> j} A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}H_{ij}+\sum_{i= j} A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)}H_{ij}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i< j} A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(j,i)}H_{ij}\\
&=&\sum_{i> j}(\Sigma (A)_{kl})_{ij} H_{ij}+\sum_{i= j} (\Sigma (A)_{kl})_{ij} H_{ij}+\sum_{i<j}(\Sigma (A)_{kl})_{ij} H_{ij}=\operatorname{trace}(\Sigma (A)_{kl}H),\end{aligned}$$ as required. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition \[sigma dual\]
-----------------------------------
We start with the following Lemma:
\[orthogonal projection n symmetric\] Let $A \in \mathbb{M}_{n ^2}$. The orthogonal projections $\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} (A) \in \Bbb S_{n ^2}$ and $\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n (A) \in \Bbb S_{n ^2}^n$ of $A$ onto the spaces of symmetric and $n$-symmetric matrices with respect to the Frobenius inner product (\[frobenius inner product\]) are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} (A) &= & \frac{1}{2}(A+A ^T)\label{symmetric 1}\\
(\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n (A))_{kl}&= & \frac{1}{4}(A_{kl}+A_{kl}^T+A_{lk}+A_{lk}^T),\label{symmetric 2}\end{aligned}$$ for any block $(\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n (A))_{kl} $ of $\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n (A) $, $k,l \in \{1, \ldots, n\} $.
**Proof. ** In order to prove (\[symmetric 1\]) it suffices to check that $ \langle A-\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} (A), B\rangle=0 $ for any $B \in \Bbb S_{n ^2}$. Indeed, $$\langle A-\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} (A), B\rangle= \operatorname{trace}(AB)- \frac{1}{2}\operatorname{trace}(AB) - \frac{1}{2} \operatorname{trace}(A^TB)=0.$$ The result follows from the uniqueness of the orthogonal projection. Regarding (\[symmetric 2\]) we check that $ \langle A-\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n (A), B\rangle=0 $, for any $B \in \Bbb S_{n ^2}^n$. Given that for any $k,l \in \{1, \ldots, n\} $ the block $(AB)_{kl} $ is given by $(AB)_{kl}=\sum_{r=1}^n A_{kr}B_{rl}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A-\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} ^n(A), B\rangle &= &\operatorname{trace}(AB)- \operatorname{trace}(\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} ^n(A)B)=\sum_{i=1}^n \operatorname{trace}(AB)_{ii}-\operatorname{trace}(\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} ^n(A)B)_{ii}\\
&= &\sum_{i,j=1}^n \operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}B_{ji})- \operatorname{trace}((\mathbb{P}_{n ^2} ^n(A))_{ij}B_{ji})=\sum_{i,j=1}^n \operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}B_{ji})\\
& -&\sum_{i,j=1}^n \left[ \frac{1}{4}\operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}B_{ji})+ \frac{1}{4}\operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}^TB_{ji})+ \frac{1}{4}\operatorname{trace}(A_{ji}B_{ji})+\frac{1}{4}\operatorname{trace}(A_{ji}^TB_{ji})\right]=0,\end{aligned}$$ where we used that, due to the $n$-symmetricity of $B$ $\operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}^TB_{ji})=\operatorname{trace}(B_{ji}^TA_{ij})=\operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}B_{ji}) $ and $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n\operatorname{trace}(A_{ji}B_{ji})=\operatorname{trace}(A_{ji}B_{ij})=\operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}B_{ij}).$$ Analogously $\sum_{i,j=1}^n\operatorname{trace}(A_{ji}^TB_{ji})=\operatorname{trace}(A_{ij}B_{ij})$. $\blacksquare$
Now, in order to prove Proposition \[sigma dual\], consider $A\in \mathbb{M}_N$ and $\mathcal{B} \in \mathbb{M}_{n ^2}$. Since the image of the map $\Sigma $ lies in $\Bbb S_{n ^2}^2 $ we have that $\langle\mathcal{B}-\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n(\mathcal{B}), \Sigma(A)\rangle=0 $ and hence $$\langle\Sigma^\ast (\mathcal{B}), A \rangle = \langle \mathcal{B}, \Sigma(A)\rangle=\langle \mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n(\mathcal{B})+\mathcal{B}-\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n(\mathcal{B}), \Sigma(A)\rangle=\langle \mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n(\mathcal{B}), \Sigma(A)\rangle=\langle \Sigma^\ast (\mathbb{P}_{n ^2}^n(\mathcal{B})), A\rangle.$$ This identity allows us to restrict the proof of (\[sigma dual\]) to the $n$-symmetric elements $\mathcal{B}\in \Bbb S_{n^2} ^n $. Hence let $\mathcal{B}\in \Bbb S_{n^2} ^n $ and let $\widetilde{\sigma} $ be the extension of the map $\sigma$ defined in (\[extension of sigma\]). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Sigma(A), \mathcal{B}\rangle &=&\sum_{k,l=1}^n \langle\Sigma(A)_{kl}, \mathcal{B} _{kl}\rangle=\sum_{k,l=1}^n \operatorname{trace}(\Sigma(A)_{kl}\mathcal{B} _{kl}^T)=\sum_{k,l,i,j=1}^n (\Sigma(A)_{kl})_{ij}(\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij}\\
&= &\sum_{k,l,i,j=1}^n \frac{1}{2}\left[A_{\widetilde{\sigma}(k,l), \widetilde{\sigma}(i,j)} +A_{\widetilde{\sigma}(k,l), \widetilde{\sigma}(i,j)} \delta_{ij} \right](\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij}\\
&= &\sum_{k,j=1}^n \left[\sum_{i<j}^n \frac{1}{2}A_{\widetilde{\sigma}(k,l), \sigma(j,i)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ji}+ \sum_{i=j=1}^nA_{\widetilde{\sigma}(k,l), \sigma(i,j)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij}+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i>j}^nA_{\widetilde{\sigma}(k,l), \sigma(i,j)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij}\right]\\
&= &\sum_{k,j=1}^n \sum_{i\geq j}^n A_{\widetilde{\sigma}(k,l), \sigma(i,j)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ji}\\
&= &\sum_{i\geq j}^n \left[\sum_{k<l}^nA_{\sigma(l,k), \sigma(j,i)} (\mathcal{B} _{lk})_{ji}+ \sum_{k=l=1}^nA_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij}+ \sum_{l<k}^nA_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij}\right]\\
&= &\sum_{i\geq j}^n \left[\sum_{k\geq l}^n A_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij}- \sum_{k=l=1}^nA_{\sigma(k,l), \sigma(i,j)} (\mathcal{B} _{kl})_{ij} \delta_{kl} \right]\\
&= &\sum_{p,q=1} ^N\left[ 2A_{p,q}B_{p,q}-A_{p,q}B_{p,q}\delta_{{\rm pr}_1(\sigma ^{-1}(p)),{\rm pr}_2(\sigma ^{-1}(p))} \right]= \operatorname{trace}(2AB ^T-A \widetilde{B} ^T)=\langle A, 2B- \widetilde{B}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which proves the statement. We emphasize that in the fourth and sixth equalities we used the $n$-symmetry of $\mathcal{B}$. The equality (\[sigma inverse expression\]) is proved in a straightforward manner by verifying that $\widetilde{\Sigma}^{-1} \circ \Sigma= \mathbb{I}_{\mathbb{M}_N}$ and $\Sigma \circ \widetilde{\Sigma}^{-1}= \mathbb{I}_{\mathbb{S}_{n ^2}^n}$ using the defining expressions (\[sigma operator\]) and (\[sigma inverse expression\]).$\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition \[positivity constraint\]
----------------------------------------------
Using the property of the operator $\Sigma$ stated in Proposition \[property of sigmaa statement\], the second equality in (\[vec11 model\]) can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm vech}(H _t)&= & {\rm vech}({\rm math}( {\bf c}))+A {\rm vech}({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T)+B {\rm vech}(H_{t-1})\\
&= &{\rm vech}({\rm math}( {\bf c})) + {\rm vech}(\Sigma (A)\bullet ({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T))+ {\rm vech}(\Sigma(B)\bullet H_{t-1}),\end{aligned}$$ or, equivalently: $$H _t={\rm math}( {\bf c})+\Sigma (A)\bullet ({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T)+ \Sigma(B)\bullet H_{t-1}.$$ In view of this expression and in the terms of the statement of the proposition, it suffices to show that both $\Sigma (A)\bullet ({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T)$ and $\Sigma(B)\bullet H_{t-1}$ are positive semidefinite provided that $H_{t-1}$ is positive semidefinite. Regarding $\Sigma (A)\bullet ({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T)$, consider $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{R}^{n ^2} $. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\mathbf{v}, \Sigma (A)\bullet ({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T) \mathbf{v}\rangle&= &
\sum_{i,j=1}^{n ^2} v _i (\Sigma (A)\bullet ({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T))_{ij}v _j
=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n ^2} v _i \operatorname{trace}(\Sigma (A)_{ij}({\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T))v _j\\
&= &\sum_{i,j=1}^{n ^2} v _i \operatorname{trace}({\bf z}_{t-1}^T\Sigma (A)_{ij}{\bf z}_{t-1})v _j
=\sum_{i,j,k,l=1}^{n ^2} v _i z_{t-1,k}^T(\Sigma (A)_{ij})_{kl}z_{t-1,l}v _j\\
&= & \langle\mathbf{v}\otimes {\bf z}_{t-1}, \Sigma(A)(\mathbf{v}\otimes {\bf z}_{t-1})\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which is greater or equal to zero due to the positive semidefiniteness hypothesis on $\Sigma(A)$. In the last equality we used (\[components block matrices\]).
As to $\Sigma(B)\bullet H_{t-1}$, we start by noticing that $H_{t-1}=E_{t-1}[{\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T]$ and hence $\Sigma(B)\bullet H_{t-1}=\Sigma(B)\bullet E_{t-1}[{\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T]$. This equality, as well as the linearity of the conditional expectation allows us to use virtually the same argument as above. Indeed, for any $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{R}^{n ^2} $ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\mathbf{v},\Sigma(B)\bullet H_{t-1} \mathbf{v}\rangle&= &
\sum_{i,j=1}^{n ^2} v _i \operatorname{trace}(\Sigma (B)_{ij}E_{t-1}[{\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T])v _j=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n ^2} E_{t-1}[v _i \operatorname{trace}(\Sigma (B)_{ij}{\bf z}_{t-1}{\bf z}_{t-1}^T)v _j]\\
&= & E_{t-1}[\langle\mathbf{v}\otimes {\bf z}_{t-1}, \Sigma(B)(\mathbf{v}\otimes {\bf z}_{t-1})\rangle],\end{aligned}$$ which is greater or equal to zero due to the positive semidefiniteness hypothesis on $\Sigma(B)$. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition \[Second order stationarity constraints\]
--------------------------------------------------------------
We start by noticing that the VEC(1,1) model is by construction a white noise and hence it suffices to establish the stationarity of the variance. Indeed, for any $t,h \in \mathbb{N}$ we compute the autocovariance function $\Gamma$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{model is white noise}
\Gamma(t,t+h):=E \left[{\bf z}_t{\bf z}_{t+h}^T\right]=E\left[ E _t\left[H_t^{1/2}\boldsymbol{\epsilon _t}\boldsymbol{\epsilon _{t+h}}H_{t+h}^{1/2}\right]\right]\\
=E\left[H_t^{1/2} E _t\left[\boldsymbol{\epsilon _t}\boldsymbol{\epsilon _{t+h}}\right]H_{t+h}^{1/2}\right]=\delta_{h0}E\left[H_t^{1/2} H_{t+h}^{1/2}\right].\end{gathered}$$ Consequently, we just need to prove the existence of a solution for which $\Gamma(t,t)=E \left[H _t\right] $ or, equivalently $E[ {\bf h}_t] $, is time independent. We first notice that $$E[ {\bf h}_t]=E \left[{\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B \boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}\right]=E \left[{\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}+B \boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}\right]+A \,E \left[\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}-\boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}\right]=E \left[{\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}+B \boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}\right],$$ since $A \,E \left[\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}-\boldsymbol{h}_{t-1}\right]=0 $ by (\[model is white noise\]). Now, for any $k>0$ $$E[ {\bf h}_t]={\bf c}+(A+B)E \left[{\bf h}_{t-1}\right]=\sum_{j=0}^k (A+B)^j{\bf c}+(A+B)^{k+1}E \left[{\bf h}_{t-k-1}\right].$$ If all the eigenvalues of $A+B $ are smaller than one in modulus then (see, for example [@luetkepohl:book Appendix A.9.1]) $$\sum_{j=0}^k (A+B)^j{\bf c}\xrightarrow[k \rightarrow \infty]{}(\mathbb{I}_N-A-B) ^{-1}{\bf c}, \qquad \mbox{and}
\qquad
(A+B)^{k+1}E \left[{\bf h}_{t-k-1}\right]\xrightarrow[k \rightarrow \infty]{} 0,$$ in which case $E[ {\bf h}_t] $ is time independent and $$\Gamma(0)={\rm math}(E[ {\bf h}_t])={\rm math}((\mathbb{I}_N-A-B) ^{-1}{\bf c}).$$ The sufficient condition in terms of the top singular value $\sigma_{{\rm max}}(A+B)$ of $A+B $ is a consequence of the fact that (see for instance [@Horn:Johnson Theorem 5.6.9]) $| \lambda(A+B)|\leq \sigma_{{\rm max}}(A+B) $, for any eigenvalue $\lambda(A+B) $ of $A+B $. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition \[gradient by recursion\]
----------------------------------------------
The chain rule implies that for any perturbation $\Delta $ in the $\theta$ direction $$d_\theta l _t \cdot \Delta= d_{H _t} l _t(H _t(\theta))\cdot T _\theta H _t \cdot \Delta=\langle \nabla_{H _t} l _t, T_{\theta}H _t \cdot \Delta\rangle=\langle T_{\theta}^\ast H _t \cdot\nabla_{H _t} l _t, \Delta\rangle,$$ which proves that $ \nabla _{ \theta } l _t= T^\ast _{ \theta } H _t \cdot \nabla_{H _t} l _t $ and hence (\[general expression of gradient\]) follows. We now establish (\[gradient with respect to Ht\]) by showing separately that $$\label{two separate gradients}
\nabla_{H _t} \log(\det(H _t))= H _t^{-1} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \nabla_{H _t} \left(- \frac{1}{2} {\bf z} _t^T H _t ^{-1} {\bf z} _t\right)= \frac{1}{2} \left(H _t ^{-1} {\bf z} _t{\bf z} _t^T H _t ^{-1} \right).$$ In order to prove the first expression we start by using the positive semidefinite character of $H _t $ in order to write $H _t=V D V ^T $. $V$ is an orthogonal matrix and $D $ is diagonal with non-negative entries; it has hence a unique square root $D ^{1/2} $ that we can use to write $H _t=V D V ^T =(V D ^{1/2})(V D ^{1/2})^T$. Let $\delta \in \mathbb{R} $ and $\Delta\in \Bbb S _n$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\log(\det(H _t+ \delta \Delta)) &= &\log(\det((V D ^{1/2})(V D ^{1/2})^T+ \delta \Delta))\\
&=&\log(\det((V D ^{1/2})(\mathbb{I}_n+\delta(D^{-1/2}V ^T)\Delta (VD^{-1/2}))(V D ^{1/2})^T))\\
&= &\log(\det(V D ^{1/2})\det(\mathbb{I}_n+\delta(D^{-1/2}V ^T)\Delta (VD^{-1/2}))\det(V D ^{1/2})^T)\\
&= &\log(\det((V D ^{1/2})(V D ^{1/2})^T)\det(\mathbb{I}_n+\delta(D^{-1/2}V ^T)\Delta (VD^{-1/2})))\\
&=&\log(\det(H _t)\det(\mathbb{I}_n+\delta\Xi)),\end{aligned}$$ with $ \Xi:=(D^{-1/2}V ^T)\Delta (VD^{-1/2}) $. This matrix is symmetric and hence normal and diagonalizable; let $\left\{ \lambda _1, \ldots, \lambda _n \right\} $ be its eigenvalues. We hence have that $$\begin{aligned}
dH _t \cdot \Delta &= &\left.\frac{d}{d\delta}\right|_{\delta=0} \log(\det(H _t+ \delta \Delta))= \left.\frac{d}{d\delta}\right|_{\delta=0} \log(\det(H _t))+\log\left(\prod_{i=1}^n(1+ \delta \lambda _i)\right)=\left.\frac{d}{d\delta}\right|_{\delta=0}\sum_{i=1}^n \log(1+ \delta \lambda _i)\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda _i= \operatorname{trace}((D^{-1/2}V ^T)\Delta (VD^{-1/2}) )= \operatorname{trace}((VD^{-1/2})(D^{-1/2}V ^T) \Delta)= \operatorname{trace}(H _t ^{-1} \Delta),\end{aligned}$$ which proves $\nabla_{H _t} \log(\det(H _t))= H _t^{-1} $. Regarding the second expression in (\[two separate gradients\]) we define $f(H _t):= - \frac{1}{2} {\bf z} _t^T H _t ^{-1} {\bf z} _t $ and note that $$\begin{aligned}
d f (H _t)\cdot \Delta&=& \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0} - \frac{1}{2} {\bf z} _t^T (H _t+t \Delta) ^{-1} {\bf z} _t= \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0} - \frac{1}{2} {\bf z} _t^T (\mathbb{I}_n+t H _t ^{-1}\Delta) ^{-1} H _t ^{-1}{\bf z} _t\\
&= &\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0} - \frac{1}{2} {\bf z} _t^T (\mathbb{I}_n+t H _t ^{-1}\Delta) ^{-1} H _t ^{-1}{\bf z} _t=\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1) ^{k}t^k{\bf z} _t^T (H _t ^{-1} \Delta)^k H _t ^{-1}{\bf z} _t\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}{\bf z} _t^T H _t ^{-1} \Delta H _t ^{-1}{\bf z} _t= \frac{1}{2} \operatorname{trace}(H _t ^{-1}{\bf z}_t {\bf z} _t ^T H _t ^{-1} \Delta),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\nabla _{H _t }f=\frac{1}{2}\left(H _t ^{-1}{\bf z}_t {\bf z} _t ^T H _t ^{-1} \right)$, as required.
In order to prove (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]) we notice that the second equation in (\[vec11 model\]) can be rewritten using the vech and math operators as $$\label{ht vs Ht}
H _t= {\rm math}\left({\bf c}+A \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B {\rm vech}(H_{t-1})\right).$$ We now show (\[tht1\]). Let $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^N $ and $\Delta \in \Bbb S _n $ arbitrary. Identity (\[ht vs Ht\]) and the linearity of the various mappings involved imply that $
T_{{\bf c}}H _t \cdot \mathbf{v}= {\rm math}\left( \mathbf{v}+B {\rm vech}(T_{{\bf c}}H_{t-1}\cdot \mathbf{v})\right)
$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T^\ast _{{\bf c}}H _t \cdot\Delta, \mathbf{v}\rangle &= & \langle\Delta, T_{{\bf c}}H _t \cdot \mathbf{v}\rangle= \langle \Delta, {\rm math}\left({\bf v}+B {\rm vech}(T_{{\bf c}}H_{t-1}\cdot \mathbf{v})\right)\rangle\\
&= &\langle{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta)+T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H_{t-1}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^T{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ),\mathbf{v}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The proof of (\[tht2\]) follows a similar scheme. By (\[ht vs Ht\]) we have that for any $M \in \mathbb{M}_N$: $$\label{a differential}
T_{A}H _t \cdot M= {\rm math}\left(M \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B {\rm vech}(T_{A}H_{t-1}\cdot M)\right).$$ Consequently, for any $\Delta \in \Bbb S _n $ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T _A^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta, M\rangle&=&\langle \Delta, T _A H _t\rangle=\langle \Delta, {\rm math}\left(M \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}+B {\rm vech}(T_{A}H_{t-1}\cdot M)\right)\rangle\\
&=& \langle{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta)\cdot \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-1}^T+T _A^\ast H_{t-1}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^T{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ), \Delta\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, (\[tht3\]) is proved analogously replacing (\[a differential\]) by its $B$ counterpart, namely, $$T_{B}H _t \cdot M= {\rm math}\left(M {\rm vech}(H_{t-1})+B {\rm vech}(T_{B}H_{t-1}\cdot M)\right). \quad \blacksquare$$
Proof of Proposition \[estimate number iterations\]
---------------------------------------------------
An inductive argument using (\[tht1\])–(\[tht3\]) guarantees that for any $t ,k \in \mathbb{N} $, $k \leq t $ $$\begin{aligned}
T_{{\bf c}}H _t^\ast \cdot \Delta &= &\sum_{i=1}^k B^{i-1\,T} {\rm math}^\ast (\Delta)+T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H_{t-k}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^{k\,T}{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ), \label{thtrec1}\\
T _A^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta&=& \sum_{i=1}^k B^{i-1\,T} {\rm math}^\ast(\Delta)\cdot \boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-i}^T+T _A^\ast H_{t-k}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^{k\,T}{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ),\label{thtrec2}\\
T _B^\ast H _t \cdot \Delta&=& \sum_{i=1}^k B^{i-1\,T} {\rm math}^\ast(\Delta)\cdot {\rm vech}(H_{t-i})^T+T _B^\ast H_{t-k}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^{k\,T}{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ),\label{thtrec3}\end{aligned}$$ The first expression with $k=t $ and the norm estimate (\[operator norm math3\]) imply that $$\label{tstarforc}
\|T_{{\bf c}}H _t^\ast \cdot \Delta\|=\left\|\sum_{i=1}^t B^{i-1\,T} {\rm math}^\ast (\Delta)\right\|\leq \sqrt{2}\sum_{i=1}^t \|B\|_{{\rm op}}^{i-1}\| \Delta\|\leq \frac{\sqrt{2}\| \Delta\|}{1-\|B\|_{{\rm op}}}.$$ We now use (\[thtrec1\]) for an arbitrary $k$ as well as (\[operator norm math2\]) and (\[tstarforc\]) and write $$\begin{gathered}
\|(T^\ast _{{\bf c} } H _t -T^\ast _{ {\bf c} } H _t ^k) \cdot \Delta\|=\|T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H_{t-k}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^{k\,T}{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) ) \|\\
\leq \| T _{{\bf c}}^\ast H_{t-k} \|_{{\rm op}}\|{\rm vech}^\ast\|_{{\rm op}}\|B\|_{{\rm op}}^k\|{\rm math}^\ast\|_{{\rm op}}\| \Delta\|\leq \frac{2\| \Delta\|\|B\|_{{\rm op}}^k}{1-\|B\|_{{\rm op}}}.\end{gathered}$$ The computability constraint [**(CC)**]{} implies that $\|B\|_{{\rm op}}\leq 1- \widetilde{\epsilon}_{B} $ and hence $\|T^\ast _{{\bf c} } H _t -T^\ast _{ {\bf c} } H _t ^k\|_{{\rm op}}\leq 2(1- \widetilde{\epsilon } _B)^k/\widetilde{\epsilon } _B$. A straightforward computation shows that if we want this upper bound for the error to be smaller than a certain $\delta>0$, that is $2(1- \widetilde{\epsilon } _B)^k/\widetilde{\epsilon } _B < \delta $ then it suffices to take $$\label{first k estimation}
k>\frac{\log \left(\frac{\widetilde{\epsilon} _B\delta}{2}\right)}{\log (1- \widetilde{\epsilon} _B)}.$$ We now tackle the estimation of the truncation error in mean in the $A$ variable. Firstly, we recall that by (\[model is white noise\]) and in the presence of the stationarity constraint $E[\boldsymbol{\eta} _t]=E[{\bf h}_t ]=(\mathbb{I}_N-A-B)^{-1} {\bf c}$. The first consequence of this identity is that if we take the expectations of both (\[thtrec2\]) and (\[thtrec3\]) we see that $\|E\left[T^\ast _{A } H _t \cdot \Delta\right]\| $ and $\|E\left[T^\ast _{B } H _t \cdot \Delta\right]\| $ are determined by exactly the same recursions and hence the error estimations for both variables are going to be the same. Also, by (\[thtrec2\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\label{byafora}
\|E\left[T^\ast _{A } H _t \cdot \Delta\right]\|=\left\|\sum_{i=1}^t B^{i-1\,T} {\rm math}^\ast (\Delta)\cdot E[\boldsymbol{\eta}_{t-i}^T]\right\|\leq \sqrt{2}\| \Delta\|\|E[{\bf h}_t]\|\sum_{i=1}^t \|B\|_{{\rm op}}^{i-1}\\
\leq \sqrt{2}\| \Delta\|\|(\mathbb{I}_N-A-B) ^{-1}{\bf c}\|/ \widetilde{\epsilon}_B \leq \sqrt{2}\| \Delta\|\| {\bf c}\|/ \epsilon_{AB}\widetilde{\epsilon}_B. \end{gathered}$$ The last inequality is a consequence of the constraints [**(SC)**]{} and [**(PC)**]{}. Indeed, $$\|(\mathbb{I}_N-A-B) ^{-1}{\bf c}\|=\left\|\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} (A+B)^i{\bf c}\right\|\leq\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \left\|(A+B)\right\|_{{\rm op}}^i\|{\bf c}\|\leq \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} (1- \epsilon_{AB})^i\|{\bf c}\|= \frac{\| {\bf c}\|}{\epsilon_{AB}}.$$ Now, by (\[thtrec2\]) and (\[byafora\]), $$\begin{gathered}
\|E\left[(T^\ast _{A} H _t -T^\ast _{A} H _t ^k) \cdot \Delta\right]\|=\|E\left[T _{A}^\ast H_{t-k}\cdot {\rm vech}^\ast(B ^{k\,T}{\rm math}^\ast(\Delta) )\right] \|\\
\leq \| T _{A}^\ast H_{t-k} \|_{{\rm op}}\|{\rm vech}^\ast\|_{{\rm op}}\|B\|_{{\rm op}}^k\|{\rm math}^\ast\|_{{\rm op}}\| \Delta\|\leq \frac{2\| \Delta\|\| {\bf c}\|}{\epsilon_{AB}\widetilde{\epsilon} _B}(1-\widetilde{\epsilon} _B)^k,\end{gathered}$$ which proves (\[ub2\]). If we want this upper bound for the error to be smaller than a certain $\delta>0$, we have to make the number of iterations $k$ big enough so that $$\frac{2\| {\bf c}\|}{\epsilon_{AB}\widetilde{\epsilon} _B}(1-\widetilde{\epsilon} _B)^k< \delta \quad \mbox{that is} \quad (1-\widetilde{\epsilon} _B)^k= \frac{\delta \epsilon_{AB}\widetilde{\epsilon}_B}{2 \| {\bf c}\|}\leq \frac{\delta \epsilon_{AB}\widetilde{\epsilon}_B}{2 \epsilon_{{\bf c}}}.$$ This relation, together with (\[first k estimation\]) proves the estimate (\[k estimate\]). $\blacksquare$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Topological superfluid is an exotic state of quantum matter that possesses a nodeless superfluid gap in the bulk and Andreev edge modes at the boundary of a finite system. Here, we study a multi-orbital superfluid driven by attractive $s$-wave interaction in a rotating optical lattice. Interestingly, we find that the rotation induces the inter-orbital hybridization and drives the system into topological orbital superfluid in accordance with intrinsically chiral $d$-wave pairing characteristics. Thanks to the conservation of spin, the topological orbital superfluid supports four rather than two chiral Andreev edge modes at the boundary of the lattice. Moreover, we find that the intrinsic harmonic confining potential forms a circular spatial barrier which accumulates atoms and supports a mass current under injection of small angular momentum as external driving force. This feature provides an experimentally detectable phenomenon to verify the topological orbital superfluid with chiral $d$-wave order in a rotating optical lattice.'
author:
- Ningning Hao
- Huaiming Guo
- Ping Zhang
title: 'Topological orbital superfluid with chiral $d$-wave order in a rotating optical lattice'
---
Introduction
============
Orbital degrees of freedom play a significant role to produce various exotic quantum states in complex condensed-matter systems, such as high temperature superconductors and quantum magnetic insulators. Recent experimental realizations of multi-orbital systems with ultra-cold atoms[@Muller2007PRL; @Wirth2011NP; @Soltan2012NP; @Parker3013NP] have promoted the theoretical studies of high orbital physics in optical lattices, where a series of exotic quantum states have been proposed[@Sun2012NP; @Li2013NC; @Liu2014NC; @Liu2015Arxiv; @Wu2008PRL; @Wu2008PRL-2; @Zhai2013PRA]. Among them, one of remarkable characteristics is that the orbital hybridization can play the same role as spin-orbital coupling or artificial gauge fields which are the key ingredient to drive topologically insulating or superconducting states[@Qi2011RMP; @Hasan2010RMP]. Therefore, topologically nontrivial many-body states can be implemented in multi-orbital systems in the absence of spin-orbital couplings. There exist several methods to induce the orbital hybridization in the context of cold atom systems, including many-body interaction effect[@Sun2012NP], lattice shaking[@Struck2011SC; @Hauke2012PRL; @Parker2013NP; @Koghee2012PRA], and local rotation[@GemelkeARXIV2010]. The relevant quantum states including topological semimetal[@Sun2012NP] and topological band insulators[@Hauke2012PRL; @Zhang2014PRA; @Zheng2014PRA; @Wu2008PRL-2] have been proposed.
Recently, the superfluid of bosons with chiral odd-frequency orders, i.e., $p+ip$-wave and $f+if$-wave, have been experimentally realized in multi-orbital cold-atom systems[@Wirth2011NP; @Matthias2011PRL; @Matthias2013NJP]. For the fermions, however, it is still a big challenge to realize the superfluid states with chiral odd-frequency orders, because the atom loss is strong near the Feshbach resonance in high-frequency channels[@Chin2010RMP]. Theoretically, thanks to the Rashba spin-orbital couplings, the topological superfluids of fermions with chiral odd-frequency orders have been proposed to emerge in $s$-wave channel of the Feshbach resonance. [@Zhang2009PRL; @Sato2009PRL; @Liu2012PRA; @Hao2013PRA]. In comparison with well-studied chiral odd-frequency superfluids of fermions, the superfluids of fermions with chiral even-frequency orders are rarely studied, and only some candidate materials are proposed to have the chiral even-frequency orders due to the unconventional superconducting pairing in condensed-matter systems[@Krishana1997Science; @Laughlin1998PRL; @Nandkishore2012NP; @Liu2013PRL]. More recently, a checkerboard lattice in a periodic Floquet driving field was proposed to support the chiral $d$-wave superfluid, where the sublattice degrees of freedom plays a key role and the periodic Floquet driving field induces the hybridization of two sublattices[@Zhang2015Arxiv]. In this paper, we propose that a superfluid state of fermions with a chiral $d$-wave order can be implemented in a rotating multi-orbital optical lattice. In our proposal, the key ingredients to drive the underlying nontrivial topology of the multi-orbital superfluid state with a chiral $d$-wave order come from the two orbitals that are the counterparts of spin degrees of freedom in spin-orbital coupling, and the inter-orbital hybridization is induced by the local rotation with same frequency for every individual lattice site, which can be experimentally realized [@GemelkeARXIV2010]. Interestingly, different from conventional chiral $d$-wave topological superfluid which supports two chiral Andreev edge modes at the boundary of the system, the topological orbital superfluid here supports four chiral Andreev edge modes due to the conservation of spin. More importantly, we find that the spatial barrier structure spontaneously formed by the intrinsic harmonic confining potential separates the trivial and nontrivial superfluid states, accumulates cold atoms and supports a mass current under injection of small angular momentum as the external driving force. These features can be experimentally adopted to verify the topologically non-trivial superfluid states. In comparison with the chiral $p$-wave and $f$-wave topological superconductor and superfluid[@Read2000PRB; @Fu2008PRL; @Sau2010PRL; @Zhang2009PRL; @Sato2009PRL; @Mao2011PRL; @Hao2013PRA; @Wang2012NJP; @Hao2010PRB; @Shen2012Book], where the spin-orbital couplings are essential, the chiral $d$-wave topological superfluid here only requires the orbital hybridization. Therefore, our proposal provides a possible route to explore topological superfluids with chiral $d$-wave order in multi-orbital cold-atom systems.
The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we discuss the implementation of the multi-orbital system with a specific configuration of laser beams, and construct the effective Hamiltonian to describe the multi-orbital system. In section III, we study the homogeneous superfluid state with self-consistent mean-field approximation, and discuss the topological properties of the homogeneous superfluid state. In section IV, we discuss the inhomogeneous superfluid state modulated by the harmonic confining potential. In section V, we discuss the experimental scheme and present a brief summary.
Optical lattice and Model
=========================
We consider a balanced mixture of fermion atoms with two internal states labeled by the spin index $\sigma$. The atoms are loaded in an isotropic 2D square optical lattices. To introduce the couplings between different p orbital bands, one effective approach is to rotate the optical lattice with same rotation frequency $\Omega_{z}$ for every individual lattice site[@GemelkeARXIV2010]. An alternative approach would be to directly couple the states with a drive laser[@Pinheiro2013PRL]. Finally, the trapped atoms are turned close to a Feshbach resonance to produce attractive $s$-wave interactions. The lattice potential takes the form,$$V(x,y)=V_{1}[\cos k_{L}x+\cos k_{L}y]+2V_{2}\cos k_{L}x\cos k_{L}y.
\label{potentialVxy}$$ Here, $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ are the optical lattice potentials and $k_{L}$ is the wave-vector of laser fields. The realization of lattice potential $V(x,y)$ in Eq. (\[potentialVxy\]) has been proposed for the case $V_{2}/V_{1}>1/2$[@Sun2012NP]. Here, we consider the case $V_{2}/V_{1}<1/2$, and the configuration of optical lattices under the condition $V_{2}/V_{1}<1/2$ can be implemented through four retro-reflected laser beams as shown in Fig. \[fig\_laser\](a). The electric field generated by each laser beam is $$\vec{E}_{j}(\vec{r},t)=E_{j,0}\vec{e}_{j}\cos(\vec{k}_{j}\cdot\vec{r}_{j})e^{-i(\omega_{j}t+\varphi_{j})}, \label{electric_field}$$ where $\vec{e}_{j}$, $\omega_{j}$, and $\varphi_{j}$ are the polarization vector, the frequency, and the phase of the laser field, respectively. The parameters for each laser beams are summarized in Table \[laser-field\]. The corresponding light-shift potential is
\[c\][llllll]{}$j$ & $E_{j0}$ & $\vec{e}_{j}$ & $\vec{k}_{j}$ & $\omega_{j}$ & $\varphi_{j}$\
$1$ & $\epsilon_{1}$ & $(1,0,0)$ & $(k_{L}/2,0)$ & $\omega_{0}$ & $0$\
$2$ & $\epsilon_{1}$ & $(0,1,0)$ & $(0,k_{L}/2)$ & $\omega_{0}$ & $0$\
$3$ & $\epsilon_{2}$ & $(0,0,1)$ & $(k_{L}/2,k_{L}/2)$ & $\omega_{0}$ & $0$\
$4$ & $\epsilon_{2}$ & $(0,0,1)$ & $(k_{L}/2,-k_{L}/2)$ & $\omega_{0}$ & $0$\
$$V(x,y)=-\chi|\sum_{j}\vec{E}_{j}(\vec{r},t)|^{2}, \label{lattice_potential}$$
with $\chi$ denoting the real part of the polarizability. By adopting the parameters in Table \[laser-field\], we can get the lattice potential shown in Eq.(\[potentialVxy\]) with an irrelevant constant shift $V_{0}=-\chi(\epsilon_{1}^{2}+\epsilon_{2}^{2})$. Here, $V_{1}=-\chi(\epsilon
_{1}^{2}/2+\epsilon_{2}^{2})$, and $V_{2}=-\chi\epsilon_{2}^{2}/2$. The condition $V_{2}/V_{1}<1/2$ can be achieved for arbitrary nonzero $\epsilon_{1}$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ and blue detuning with $\chi<0$. Here, we set $V_{1}=1.2E_{R}$ and $V_{2}=0.4E_{R}$. $E_{R}=\frac{h^{2}}{2ma^{2}}$ is the recoil energy and $a$ is the lattice constant.
![(Color Online) (a) Four retro-reflected laser beams are adopted to create the lattice potential in Eq. (1). (b) The contour of the lattice potential forms a two-dimensional optical lattice, and the atoms are trapped at the minima of the potential. The small circle with arrow at each minimum represents the on-site rotation. Here, $V_{1}=1.2E_{R}$ and $V_{2}=0.4E_{R}$ (c) The Brillouin zone and high-symmetry points. (d) The single-particle energy spectrum along high-symmetry lines in the unit of $E_{R}$ for the four lowest bands through plane wave expansion calculation about the lattice potential. (e) and (f) The single-particle energy spectrum along high-symmetry lines from the tight-binding Hamiltonian in Eq.(\[Ham\_tb\]) without and with on-site rotation. To guarantee the consistence of the energy scales between the bands from plane wave expansion calculation about the lattice potential in (d) and the bands from tight-binding calculations in (e) and (f), the energy is measured in the unit of $t_{pp}$ with $t_{pp}=0.1E_{R}$ in (e) and (f). Other parameters are $t_{dd}=1$, $t_{pd}=1$, $t_{pp}^{\prime}=0.2$, $\delta=6.4$, $\mu_{0}=-1.6$, $V_{t}=0$ and $h\Omega_{z}=0$ in (e) and $h\Omega_{z}=0.2$ in (f). []{data-label="fig_laser"}](fig1.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The contour of $V(x,y)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_laser\](b). The lowest four band structures from the plane-wave expansion approximation upon the potential $V(x,y)$ in Eq. (\[potentialVxy\]) are shown in Fig. \[fig\_laser\] (d). It is straightforward to check that the splitting between two middle $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ bands off the high-symmetry point are induced by the coupling to the higher $d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ band[@Sun2012NP]. Consider the three orbitals of $p_{x}$, $p_{y}$ and $d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ shown in Fig. \[fig\_laser\](e), a tight-binding (TB) Hamiltonian can be constructed to described the band structures of the fermionic square lattice, i.e.,$$H_{tb}=H_{d}+H_{p}+H_{dp}, \label{Ham_tb}$$ with$$H_{d}=\sum_{<i,j>\sigma}[-t_{dd}+(\delta-\mu_{i})\delta_{ij}]d_{i,\sigma
}^{\dag}d_{j,\sigma}, \label{Ham_tb1}$$$$\begin{aligned}
H_{p} & =-\sum_{i\sigma,l=x,y}\mu_{i}p_{l,i,\sigma}^{\dag}p_{l,i,\sigma
}+ih\Omega_{z}\sum_{i\sigma}p_{x,i,\sigma}^{\dag}p_{y,i,\sigma}+H.c.\nonumber\\
& +t_{pp}\sum_{i\sigma,l=x,y}p_{l,i,\sigma}^{\dag}p_{l,i+e_{l},\sigma
}+H.c.\nonumber\\
& -t_{pp}^{\prime}\sum_{i\sigma,l=x,y,\bar{l}=-l}p_{l,i,\sigma}^{\dag
}p_{l,i+e_{\bar{l}},\sigma}+H.c., \label{Ham_tb2}$$$$H_{dp}=t_{pd}\sum_{i\sigma,l=x,y}[p_{l,i+e_{l},\sigma}^{\dag}d_{i,\sigma
}-p_{l,i-e_{l},\sigma}^{\dag}d_{i,\sigma}]+H.c. \label{Ham_tb3}$$ Here, $\mu_{i}=\mu_{0}+V_{trap}(i_{x},i_{y})$ with $$V_{trap}(i_{x},i_{y})=V_{t}[(i_{x}-\frac{N_{x}+1}{2})^{2}+(i_{y}-\frac
{N_{y}+1}{2})^{2}] \label{Vtrap}$$ being the weak harmonic confining potential to stabilize the optical lattice. $p_{x/y,i,\sigma}^{\dag}$, and $d_{i,\sigma}^{\dag}$ are the fermion creation operators for atoms in the relevant $p_{x}$, $p_{y}$ and $d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ orbitals. We first set $V_{t}=0$ to simplify the discussions and recover it later. Note that all the energy scales are measured in the unit of $t_{pp}$ as explained in the caption of Fig. \[fig\_laser\] in the following parts of the paper if not special specified. The energy spectra of TB Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Ham\_tb\]) are shown in Figs. \[fig\_laser\](e) and \[fig\_laser\](f). It can be found that the TB Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Ham\_tb\]) gives a good description of the band structures of lattice potential, and the on-site rotation in the second term in Eq. (\[Ham\_tb2\]) induces the orbital hybridization to break the degeneracy of $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ bands around the $\Gamma$ and $M$ points shown in Fig. \[fig\_laser\](c).
When the fermion atoms are loaded into the two $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ bands, the attractive $s$-wave interactions from the Feshbach resonance give the two-orbital attractive Hubbard interactions as follows[@Zhang2010PRA],$$\begin{aligned}
H_{int} & =U\sum_{il}n_{il\uparrow}n_{il\downarrow}-\frac{J}{2}\sum
_{i}[2\mathbf{S}_{ix}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{iy}+\frac{1}{2}n_{ix}n_{iy}]\nonumber\\
& +\frac{J}{2}\sum_{i}n_{ix}n_{iy}+J_{\Delta}\sum_{i}p_{ix\uparrow}^{\dag
}p_{ix\downarrow}^{\dag}p_{iy\downarrow}p_{iy\uparrow}+H.c. \label{H_int}$$ Here, the first term is the intra-orbital attractive interaction, and the second term is the Hund’s coupling with the spin operator $\mathbf{S}_{il}=\frac{1}{2}p_{il,\alpha}^{\dag}\sigma_{\alpha\beta}p_{il,\beta}$ and $l=x,y$. $U$ and $J$ take the following forms, $$\begin{aligned}
U & =4\pi\hbar^{2}a_{s}/m\int dr|\omega_{x/y}(r)|^{4},\label{IntU}\\
J & =4\pi\hbar^{2}a_{s}/m\int dr|\omega_{x}(r)|^{2}|\omega_{y}(r)|^{2}.
\label{IntJ}$$ Here, $a_{s}$ is the $s$-wave scattering length with negative value, i.e., $a_{s}<0$. $\omega_{x/y}(r)$ are the Wannier functions of $p_{x/y}$ orbitals. The third term in Eq. (9) is the inter-orbital attractive interaction with $n_{il}=n_{il,\uparrow}+n_{il,\downarrow}$. The fourth term is the pair hopping term. Furthermore, we have $J=2U/3$ and $J_{\Delta}=U/3$[@Zhang2010PRA]. Note that the Hund’s coupling and inter-orbital interaction have same amplitudes, which are different from the electron system. The interaction terms shown in Eqs.(9)-(11) are obtained under the harmonic approximation. It is shown that the an-harmonicity of the optical lattice can affect the properties of the multi-orbital system[@Collin2010PRA; @Tomasz2013PRL]. In particular, the intra-orbital interaction $U_{xx}$ is not equal to $U_{yy}$, and the inter-orbital interaction $J$ is off $2U_{xx}/3$. Such imbalance can induce the modulations of superfluid order parameters. However, the topological superfluid is robust against such small modulations, because nontrivial topology is the global feature of superfluid. For simplification, we neglect the irrelevant an-harmonic effects in the present work.
Homogeneous superfluid states with chiral d-wave order
======================================================
Now, we turn to consider the homogeneous superfluid state with $V_{t}=0$ in Eq. (\[Vtrap\]) and the superfluid state is driven by the attractive interaction in Eq. (\[H\_int\]). The spin-singlet superfluid pairing operators are defined as$$\hat{\Delta}_{s,ll^{\prime}}(k)=\sum_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}\frac{[i\sigma
_{y}]_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}}{4}[p_{l,k\sigma}p_{l^{\prime},-k\sigma^{\prime
}}+p_{l^{\prime},k\sigma}p_{l,-k\sigma^{\prime}}]. \label{op_s}$$ Then, we have$$\begin{aligned}
H_{int} & =U\sum_{l}\hat{\Delta}_{s,ll}^{\dag}\hat{\Delta}_{s,ll}+J_{\Delta
}\sum_{l\neq l^{\prime}}\hat{\Delta}_{s,ll}^{\dag}\hat{\Delta}_{s,l^{\prime
}l^{\prime}}\nonumber\\
& +2J\sum_{l>l^{\prime}}\hat{\Delta}_{s,ll^{\prime}}^{\dag}\hat{\Delta
}_{s,ll^{\prime}} \label{Hint1}$$ with $$\hat{\Delta}_{s,ll^{\prime}}=\sum_{k}\hat{\Delta}_{s,l^{\prime}l^{\prime}}(k).
\label{deltat}$$ Note that the spin-triplet pairing parts disappear, because the Hund’s coupling and inter-orbital interaction have the same amplitudes. Through the mean-field approximation, $\Delta_{s,ll^{\prime}}=\langle\hat{\Delta
}_{s,ll^{\prime}}\rangle$, $H_{int}$ can be decoupled to be $$\begin{aligned}
H_{int}^{p} & =\sum_{l,k}(U\Delta_{s,ll}+J_{\Delta}\Delta_{s,\bar{l}\bar{l}})\hat{\Delta}_{s,ll}^{\dag}(k)+H.c.\nonumber\\
& +\sum_{k}2J\Delta_{s,xy}\hat{\Delta}_{s,xy}^{\dag}(k)+H.c.+h_{con}
\label{Hintmf}$$ with $$h_{con}=-U\sum_{l}|\Delta_{s,ll}|^{2}-2J|\Delta_{s,xy}|^{2}-2J_{\Delta
}\operatorname{Re}(\Delta_{s,xx}\Delta_{s,yy}^{\ast}). \label{hcon}$$ The homogeneous superfluid state can be described by the mean-field Hamiltonian in the Nambu basis: $\Psi(k)=[d_{k\uparrow},p_{x,k\uparrow
},p_{y,k\uparrow},d_{k\downarrow}^{\dag},p_{x,k\downarrow}^{\dag
},p_{y,k\downarrow}^{\dag},d_{k\downarrow},p_{x,k\downarrow},p_{y,k\downarrow
},d_{k\uparrow}^{\dag},p_{x,k\uparrow}^{\dag},p_{y,k\uparrow}^{\dag}]^{t}$,$$H_{mf}=\sum_{k}\frac{1}{2}\Psi^{\dag}(k)\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}H_{tb}(k) & \mathbf{\Delta} & & \\
\mathbf{\Delta}^{\dag} & -H_{tb}^{\ast}(-k) & & \\
& & H_{tb}(k) & -\mathbf{\Delta}\\
& & -\mathbf{\Delta}^{\dag} & -H_{tb}^{\ast}(-k)
\end{array}
\right] \Psi(k)+C. \label{Hmf}$$ Here, $C$ is an operator-independent constant term. $\mathbf{\Delta}$ is a $3\times3$ matrix and takes the following form,$$\mathbf{\Delta}=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & U\Delta_{s,xx}+J_{\Delta}\Delta_{s,yy} & 2J\Delta_{s,xy}\\
0 & 2J\Delta_{s,xy} & U\Delta_{s,yy}+J_{\Delta}\Delta_{s,xx}\end{array}
\right] . \label{order_parameter1}$$
![(Color Online) (a) The band structure along the high-symmetry lines, and the filling is in the shadowed regime by tuning the chemical potential. (b) The closed curve denotes the single Fermi surface. The red arrows denote the vector field of \[$\xi_{-}(k)$, $\xi_{xy}(k)$\]. Here, the parameters are same as these in Fig. 1(f). (c) The zero-temperature ground-state energy of superfluid state as change as chemical potential $\mu_{0}$ and interaction amplitude $|U|$. (d) The intra-and inter-orbital superfluid order parameters as change as chemical potential $\mu_{0}$ and interaction amplitude $|U|$. Here, $\Delta_{intra}=\Delta_{22}$ with $\Delta_{33}=\Delta_{22}$, and $\Delta_{inter}=\Delta_{23}$. The explicit expressions of $\Delta_{22}$, $\Delta_{23}$ and $\Delta_{33}$ are shown in Eq.(\[order\_parameter1\]), which are the relevant matrix elements. The mesh of $k_{x}\times
k_{y}=51\times51$.[]{data-label="fig_op"}](fig2.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The mean-field Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Hmf\]) can be self-consistently solved with respect to the minimum of ground state energy, i.e., $$E_{g}=h_{con}-\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}\sum_{n=1}^{3}\int d^{2}\mathbf{k[}|E_{n}^{(s)}(k)|-|E_{n}^{(0)}(k)|], \label{Eg}$$ where, $E_{n}^{(s)}(k)$ and $E_{n}^{(0)}(k)$ are the eigen-energy spectra of the superfluid state and normal state. Here, we focus on the filling lying in the band splitting around the $M$ point induced by the orbital hybridization as shown in Fig. \[fig\_op\](a). The typical Fermi surface is shown in Fig. \[fig\_op\](b). From Eq. (\[order\_parameter1\]), we can find that the superfluid order parameter in the intra-$p_{x}$ orbital channel is $\Delta_{22}=U\Delta_{s,xx}+J_{\Delta}\Delta_{s,yy}$ while the superfluid order parameter in the intra-$p_{y}$ orbital channel is $\Delta_{33}=U\Delta_{s,yy}+J_{\Delta}\Delta_{s,xx}$. To maximize the superfluid gap, one can find that $\Delta_{s,xx}\Delta_{s,yy}>0$ is favorable to obtain the largest amplitudes of $\Delta_{22}$ and $\Delta_{33}$. The numerical results for the ground state energy and superfluid order parameters as functions of chemical potential $\mu_{0}$ and interaction amplitude $|U|$ are shown in Figs. \[fig\_op\](c) and \[fig\_op\](d), from which the intra-orbital $\Delta_{22}$ and $\Delta_{33}$ are degenerate in the whole parameter regime. It means that $\Delta_{22}=\Delta_{33}$, and the only choice is $\Delta
_{s,xx}\Delta_{s,yy}>0$ thanks to $UJ_{\Delta}>0$. The aforementioned analyses are consistent, and one can achieve that the superfluid ground states favor $\Delta_{s,xx}$ and $\Delta_{s,yy}$ with same sign to maximize the superfluid gap and to minimize the ground state energy. Furthermore, we can find that the inter-orbital $\Delta_{23}$, which is also the matrix element in Eq. (\[order\_parameter1\]), is purely imaginary, and much smaller than $\Delta_{22/33}$. The reason lies in that the inter-orbital $\Delta_{23}$ is induced by the orbital hybridization and modulated by $\Omega_{z}$. It is conceivable that the strength of inter-orbital $\Delta_{23}$ could be comparable to intra-orbital $\Delta_{22/33}$ when $\Omega_{z}$ is large enough. However, the $\Delta_{23}$ has no relation with the topological nature of the superfluid state, we only focus on the case with $\Omega_{z}$ set here.
In order to reveal the underlying topological nature of the superfluid states, we first investigate the band characteristics of the normal states. As shown in Fig. \[fig\_laser\](e), the full separation between the $d$ band and $p$ bands guarantees the feasibility to downfold the Hamiltonian from the space spanned by $d$ and $p$ orbitals to the space spanned by two effective $\tilde{p}$ orbitals shown in Fig. \[fig\_laser\](f). When $V_{t}=0$, the translation symmetry allows ones to write the TB Hamiltonian in momentum space under the effective basis $\tilde{\psi}_{\sigma}(k)=[\tilde{p}_{x,k,\sigma
},\tilde{p}_{y,k,\sigma}]^{t}$, i.e., $$\tilde{H}_{tb}=\sum_{k\sigma}\tilde{\psi}_{\sigma}^{\dag}(k)\tilde{H}_{tb}(k)\tilde{\psi}_{\sigma}(k). \label{Htb2}$$ Here, $$\tilde{H}_{tb}(k)=\frac{1}{2}\xi_{+}(k)-\mu_{0}+\xi_{xy}(k)\sigma_{x}-h\Omega_{z}\sigma_{y}+\frac{1}{2}\xi_{-}(k)\sigma_{z}, \label{Htb30}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{\pm}(k) & =2(\tilde{t}_{pp}\mp\tilde{t}_{pp}^{\prime})(\cos k_{x}\pm\cos k_{y}),\label{kesa1}\\
\xi_{xy}(k) & =4\tilde{t}_{xy}\sin k_{x}\sin k_{y}. \label{kesa2}$$ The Pauli matrices $\sigma_{i}$ with $i=x,y,z$ span the two effective $\tilde{p}_{x}$ and $\tilde{p}_{y}$ orbital space. The effective TB Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}_{tb}$ can be rewritten in the basis spanned by the orbital angular momentum eigen-state, i.e., $$\bar{H}_{tb}=\sum_{k\sigma}\bar{\psi}_{\sigma}^{\dag}(k)\bar{H}_{tb}(k)\bar{\psi}_{\sigma}(k). \label{Htb3}$$ Here, $\bar{\psi}_{\sigma}^{\dag}(k)=[\bar{p}_{+,k,\sigma}^{\dag},\bar
{p}_{-,k,\sigma}^{\dag}]$ with $\bar{p}_{\pm,k\sigma}^{\dag}=\frac{1}{\sqrt
{2}}[\tilde{p}_{x,k\sigma}^{\dag}\pm i\tilde{p}_{y,k\sigma}^{\dag}]$, and $$\bar{H}_{tb}(k)=\frac{1}{2}\xi_{+}(k)-\mu_{0}+\frac{1}{2}\xi_{-}(k)s_{x}+\xi_{xy}(k)s_{y}-h\Omega_{z}s_{z}. \label{Htb4}$$ The Pauli matrices $s_{i}$ with $i=x,y,z$ span the two effective $\bar{p}_{+}$ and $\bar{p}_{-}$ orbital space. In the absence of $\Omega_{z}$, $[F_{x}(k)=\frac{1}{2}\xi_{-}(k),F_{y}(k)=\xi_{xy}(k)]$ forms a vector field in momentum space shown in Fig. \[fig\_op\](b). Then, the band degeneracy point at the $M$ point can be mapped into a vortex in the momentum space with integer winding number[@Sun2012NP], i.e.,
![(Color Online) (a) and (b) the edge spectra of the superfluid states with $|U|=0.4$, $\mu_{0}=-1.6$ in (a) and $|U|=0.8$, $\mu_{0}=-1.6$ in (b). The relevant $\Delta_{intra}=0.1$, $\Delta_{inter}=0.03i$ in (a) and $\Delta_{intra}=0.3$, $\Delta_{inter}=0.08i$ in (b). Here, the y direction has periodic boundary condition while the lattice number along x direction is set to be $N_{x}=41$. (c) The amplitudes of wave-function of the in-gap states labeled 1-8 in (a). Note that each point are double degeneracy by taking into account the spin degree of freedom. Here, the red and blue o marks label particle-like $|u_{p_{x},\uparrow/\downarrow
}(k_{y},i_{x})|^{2}$and hole-like $|v_{p_{x},\uparrow/\downarrow}(k_{y},i_{x})|^{2}$ while the red and blue $\vartriangleleft
$ marks label particle-like $|u_{p_{y},\uparrow/\downarrow
}(k_{y},i_{x})|^{2}$ and hole-like $|v_{p_{y},\uparrow/\downarrow}(k_{y},i_{x})|^{2}$. (d) The phase diagram as change as chemical potential $\mu_{0}$ and interaction amplitude $|U|$. []{data-label="fig_top"}](fig3.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
$$W_{\sigma}={\oint}\frac{d\mathbf{k}}{2\pi}[\frac{F_{x}(k)}{F(k)}\mathbf{\nabla}\frac{F_{y}(k)}{F(k)}-(x\longleftrightarrow y)],
\label{winding number}$$
with $F(k)=\sqrt{F_{x}^{2}(k)+F_{y}^{2}(k)}$. The direct calculation gives $W_{\sigma}=2$ in agreement with the pattern of the vector field $[F_{x}(k),F_{y}(k)]$ as shown in Fig. \[fig\_op\](b). Note that the total winding number $W=W_{\uparrow}+W_{\downarrow}$ should be 4 when the spin degree of freedom is taken into account. In the presence of $\Omega_{z}$, the induced orbital hybridization lifts the degeneracy at M point. Then, the above mapping does not work.
In the superfluid states, quasi-particle spectra are fully gapped and the nonzero $\Omega_{z}$ breaks the pseudo-time-reversal symmetry. It is natural to introduce the Chern number to characterize the topological properties of the superfluid states. To show it, we consider the effective superfluid Hamiltonian spanned in the effective Nambu basis: $\bar{\Psi}(k)=[\bar
{p}_{+,k,\uparrow},\bar{p}_{-,k,\uparrow},\bar{p}_{+,-k,\downarrow}^{\dag
},\bar{p}_{-,-k,\downarrow}^{\dag},\bar{p}_{+,k,\downarrow},\bar
{p}_{-,k,\downarrow},\bar{p}_{+,-k,\uparrow}^{\dag},\bar{p}_{-,-k,\uparrow
}^{\dag}]^{t}$, $$\bar{H}_{mf}=\sum_{k}\bar{\Psi}^{\dag}(k)[\bar{H}_{tb}(k)+\bar{H}_{int}^{p}(k)]\bar{\Psi}(k), \label{H_effmf}$$ with $$\bar{H}_{int}^{p}(k)=s_{z}\otimes\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}
& \mathbf{\bar{\Delta}}\\
\mathbf{\bar{\Delta}}^{\dag} &
\end{array}
\right] , \label{H_pair_eff}$$ and$$\mathbf{\bar{\Delta}}=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\left\vert \Delta_{inter}\right\vert & \Delta_{intra}\\
\Delta_{intra} & -\left\vert \Delta_{inter}\right\vert
\end{array}
\right] .$$ Here $\Delta_{intra}=\Delta_{22}$ and $|\Delta_{inter}|=|\Delta_{23}|$. Upon an unitary rotation[@Sato2009PRL], we can obtain a dual form of the Hamiltonian, i.e., $$\bar{H}_{mf}^{D}=S\bar{H}_{mf}S^{\dag}, \label{HmfD0}$$ where$$S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}1 & s_{x} & & \\
is_{y} & -s_{z} & & \\
& & 1 & -s_{x}\\
& & -is_{y} & -s_{z}\end{array}
\right] , \label{Smatrix}$$ $$\bar{H}_{mf}^{D}(k)=\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\bar{H}_{mf}^{D+}(k) & \\
& \bar{H}_{mf}^{D-}(k)
\end{array}
\right]$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{H}_{mf}^{D\pm}(k) & =\left[
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\Delta_{intra}-h\Omega_{z}s_{z} & \pm h(k)\\
\pm h^{\dag}(k) & -\Delta_{intra}+h\Omega_{z}s_{z}\end{array}
\right] ,\label{HmfD}\\
h(k) & =is_{y}[-\frac{\xi_{+}(k)}{2}+\mu_{0}+\frac{\xi_{-}(k)}{2}s_{x}\nonumber\\
& -\xi_{xy}(k)s_{y}+is_{y}|\Delta_{inter}|]. \label{h4}$$ In the dual Hamiltonian $\bar{H}_{mf}^{D\pm}(k)$ shown in Eq. (\[HmfD\]), \[$\frac{\xi_{-}(k)}{2},\xi_{xy}(k)$\] resembles two components of pairing order parameters of the chiral $d$-wave superfluid and $\Delta_{inter}$ corresponds to the mixed $s$-wave component. $\Delta_{intra}\pm
h\Omega_{z}$ is the pseudo-kinetic energy with $k$-independent, and resembles kinetic energy term $\frac{k^{2}\pm k_{F}^{2}}{2m}$ of the chiral $d$-wave superfluid when $\mu_{0}$ is set to satisfy the condition $\mu_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\xi_{+}(\pi,\pi)$. Then, the dual Hamiltonian $\bar{H}_{mf}^{D\pm}(k)$ resembles the standard Hamiltonian describing the chiral $d$-wave superconductors[@Laughlin1998PRL; @Volovik1997JETP], and belongs to class $C$ according to the classification by Schnyder *et al*[@Schnyder2008PRB]. Here, $\Delta_{inter}$ by itself cannot drive the gap-closing condition, because it is much smaller than $\Delta_{intra}$ and Fermi energy. Therefore, the small $\Delta_{inter}$ can be absorbed and set to zero. The topological nontrivial superfluid states can be achieved under the condition[@Volovik1997JETP] $\Delta_{intra}<$ $h\Omega_{z}$ when $\mu
_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\xi_{+}(\pi,\pi)$, which naturally corresponds to the weak-coupling condition$\frac{k^{2}-k_{F}^{2}}{2m}<0$[@Read2000PRB]. For the general case with arbitrary $\mu_{0}$, one can obtain nontrivial superfluid states if $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{0},\Delta_{intra})>0$ with $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{0},\Delta_{intra})$ shown in Eq.(\[condition\]), and trivial superfluid states if $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{0},\Delta_{intra})<0$. The topological phase transition condition coincides with the gap-closing condition with $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{0},\Delta_{intra})=0$. The phase diagram separating the topological trivial and non-trivial superfluid phases is plotted in Fig. \[fig\_top\](d) according to phase transition condition $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{0},\Delta_{intra})=0$. $$f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{0},\Delta_{intra})=|h\Omega_{z}|-\sqrt{\Delta_{intra}^{2}+\left[ \frac{\xi_{+}(\pi,\pi)}{2}-\mu_{0}\right] ^{2}}.
\label{condition}$$ The nontrivial topological nature of the superfluid states can be characterized by the Chern number, $$\mathcal{C}_{s}=\frac{i}{2\pi}\sum_{E_{n}<0}{\displaystyle\int\nolimits_{BZ}}
d\mathbf{k}\langle\nabla_{k}u_{s,n}(\mathbf{k})|\times|\nabla_{k}u_{s,n}(\mathbf{k})\rangle, \label{Chern_number}$$ with $u_{s,n}(\mathbf{k})$ the Bloch functions of occupied quasi-particle states with $s=up$ and $down$ to label the the up-block and down-block parts of Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[Hmf\]). The straightforward calculations give $\mathcal{C}_{up}=\mathcal{C}_{down}=2$ for $h\Omega_{z}>0$ and $\mathcal{C}_{up}=\mathcal{C}_{down}=-2$ for $h\Omega_{z}<0$ under the condition $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{0},\Delta_{intra})>0$, which means the inverse local rotation corresponds to reverse chirality. From the bulk-edge correspondence, the quasi-particle spectra have two chiral gapless edge states at the open boundary shown in Fig. \[fig\_top\](a) and no gapless edge states emerge in trivial superfluid state shown in Fig.\[fig\_top\](b). The local feature of the edge states in the Fig. \[fig\_top\](a) are explicitly demonstrated through the amplitude distributions of the wave-functions shown in Fig. \[fig\_top\](c).
Mass density modulation from the harmonic confining potential
=============================================================
![(Color Online) (a) The pattern of weak harmonic confining potential $V_{trap}$ with $V_{t}=1.2/N_{x}N_{y}$ in lattice space. The red-dashed circle denotes a spacial barrier structure of the potential, which separates the two different superfluid states. (b) The spectra of the superfluid states with the red o marks and the blue $\square$ marks corresponding to the case with $h\Omega_{z}=0.2$ and $h\Omega_{z}=0.05$ respectively. (c) The energy levels of the in-gap fermion zero modes as function of lattice size N$\times
$N. Here, the red $\square$ marks and the blueo marks correspond to the first and second lowest positive energy levels, and $h\Omega_{z}=0.2$. (d) and (e) The distributions of superfluid order parameters including intra-orbital and inter-orbital parts in lattice space with lattice size $(N_{x},N_{y})=(27,27)$ and $h\Omega_{z}=0.2$ in (c) and $\Omega_{z}=0.05$ in (d). Here, the interaction strength $|U|=0.8$, chemical potential $\mu_{0}=-1.6$, and the periodic boundary condition is applied. Other parameters are same as those in Fig. 1. []{data-label="fig_poten"}](fig4.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Now, we consider the realistic case with nonzero harmonic confining potential in Eq. (\[Vtrap\]), and the pattern of $V_{trap}(i_{x},i_{y})$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_poten\](a) with $V_{t}=1.2/N_{x}N_{y}$. We perform the self-consistent calculations about the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) Hamiltonian $H_{tb}+H_{int}^{p}$ in Eqs. (\[Ham\_tb\]) and (\[Hintmf\]) in lattice space. The quasi-particle spectra and the distribution of superfluid order parameters are shown in Figs. \[fig\_poten\](b), \[fig\_poten\](d), and \[fig\_poten\](e) for two different $h\Omega_{z}=0.2$ and $h\Omega_{z}=0.05$ under the periodic boundary condition. We find that the amplitudes of superfluid order parameters in both cases are similar from Fig. \[fig\_poten\](d) and \[fig\_poten\](e), but the quasi-particle spectra are quite different from Fig. \[fig\_poten\](b) with in-gap fermion modes for $h\Omega_{z}=0.2$ and without in-gap fermion modes for $h\Omega_{z}=0.05$. The reason lies in that $V_{trap}(i_{x},i_{y})$ forms a spatial barrier structure \[The position is marked with red-dashed circle in Fig. \[fig\_poten\](a)\] separating the nontrivial superfluid state with $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{i},\Delta_{intra})>0$ and trivial superfluid state with $f(\Omega_{z},\mu
_{i},\Delta_{intra})<0$ for $\Omega_{z}=0.2$. Note that $\mu_{i}=\mu_{0}+V_{trap}(i_{x},i_{y})$, thus the position of spatial barrier coincides with the gap-closing condition with $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{i},\Delta_{intra})=0$ . For fixed $\mu_{0}$ and $V_{t}$, one can find that $f(\Omega_{z},\mu
_{i},\Delta_{intra})$ is always smaller than zero when $\Omega_{z}=0.05$. The superfluid is always trivial, because $\Omega_{z}=0.05$ is too small to overcome the gap-closing condition $f(\Omega_{z},\mu_{i},\Delta_{intra})=0$. The spatial barrier traps in-gap fermion modes and accumulates atoms when the negative energy states are occupied[@Volovik1997JETP; @Volovik2003book]. The in-gap fermion modes trapped by the spatial barrier have the same origin as the fermion modes in spectrum of the Caroli-de Gennes-Matricon bound states in the vortex core[@Caroli1964PL].
In the low-energy limit, the spectrum of in-gap fermion modes in terms of the angular momentum $Q$ takes the following form under the axisymmetric condition[@Volovik1997JETP; @Volovik2003book], $$E_{a}(Q)=\omega_{a}(Q-Q_{a}), \label{E_boundstate}$$ where $\omega_{a}=c_{a}/R$ is the angular velocity of the rotation along the spatial barrier with $R$ the radius of spatial barrier of $V_{trap}(i_{x},i_{y})$[@Note1], $a$ labels the $a$th branch, and $Q_{a}=\hbar
k_{a}R$. The total number of the branches is four according to the index theorem[@Volovik2003book] when the spin degree of freedom is taken into account. In the absence of external driving, the energy of in-gap fermion modes is $E_{a}(0)=-\omega_{a}Q_{a}$. In the square lattice space, the circular rotation symmetry $SO(2)$ for Eq. (\[E\_boundstate\]) is broken down to $C_{4}$ symmetry, and the Fermi velocity is strongly anisotropic and the superfluid order parameters are highly inhomogeneous. $Q_{a}$ can only take the discrete values under the constraint of $C_{4}$ symmetry. Correspondingly, the energy levels of the in-gap fermion modes trapped by the spatial barrier are discrete \[see Fig. \[fig\_poten\](b) for details\], and several energy levels close to zero usually correspond to in-gap fermion modes trapped by the spatial barrier.
![(Color Online) (a1)-(a5) The distribution of LDOS defined in Eq. (\[Den\]) for five fermion modes with negative energy close to zero. (b1)-(b5) The distribution of LDOS defined in Eq. (\[Den\]) for five fermion modes with positive energy close to zero. (c) The distribution of change of LDOS between $h\Omega_{z}=0.2$ and $h\Omega_{z}=0.22$. Here, the parameters are same as those in Fig. 4. []{data-label="fig_DOS"}](fig5.eps){width="1.0\linewidth"}
The localization feature of the in-gap fermion modes trapped by the spatial barrier can be reflected by the local density of states (LDOS), which is calculated by $$\rho_{i}(\omega)=\sum_{n,l,\sigma}[|u_{i,l\sigma}^{n}|^{2}\delta(E_{n}-\omega)+|v_{i,l\sigma}^{n}|^{2}\delta(E_{n}+\omega)], \label{Den}$$ where $u_{i,l\sigma}^{n}$ and $v_{i,l\sigma}^{n}$ are the particle-like and hole-like components of eigenstate with quasi-particle energy $E_{n}$ at site $i$ and orbital $l$. The LDOS of the five in-gap fermion modes with the highest negative energy are shown in Fig. \[fig\_DOS\](a1)-(a5), from which we can find that four levels with energy $-0.0017,-0.0145,-0.0208,-0.0282$ are the fermion modes which are trapped by the spatial barrier. To make a comparison, the level with energy $-0.0322$ is the extended state. We also plot the LDOS of the the five levels with the lowest positive energy in Fig. \[fig\_DOS\](b1)-(b5) for comparison. Furthermore, we find that the highest negative energy level and the lowest positive energy level approach zero energy with increasing the lattice size N$\times$N \[see Fig. \[fig\_poten\](c) for details\].
In the presence of external driving, the spectrum of the in-gap fermion modes is a function of the angular momentum $Q$ from the external driving, and the in-gap fermion modes could cross the zero energy and form the variation of the mass current. The change of the mass current trapped in the spatial barrier is[@Volovik1997JETP] $$\delta I_{M}=\frac{\hslash}{8\pi}\sum_{a}\delta(k_{a}^{2}), \label{current1}$$ where we have assumed the thickness along $z$ direction to be unity. The extra 1/2 in denominator is added to compensate the double count due to the particle-hole symmetry. Generally, there are several external perturbations which can be introduced to be the driving force to move the in-gap fermion modes cross the zero energy, such as the modulations of $V_{1}$ and $V_{2}$ in Eq. (\[potentialVxy\]) to deform the $\frac{\xi_{-}(k)}{2}$ and $\xi
_{xy}(k)$ and introducing additional laser beam to modulation the trapping potential. Here, we consider a more convenient method. From Eq. (\[E\_boundstate\]), it is straightforward to inject non-zero $Q$ into the superfluid state through slight modulation of local rotating frequency $\Omega_{z}$. As a consequence, the in-gap fermion modes can be driven to cross the zero energy by the non-zero $\delta\Omega_{z}$. If we further assume that all the in-gap fermion modes trapped in the spatial barrier have the relation $\frac{\hslash^{2}\delta(k_{a}^{2})}{2m}\sim h\delta\Omega_{z}$, we can obtain that the response of change of mass current to the modulation of the rotating frequency $\delta I_{M}$ $\sim\frac{m\delta\Omega_{z}}{2}\sum
_{a}sgn(c_{a})$ with the summation involving all the in-gap fermion modes cross zero energy. However, in the square lattices, we can find that the $k_{a}$ is different for different $a$-th branch from Fig. \[fig\_DOS\]. As a good approximation, we can define an effective $\langle k\rangle$ to remove the difference of different $k_{a}$, and $\langle k\rangle$ can be replaced with the averge Fermi momentum $\langle k_{F}\rangle$. Then, we can obtain that the modulation of mass current density is proportional to the change of the LDOS, i.e., $$\delta j_{M}(i_{x},i_{y})\varpropto\delta\rho(i_{x},i_{y}), \label{current2}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\rho(i_{x},i_{y}) & =\rho(i_{x},i_{y})|_{\Omega_{z}+\delta\Omega_{z}}-\rho(i_{x},i_{y})|_{\Omega_{z}},\label{current3}\\
\rho(i_{x},i_{y})|_{\Omega_{z}} & =\sum_{n,l,\sigma}|v_{l\sigma}^{n}(i_{x},i_{y})|^{2}\theta(-E_{n})|_{\Omega_{z}}. \label{current4}$$ The pattern of $\delta\rho(i_{x},i_{y})$ for $\delta\Omega_{z}=0.02/h$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_DOS\](c), from which we can find that the mass current is trapped around the spatial barrier.
Discussions and conclusions
===========================
In terms of experiment, the fermion atoms can be selected as lithium $^{6}$Li, two internal states can be selected as $^{2}$S$_{1/2}$ with M=$\pm\frac{1}{2}$. The principal fluorescence line from $^{2}$S$_{1/2}$ to $^{2}$P is at 670.8 nm. Therefore, a Nd:YAG-laser with 532 nm could be selected to be the light source to realize the optical potential with the lattice constant $a=$ 532 nm. The recoil energy $E_{R}\sim h\times100$ KHz. The local rotation around each potential minimum has been experimentally realized through inserting electrooptic phase modulators into the beams forming the 2D lattice potential, and the relevant rotating frequency $\Omega_{z}$ can be turned with large flexibility[@GemelkeARXIV2010]. From the energy bands in Fig. \[fig\_laser\], we can estimate that it is enough for $\Omega_{z}\sim
h\times2$ KHz to satisfy the topological superfluid condition.
In the presence of the harmonic trap, it has been shown that the local density approximation(LDA) breaks down for trapped non-interacting bosons in p-orbital bands, and increasing the interactions and optical lattice potentials can suppress anisotropy of condensate density[@Pinheiro2012PRA]. However, the picture is different for trapped non-interacting fermions in p-orbital bands due to the different statistics. It is shown that the hard-core boson known as Tonks-Girardeau boson with infinitely repulsive interactions can be mapped into non-interacting free fermion in one dimensional limit[@Girardeau1960JMP; @Paredes2004Nature; @Kinoshita2004Science]. Thus, the boson with infinitely repulsive interactions is roughly equivalent to free fermion even in two dimensional system. Such effective repulsive interactionscan suppress the anisotropy of condensate density, and guarantee the validity of LDA in system with trapped fermions in p-orbital bands. Furthermore, the tunability of the optical lattice potential and quite small trap potential can further reduce the anisotropy of condensate density. Though the breaking down of LDA can be suppressed, the particle density per site will inevitably vary and the s-orbital atoms will thereby shift the onsite energies for p-orbital atoms in the presence of the trap. Thanks to the small trap potential, one can expect that the density fluctuations of the both trapped s-orbital and p-orbital atoms should be small, and the main results throughout the paper are not changed qualitatively.
The change of the mass current and the accumulation of the atoms around the spatial barrier can be spatially resolved with the radio-frequency spectroscopy[@Gupta2003Science; @Regal2003PRL; @Shin2007PRL]. Besides the radio-frequency spectroscopy, the recently developed matter-wave interference technique[@Kock2015PRL] is a more powerful tool, which can directly represent the phase properties of the superfluid order parameter. More remarkably, one can reconstruct the spatial geometry of certain low-energy in-gap fermion modes and verify the formation of the spatial barrier structure, both of which are the key signatures in our proposal.
In summary, we propose that the superfluid states of fermions with a chiral $d$-wave order can be implemented in a rotating optical lattice where the orbital degrees of freedom play a key role. Our proposal presents an alternative route to realize the topological superfluids with chiral even-frequency order in the absence of the spin-orbital coupling. Furthermore, we show that the intrinsic harmonic confining potential can form a circular spatial barrier structure which accumulates atoms and support a mass current under the injection of small angular momentum as driving force. The mass current associated with the accumulated atoms can be experimentally detected, and provides a signature to verify the emergence of topological superfluid state with chiral $d$-wave order in a rotating optical lattice.
We thank S.-Q. Shen, S. Z. Zhang, D. W. Zhang, G. C. Liu for useful discussions. This work was supported by NSFC under Grants No. 11674331, No. 11274032, No.11625415, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant number: 2017YFA0303200), and by 100 Talents Programme of CAS.
[99]{}
Müller T, Fölling S, Widera A, and Bloch I 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **99**, 200405
Wirth G, Ölschläger M, and Hemmerich A 2011 *Nat. Phys.* **7**, 147
Soltan-Panahi P, Luhmann D-S, Struck J, Windpassinger P, and Sengstock K 2012 *Nat. Phys.* **8**, 71
Parker C V, Ha L-C, and Chin C 2013 *Nat. Phys.* **9**, 769
Sun K, Liu W V, Hemmerich A, and Sarma S D 2012 *Nat. Phys.* **8**, 67
Li X, Zhao E, and Liu W V 2013 *Nat. Commun.* **4**, 1523
Liu B, Li X, Wu B, and Liu W V 2014 *Nat. Commun.* **5**, 5064
Liu B, Li X, and Liu W V 2015 *arXiv:*1505.07444
Wu C 2008 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 200406
Wu C 2008 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **101**, 186807
Zhai Y *et al* 2013 *Phys. Rev. A* **87**, 063638
Qi X-L and Zhang S-C 2011 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **83**, 1057
Hasan M Z and Kane C L 2010 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* 82, 3045
Struck J *et al* 2011 *Science* **333**, 996. Weinberg S M *et al* 2013 *Nat. Phys.* **9**, 738. Struck J *et al* 2012 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **108**, 225304
Hauke P *et al* 2012 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **109**, 145301
Parker C V, Ha L-C, and Chin C 2013 *Nat. Phys.* **9**, 769
Koghee S, Lim L K, Goerbig M O, and Smith C M 2012 *Phys. Rev. A* **85**, 023637
Gemelke N, Sarajlic E, and Chu S 2010 *arXiv:*1007.2677
Pinheiro F *et al* 2013 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **111**, 205302
Zhang S-L and Zhou Q 2014 *Phys. Rev. A* **90**, 051601
Zheng W, and Zhai H 2014 *Phys. Rev. A* **89**, 061603
Ölschläger M, Wirth G, and Hemmerich A 2011 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **106**, 015302
Ölschläger M, Kock T, Wirth G, Ewerbeck A, Smith C M, Hemmerich A 2013 *New Journal of Physics* **15**, 083041
Chin C, Grimm R, Julienne P, and Tiesinga E 2010 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **82**, 1225
Zhang C, Tewari S, Lutchyn R M, and Sarma S D 2008 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **101**, 160401
Sato M, Takahashi Y, and Fujimoto S 2009 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **103**, 020401
Liu G, Hao N, Zhu S-L, and Liu W-M 2012 *Phys. Rev. A.* **86**, 013639
Hao N, Liu G, Wu N, Hu J, and Wang Y 2013 *Phys. Rev. A* **87**, 053609
Krishana K, Ong N P, Li Q, Gu G D, Koshizuka N 1997 *Science* **277**, 83
Laughlin R B 1998 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **80**, 5188
Nandkishore R, Levitov L S, and Chubukov A V 2012 *Nat. Phys.* **8**, 158
Liu F, Liu C-C, Wu K, Yang F, and Yao Y 2013 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **111**, 066804
Zhang S, Lang L and Zhou Q 2015 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 225301
Read N and Green D 2000 *Phys. Rev. B* **61**, 10267
Fu L, and Kane C L 2008 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 096407
Sau J D, Lutchyn R M, Tewari S, and Sarma S D 2010 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **104**, 040502
Mao L, Shi J, Niu Q, and Zhang C 2011 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **106**, 157003
Wang Z, Hao N, Fu Z G, and Zhang P 2012 *New Journal of Physics* **14**, 063010
Hao N, Zhang P, Li J, Wang Z, Zhang W, and Wang Y 2010 *Phys. Rev. B* **82**, 195324
Shen S Q 2012 *Topological insulators* (Springer, Berlin)
Zhang S, Hung H H, and Wu C 2010 *Phys. Rev. A* **82**, 053618
Collin A, Larson J, and Martikainen J-P 2010 *Phys. Rev. A* **81**, 039905
Sowinńki T *et al* 2013 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **111**, 215302
Volovik G E 1997 *JETP Lett*. **66**, 522-527
Schnyder A P, Ryu S, Furusaki A, and Ludwig A W W 2008 *Phys. Rev. B* **78**, 195125
Volovik G E 2003*The universe in a helium droplet* (Oxford University Press)
Caroli C, Gennes P G D, and Matricon J 1964 *Phys. Lett.*, **9**, 307
Unlike the vortex case, where the radius of vortex has the same order of coherence length $\xi\sim v_{F}/\Delta_{0}$, the domain wall could collapse when $R\sim\xi$. Thus, the $V_{t}$ should not be too large to have large $R$. Here, we have $R\sim10a$ for $V_{t}=1.2/N_{x}N_{y}$, and $R$ is much larger than $\xi\sim3a$ if the $v_{F}$ is estimated from the Fermi energy along $\Gamma-M$ direction.
Pinheiro F, Martikainen J-P, and Larson J 2012 *Phys. Rev. A* **85**, 033638
Girardeau M 1960 *J. Math. Phys.* **1**, 516
Paredes B *et al* 2004 *Nature (London)* **429**, 277
Kinoshita T *et al* 2004 *Science* **305**, 1125
Gupta S *et al* 2003 *Science* **300**, 1723
Regal C A, and Jin D S 2003 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **90**, 230404
Shin Y, Schunck C H, Schirotzek A, and Ketterle W 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **99**, 090403
Kock T, Ölschläger M, Ewerbeck A, Huang W-M, Mathey L, and Hemmerich A 2015 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **114**, 115301
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, the necessary and sufficient conditions for Matsumoto metrics $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ to be Einstein are given. It is shown that if the length of $\beta$ with respect to $\alpha$ is constant, then the Matsumoto metric $F$ is an Einstein metric if and only if $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$. A nontrivial example of Ricci flat Matsumoto metrics is given.'
author:
- 'Yi-Bing Shen and Xiaoling Zhang'
title: On Einstein Matsumoto metrics
---
[^1].
Introduction
============
Let $F=F(x,y)$ be a Finsler metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$. $F$ is called an Einstein metric with Einstein scalar $\sigma$ if its Ricci curvature $Ric$ satisfies $$\label{xa1}
Ric =\sigma F^2,$$ where $\sigma=\sigma(x)$ is a scalar function on $M$. In particular, $F$ is said to be Ricci constant (resp. Ricci flat) if $\sigma =$const. (resp. $\sigma=0$) in . ([@AZ],[@bao1]).
An important class of Finsler metrics is so called $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics, which are iteratively appearing in physical studies, and are expressed in the form of $F=\alpha\phi(s)$, $s=\frac{\beta}{\alpha}$, where $\alpha=\sqrt{a_{ij}(x)y^iy^j}$ is a Riemannian metric and $\beta=b_i(x)y^ i$ is a 1-form. The $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics with $\phi=1+s$ are called Randers metrics. D. Bao and C. Robles have characterized Einstein Randers metrics, and shown that every Einstein Randers metric is necessarily Ricci constant in dimension $n \geq 3$. When $n=3$, a Randers metric is Einstein if and only if it is of constant flag curvature, see [@bao1].\
For non-Randers $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics $F$ with a polynomial function $\phi(s)$ of degree greater than 2, it was proved that $F$ is an Einstein metric if and only if it is Ricci-flat ([@cheng]). An $(\alpha,\beta)$-metric with $\phi=s^{-1}$ is called a Kropina metric. It was shown that a Kropina metric $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\beta}$ is an Einstein metric if and only if $h$ is an Einstein metric and $W$ a unit Killing form with respect to $h$, where $(h,W)$ is the navigation data of $F$ ([@zhang]).\
The Matsumoto metric is an interesting $(\alpha,\beta)$-metric with $\phi=1/(1-s)$, introduced by using gradient of slope, speed and gravity in [@mat]. This metric formulates the model of a Finsler space. Many authors ([@aik; @mat; @park], etc) have studied this metric by different perspectives.\
The present paper is devoted to study Einstein Matsumoto metrics, and main results are as follows.
\[xxa1\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemann Matsumoto metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq2$. Then $F$ is an Einstein metric if and only if the followings hold\
1) $\alpha$ is an Einstein metric, i.e., $\overline{Ric}=\lambda\alpha^2$,\
2) $\beta$ is a conformal form with respect to $\alpha$, i.e., $r_{00}=c\alpha^2$,\
3) $$\label{xaa1}0=\lambda\alpha^2+2T^k_{\,\,\,|k}-y^jT^k_{\,\,\,.\,k|j}+2T^jT^k_{\,\,\,.\,j\,.\,k}-T^k_{\,\,\,.\,j}T^j_{\,\,\,.\,k}
-\sigma(x)\frac{\alpha^4}{(\alpha-\beta)^2},$$ where $\overline{Ric}$ denotes the Ricci curvature of $\alpha$, $\lambda=\lambda(x),c=c(x)$ are functions on $M$, $$T^i=
-\frac{\alpha^2}{2\beta-\alpha}s^i_{\,\,0}
-\frac{3\alpha^3}{3\beta-(2b^2+1)\alpha}(\frac{2
}{2\beta-\alpha}s_0+c)b^i
+\frac{\alpha(4\beta-\alpha)}{2(3\beta-(2b^2+1)\alpha)}(\frac{2
}{2\beta-\alpha}s_0+c)y^i,$$ and $"|"$ and $"."$ denote the horizontal covariant derivative and vertical covariant derivative with respect to $\alpha$, respectively.
Notations here can be referred to and below.
[**[Remark.]{}**]{} M. Rafie-Rad, etc., also discussed Einstein Matsumoto metrics. Unfortunately, the computation and results in [@raf1] are wrong because they neglected $b^2$ in $a_i\, (i=0,\ldots,14)$. Theorem \[xxa1\] is the corrected version of Theorem 1 in [@raf1].\
\[xxa2\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemannian Matsumoto metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq3$. Suppose the length of $\beta$ with respect to $\alpha$ is constant. Then $F$ is an Einstein metric if and only if $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$. In this case, $F$ is Ricci-flat.
\[xxa3\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemannian Matsumoto metric on an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq3$. Suppose $\beta^{\sharp}$, which is dual to $\beta$, is a homothetic vector field, i.e., $r_{00}=c\alpha^2$, where $c=constant$. Then $F$ is an Einstein metric if and only if $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$. In this case, $F$ is Ricci-flat.
For an $(\alpha,\beta)$-metric, the form $\beta$ is said to be Killing (resp. closed) form if $r_{ij}=0$(resp. $s_{ij}=0$). $\beta$ is said to be a constant Killing form if it is a Killing form and has constant length with respect to $\alpha$, equivalently $r_{ij}=0$ and $s_i=0$.\
[**[Remark.]{}**]{} B. Rezaei, etc., discussed Einstein Matsumoto metrics with constant Killing form in [@rez]. Meanwhile, they got wrong results. Theorem \[xxa2\] and Theorem \[xxa3\] generalize their study.\
For the S-curvature with respect to the Busemann-Hausdorff volume form ([@CHEN]), we have following
\[xxa4\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemannian Matsumoto metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq2$. Then $S$-curvature vanishes if and only if $\beta$ is a constant Killing form.
From above theorems, we can easily get the following
\[xxa5\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemannian Matsumoto metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq3$. Suppose $F$ is an Einstein metric. Then $S$-curvature vanishes if and only if $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$. In this case, $F$ is Ricci-flat.
The content of this paper is arranged as follows. In §\[xxx2\] we introduce essential curvatures of Finsler metrics, as well as notations and conventions. And we give the spray coefficients of Matsumoto metrics. Theorem \[xxa1\] is proved in §\[xxx3\]. In §\[xxx4\], we first give the necessary and sufficient conditions for Matsumoto metrics to be Einstein under the hypothesis condition that $\beta$ is a constant Killing form. By using it, Theorem \[xxa2\] and Theorem \[xxa3\] are proved. A nontrivial example of Ricci flat Matsumoto metrics is shown. By the way, we characterize Matsumoto metrics $F$ with constant Killing form $\beta$, which are of constant flag curvature. In §\[xxxs\] we investigate the $S$-curvature of Matsumoto metrics and Theorem \[xxa4\] is proved. In the last Section §\[xxx6\] we list the coefficients appeared in the proof of Theorem \[xxa1\].
Preliminaries {#xxx2}
=============
Let $F$ be a Finsler metric on an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$ and $G^i$ the geodesic coefficients of $F$, which are defined by $$G^i:=\frac{1}{4}g^{il}\{[F^2]_{x^ky^l}y^k-[F^2]_{ x^l}\}.$$ For any $x\in M$ and $y\in T_xM \setminus\{0\}$, the Riemann curvature $\textbf{R}_y:= R^i_{\,\,\,k}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^i}\bigotimes dx^k$ is defined by $$\label{xba4}
R^i_{\,\,\,k}:=2\frac{\partial G^i}{\partial x^k}-\frac{\partial^2 G^i}{\partial x^j \partial y^k}y^j
+2G^j \frac{\partial^2G^i}{\partial
y^j \partial y^k}-\frac{\partial G^i}{\partial y^j}\frac{\partial G^j}{\partial
y^k}.$$ Ricci curvature is the trace of the Riemann curvature, which is defined by $$\label{xba5}
Ric:= R^k_{\,\,\, k}.$$
A Finsler metric $F$ is called an Einstein metric with Einstein scalar $\sigma$ if $$\label{xb1}
Ric=\sigma F^2,$$where $\sigma=\sigma(x)$ is a scalar function on $M$. In particular, $F$ is said to be Ricci constant (resp. Ricci flat) if $F$ satisfies where $\sigma =$const. (resp. $\sigma=0$).
By definition, an $(\alpha,\beta)$-metric on $M$ is expressed in the form $F=\alpha\phi(s), s=\frac{\beta}{\alpha}$, where $\alpha=\sqrt{a_{ij}(x)y^iy^j}$ is a positive definite Riemannian metric and $\beta=b_i(x)y^ i$ is a 1-form. It is known that $(\alpha,\beta)$-metric with $||\beta_x||_{\alpha}<b_0$ is a Finsler metric if and only if $\phi=\phi(s)$ is a positive smooth function on an open interval $(-b_0,b_0)$ satisfying the following condition (see [@CHEN]) $$\phi(s)-s\phi'(s)+(b^2-s^2)\phi''(s)>0, ~~~~\forall|s|\leq b<b_0.$$\[zhengding0\]
Let $$\begin{aligned}\label{xba1}
r_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(b_{i|j}+b_{j|i}),~~~~s_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(b_{i|j}-b_{j|i}),~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\end{aligned}$$ where $ "|" $ denotes the horizontal covariant derivative with respect to $\alpha$.$^{[5]}$ Denote $$\begin{aligned}\label{xba2}
&r^i_{\,\,j}:= a^{ik}r_{kj}, ~~~~~~~~~~~ r_j:=b^ir_{ij}, ~~~~~~~~~~~ r:=r_{ij}b^ib^j=b^jr_j, ~~~~~~~~~~~r^i:=a^{ij}r_j\\
&s^i_{\,\,j}:= a^{ik}s_{kj}, ~~~~~~~~~~~ s_j:=b^is_{ij}, ~~~~~~~~~~~ s^i:=a^{ij}s_j,\\
&r_{i0}:=r_{ij}y^j, ~~~~~~~~~~~ r_{00}:=r_{ij}y^iy^j, ~~~~~~~~~~~ r_0:=r_iy^i, ~~~~~~~~~~~
s_{i0}:=s_{ij}y^j, ~~~~~~~~~~~s^i_{\,\,0}:=s^i_{\,\,j}y^j, ~~~~~~~~~~~ s_0:=s_iy^i,\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $(a^{ij}):=(a_{ij})^{-1}$ and $b^i:=a^{ij}b_j$.
Let $G^i$ and $\bar{G^i}$ be the geodesic coefficients of $F$ and $\alpha$, respectively. Then we have the following
\[xxb1\] For an $(\alpha,\beta)$-metric $F =\alpha\phi(s),$ $s=\frac{\beta}{\alpha}$, the geodesic coefficients $G^i$ are given by $$\label{xb2}
G^i=\bar{G^i} +\alpha Q s^i_{\,\,0} +\Psi(r_{00}-2\alpha
Qs_0)b^i+\frac{1}{\alpha}\Theta(r_{00}-2\alpha Qs_0)y^i,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&Q:=\frac{\phi'}{\phi-s\phi'},\\
&\Psi:=\frac{\phi''}{2[\phi-s\phi'+(b^2-s^2)\phi'']},\\
&\Theta:=\frac{\phi\phi'-s(\phi\phi''+\phi'\phi')}{2\phi[\phi-s\phi'+(b^2-s^2)\phi'']}.\\
\end{aligned}$$
From now on, we consider a special kind of $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics which is called Matsumoto-metrics with the form $$F=\alpha
\phi(s),~~~\phi(s):=\frac{1}{1-s},~~~s=\frac{\beta}{\alpha}.$$
Let $b_0$ be the largest number such that for any $s$ with $|s|\leq b<b_0$. From Lemma 3.1 in [@li], we have known that $F$ is a Finsler metric if and only if $b=||\beta_x||_{\alpha}<b_0=\frac{1}{2}$. So we always assume that $\phi$ satisfies this condition.
Now we get the spray coefficients of Matsumoto metrics by using Lemma \[xxb1\].
\[xxc1\] For the Matsumoto metric $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$, its geodesic coefficients are $$\label{xc1}\begin{aligned} G^i=&\bar{G}^i
-\frac{\alpha}{2s-1}s^i_{\,\,0} -\frac{1}{3s-2b^2-1}(\frac{2\alpha
}{2s-1}s_0+r_{00})b^i\\
&+\frac{4s-1}{2(3s-2b^2-1)}(\frac{2\alpha
}{2s-1}s_0+r_{00})\frac{y^i}{\alpha}.\\
\end{aligned}$$
For $\phi(s)=\frac{1}{1-s}$ and by a direct computation, we can obtain from .
Einstein Matsumoto metrics {#xxx3}
===========================
By using Proposition \[xxc1\], we now prove Theorem \[xxa1\].
[*Proof of Theorem \[xxa1\]*]{}
Let$$G^i=\bar{G}^i +T^i,$$ where$$\begin{aligned} T^i=&
-\frac{\alpha}{2s-1}s^i_{\,\,0} -\frac{1}{3s-2b^2-1}(\frac{2\alpha
}{2s-1}s_0+r_{00})b^i+\frac{4s-1}{2(3s-2b^2-1)}(\frac{2\alpha
}{2s-1}s_0+r_{00})\frac{y^i}{\alpha}.\\
\end{aligned}$$ Thus by , and , the Ricci curvature of $F$ is related to the Ricci curvature of $\alpha$ by $$\label{xd0}
Ric=\overline{Ric}+2T^k_{\,\,\,|k}-y^jT^k_{\,\,\,.\,k|j}+2T^jT^k_{\,\,\,.\,j\,.\,k}-T^k_{\,\,\,.\,j}T^j_{\,\,\,.\,k},$$ where $\overline{Ric}$ denotes the Ricci curvature of $\alpha$, $"|"$ and $"."$ denote the horizontal covariant derivative and vertical covariant derivative with respect to $\alpha$, respectively.$^{[5]}$
So the necessary and sufficient condition for the Matsumoto metric to be an Einstein metric is $$\label{xd1}\begin{aligned}
0&=Ric-\sigma(x)F^2\\
&=\overline{Ric}+2T^k_{\,\,\,|k}-y^jT^k_{\,\,\,.\,k|j}+2T^jT^k_{\,\,\,.\,j\,.\,k}-T^k_{\,\,\,.\,j}T^j_{\,\,\,.\,k}
-\sigma(x)\frac{\alpha^2}{(1-s)^2}.
\end{aligned}$$
Multiplying both sides of by $\alpha^{12}(s-1)^2(2s-1)^4(3s-2b^2-1)^4$ and by a quite long computational procedure using Maple program, we obtain $$\label{xd2}
0=\sum^{14}_{m=0}t_m \,\alpha^m,$$ where $t_m,m=0,1,...,14$ are as follows $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
t_0&= 144(8n-11)\beta^{10}r_{00}^2,\\
& \ldots\\
t_{14}&=
-(1+2b^2)^4s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}-(1+2b^2)^4\sigma-4(1+2b^2)^3s^ks_k.\\
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$ All the coefficients of $\alpha$ are tedious, listed in Appendix §\[xxx6\].
If we replace $y$ by $-y$, then $t_{2m}(-y)=t_{2m}(y)$ and $t_{2\bar{m}+1}(-y)=-t_{2\bar{m}+1}(y)$ for $m=0,\ldots,7$ and $\bar{m}=0,\ldots,6$. Hence is equivalent to the following $$\begin{cases}\label{xd3}
\begin{aligned}
&0=t_0+t_2\alpha^2+t_4\alpha^4+t_6\alpha^6+t_8\alpha^8
+t_{10}\alpha^{10}+t_{12}\alpha^{12}+t_{14}\alpha^{14},\\
&0=t_1+t_3\alpha^2+t_5\alpha^4+t_7\alpha^6+t_9\alpha^8+t_{11}\alpha^{10}+t_{13}\alpha^{12}.
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$
From the first equation of , we know that $\alpha^2$ divides $t_0$. Since $\alpha^2$ is an irreducible polynomial in $y$ and $\beta^{10}$ factors into ten linear terms, it must be the case that $\alpha^2$ divides $r_{00}^2$. Thus $r_{00}=c\alpha^2$ for some function $c=c(x)$, i.e., $\beta$ is a conformal form with respect to $\alpha$. So it is easy to get $$\label{xd4}\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&r_{00}=c\alpha^2,~~~~~~r_{ij}=ca_{ij},~~~~~r_{0j}=cy_{j},~~~r_{i}=cb_{i},~~~~~~r=cb^2,~~~r^i_{\,\,\,j}=c\delta^i_{\,\,\,j},\\
&r_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}=0,~~~~~r_{0k}s^k=cs_0,~~~~r_{0}=c\beta,~~~s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_{k}=cs_{0},\\
&r_{00|k}=c_k\alpha^2,~~~r_{00|0}=c_0\alpha^2,~~~r^k_{\,\,\,k}=nc,~~~r_{0|0}=c_0\beta+c^2\alpha^2,\\
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$ where $y_i:=a_{ij}y^j, ~~c_k:=\frac{\partial c}{\partial x^k}$ and $c_0:= c_ky^k$.
Plugging into the first equation of and removing the common factor $\alpha^2$, we obtain $$0=\bar{t}_0+\bar{t}_2\alpha^2+...+\bar{t}_{12}\alpha^{12},$$ where $$\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{t}_0&=1296\overline{Ric}\beta^{10},\\
\bar{t}_2&=72(225+240b^2+48b^4)\beta^8\overline{Ric}
+72(-151-56b^2+63n+24nb^2)\beta^9c_0\\
& -72(142+56b^2-57n-24nb^2)\beta^8s_{0|0} -144(8n-21)\beta^8s_{0}^2
-288(8n-15)\beta^9s_{0}c\\
& -1296\beta^9s^k_{\,\,\,0|k} -144(-21+8n)\beta^{10}c^2.
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$
Due to the irreducibility of $\alpha$, we have $\alpha^2$ divides $\overline{Ric}$, i.e., there exists some function $\lambda=\lambda(x)$ such that $$\label{xd5}
\overline{Ric}=\lambda\alpha^2.$$ It implies that $\alpha$ is an Einstein metric.
Plugging and into yields .
Conversely, plugging , and into yields , which means that $F$ is an Einstein metric. It completes the proof of Theorem \[xxa1\].\
[**[Remark.]{}**]{} For Riemann curvature and Ricci curvature of $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics, L. Zhou gave some formulas in [@zhou]. However, Cheng has corrected some errors of his formulas in [@cheng]. To avoid making such mistakes, we use the definitions and of Riemann curvature and Ricci curvatures to compute them.
The proofs of Theorem \[xxa2\] and Theorem \[xxa3\] {#xxx4}
===================================================
\[xxe1\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemann Matsumoto metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq3$. Suppose $\beta$ is a constant Killing form, i.e., $r_{ij}=0,s_i=0$. Then $F$ is an Einstein metric if and only if $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$. In this case, $F$ is Ricci-flat.
If $F$ is an Einstein metric, then holds by Theorem \[xxa1\]. Removing the common factor $\alpha^2(\alpha-2\beta)(3\beta-2b^2\alpha-\alpha)^4$ from , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0=&-8\overline{Ric}\beta^5 +28\overline{Ric}\beta^4\alpha
+2(-19\overline{Ric}+4s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta)\beta^3\alpha^2
+(-24s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta+25\overline{Ric}+2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0})\beta^2\alpha^3\\
&+2(-4\overline{Ric}+13s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta-2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}+s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}\beta^2+4\sigma\beta^2)\beta\alpha^4\\
&+(\overline{Ric}-12s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta+2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}-5s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}\beta^2-12\sigma\beta^2)\alpha^5\\
&+2(2s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}\beta+s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}+3\sigma\beta)\alpha^6
-(s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}+\sigma)\alpha^7.\\
\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, the equation above is equivalent to $$\label{xe1}\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
0=&-4\overline{Ric}\beta^5
+(-19\overline{Ric}+4s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta)\beta^3\alpha^2+(-4\overline{Ric}+13s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta-2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}
+s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}\beta^2+4\sigma\beta^2)\beta\alpha^4\\
&+(2s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}\beta+s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}+3\sigma\beta)\alpha^6,\\
0=&28\overline{Ric}\beta^4
+(-24s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta+25\overline{Ric}+2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0})\beta^2\alpha^2+(\overline{Ric}-12s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\beta+2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}-5s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}\beta^2-12\sigma\beta^2)\alpha^4
\\
&-(s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}+\sigma)\alpha^6.\\
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$
From the first equation of , we have $\overline{Ric}=\lambda\alpha^2$ for some function $\lambda=\lambda(x)$ on $M$. Using the Bianchi identity, i.e., $b_{j|k|l}-b_{j|l|k}=b^s\bar{R}_{jskl}$, we obtain $$\label{xe2}
s^l_{\,\,\,k|l}=\lambda b_k.$$ Contracting both sides of with $b^k$ and $y^k$, respectively, we have $$\label{xe3}\begin{cases}\begin{aligned}
s^k_{\,\,\,j}s^j_{\,\,\,k}&=-\lambda b^2,\\
s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}&=\lambda\beta.
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$
Substituting into yields $$\label{xe4}
\begin{aligned}
0=& (-4\sigma\beta^2+\lambda
b^2\beta^2+6\lambda\beta^2+2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0})
+(-3\sigma+3\lambda+2\lambda b^2)\alpha^2,\\
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{xe5}
\begin{aligned}
0=& 2(2\lambda\beta^2+s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0})\beta^2
+(-12\sigma\beta^2+2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}+5\lambda
b^2\beta^2+13\lambda\beta^2)\alpha^2+\{-\sigma+(1+b^2)\lambda\}\alpha^4.\\
\end{aligned}$$
$3\times\eqref{xe5}-\eqref{xe4}\times\alpha^2$ yields $$\label{xe6}
\begin{aligned}
0=&6(2\lambda\beta^2+s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0})\beta^2
+(-32\sigma\beta^2+4s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}+14\lambda
b^2\beta^2+33\lambda \beta^2)\alpha^2+\lambda b^2\alpha^4.\\
\end{aligned}$$
Since $\alpha^2$ is irreducible polynomial of $y$, we assume that $$\label{xe7}
2\lambda\beta^2+s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}=h\alpha^2$$ holds for some function $h=h(x)$ on $M$. Differentiating both sides of with respect to $y^iy^j$ yields $4\lambda b_ib_j+s_{ik}s^k_{\,\,\,j}+s_{jk}s^k_{\,\,\,i}=2ha_{ij}$. Then contracting it with $b^ib^j$ gives $h=2\lambda b^2$. Thus $s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}=h\alpha^2-2\lambda\beta^2=2\lambda(b^2\alpha^2-\beta^2)$. Plugging it into , we get $$\label{xe8}
\begin{aligned}
0=(-32\sigma+28\lambda
b^2+25\lambda )\beta^2 + 9\lambda b^2\alpha^2.\\
\end{aligned}$$ Hence is equivalent to $$\bigg\{\label{xe9}
\begin{aligned}
0=&-32\sigma+28\lambda
b^2+25\lambda, \\
0=&9\lambda b^2.\\
\end{aligned}$$
From the second equation of , we have $\lambda=0$. Plugging it into the first equation of gives $\sigma=0$, i.e., $F$ is Ricci-flat.
Moreover, substituting $\lambda=0$ into yields $s_{ij}=0$. Together with $r_{ij}=0$, we have $b_{i|j}=0$, i.e., $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$.
Converse is obvious. It completes the proof of Lemma \[xxe1\].
It is found that if $\beta$ satisfies $s_i=0$ or $r_{00}=c\alpha^2$, where $c=constant$, then $\beta$ is a constant Killing form when $F$ is Einstein. Firstly, we prove the following
\[xxe5\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemann Matsumoto metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq3$. Suppose $\beta$ satisfies $s_i=0$. Then $F$ is an Einstein metric if and only if $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$. In this case, $F$ is Ricci-flat.
If $F$ is an Einstein metric, then $r_{00}=c\alpha^2$ and $\overline{Ric}=\lambda \alpha^2$ by Theorem \[xxa1\]. Plugging $s_i=0, r_{00}=c\alpha^2, \overline{Ric}=\lambda \alpha^2$ into the second equation of yields $$\label{xf1}
\begin{aligned}
0&=432(5-2n)\beta^{10}c_0\\
+&\{96[48n-123+(12n-18)b^2]c^2\beta^9
-3456(2+b^2)\lambda\beta^9
-864b^kc_k\beta^9\\
&-24 [435n-602+(354n-440)b^2+(48n-56)b^4]c_0\beta^8
\}\alpha^2+\ldots.\\
\end{aligned}$$
From , we have that $\alpha^2$ divides $\beta^9c_0$. Since $\alpha^2$ is irreducible polynomial of $y^i$, we have $c_0=0$, i.e., $c=constant$. Plugging it into the first equation of yields $$\label{xf2}
\begin{aligned}
0=&144(21-8n)\beta^{10}c^2\\
&-8\beta^6(4832\beta^2c^2 -81\beta^2s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}
-568nb^2\beta^2c^2 +702\lambda\beta^2 +128b^4\beta^2c^2
\\
&-1177n\beta^2c^2 -324\sigma\beta^2 -64nb^4\beta^2c^2 +432\lambda
b^2\beta^2+1376b^2\beta^2c^2\\
&+270s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}+216b^2s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0})\alpha^2+\ldots.\\
\end{aligned}$$ From , we get $c=0$ for the division reason again. So $\beta$ is a constant Killing form. Thus by Lemma \[xxe1\], we get the necessary conditions.
Sufficiency is obvious. It completes the proof of Theorem \[xxe5\].
[*Proof of Theorem \[xxa2\]*]{}
If $F$ is an Einstein metric, then $r_{00}=c\alpha^2$ by Theorem \[xxa1\]. Thus $r_k=cb_k$. Since the length of $\beta$, with respect to $\alpha$, is constant, we have $0=b^2_{\,\,\,|k}=2(r_k+s_k)$, i.e., $r_k+s_k=0$. Hence we get $cb_k+s_k=0$. Contracting both sides of it with $b^k$ yields that $c=0$. Above all, $r_{00}=0$ and $s_k=0$, i.e., $\beta$ is a constant Killing form. Thus by Lemma \[xxe1\], we obtain that $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$.
Conversely, if $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$, then the length of $\beta$, with respect to $\alpha$, is constant. Hence by Lemma \[xxe1\], we get $F$ is Einstein. It completes the proof of Theorem \[xxa2\].
Note that the condition that $s_k=0$ in Theorem \[xxe5\] is weaker than one that the length of $\beta$ is constant (with respect to $\alpha$) in Theorem \[xxa2\].
[*Proof of Theorem \[xxa3\]*]{}
Assume $F$ is an Einstein metric and $\beta$ is a homothetic form, i.e., $r_{00}=c\alpha^2$, where $c=constant$. Then holds, i.e., $$\begin{cases}\label{xe33}
\begin{aligned}
&0=t_0+t_2\alpha^2+t_4\alpha^4+t_6\alpha^6+t_8\alpha^8
+t_{10}\alpha^{10}+t_{12}\alpha^{12}+t_{14}\alpha^{14},\\
&0=t_1+t_3\alpha^2+t_5\alpha^4+t_7\alpha^6+t_9\alpha^8+t_{11}\alpha^{10}+t_{13}\alpha^{12},
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
t_0&= 144(8n-11)c^2\beta^{10}\alpha^4,\\
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
t_2&= 12\{1085n-1439+(792n-1032)b^2+64(n-1)b^4\}c^2\beta^8\alpha^4\\
&+1296\lambda\beta^{10}\alpha^2-288(8n-14)c^2\beta^{10}\alpha^2+864c\beta^9s_0\alpha^2.\\
\end{aligned}$$
For division reason again, we have $\alpha^2$ can divide $\beta(f\beta+gs_0)$, where $f:=144(8n-11)c^2+1296\lambda-288(8n-14)c^2,g:=864c$. So we have $f\beta+gs_0=0$. Differentiating both sides of it by $y^i$ and contracting it with $b^i$ yields $f=0$. So $g=0$ or $s_0=0$.
$g=0$ implies that $c=0$. Plugging it into $f=0$ yields $\lambda=0$ and $s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}=0$. Substituting all these into yields $$\label{xe34}
\begin{aligned}t_1=0,t_3=-432 (2n-5)\beta^9s_{0|0},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{xe35}
\begin{aligned}
t_0=t_2=0,t_4=72\{57n-142+(24n-56)b^2\}\beta^8s_{0|0}-144(8n-21)\beta^8s_0^2.
\end{aligned}$$
From , we know that $\alpha^2$ can divide $s_{0|0}$. Plugging it into yields $\alpha^2$ can divide $s_0^2$. That is $s_0^2=k(x)\alpha^2$, which is a contraction unless $t(x)=0$, i.e., $s_0=0$.
Above all, $s_0=0$. This is the just case in Theorem \[xxe5\]. It completes the proof of Theorem \[xxa3\].\
[**[Remark.]{}**]{} B. Rezaei, etc., discussed Einstein Matsumoto metrics with constant Killing form. Meanwhile, they got wrong results. Theorem \[xxa2\] and Theorem \[xxa3\] generalize their study and Lemma \[xxe1\] is the corrected version of Theorem 4.2 in [@rez].
[**[Example.]{}**]{} Let $(M,\alpha)$ be an $5$-dimensional Riemanian manifold. Consider the Riemannian metric $\alpha=\sqrt{a_{ij}(x)y^iy^j},~(1\leq i,j\leq 5)$, which, in local coordinate $(x^i)$, can be described as follows $$(a_{ij})
=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
(x^4)^2&0&0&0&0\\
0&(x^4)^2&0&0&0\\
0&0&(x^4)^{-1}&0&0\\
0&0&0&x^4&0\\
0&0&0&0&1
\end{array}\right),$$ where $x^4>0$. A direct computation shows that $\alpha$ is a non-Euclidean Ricci flat metric. And let $\beta=cy^5$, where $c$ is a nonzero constant and $c^2<\frac 12$. It is easy to check that such a $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$, i.e., $b_{i|j}=0$. Define $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$. Thus by Theorem \[xxa2\], we conclude that $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ is a Ricci-flat Matsumoto metric.
\[xxe2\] Let $F=\frac{\alpha^2}{\alpha-\beta}$ be a non-Riemannian Matsumoto metric on an n-dimensional manifold $M$, $n\geq 3$. Suppose the length of $\beta$ with respect to $\alpha$ is constant. Then $F$ is of constant flag curvature $K$ if and only if the following conditions hold:\
(1) $\alpha$ is a flat metric;\
(2) $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$.\
In this case, $K=0$ and $F$ is locally Minkowskian.
Suppose that $F$ is of constant flag curvature $K$, i.e., $$R^i_{\,\,\,k}=K(F^2\delta^i_{\,\,\,k}-g_{ij}y^jy^k).$$ Then we have $$\label{ze11}
Ric=\sigma F^2, \qquad\qquad \sigma:=(n-1)K,$$ which means that $F$ is Einstein. Since the length of $\beta$, with respect to $\alpha$, is constant, by Theorem \[xxa2\], we get $\alpha$ is Ricci-flat and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$. In this case, $F$ is Ricci-flat, which means that $K=0$. So $G^i=\bar{G}^i$ and $R^i_{\,\,\,k}=\bar{R}^i_{\,\,\,_k}=0$, i.e., $\alpha$ is Euclidean.
Conversely, if $\alpha$ is Euclidean and $\beta$ is parallel with respect to $\alpha$, then $R^i_{\,\,\,k}=0$, i.e., $K=0$. It completes the proof of Theorem \[xxe2\].
[**[Remark.]{}**]{} In literature \[9\], the proof of Theorem 1 depends on Theorem 3, of which the proof includes the assumption condition that the length of $\beta$ with respect to $\alpha$ is constant, see the step 1 in the proof of Theorem 3 (A and $A_i$ (i= 0,1,2, ...) are some constants) in [@raf2]. So, Theorem \[xxe2\] here is the correct version of Theorem 1 in [@raf2]. We do not know what happened to the case that the above assumption is canceled?
$S$ curvature {#xxxs}
=============
The $S$-curvature is an important geometric quantity. In this section, we investigate the $S$-curvature of Matsumoto metrics.
For a Finsler metric $F$ and a volume form $dV=\sigma_{F}(x)\,dx$ on an $n$-dimensional manifold $M$, the $S$-curvature $S$ is given by $$\label{xg1}
S(x, y)=\frac{\partial G^i}{\partial y^i}-y^i\frac{\partial
\ln\sigma_F }{\partial x^i}.$$ The volume form can be the Busemann-Hausdorff volume form $dV_{BH}=\sigma_{BH}dx$ or the Holmes-Thompson volume form $dV_{HT}=\sigma_{HT}dx$.
To compute the S-curvature, one should first find a formula for the Busemann-Hausdorff volume forms $dV_{BH}$ and the Holmes-Thompson $dV_{HT}$.
(pro4.1 in [@bacso])\[xxg1\] Let $F=\alpha\phi(s)$, $s=\frac{\beta}{\alpha}$, be an $(\alpha,\beta)$-metric on an $n-$dimensional manifold $M$. Denote $$\label{xg2}f(b):=\begin{aligned}\begin{cases}
&\frac{\int^{\pi}_0\sin^{n-2}(t)dt}{\int^{\pi}_0\frac{\sin^{n-2}(t)}{\phi(b\cos
t)^n}dt}~~\qquad\qquad\,\quad\quad\quad~~if~~\quad~~ dV = dV_{BH},\\
&\frac{\int^{\pi}_0\sin^{n-2}(t)T(b\cos t)dt}
{\int^{\pi}_0\sin^{n-2}(t)dt}
~~\qquad\qquad~~~\quad\quad~~if~~\quad~~ dV = dV_{HT}.\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then the volume form $dV$ is given by $dV = f(b)dV_{\alpha}$, where $dV_{\alpha}=\sqrt{det(a_{ij})}dx$ denotes the Riemannian volume form of $\alpha$, $T(s):=\phi(\phi-s\phi')^{n-2}[\phi-s\phi'+(b^2-s^2)\phi'']$.
By Proposition \[xxc1\] and Proposition \[xxg1\], we have $$\label{xg3}\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial G^i}{\partial y^i}&=\frac{\partial
\bar{G}^i}{\partial
y^i}+\frac{2s_0}{(2s-1)^2}+\frac{6(b^2-s^2)}{(2s-1)(3s-2b^2-1)^2}s_0
-\frac{2s}{(2s-1)(3s-2b^2-1)}s_0\\
& +\frac{4(b^2-s^2)}{(2s-1)^2(3s-2b^2-1)}s_0
+(n+1)\frac{4s-1}{(2s-1)(3s-2b^2-1)}s_0\\
&+\frac{3(b^2-s^2)}{\alpha(3s-2b^2-1)^2}r_{00}
+(n+1)\frac{4s-1}{2\alpha(3s-2b^2-1)}r_{00}
-\frac{2}{(3s-2b^2-1)^2}r_{0};
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{xg4}\begin{aligned}
y^i\frac{\partial \ln \sigma_ F}{\partial x^i} &=y^i\frac{\partial
\ln \sigma_ {\alpha}}{\partial x^i}+\Lambda(r_0+s_0),\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda:=\frac{f'(b)}{bf(b)}$.
Plugging and into , we obtain $$\label{xg5}\begin{aligned}
S&=\frac{2s_0}{(2s-1)^2}+\frac{6(b^2-s^2)}{(2s-1)(3s-2b^2-1)^2}s_0
-\frac{2s}{(2s-1)(3s-2b^2-1)}s_0\\
& +\frac{4(b^2-s^2)}{(2s-1)^2(3s-2b^2-1)}s_0
+(n+1)\frac{4s-1}{(2s-1)(3s-2b^2-1)}s_0\\
&+\frac{3(b^2-s^2)}{\alpha(3s-2b^2-1)^2}r_{00}
+(n+1)\frac{4s-1}{2\alpha(3s-2b^2-1)}r_{00}
-\frac{2}{(3s-2b^2-1)^2}r_{0}\\
&+\Lambda(r_0+s_0).\\
\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $S=0$. Multiplying both sides of by $2\alpha^5(2s-1)^2(3s-2b^2-1)^2$, we obtain $$\label{xg6}\begin{aligned}
0&=24(2n+1)\beta^4r_{00}+\{
-4(13+8b^2+19n+8nb^2)\beta^3r_{00}+72\Lambda\beta^4r_0+72\Lambda\beta^4s_0\}\alpha\\
&+\{
2(19+32b^2+22n+20nb^2)\beta^2r_{00}-2(60+48b^2)\Lambda\beta^3r_0\\
&\quad -24(1-2n+5\Lambda+4\Lambda b^2)\beta^3s_0\}\alpha^2\\
&+\{
-(11+40b^2+11n+16nb^2)\beta r_{00}+2(-8+37\Lambda+64\Lambda b^2+16\Lambda b^4)\beta^2r_0\\
&\quad +2(12-26n-16nb^2+37\Lambda+64\Lambda b^2+16\Lambda b^4)\beta^2s_0\}\alpha^3\\
& +\{
(1+8b^2+n+2nb^2)r_{00}+4(4-5\Lambda-14\Lambda b^2-8\Lambda b^4)\beta r_0\\
&\quad -2(5-8b^2-9n-12nb^2+10\Lambda+28\Lambda b^2+16\Lambda b^4)\beta s_0\}\alpha^4\\
&+\{
-(4-2\Lambda-8\Lambda b^2-8\Lambda b^4)r_0\\
&\quad +2(1-4b^2-n-2nb^2+\Lambda+4\Lambda b^2+4\Lambda b^4)s_0\}\alpha^5.\\
\end{aligned}$$
is equivalent to the following $$\label{xg7}\begin{cases}\begin{aligned}
0&=24(2n+1)\beta^4r_{00}\\
&+\{ 2(19+32b^2+22n+20nb^2)\beta^2r_{00}-2(60+48b^2)\Lambda
\beta^3r_0-24(1-2n+5\Lambda +4\Lambda b^2)\beta^3s_0\}\alpha^2\\
& +\{
(1+8b^2+n+2nb^2)r_{00}+4(4-5\Lambda -14\Lambda b^2-8\Lambda b^4)\beta r_0\\
&\quad -2(5-8b^2-9n-12nb^2+10\Lambda +28\Lambda b^2+16\Lambda b^4)\beta s_0\}\alpha^4,\\
0&=\{
-4(13+8b^2+19n+8nb^2)\beta^3r_{00}+72\Lambda \beta^4r_0+72\Lambda \beta^4s_0\}\\
&+\{
-(11+40b^2+11n+16nb^2)\beta r_{00}+2(-8+37\Lambda +64\Lambda b^2+16\Lambda b^4)\beta^2r_0\\
&\quad +2(12-26n-16nb^2+37\Lambda +64\Lambda b^2+16\Lambda b^4)\beta^2s_0\}\alpha^2\\
&+\{ -(4-2\Lambda -8\Lambda b^2-8\Lambda b^4)r_0+2(1-4b^2-n-2nb^2+\Lambda +4\Lambda b^2+4\Lambda b^4)s_0\}\alpha^4.\\
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$
From the first equation of , we have $$\label{xg8}
r_{00}= c\alpha^2,$$ for some function $c=c(x)$ on $M$. So $r_0 = c\beta$.
Plugging and $r_0 = c\beta$ into , we obtain $$\label{xg9}\begin{cases}\begin{aligned}
0=&
24c(1+2n-5\Lambda -4\Lambda b^2)\beta^4-24(1-2n+5\Lambda +4\Lambda b^2)\beta^3s_0\\
+&\{
2c(27+32b^2+22n+20nb^2-10\Lambda -28\Lambda b^2-16\Lambda b^4)\beta^2\\
&-2(5-8b^2-9n-12nb^2+10\Lambda +28\Lambda b^2+16\Lambda b^4)\beta
s_0\}\alpha^2
+c(1+8b^2+n+2nb^2)\alpha^4,\\
0=& 72\Lambda \beta^4( c\beta+s_0).\\
\end{aligned}\end{cases}$$ From the second equation of , we have $c\beta+s_0=0$ for $n\geq2$. Differentiating both sides of it with respect to $y^i$ yields $cb_i+s_i=0$. Contracting it with $b^i$ gives $cb^2=0$. So $c=0$ and $s_0=0$. Thus $r_{00}=0,s_0=0$, i.e., $\beta$ is a constant Killing form.
Conversely, if $\beta$ is a constant Killing form, then $S=0$ by . Thus we have completed the proof of Theorem \[xxa4\].
By Theorem \[xxa4\] and Theorem \[xxa2\], we can directly get Corollary \[xxa5\].
Appendix: coefficients in {#xxx6}
==========================
$$\begin{aligned}
t_0&= 144(8n-11)\beta^{10}r_{00}^2;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_1&= -96\{61n-82+(20n-26)b^2\}\beta^9r_{00}^2-432(2n-3)\beta^{10}r_
{00|0};\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_2&= 12\{1085n-1439+(792n-1032)b^2+64(n-1)b^4\}\beta^8r_{00}^2\\
&+1296\beta^{10}\overline{Ric}-288(8n-14)\beta^9r_0r_{00}+864\beta^9s_0r_{00}
+72\{63n-91+(24n-32)b^2\}\beta^9r_{00|0};\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_3&= -864(2n-1)\beta^9r_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0} -24\{697n-926+(852n-11
44)b^2+(152n-144)b^4\}\beta^7r_{00}^2\\
&-3456(2+b^2)\beta^9\overline{Ric} +96\{118n-205+(32n-44)
b^2\}\beta^8r_{00}r_0
-864\beta^9r_{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k}\\
&-48\{-16n+97+16(n-1)b^2\}
\beta^8r_{00}s_0-864\beta^9b^kr_{00|k}\\
&-24 \{435n-602+(354n-440)b^2+(48n-56)b^4\}\beta^8r_{00|0}+864\beta^9r_{0|0}-432 (2n-5)\beta^9s_{0|0};\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_4&=
144\{57n-22+(24n-8)b^2\}\beta^8r_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}\\
&+3\{4606n-6255+(8400n-12080)b^2+(2480n-2272) b^4\}\beta^6r_{00}^2\\
& +216(15+4b^2)
(5+4b^2)\beta^8\overline{Ric}-32\{752n-1301+(440n-566)b^2+32(n-1)b^4\}\beta^7r_{00}
r_0\\
&+864(5+2b^2)\beta^8(r_{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k}+b^kr_{00|k})-576\beta^8rr_{00}\\
&+8
\{-413n+1322+(376n-664)b^2+64(n-1)b^4\}\beta^7r_{00}s_0\\
&+4\{3473n-4583+(4512n-5136)b^2+(1320n-1368)b^4+64(n-1)b^6\}\beta^7r_{00|0}\\
& -864(5+2b^2)\beta^8r_{0|0}+576
\beta^8r_0^2-1152(2n-3)\beta^8r_0s_0
+72\{57n-142+(24n-56)b^2\}\beta^8s_{0|0}\\
&-144(8n-21)\beta^8s_0^2-1296\beta^9s^k_{\,\,\,0|k};\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_5&=
-24\{699n-178+(636n-112)b^2+(96n-16)b^4\}\beta^7s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_{0k}\\
&-12\{643n-911+(1642n-2645)b^2+(712n-656)b^4\}\beta^5r_{00}^2\\
&-24
(917+1560b^2+672b^4+64b^6)\beta^7\overline{Ric}\\
&+16\{1814n-3143+(1712n-2024) b^2+(272n-224)b^4\}\beta^6r_{00}r_0\\
&-144 (65+56b^2+8b^4)\beta^7(b^kr_{00|k} +r_
{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k})+384(7+2b^2)\beta^7rr_{00}\\
& -4\{-1487n+3338+(1240n-
3952)b^2+(544n-736)b^4\}\beta^6r_{00}s_0\\
&-\{11854n-14857+
(21768n-22176)b^2+(10272n-9024)b^4+(1088n-896)b^6\}\beta^6r_{00|0}\\
&+144 (65+56b^2+8b^4)\beta^7r_{0|0}-384(7+2b^2)\beta^7r_0^2 +48\{2
12n-321+(64n-72)b^2\}\beta^7r_0s_0\\
& -12\{699n-1738+(636n-1456)b^2+(96n-208) b^4\}\beta^7s_{0|0}-324
\beta^7s_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}\\
&+864
\beta^8(r_ks^k_{\,\,\,0}+r_{0k}s^k-b^ks_{0|k}-r^k_{\,\,\,k}s_0)+216(29+16b^2)\beta^8s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}-432(2n-3)\beta^8s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_k\\
&+48\{114n-239+(24n-52)b^2\}\beta^7s_0^2;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_6&= 4\{4849n-516+(7116n+96)b^2+(2352n+96)b^4+128nb^6\}\beta^6s^k_
{\,\,\,0}r_{0k}\\
&+3/4\{3965n-
5929+(13592n-25576)b^2+(8096n-7936)b^4\}\beta^4r_{00}^2\\
&+(19225+46208b^2+32064b^4+6656b^6+256b^8) \beta^6\overline{Ric}\\&
-12\{1828n-3201+(2464n-2616)b^2+(640n-384)b^4\}\beta^5r_
{00}r_0\\
&+32(361+501b^2+156b^4+8b^6)\beta^6(r^k_{\,\,\,k}r_{00}+b^kr_{00|k})-32
(167+104b^2+8b^4)\beta^6r_{00}r\\
&+6\{-973n+1745+(776n-4336)
b^2+(656n-1216)b^4\}\beta^5r_{00}s_0\\
&+3/2\{4525n-5373+(10
968n-9696)b^2+(7392n-5088)b^4+(1280n-768)b^6\}\beta^5r_{00|0}\\
&-32(361+501b^2+156b^4+8b^6)
\beta^6r_{0|0}+32(167+104b^2+8b^4)\beta^6r_0^2\\
&-8\{2372n-3657+
(1568n-1656)b^2+(128n-96)b^4\}\beta^6s_0r_0+432(9+4b^2)\beta^7s_0r^k_
{\,\,\,k}\\
&+2\{4849n-12068+(711
6n-15936)b^2+(2352n-4896)b^4+(128n-256)b^6\}\beta^6s_{0|0}\\
&+432
(9+4b^2)\beta^7(b^ks_{0|k}-r_{0k}s^k-s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_k)-108(121+14
4b^2+32b^4)\beta^7s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}-576\beta^7s_0r\\
&+54(23+16b^2)\beta^6s^k_
{\,\,\,0}s_{0k}+72\{51n-73+(24n-32)b^2\}\beta^7s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_k\\
&-4\{2737n
-4424+(1240n-1208)b^2+(64n-128)b^4\}\beta^6s_0^2-324\beta^8s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}-1296\beta^8\sigma;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_7 &= -2(401+3504b^2+2400b^4+256b^6+7005n+14
652nb^2+7920nb^4+960nb^6)\beta^5s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_{0k}\\
&-3(-411-2650b^2-10
16b^4+263n+1170nb^2+916nb^4)\beta^3r_{00}^2\\
&-2(5651+17932b^2+17760b^4+6016b^6+512 b^8)\beta^5\overline{Ric}\\
&+6(-3225-
2988b^2-384b^4+1798n+3232nb^2+1216nb^4)\beta^4r_{00}r_0\\
&-2(4483+8880b^2+4512
b^4+512b^6)\beta^5(r_{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k}+b^kr_{00|k})+32(37+8b^2)(5+4b^2)\beta^5r_{00}r\\
&-3
(1817-8560b^2-3328b^4-1135n+968nb^2+1328nb^4)\beta^4r_{00}s_0\\
&-3/2(-1983-3960b^2-2232b^4-384b^6+1763n+5394nb^2+4848nb^4+12
16nb^6)\beta^4r_{00|0}\\
&+2 (4483+8880b^2+4512b^4+512b^6)\beta^5r_{0|0}-32(37+8b^2)
(5+4b^2)\beta^5r_0^2\\
&-4(-
7769-5144b^2-560b^4+4884n+5280nb^2+960nb^4)\beta^5s_0r_0\\
&-(-
17531-32016b^2-15648b^4-1792b^6+7005n+14652nb^2+7920nb^4+960nb^6)\beta^5s_{0|0}\\
&+72(103+100b^2+16b^4) \beta^6(s^kr_{0k}+s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_k-s_0r^k_
{\,\,\,k}-b^ks_{0|k})\\
&+6
(2579+4944b^2+2400b^4+256b^6)\beta^6s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}-216(9+14b^2+4b^4)\beta^5s^k_{\,\,\,0}
s_{0k}\\
&-12(-739-
688b^2-112b^4+546n+564nb^2+96nb^4)\beta^6s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_k\\
&+4
(-3622+656b^2+320b^4+3003n+2184nb^2+240nb^4)\beta^5s_0^2\\
&+8(-7769-514
4b^2-560b^4+4884n+5280nb^2+960nb^4)\beta^5s_0r_0+96(25+8b^2)
\beta^6s_0r\\
&+
108(13+8b^2)\beta^7s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}+864(5+4b^2)\beta^7\sigma+432\beta^7s^ks_k;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_8&=2(769+4596b^2+4512b^4+896b^6+3285n+9126nb^2+7128nb^4+1440nb^6)\beta^4r_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}\\
&+3/2(-145-1436b^2-
684b^4+93n+520nb^2+518nb^4)\beta^2r_{00}^2\\
&+(4535+18184b^2+24024b^4+11
776b^6+1664b^8)\beta^4\overline{Ric}\\
&-12
(-539-509b^2+16b^4+288n+660nb^2+336nb^4)\beta^3r_{00}r_0\\
&+2(2273+6006b^2+4416b^4+832b^6)\beta^4 (r_{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k}+b^kr_{00|k}) -4 (1001+1472b^2+416b^4)\beta^4r_{00}r\\
&+12(165-1293b^2-672b^4-100n+110nb^2+206nb^4)\beta^3r_{00}s_0\\
&+3(-247-492b^2-186b^4+16b^6+231n+864nb^2+990nb^4+336nb^6)\beta^3r_
{00|0}\\
&-2(2273+6006b^2+4416b^4+832b^6)\beta^4r_{0|0}+4(1001+1472b^2+416b^4)\beta^4r_0^2\\
&-2(-
10175-8360b^2-1040b^4+6084n+9504nb^2+2880nb^4)\beta^4r_0s_0\\
&+4(1961+3108b^2+1104b^4+64b^6)\beta^5(r^k_
{\,\,\,k}s_0+b^ks_{0|k}-r_{0k}s^k-s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_k)\\
&+(-8323-19428b^2-13152b^4-2432b^6+3285n+9126nb^2+7128nb^4+14
40nb^6)\beta^4s_{0|0}\\
&-16(718+1961b^2+1554b^4+368b^6+16b^8)\beta^5s^k_
{\,\,\,0|k}+6(269+696b^2+456b^4+64b^6)\beta^4s^k_ {\,\,\,0}s_{0k}\\
&+2(-4075-5856b^2-2064b^4-128b^6+3211n+5424nb^2+2064nb^4+12
8nb^6)\beta^5s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_k\\
&-(-
7009+13792b^2+7744b^4+512b^6+7881n+8088nb^2+1392nb^4)\beta^4s_0^2\\
&-27(95+128b^2+32b^4)\beta^6s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}-
216(29+48b^2+16b^4)\beta^6\sigma-864(2+b^2)\beta^6 s^ks_k\\
&-16
(259+184b^2+16b^4)\beta^5rs_0;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_9&= -4(2
11+1428b^2+1938b^4+608b^6+501n+1764nb^2+1854nb^4+552nb^6)\beta^3s^k_{\,\,\,0}
r_{0k}\\
&-3(-7-114b^2-
68b^4+5n+34nb^2+42nb^4)\beta r_{00}^2\\
&-4
(1+2b^2)(307+894b^2+756b^4+176b^6)\beta^3\overline{Ric}\\
&+12
(-116-99b^2+56b^4+58n+164nb^2+108nb^4)\beta^2r_{00}r_0\\
&-4(377+1272b^2+1266b^4+352b^6)\beta^3(r_{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k}+b^kr_{00|k}-r_{0|0})\\
&+16(106+211b^2+88b^4)\beta^3rr_{00}
-6(85-934b^2-636b^4-41n+72nb^2+158nb^4)\beta^2r_{00}s_0\\
&-3(-40-68b^2+34b^4+56b^6+39n+174nb^2+246nb^4+10
8nb^6)\beta^2r_{00|0}\\
&-16(106+211b^2+88b^4)\beta^3r_0^2+16(-530-479b^2-
17b^4+294n+618nb^2+276nb^4)\beta^3s_0r_0\\
&+8(481+568b^2+112b^4)\beta^4 rs_0\\
&-2(-1297-
3660b^2-3126b^4-800b^6+501n+1764nb^2+1854nb^4+552nb^6)\beta^3s_{0|0}\\
&+4(1261+2886b^2+1704b^4+224b^6)\beta^4(s^kr_{0k}+s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_k-r^k_{\,\,\,k}s_0-b^ks_{0|k})\\
&+2 (2779+10088b^2+11544b^4+4544b^6+448b^8)\beta^4s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\\
&-4(1+2b^2)(193+342b^2+132b^4+8b^6) \beta^3s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_{0k}\\
&-2(-2245-4200b^2-
2280b^4-320b^6+1897n+4614nb^2+2928nb^4+416nb^6)\beta^4s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_k\\
&+4
(-549+3536b^2+2828b^4+368b^6+789n+1050nb^2+240nb^4)\beta^3s_0^2\\
&+6
(431+948b^2+528b^4+64b^6)\beta^5s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}+24(5+4b^2)
(43+76b^2+16b^4)\beta^5\sigma\\
&+36
(79+88b^2+16b^4)\beta^5s^ks_k;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_{10}&=4(59+480b^2+870b^4+400b^6+96n+414
nb^2+558nb^4+228nb^6)\beta^2r_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}\\
&+3/4\{n-1+(8n-32)b^2+(12n-24)b^4\}r_{00}^2+(215+404b^2+164b^4)(1+2b^2)
^2\beta^2\overline{Ric}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&- 4(-44-29b^2+64b^4+20n+68nb^2+56nb^4)\beta
r_{00}r_0\\
&-8(55+142b^2+82b^4)\beta^2r_{00}r+2(43
-554b^2-488b^4-13n+44nb^2+104nb^4)\beta r_{00}s_0\\
&+4(1+2b^2)(79+172b^2+82b^4)\beta^2(b^kr_{00|k}+r_
{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k})\\
&+1/2(1+2b^2)(-23+22b^2+64b^4+23n+74nb^2+56nb^4)\beta r_{00|0}\\
&-4(1+2b^2) (79+172b^2+82b^4)\beta^2r_{0|0}
+8(55+142b^2+82b^4)\beta^2r_0^2\\
&-4(-553-
496b^2+158b^4+276n+744nb^2+456nb^4)\beta^2s_0r_0\\
&+8(253+780b^2+678b^4+152b^6)\beta^3(s_0r^k_ {\,\,\,k}+b^ks_{0|k}
-r_{0k}s^k-s^k_ {\,\,\,0}r_k)\\
&+2(-
257-840b^2-834b^4-256b^6+96n+414nb^2+558nb^4+228nb^6)\beta^2s_{0|0}\\
&-4(1+2b^2)(439+ 1146b^2+828b^4+152b^6)\beta^3s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}-32(65+113b^2+38b^4)\beta^3s_0r\\
&+2(107+116b^2+20b^4)(1+2b^2)^2\beta^2s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_{0k}-4 (625+1158b^2+480b^4+32b^6)\beta^4s^ks_k\\
&+4(-383-804b^2-510b^4-112b^6+347n+1128nb^2+10
50nb^4+256nb^6)\beta^3s_ks^k_{\,\,\,0}\\
&-2(-
255+3368b^2+3668b^4+752b^6+375n+600nb^2+150nb^4)\beta^2s_0^2\\
&-(1579+5000b^2+4632b^4+12 80b^6+64b^8)\beta^4s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}\\
& - (2641+9344b^2+10176b^4+3584b^6+256b^8)\beta^4\sigma
;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_{11}&= -2(1+2b^2)(17+134b^2+128b^4+21n+66nb^2+48nb^4)\beta
s^k_{\,\,\,0}
r_{0k}\\
&+2(1+2b^2)(-5+8b^2+2n+4nb^2) r_{00}r_0
-2(19+20b^2)(1+2b^2)^2\beta (r_{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k}+b^kr_{00|k})\\
& +16 (4+5b^2)(1+2b^2)\beta rr_{00}
-(7-92b^2-104b^4-n+8nb^2+20nb^4)r_{00}s_0\\
&-2(11+10b^2)(1+2b^2)^3\beta\overline{Ric}
-1/2(1+2b^2)^2(-1+4b^2+n+2nb^2)
r_{00|0}\\
&+2(19+20b^2)(1+2b^2)^2\beta r_{0|0} -16(4+5b^2)(1+2b^2)\beta
r_0^2\\
&+4(-83-68b^2+88b^4+36n+120nb^2+96nb^4)\beta r_0s_0
+16(41+98b^2+50b^4)\beta^2rs_0\\
&-(1+2b^2)(-59-98b^2-32b^4+21n+66nb^2+48nb^4)\beta s_{0|0}\\
&+16(1+2b^2)(31+61b^2+25b^4)\beta^2( r_{0k}s^k +s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_k-r^k_{\,\,\,k}s_0-b^ks_{0|k})\\
& +2(175+292b^2+100b^4)(2b^2+1)^2\beta^2s^k_ {\,\,\,0|k}
-16(2+b^2)(1+2b^2)^3\beta s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_{0k}\\
&-4(-80-156b^2-42b^4+8b^6+77n+318nb^2+402nb^4+148nb^6)\beta^2s_ks^k_{\,\,\,0}\\
&+4(-23+392b^2+560b^4+160b^6+
24n+42nb^2+6nb^4)\beta s_0^2\\
&+24(1+2b^2) (25+56b^2+32b^4+4b^6)\beta^3s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}
+4(5+4b^2)(1+2b^2)
(43+76b^2+16b^4)\beta^3\sigma\\
&+24(53+144b^2+102b^4+16b^6)\beta^3s^ks_k;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_{12}&= 2(1+2b^2)^2(1+8b^2+n+2nb^2)r_{0k}s^k_{\,\,\,0}
+(1+2b^2)^4\overline{Ric}
+2(1+2b^2)
^3(r_{00}r^k_{\,\,\,k}+b^kr_{00|k})\\
& -4(1+2b^2)^2rr_{00} -2 (1+2b^2)^3r_{0|0} +4(1+2b^2)^2r_0^2
-2(1+2b^2)\{4n-11+(8n+14)b^2\} r_0s_0\\
& +4(1+2b^2)^2(17+16b^2)\beta (s_0r^k_{\,\,\,k} +b^ks_{0|k}
-s^kr_{0k} -s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_k)-8(5+4b^2)(1+2b^2)^3\beta s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\\
& -16(1+2b^2)(7+8b^2) \beta s_0r
+(1+2b^2)^2(-3+n+2nb^2)s_{0|0}\\
& +2(1+2b^2)^4s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_{0k} +2
(1+2b^2)\{19n-19+(58n+14)b^2+(40n+32)b^4\}\beta s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_k\\
&+\{-5n+9-(8n+144)b^2+(4n-264)b^4-96b^6\}s_0^2-8(1+2b^2)(47+80b^2+26b^4)\beta^2s^ks_k\\
&-(139+196b^2+52b^4)(1+2b^2)^2\beta^2s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}
-6(29+48b^2+16b^4)(1+2b^2)^2\beta^2\sigma;\\
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
t_{13}&=8(1+2b^2)^2rs_0+4(1+2b^2)
^3(s^kr_{0k}+s^k_{\,\,\,0}r_k-s_0r^k_{\,\,\,k}-b^ks_
{0|k})+2(1+2b^2)^4s^k_{\,\,\,0|k}\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
&-2(1+2b^2)^2(-1+4b^2+n+2nb^2)s^k_{\,\,\,0}s_k+6(1+2b^2)^3(3+2b^2)\beta
s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}+4(5+4b^2)(1+2b^2)^3\beta\sigma\\
&+12(1+2b^2)^2(5+4b^2)\beta
s^ks_k;\\
t_{14}&=
-(1+2b^2)^4s^j_{\,\,\,k}s^k_{\,\,\,j}-(1+2b^2)^4\sigma-4(1+2b^2)^3s^ks_k.
\end{aligned}$$
[23]{} T.Aikou, M.Hashiguchi and K.Yamaguchi, *On Matsumoto’s Finsler space with time measure,* Rep. Fac. Sci. Kagoshima Univ. (Math. Phys. Chem), 23(1990), 1-12.
H.Akbar-Zadeh, *Generalized Einstein manifolds*, J. Geom. and Phys., [**17**]{}(1995), 342-380.
D.Bao and C.Robles, *Ricci and flag curvatures in Finsler geometry*, in ”A Sampler of Finsler Geometry”, MSRI series [**50**]{}, Camb. Univ. Press, 2004, 197-259.
X.Cheng, Z.Shen and Y.Tian, *A Class of Einstein $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics,* Israel Journal of Mathematics, accepted.
S.S.Chern and Z.Shen., *Riemann-Finsler geometry*, World Scientific, 2005.
B.Li, *Projectively flat Matsumoto metric and its approximation,* Acta Mathematica Scientia 2007, 27B(4), 781-789.
M.Matsumoto, *A slope of a mountain is a Finsler surface with respect ot time measure,* J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 29(1989), 17-25.
H.S.Park, I.Y.Lee and C.K.Park, *Finsler space with the general approximate Matsumoto metric,* Indian J. pure and appl. Math., 34(1)(2002), 59-77.
M.Rafie-Rad and B.,Rezaei, *Matsumoto metrics of constant flag curvature are trivial,* Results. Math., Online First, 2011, Springer Basel AG, DOI 10.1007/s00025-011-0210-1.
M.Rafie-Rad and B.,Rezaei, *On Einstein Matsumoto metrics,* Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., Vol. 13, Issue 2, 2012, 882-886.
B.Rezaei, A.Razavi and N.Sadeghzadeh, *ON EINSTEIN $(\alpha,\beta)$ -METRICS\*,* Iranian Journal of Science Technology, Transaction A. Vol. 31. No. A4 Printed in The Islamic Republic of Iran, 2007.
X.Zhang. and Yi.Shen., *On Einstein Kropina metrics,* to appear in Differential geometry and its Applications.
L.Zhou, *A local classification of a class of $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics with constant flag curvature,* Differential geometry and its Applications, 28(2010), 170-193.
S.Bácsó, X.Cheng and Z.Shen., *Curvature properties of $(\alpha,\beta)$-metrics,* Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, Math. Soc. of Japan, 48(2007), 73-110.
Yi-Bing Shen
Center of Math. Science,
Yuqun Campus, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China,
[*Email: yibingshen$@$zju.edu.cn*]{}
Xiaoling Zhang
Department of Mathematics,
Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China,
College of Mathematics and Systems Science,
Xinjiang University,
Urumqi 830046, China,
[*Email: [email protected]*]{}
[^1]: Supported partially by NNSFC(No. 11171297)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We obtain a new bound on the value of Peskin-Takeuchi $S$ parameter in a wide class of bottom-up holographic models for technicolor. Namely, we show that weakly coupled holographic description in these models implies $S\gg 0.2$. Our bound is in conflict with the results of electroweak precision measurements, so it strongly disfavors the models we consider.'
address:
- 'Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 60th October Anniversary Prospect 7a, Moscow 117312, Russia'
- 'Physics Department, Moscow State University, Vorobjevy Gory, Moscow 119991, Russia'
author:
- 'D.G. Levkov'
- 'V.A. Rubakov'
- 'S.V. Troitsky'
- 'Y.A. Zenkevich'
title: Constraining holographic technicolor
---
Electroweak symmetry breaking, Holographic duality, Oblique parameters, Tree unitarity.
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Long–anticipated discovery [@higgs] of a Higgs–like particle brings us face-to-face with major challenge of comprehending in detail the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking [@think]. An interesting option potentially leading to composite Higgs is provided by strongly interacting models similar to technicolor [@technicolor]. The latter is usually represented by a gauge theory with chiral symmetry $\mbox{SU}(N_f)_L
\times \mbox{SU}(N_f)_R$ which breaks down to $\mbox{SU}(N_f)_V$ in QCD-like manner; $N_f$ is the number of techniflavors. Electroweak symmetry is a gauged $\mbox{SU}(2)_L\times \mbox{U}(1)_Y$ subgroup of the chiral group, so it is broken due to chiral symmetry breaking. Unfortunately, the simplest, literally drawn from QCD technicolor models were ruled out long ago, as they predict unacceptably large values of the Peskin-Takeuchi [@peskin] $S$ parameter. This leaves open [@S_walking] a “walking” version [@walking_technicolor] which, however, lacks contact with the phenomenological information accumulated by hadron physics.
The gauge/gravity holographic duality [@AdS_CFT_classics] enters at this stage as an approach to studying technicolor models in terms of their weakly coupled gravity duals in five dimensions [@hong; @hirn2; @hirn; @agashe; @piai; @top_down]. Using the holographic dictionary [@AdS_CFT_classics], one relates conserved currents $j_\mu^L$, $j_\mu^R$ of the left and right $\mbox{SU}(N_f)$ chiral groups to five-dimensional gauge fields[^1] $L_M$ and $R_M$. This promotes the global $\mbox{SU}(N_f)_L \times
\mbox{SU}(N_f)_R$ symmetry of the original model to the gauge symmetry of the holographic dual. The problem of computing current correlators then reduces to that of solving classical equations for the dual fields.
Since dual descriptions of realistic technicolor theories are unknown (see, however, Refs. [@QCD_top_down; @top_down]), one tends to adopt a bottom-up approach [@bottom-up] trying to guess the field content and Lagrangian of the five-dimensional dual model on phenomenological grounds. To this end one introduces new fields besides $L_M$ and $R_M$, for instance, an $\mbox{SU}(N_f)_L\times \mbox{SU}(N_f)_R$ bifundamental scalar $X$ representing techniquark condensate [@hong; @hirn; @agashe; @piai]. One also selects appropriate conditions at the boundaries of the 5D space and allows for departures from the $\mbox{AdS}_5$ geometry [@hirn2; @hirn; @agashe]. The price to pay is the absence of an ultraviolet completion of the model which therefore has the status of an effective theory below a certain UV cutoff.
This simple picture is far from being justified in any rigorous sense. Nevertheless, one hopes that such models capture essential features of strongly coupled dynamics and therefore serve as good toy models for technicolor theories.
In this Letter we derive a new constraint on a class of holographic technicolor models, namely, those [@hirn; @agashe] containing two ${\mbox{SU}(N_f)}$ gauge fields $L_M$, $R_M$ and bifundamental $X$. The fields live in an interval in the warped fifth dimension, with boundary conditions to be specified below. We show that weakly coupled description of these holographic models implies large values of $S$ parameter. Namely, ${S\gg 0.2}$, otherwise: (i) the UV cutoff drops below $6\pi m_W/g \sim
2.5\,\mbox{TeV}$; (ii) correlators of electroweak currents with momenta exceeding the UV cutoff are sensitive to strongly coupled sector of the 5D theory and therefore not tractable; (iii) no reliable predictions for the spectrum can be made. Properties (i)—(iii) degrade the status of the holographic technicolor models to that of theories with massive $W$ bosons and no Higgs mechanism: the latter are also strongly coupled above a few $\mbox{TeV}$. On the other hand, the constraint $S\gg 0.2$ is in conflict with the experimental result [@PDG] $S=-0.07\pm 0.1$ and therefore strongly disfavors the models.
We introduce the models in Sec. \[sec:model\], review their spectrum and computation of $S$ in Secs. \[sec:vector-spectrum\] and \[sec:s-parameter\], respectively. In Sec. \[sec:strong-coupling\] we present a derivation of the weak coupling condition in general warped background. On this basis we obtain new bound on $S$ in Sec. \[sec:constr-s-param\]. In Sec. \[sec:high-order-oper\] we show that our bound is stable with respect to the addition of higher-order operators to the Lagrangian. We summarize in Sec. \[sec:conclusions-1\].
Models {#sec:model}
======
The models we consider [@hirn; @agashe] are formulated in a patch of 5D space with warp factor $w(z)$, $$ds^2 = w^2(z) \left( \eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu - dz^2 \right)\;,
\qquad z\in
[z_{\mathrm{UV}},\, z_{\mathrm{IR}}]\;,$$ where $w(z_{\mathrm{UV}})=1$. The action reads, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:1}
{\cal S} = \int dz\, d^4 x \, \mathrm{tr}\, \Big[ w(z)
\left(L_{MN}^2 + R_{MN}^2\right)/2g_5^2 \\
+ w^3(z) D_M X^\dag D^M X - w^5(z) V(X) \Big] \; .\end{gathered}$$ It describes two $\mbox{SU}(N_f)$ gauge fields $L_M$ and $R_M$ interacting with scalar $X$; $g_5$ is the five-dimensional gauge coupling. Hereafter the integrals over $z$ run from $z_{\mathrm{UV}}$ to $z_{\mathrm{IR}}$; we write $w(z)$ explicitly and convolve indices with mostly negative flat metric. In our notations $L_M$ and $R_M$ are anti-Hermitean matrices, $L_{MN} = \partial_{[M}
L_{N]} + L_{[M} L_{N]}$. The bifundamental scalar $X$ is gauge transformed as $X\to \omega_L X\omega^\dag_R$, where $\omega_{L,R} \in
\mbox{SU}(N_f)_{L,R}$; its covariant derivative is $D_M X =
\partial_M X + L_M X - XR_M$.
We assume that the models (\[eq:1\]) are dual to strongly coupled technicolor theories. Then $\mbox{SU}(N_f)_L \times \mbox{SU}(N_f)_R$ gauge symmetry must be broken to the diagonal subgroup $\mbox{SU}(N_f)_V$. To achieve this, we invoke two sources of symmetry breaking that work together [@hirn; @agashe]. One is the boundary conditions at the IR brane, $$\label{eq:4}
L_\mu = R_\mu\;, \qquad \partial_z L_\mu = - \partial_z R_\mu \qquad
\mbox{at} \;\; z = z_{\mathrm{IR}}\;,$$ and another is the vacuum profile of $X$ which is assumed[^2] to have the form ${X_0 =v(z)\cdot\mathbb{I}}$, where $\mathbb{I}$ is the $N_f\times N_f$ unit matrix, $v(z)$ is real. The conditions (\[eq:4\]) and vacuum $X_0$ are preserved by the diagonal gauge transformations with $\omega_L = \omega_R$ and $\partial_z\omega_L|_{z_{\mathrm{IR}}}=\partial_z
\omega_R|_{z_{\mathrm{IR}}}=0$, so the diagonal subgroup $\mbox{SU}(N_f)_V$ remains unbroken.
We do not consider theories [@hirn1; @hirn2] with explicit breaking of gauge invariance in the bulk and accidentally enlarged gauge symmetry at the quadratic level[^3], as these properties generically lead to pathologies: strong coupling at all scales, ghosts, etc.
The models we consider are parametrized by the coupling constant $g_5$, warp factor $w(z)$, and vacuum profile $v(z)$. We note that a subclass of models without the scalar $X$ [@Higgsless] is effectively obtained at $v(z)=0$; gauge symmetry in this case is broken by the boundary conditions (\[eq:4\]). Our analysis applies at $v(z)=0$ equally well. We impose consistency requirements: (i) $v^2(z) \ll \Lambda_5^3$, where $\Lambda_5$ is a UV cutoff of the models (\[eq:1\]); (ii) $w(z)$ and $v(z)$ do not vary on the physical length scale of order $w(z) \Delta z \sim \Lambda_5^{-1}$. The conditions (i), (ii) ensure the suppression of higher–order operators $(X^\dag X)^n /\Lambda_5^{3n}$, $(D_M X D_M
X^\dag)^n/\Lambda_5^{5n}$, etc., which are present in the general effective Lagrangian.
By construction, the fields $L_M$ and $R_M$ are dual to the chiral currents $j_\mu^L$, $j_\mu^R$ of the technicolor theory. This means [@AdS_CFT_classics] that the current correlators are computed holographically in terms of $L_M$ and $R_M$. First, one solves the classical field equations with the boundary conditions (\[eq:4\]) and $$\label{eq:2}
L_\mu\big|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}} = \bar{L}_\mu(x)\;, \qquad
R_\mu\big|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}} = \bar{R}_\mu(x)\;.$$ Second, one computes the action (\[eq:1\]) for the solution, to obtain the functional ${\cal S}={\cal S}[\bar{L},\, \bar{R}]$. In the holographic approach ${\cal S}$ is interpreted as a generating functional [@AdS_CFT_classics; @bottom-up] for correlators of the chiral currents. In particular, $$\label{eq:3}
\langle j_\mu^{La}(x) j_\nu^{Rb}(y) \rangle = -i \left.\frac{\delta^2
{\cal S}}{\delta \bar{L}^{\mu a}(x) \delta \bar{R}^{\nu b}(y)}
\right|_{\bar{L} = \bar{R} = 0}\;,$$ where the component fields $L_\mu^a = 2i \, \mathrm{tr}(L_\mu t^a)$ and $R_\mu^a$ are introduced. The field content of the four-dimensional technicolor theory remains unknown in the bottom-up holographic approach: the theory is defined by correlators like (\[eq:3\]).
To add electroweak interactions, we consider the 4D picture and embed exactly one[^4] copy of $\mbox{SU}(2)_L$ and $\mbox{U}(1)_Y$ electroweak groups into the left and right $\mbox{SU}(N_f)$ chiral groups. We couple the respective isospin components $j_{\mu}^{L\bar{a}}$ and $j_\mu^{R3}$ of the chiral currents to the $\mbox{SU}(2)_L$ and $\mbox{U}(1)_Y$ electroweak bosons, where $\bar{a}=1\dots 3$. This corresponds to gauging $\mbox{SU}(2)_L\times
\mbox{U}(1)_Y$ subgroup of the global flavor group. The electroweak symmetry is then spontaneously broken due to chiral symmetry breaking. We invoke 5D description by noting that electroweak observables are related to the current correlators which, in turn, are computed via Eq. (\[eq:3\]). For example, the polarization operator between the $\mbox{SU}(2)_L$ gauge field and hypercharge field is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{minipage}{20mm}
\begin{picture}(20,8)
\put(0,1){\includegraphics[width=2cm]{grapht1.pdf}}
\put(1.5,6){$W_\mu^{\bar{a}}$}
\put(15,6){$B_\nu$}
\put(7.5,-0.3){$\longrightarrow$}
\put(9,-1.5){$p$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
& = i \eta_{\mu\nu} g g' \Pi_{\bar{a}Y} (p^2 ) + p_\mu p_\nu \mbox{-
terms}\label{eq:7}\\
& = - gg' \int d^4 x\, \mathrm{e}^{ipx} \langle j_{\mu}^{L{\bar{a}}}(x)
j_\nu^{R3}(0) \rangle \notag\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ and $g'$ are the electroweak gauge couplings.
Spectrum {#sec:vector-spectrum}
========
In quest for constraining the models (\[eq:1\]) we need information about their spectra. Since the extent of the fifth coordinate is finite, there is a discrete tower of Kaluza-Klein modes which are interpreted as technimesons. Below we analyze vector excitations and leave aside scalars[^5] whose spectrum depends on the form of the potential $V(X)$.
One notices that the action (\[eq:1\]), boundary conditions (\[eq:4\]) and vacuum profile $X_0$ are invariant under $\mathbb{Z}_2$ parity transformations $L_M \leftrightarrow R_M$, $X \leftrightarrow X^\dag$. Thus, linearized equations for the parity-even vector field $V_M = (L_M +
R_M)/\sqrt{2}$ decouple from equations for the parity-odd axial-vector field $A_M = (L_M -R_M)/\sqrt{2}$. In the $V_5 = A_5 = 0$ gauge, it is consistent to set $\partial_\mu V^\mu= \partial_\mu A^\mu = 0$, and the field equations become
\[eq:16\] $$\begin{aligned}
&-\frac{1}{w}\partial_z \left(w \partial_z V_\mu \right) - p^2 V_\mu =
0\;,\label{eq:8}\\
&-\frac{1}{w}\partial_z \left(w \partial_z A_\mu \right) - (p^2 -
2g_5^2w^2 v^2) A_\mu = 0\label{eq:9}\;,\end{aligned}$$
where $p_\mu$ is 4D momentum. Since $V_\mu$ is the gauge field of the unbroken diagonal subgroup, symmetry-breaking effects due to $v(z)\ne 0$ are felt only by $A_\mu$. We supplement Eqs. (\[eq:16\]) with boundary conditions $$\label{eq:10}
V_\mu\big|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}} = \partial_z V_\mu\big|_{z_{\mathrm{IR}}}
=0\;, \qquad
A_\mu\big|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}} = A_\mu\big|_{z_{\mathrm{IR}}}=0\;,$$ deduced from Eqs. (\[eq:4\]) and (\[eq:2\]). Equations (\[eq:16\]), (\[eq:10\]) form two independent boundary value problems for the vector and axial-vector mass spectra $p^2 =
(m_n^V)^2$ and ${p^2 = (m_n^A)^2}$; we denote the respective eigenfunctions by $V_n(z)$ and $A_n(z)$. The normalization condition follows from (\[eq:1\]), it reads: ${\int
dz\, w(z) V_n(z) V_{n'}(z) = \delta_{nn'}}$ and likewise for $A_n(z)$.
It is not possible to find the spectra for arbitrary $w(z)$ and $v(z)$. There are some general properties, however. First, the operators in Eqs. (\[eq:16\]) and hence eigenvalues $(m_n^V)^2$, $(m_n^A)^2$ are positive-definite. Second, the axial-vector masses are larger[^6], $m_n^A \geq m_n^V$.
One learns more from the vector Green’s function $$\label{eq:5}
G_p^V(z,z') = -\sum_{n} \frac{V_n(z) V_n(z')}{p^2 - (m_n^V)^2}\;,$$ which satisfies the boundary conditions (\[eq:10\]) for vectors and Eq. (\[eq:8\]) with $\delta(z-z')/w(z)$ in the right-hand side. One solves these equations at $p^2 = 0$, $$\label{eq:6}
G_{p=0}^V (z,z') = \theta(z-z') I(z') + (z\leftrightarrow z')\;,$$ where $I(z) = \int_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}}^z dz'/w(z')$. Combining Eqs. (\[eq:5\]) and (\[eq:6\]), one finds a sum rule for the vector masses [@hirn], $$\int dz \, w(z) \,G_{p=0}^V(z,z) =
\sum_{n} \frac{1}{(m_n^V)^2} = \int dz\,
w(z) I(z)\;.$$ This relation sets a bound on the mass $m_1^V$ of the lightest vector technimeson: $$\label{eq:14}
\frac{1}{(m_1^V)^2} \leq \int dz\,
w(z) I(z)\; .$$ Since ${m_n^A \geq
m_n^V}$, the axial-vector masses are also bounded by the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:14\]).
The axial-vector Green’s function $G_p^A(z,z')$ is defined in a similar way, as a solution to Eq. (\[eq:9\]) with ${\delta(z-z')/w(z)}$ in the right-hand side and boundary conditions (\[eq:10\]) for $A_{\mu }$. At $p^2=0$ it can be expressed via a particular solution $a(z)$ of Eq. (\[eq:9\]) satisfying ${a(z_{\mathrm{UV}}) = 1}$, $a(z_{\mathrm{IR}}) = 0$. One obtains, $$\label{eq:15}
G_{p=0}^A(z,z') = \theta(z-z') \, a(z)a(z')I_A(z')+ (z\leftrightarrow
z')\;,$$ where $I_A(z) = \int_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}}^z dz'/[w(z')a^2(z')]$.
$S$ parameter {#sec:s-parameter}
=============
The Peskin-Takeuchi $S$ parameter [@peskin] measures contributions of new physics to the polarization operator $\Pi_{3Y}$, $$\label{eq:20}
S = -16 \pi\,\frac{d\Pi_{3Y}}{dp^2}\Bigg|_{p^2=0}\; .$$ The value of $S$ is extracted from the electroweak precision measurements.
We evaluate $S$ by the holographic recipe (\[eq:3\]), (\[eq:7\]). Equation (\[eq:3\]) involves only quadratic part of the action, so we solve linear equations (\[eq:16\]) with boundary conditions (\[eq:4\]), (\[eq:2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&V_\mu(p,z) = \bar{V}_\mu(p) + p^2\bar{V}_\mu(p)
\int dz'\, w(z')G_p^V(z,z')\,,\\
\label{eq:27}
&A_\mu(p,z) = \bar{A}_\mu(p)a(z) \\ &\notag \qquad
\qquad+ p^2\bar{A}_\mu(p)
\int dz'\, w(z') \,G_p^A(z,z') \, a(z')\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $a(z)$ is defined in the previous section, $\bar{V}$ and $\bar{A}$ are the linear combinations of $\bar{L}$ and $\bar{R}$. Upon integrating by parts, one writes for the quadratic part of the action $$\notag
{\cal S}^{(2)}
= \frac1{g_5^2}\left.\int d^4x \,\mathrm{tr}\,(V_\mu \partial_z
V_\mu + A_\mu \partial_z A_\mu)\right|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}}\; .$$ We substitute solutions (\[eq:27\]) into the action and vary it with respect to $\bar{L}$, $\bar{R}$. The result for $\Pi_{3Y}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:12}
&\Pi_{3Y}(p^2) = \frac{1}{2g_5^2} \partial_z a \Big|_{z=z_{\mathrm{UV}}}
\\\notag
&\;\;\; - \frac{p^2}{2g_5^2}\int dz' w(z') \partial_z
\left( G_p^V(z,z') - G_p^A(z,z')a(z') \right)
\Big|_{z=z_{\mathrm{UV}}}.\end{aligned}$$ We finally compute $S$ parameter [@hirn2; @hirn; @agashe]: $$\label{eq:26}
S = \frac{8\pi}{g_5^2} \int dz \, w(z) \left[1 -
a^2(z)\right]\;,$$ where the explicit Green’s functions (\[eq:6\]), (\[eq:15\]) at ${p^2=0}$ were used. We remind that $a(z)$ satisfies Eq. (\[eq:9\]) with $p^2=0$ and boundary conditions $a(z_{\mathrm{UV}}) = 1$, ${a(z_{\mathrm{IR}}) = 0}$.
The first term in Eq. (\[eq:12\]) does not depend on $p^2$ and therefore represents the $Z$-boson mass: $$\nonumber
i\eta_{\mu\nu} gg' \Pi_{3Y}(0) =
\begin{minipage}{16mm}
\begin{picture}(16,6)
\put(1,0){\includegraphics[width=1.5cm]{grapht4.pdf}}
\put(0,5.5){$W_\mu^3$}
\put(13,5.5){$B_\nu$}
\put(7,5.5){$m_Z^2$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
= -i \eta_{\mu\nu}\cos \theta_W \sin\theta_W m_Z^2\;.$$ Here we ignored $p_\mu p_\nu$-terms and introduced the weak mixing angle, $\mathrm{tg}\,\theta_W = g'/g$. The expression (\[eq:12\]) gives $$\label{eq:13}
m_W^2 = m_Z^2 \cos^2\theta_W = -\frac{g^2}{2g_5^2} \,\partial_z
a\big|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}}\; ,$$ where the first equality is a consequence of the custodial symmetry inherent in the models (\[eq:1\]). Non-zero masses of $W$ and $Z$ bosons are manifestations of the electroweak symmetry breaking, cf. Refs. [@bottom-up; @LRTZ2].
In Ref. [@agashe] it was proven that $S>0$ in the class of models we consider. This is seen from Eq. (\[eq:26\]): the function $f(z) =
aw\partial_z a$ is negative, since $\partial_z f>0$ and $f(z_{\mathrm{IR}}) =0$ due to Eq. (\[eq:9\]) and $a(z_{\mathrm{IR}}) =0$. In other words, $\partial_z a^2
< 0$, i.e. $a^2(z)$ monotonically decreases from $a^2(z_{\mathrm{UV}})=1$ to $a^2(z_{\mathrm{IR}})=0$ implying ${a^2<1}$ and $S>0$.
Below we further constrain the value of $S$ by making use of an additional requirement of weak coupling.
Weak coupling condition {#sec:strong-coupling}
=======================
The model (\[eq:1\]) is non-renormalizable and therefore makes sense below some energy cutoff $\Lambda_5$. In flat spacetime $\Lambda_5$ is computed from the partial amplitudes for gauge boson scattering. On dimensional grounds these are proportional to $g_5^2
P$, where $P$ is a 5D momentum. The amplitudes grow with energy and break unitarity bound at ${P\gtrsim 1/g_5^2}$ signaling strong coupling. Thus, ${\Lambda_5\sim 1/g_5^2}$.
In warped spacetime the situation is more subtle [@strong; @sundrum]. Correlators from the UV brane to UV brane, such as (\[eq:3\]), are functions of the conformal momentum $p$. On the other hand, scattering at ${z=z_0}$ is perturbative if the local physical momentum $P=p/w(z_0)$ satisfies $P\ll \Lambda_5$. Thus, brane-to-brane correlators are completely in the weak coupling regime at ${p \ll \Lambda_5 w_{\min}}$, where $w_{\min}$ is the minimal value of $w(z)$. They can still be tractable at higher momenta if contributions from the strongly coupled region $w(z) < p/\Lambda_5$ are suppressed.
Let us compute the UV cutoff for the general background $w(z)$. This generalizes the analysis of Refs. [@Higgsless] performed in the case of flat metric. To this end we consider the amplitude ${\cal A}_{nn'\to mm'}$ for the vector-mode scattering ${V_n^aV_{n'}^b \to V_{m}^a V_{m'}^b}$. At the tree level, this amplitude is the sum of a $V^4$ vertex (
{width="3mm"}
) and exchange diagrams (
{width="4.2mm"}
). The vertices $VVA$ and $VVX$ are forbidden by parity conservation and $\mbox{SU}(2)_V$ gauge symmetry, respectively. What remains are the diagrams involving $V_\mu$ only, $$\nonumber
\begin{minipage}{20mm}
\unitlength 1mm
\begin{picture}(20,12)
\put(4,0){\includegraphics[width=12mm]{grapht5.pdf}}
\put(0,0.5){$V_n^a$}
\put(0,9.2){$V_{n'}^b$}
\put(16,0.5){$V_m^a$}
\put(16,9.2){$V_{m'}^b$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
=
\begin{minipage}{11mm}
\unitlength 1mm
\begin{picture}(11,7)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=11mm]{grapht6.pdf}}
\put(5,7){$s$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
+
\begin{minipage}{11mm}
\unitlength 1mm
\begin{picture}(11,7)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=11mm]{grapht7.pdf}}
\put(5,7){$t$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
+
\begin{minipage}{11mm}
\unitlength 1mm
\begin{picture}(11,7)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=11mm]{grapht8.pdf}}
\put(5,7){$u$}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
+
\begin{minipage}{11mm}
\unitlength 1mm
\begin{picture}(11,7)
\put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=11mm]{grapht9.pdf}}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}$$ We calculate the amplitude at high energies when many Kaluza-Klein modes are ultrarelativistic — as well as the colliding particles. For the latter, we consider longitudinal polarizations ${\epsilon^\mu(p) \approx p^\mu/m}$ and isospin states $(ab)\to (ab)$. We obtain[^7], $$\label{eq:17}
{\cal A}_{nn'\to mm'} = -g_5^2\, d^{ab}\, g_{nn'mm'} \, \frac{3 +
\cos^2\theta}{2+2\cos\theta}\,.$$ Here $\theta$ is the scattering angle, $d^{ab} = \sum_c
(f^{abc})^2$ involves the $\mbox{SU}(N_f)$ structure constants $f^{abc}$, $g_{nn'mm'} = \int dz \,w \phi_n \phi_{n'} \phi_m
\phi_{m'}$ is the overlap integral of functions ${\phi_n =
\partial_z V_n / m_n^V}$. To understand the meaning of $\phi_n$, one performs the gauge transformation which eliminates longitudinal components $V_\mu^L = ip_\mu V^L$ and induces instead $V_5 = \partial_z V^L$. One sees that $\phi_n $ are the wave functions of the longitudinal modes; they satisfy completeness relation $\sum_n \phi_n(z)\phi_n(z') = \partial_z \partial_{z'}
G_{p=0}^V(z,z') = \delta(z-z')/w(z)$, where Eqs. (\[eq:5\]), (\[eq:6\]) were used.
We expect that in terms of conformal momentum, the cutoff depends on $z$. To see this explicitly, we localize colliding particles in the fifth dimension by considering the Kaluza-Klein state $|V_{z_0}\rangle
= {\cal N}\sum_{n<n_0}\phi_n(z_0) |V_n\rangle$, where ${\cal N}$ is a normalization constant. At $n_0\gg 1$, the wave function of this state is concentrated near $z= z_0$, as the completeness of $\phi_n$ suggests. Such a localization is consistent with the presence of the UV cutoff, since, as we pointed out in Sec. \[sec:model\], the function $w(z)$ does not strongly vary on the physical distance scale $\Lambda_5^{-1}$. The amplitude of the process $V_{z_0} V_{z_0} \to V_{z_0} V_{z_0}$ is $$\label{eq:21}
{\cal A}_{z_0} = {\cal N}^4 \sum_{nn'mm'<n_0}
\phi_n^{(z_0)} \phi_{n'}^{(z_0)} \phi_m^{(z_0)} \phi_{m'}^{(z_0)}
{\cal A}_{nn' \to mm'},$$ where $\phi_n^{(z_0)} = \phi_n(z_0)$.
Let us now recall the unitarity conditions $|\mathrm{Re}\, {\cal A}_l|
\leq 1/2$ for partial amplitudes, where $l$ is the angular momentum. Particularly useful is the constraint $$|\mathrm{Re}\,({\cal A}_0 + {\cal A}_1)| \equiv \frac{1}{32\pi}\left|
\int_{-1}^1 d\mathrm{cos}\theta\, (1 + \cos\theta)\, \mathrm{Re}\,{\cal
A}\right| \leq 1$$ where the left-hand side is free of collinear divergences. Making use of Eqs. (\[eq:17\]), (\[eq:21\]) and explicitly writing $g_{nn'mm'}$, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:18}
|\mathrm{Re}\,({\cal A}_0 + {\cal A}_1)|_{z_0} =
\frac{5g_5^2 }{48\pi}\, d^{ab}
{\cal N}^4
\sum_{nn'mm'<n_0}\phi_n^{(z_0)} \phi_{n'}^{(z_0)} \\ \times\phi_{m}^{(z_0)}
\phi_{m'}^{(z_0)} \int dz \, w(z)\phi_n^{(z)}
\phi_{n'}^{(z)}\phi_{m}^{(z)}
\phi_{m'}^{(z)} \leq 1 \;.\end{gathered}$$ We consider the indices $(ab)$, $a\ne b$ belonging to the $\mbox{SU}(2)$ subgroup of $\mbox{SU}(N_f)$ and obtain $d^{ab} = 1$. One sum in Eq. (\[eq:18\]) is proportional to $\delta(z-z_0)$ due to completeness of $\phi_n$, the others are equal to the semiclassical density of states $\sum_{n<n_0} \phi_n^2(z_0) \approx \Delta P_{z}/2\pi = m_{n_0}^V
/[\pi w(z_0)]$. The normalization factor of $|V_{z_0}\rangle$ equals ${{\cal N}^2 = \pi w(z_0)/m_{n_0}^V}$. One sees that the inequality (\[eq:18\]) takes the form $5g_5^2 m_{n_0}^V \leq 48 \pi^2
w(z_0)$. It bounds the value of the highest available mass $m_{n_0}^V$ and hence conformal momentum: $p < w(z_0)\Lambda_5$, where $\Lambda_5 = 48\pi^2/5g_5^2$ is the local scale of strong coupling.
Common sense suggests that theories with too low UV cutoff are not viable. In the rest of this section we argue that the model (\[eq:1\]) is not tractable unless $$\label{eq:19}
m_1^V \ll \Lambda_5 w_{\mathrm{min}}\;, \qquad \mbox{where} \;\;\;\;
\Lambda_5 = 48\pi^2/5g_5^2 \; .$$ Here $m_1^V$ is the lowest vector mass.
First, one notices that the tower of vector modes is strongly coupled whenever Eq. (\[eq:19\]) is violated. Indeed, all vector masses are then above the cutoff in the region ${w(z) < m_1^V / \Lambda_5}$. Mode amplitudes are large there: a semiclassical estimate gives $\phi_n^2(z), \, V_n^2(z) \propto 1/w(z)$. Thus, processes involving vector modes receive large contributions from the strongly coupled region ${w(z) < m_1^V / \Lambda_5}$ and cannot be treated within the effective theory (\[eq:1\]). This prevents one to draw any conclusions about vector technimesons and hence damages predictability.
In warped models, one can sometimes consistently consider conformal momenta exceeding $\Lambda_5 w_{min}$, as long as one deals exclusively with brane-to-brane correlators [@strong; @sundrum]. The point is that at high Euclidean momenta, the brane-to-bulk propagator decays as $\exp[-p (z - z_{UV})]$, which can suppress effects coming from the strongly coupled region $w(z) < p/\Lambda_5$. For $p \sim \Lambda_5 w_{min}$ such suppression mechanism requires $\Lambda_5 w_{min} (z_{IR} - z_{UV}) \gg 1$. This, in turn, implies the inequality (\[eq:19\]), since $m_1^V
(z_{\mathrm{IR}}-z_{\mathrm{UV}}) \simeq \pi/2$ according to the Bohr-Sommerfeld rule. On the contrary, once the inequality (\[eq:19\]) is violated, $\Lambda_5 w_{min}$ is the true cutoff for momenta $p$ referring to the UV brane.
Another way to see the strong coupling problem for the brane-to-brane correlators at ${m_1^V > \Lambda_5
w_{\mathrm{min}}}$ is to consider the propagator in the form (\[eq:5\]). At ${p\lesssim m_1^V}$ it is dominated by the first term in the sum (\[eq:5\]) and therefore proportional to $V_1(z)$. The latter grows with $z$, as the lowest eigenfunction of Eqs. (\[eq:8\]), (\[eq:10\]). This means that $G_p^V$ cannot suppress contributions from the strongly coupled region $w(z) < p/\Lambda_5$ for momenta in the range $\Lambda_5 w_{min} < p < m^V_1$.
So far we have argued that once the inequality (\[eq:19\]) is violated, the theory makes sense only at $p < \Lambda_5
w_{\mathrm{min}}$. Let us show that the scale $\Lambda_5w_{\mathrm{min}}$ is unacceptably low, even somewhat lower than the cutoff in a 4D theory of massive $W$-bosons without the Higgs mechanism. To this end we use the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality for the lowest eigenvalue of Eqs. (\[eq:8\]), (\[eq:10\]), $$(m_1^V)^2 \leq \frac{\int
dz\, w (\partial_z f)^2}{\int dz \, wf^2}\; ,$$ which holds for arbitrary function $f(z)$ satisfying $f(z_{\mathrm{UV}})=0$. We select $f(z)=a(z)-1$, where $a(z)$ enters Eq. (\[eq:13\]). Since in the case under consideration $\Lambda_5
w_{min} \lesssim m_1^V$, we have $$\label{eq:25}
\Lambda_5^2 w_{\mathrm{min}}^2 \lesssim \frac{\int
dz\, w (\partial_z a)^2}{\int dz \, w(a-1)^2} \; .$$ Integrating by parts and using Eq. (\[eq:9\]) at ${p^2 =0}$, one shows that the numerator in Eq. (\[eq:25\]) is smaller than $-\partial_z a|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}}$. The denominator equals $\int ({a-1})^2 da \, \left(w^2/ wa'\right) \geq
-w_{\mathrm{min}}^2/3\partial_z a|_{z_{\mathrm{UV}}}$, where we minimized the term in the parenthesis and then evaluated the integral. One obtains $\Lambda_5^2w_{\mathrm{min}}^4 < 3(\partial_z a)^2_{z_{UV}} = 3[96
\pi^2 m_W^2 / 5\Lambda_5 g^2]^2$, where Eqs. (\[eq:13\]), (\[eq:19\]) were used to express $\partial_z a|_{z_{UV}}$ and $g_5$. We get finally ${\Lambda_5 w_{\mathrm{min}} < 6\pi m_W
/g}$ which proves the statement.
To summarize, the inequality (\[eq:19\]) should be valid, otherwise the theory is no better than a 4D theory of massive $W$-bosons without the Higgs mechanism.
Constraint on the $S$ parameter {#sec:constr-s-param}
===============================
At the culmination of this Letter we derive a bound on $S$ parameter from the weak coupling condition (\[eq:19\]). First, we show that the $S$ parameter, Eq. (\[eq:26\]), is minimal at $v(z)=0$. To this end we find the variation $\delta
a^2(z)$ due to $\delta v^2(z)>0$ by varying and solving Eq. (\[eq:9\]) at $p^2=0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:29}
a(z)\delta a(z) = -2g_5^2\int dz'\, a(z)G_{p=0}^A(z,z')a(z') \\ \times
w^3(z') \,\delta v^2(z') < 0\;,\end{gathered}$$ where the integrand is positive in virtue of Eq. (\[eq:15\]). Thus, $a^2$ decreases and $S$ grows as $v^2$ increases.
At $v=0$ we explicitly find ${a(z) = 1
- I(z)/I(z_{\mathrm{IR}})}$ by solving Eq. (\[eq:9\]) at $p^2=0$. Substituting this into Eq. (\[eq:26\]), we get $$\label{eq:23}
S > \frac{8\pi}{g_5^2}\int dz\, \frac{wI}{I(z_{\mathrm{IR}})} \geq
\frac{8\pi}{g_5^2 I(z_{IR})m_1^V} \left[\int dz\, w I\right]^{1/2}$$ where we took into account $I(z) < I(z_{\mathrm{IR}})$ in the first inequality and Eq. (\[eq:14\]) in the second. The integral in brackets is equal to $\int I dI\, w^2 \geq w_{\mathrm{min}}^2
I^2(z_{\mathrm{IR}})/2$. Using Eq. (\[eq:19\]), we obtain $$\label{eq:28}
S> \frac{8\pi w_{\mathrm{min}}} {g_5^2 m_1^V \sqrt{2}} =
\frac{5}{6\pi \sqrt{2}}\cdot \frac{\Lambda_5 w_{\mathrm{min}}}{m_1^V}
\gg 0.2\;,$$ in obvious conflict with the experimental data.
Higher-order operators {#sec:high-order-oper}
======================
The model (\[eq:1\]) is defined modulo higher-order terms in the Lagrangian suppressed by the cutoff $\Lambda_5$. One asks whether they can alleviate our bound on $S$, given the consistency requirements of Sec. \[sec:model\]: $v^2 \ll \Lambda_5^3$, and $w(z)$, $v(z)$ are nearly constant on the length scale $w(z)\Delta z \sim
\Lambda_5^{-1}$. To this end, let us consider explicitly the lowest of these terms [@agashe], $$\label{eq:11}
\Delta {\cal S} = - \frac{c }{\Lambda_5^3} \,\int dz\, d^4 x\,
\frac{w}{2g_5^2} \,
\mathrm{tr} \left[ L_{MN} X R_{MN} X^{\dag}
\right] \;,$$ where $c\lesssim 1$; parity-even terms of the same order are irrelevant as they can be absorbed at the quadratic level into redefinition of $w(z)$ and $v^2(z)$. The correction changes Eqs. (\[eq:16\]); in particular, Eq. (\[eq:9\]) becomes $$\label{eq:22}
-\frac{1}{\tilde{w}}\partial_z \left(\tilde{w} \partial_z A_\mu
\right) - (p^2 - 2g_5^2\tilde{w}^2 \tilde{v}^2) A_\mu = 0\;,$$ where $\tilde{w} = w\, (1 + c v^2/2\Lambda_5^3)$ and $\tilde{v}^2 = v^2
w^3 / \tilde{w}^3$ contain small corrections. One calculates $S$ and obtains, $$S = \frac{8\pi}{g_5^2} \int dz\, \tilde{w} (1-\tilde{a}^2)
-\frac{5 c}{6\pi\Lambda_5^2} \int dz \, wv^2
= S_+ + S_-\;,$$ where $S_+$ and $S_-$ are the first and second integral, respectively; $\tilde{a}(z)$ satisfies Eq. at ${p^2=0}$ with boundary conditions $\tilde{a}(z_{\mathrm{UV}}) = 1$, $\tilde{a}(z_{\mathrm{IR}}) = 0$.
Off hand, the term $S_-$ could lower the value of $S$ parameter. Let us prove, however, that $|S_-| \ll |S_+|$. At $v^2=0$ we have $S_-=0$, $S_+\ne 0$. Let us consider the variation $\delta v^2 (z)$ keeping $\delta \tilde{w}(z) = 0$. The variation $\delta \tilde{a}(z)$ is again given by Eq. (\[eq:29\]) with $w$ and $v$ replaced by $\tilde{w}$ and $\tilde{v}$. The integrand in Eq. (\[eq:29\]) is positive and stays constant on the length scale $w(z)\Delta z \sim
\Lambda_5^{-1}$. Therefore, $$- \tilde{a}(z)\delta \tilde{a}(z) \gg 2g_5^2 \Delta z \,
\tilde{a}^4(z) \tilde{I}_A(z) \tilde{w}^3(z) \,\delta
\tilde{v}^2(z)\;,$$ where we used Eq. (\[eq:15\]) for the Green’s function. This gives $$\label{eq:31}
\delta S_+ \gg \frac{32\pi}{\Lambda_5^2}\int dz\, \tilde{w}(z)
\tilde{a}^2(z) \,\delta v^2(z)\;,$$ where we substituted $\tilde{I}_A(z) \gg \Delta z / [\tilde{w}(z)\tilde{a}^2(z)]$ and ignored small multiplicative correction to $w(z)$. We see that as $v^2$ increases, $v^2 \to (1+\epsilon)v^2$, the term $S_+$ grows faster than $|S_-|$ unless $$\label{eq:32}
\int dz \, \tilde{w} \tilde{a}^2 v^2 \ll \int dz\, w v^2\;,$$ On the other hand, if the inequality is satisfied, then $$\notag
S_+ > \frac{8\pi}{g_5^2} \int dz \, \tilde{w} \,\frac{v^2}{v_{\max}^2} \,
\left[1-\tilde{a}^2 \right] \approx \frac{\Lambda_5^3}{ c
v_{\max}^2} |S_-| \gg |S_-|\;,$$ where we inserted $v^2/v_{\max}^2 < 1$ in the integrand, ignored the second term in brackets due to Eq. (\[eq:32\]) and expressed the result in terms of $S_-$.
So, we proved that $S \approx S_+$. The analysis of Sec. \[sec:constr-s-param\] goes through for $S_+$ and yields the bound (\[eq:28\]). In this way we come to the intuitively clear conclusion that the higher-order term does not affect this bound (see Ref. [@agashe] for the limited numerical analysis of the same problem). Operators of even higher orders should be even less important.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions-1}
===========
In this Letter we derived the weak coupling condition ${m_1^V \ll
\Lambda_5 w_{\mathrm{min}}}$, where $m_1^V$ is the lowest Kaluza-Klein mass, $\Lambda_5 w_{\mathrm{min}}$ is the redshifted cutoff. We proved that within the holographic technicolor models defined by Eqs. (\[eq:1\]), (\[eq:4\]), this condition bounds the value of $S$ parameter, $S\gg 0.2$, in conflict with experimental data. The latter bound is stable with respect to higher-order corrections and agrees with the conjectured general constraint of Refs. [@Sannino].
One can interpret our results in terms of 4D technicolor theory by recalling that $S\propto 1/g_5^2 \propto N_c$, where $N_c$ is the number of technicolors. Thus, $S$ is smallest at $N_c\sim 1$ when holography is not trustworthy. The opposite requirement of weakly coupled holographic description leads to a lower bound on $S$ which, as we demonstrated, is $S\gg 0.2$.
Since the troubles come from vectors and axial vectors, our bound can possibly be avoided in models with modified vector sectors. One can think of changing the boundary conditions (\[eq:4\]) [@hong; @piai] or considering parity breaking [@piai].[^8] In any case healthy models should be special, as our results suggest. If constructed, they would shed light on the structure of phenomenologically viable technicolor theories.
#### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
We thank M.V. Libanov, S.M. Sibiryakov and P.G. Tinyakov for discussions. This work was supported by the Dynasty foundation (S.T. and Y.Z.) and grants RFBR 12-02-01203 (D.L., S.T., and Y.Z.), RFBR 10-02-01406, RFBR 11-02-01528 (S.T.), SCOPES (V.R.), NS-5590.2012.2.
[22]{}
CMS Collaboration, [arXiv:1207.7235](http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235). ATLAS Collaboration, [arXiv:1207.7214](http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214).
C. Grojean, Phys. Usp. [**50**]{} (2007) 1. S.V. Troitsky, Phys. Usp. [**55**]{} (2012) 72, [arXiv:1112.4515](http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/1112.4515).
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**13**]{} (1976) 974; [**19**]{} (1979) 1277. L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D [**20**]{} (1979) 2619. E. Farhi, L. Susskind, Phys. Rep. [**74**]{} (1981) 277. F. Sannino, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**259**]{} (2010) 012003, [arXiv:1010.3461](http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.3461).
M.E. Peskin, T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{} (1990) 964; Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{} (1992) 381.
T. Appelquist, F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999) 067702, [ hep-ph/9806409](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9806409). LSD Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **106**]{} (2011) 231601, [ arXiv:1009.5967](http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5967).
B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B [**150**]{} (1985) 301. K. Yamawaki, M. Bando, K. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{} (1986) 1335. T. Appelquist, D. Karabali, L.C.R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{} (1986) 957. T. Akiba, T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**169**]{} (1986) 432.
J.M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 231, [ hep-th/9711200](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200). S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov, A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B [**428**]{} (1998) 105, [ hep-th/9802109](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802109). E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 253, [ hep-th/9802150](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802150).
D.K. Hong, H.-U. Yee, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 015011, [hep-ph/0602177](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602177).
J. Hirn, V. Sanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{} (2006) 121803, [hep-ph/0606086](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0606086).
J. Hirn, V. Sanz, JHEP [**0703**]{} (2007) 100, [hep-ph/0612239](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0612239).
K. Agashe, C. Csaki, M. Reece, C. Grojean, JHEP [**0712**]{} (2007) 003, [arXiv:0704.1821](http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1821).
M. Piai, [ hep-ph/0608241](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0608241); [arXiv:0704.2205](http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2205). K. Haba, S. Matsuzaki, K. Yamawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**120**]{} (2008) 691, [arXiv:0804.3668](http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3668). D.D. Dietrich, C. Kouvaris, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 055005, [arXiv:0805.1503](http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1503). M. Round, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 053002, [arXiv:1003.2933](http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2933). C.D. Carone, R. Primulando, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 015003, [arXiv:1003.4720](http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4720).
C.D. Carone, J. Erlich, M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 015015, [arXiv:0704.3084](http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3084). T. Hirayama, K. Yoshioka, JHEP [**0710**]{} (2007) 002, [arXiv:0705.3533](http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3533). C. Núñez, I. Papadimitriou, M. Piai, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [ **25**]{} (2010) 2837, [ arXiv:0812.3655](http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.3655). D. Elander, J. Gaillard, C. Núñez, M. Piai, JHEP [**1107**]{} (2011) 056, [ arXiv:1104.3963](http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3963). E. Conde, J. Gaillard, C. Núñez, M. Piai, A.V. Ramallo, Phys. Lett. B [**709**]{} (2012) 385, [arXiv:1112.3346](http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3346). O. Mintakevich, J. Sonnenschein, JHEP [**0907**]{} (2009) 032, [arXiv:0905.3284](http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3284). A.V. Belitsky, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 045006, [arXiv:1003.0062](http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0062). L. Anguelova, Nucl. Phys. B [**843**]{} (2011) 429, [arXiv:1006.3570](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.3570). L. Anguelova, P. Suranyi, L.C.R. Wijewardhana, Nucl. Phys. B [**852**]{} (2011) 39, [arXiv:1105.4185](http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4185).
T. Sakai, S. Sugimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**113**]{} (2005) 843, [hep-th/0412141](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0412141); [**114**]{} (2005) 1083, [hep-th/0507073](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507073).
D.T. Son, M.A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 065020, [hep-ph/0304182](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0304182). J. Erlich, E. Katz, D.T. Son, M.A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005) 261602, [hep-ph/0501128](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501128). L.D. Rold, A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B [**721**]{} (2005) 79, [hep-ph/0501218](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0501218).
Particle Data Group, J. Phys. G [**37**]{} (2010) 075021.
C. Csáki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo, J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 055006, [hep-ph/0305237](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0305237). C. Csáki, C. Grojean, L. Pilo, J. Terning Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 101802, [hep-ph/0308038](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0308038).
J. Hirn, N. Rius and V. Sanz, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 085005 [hep-ph/0512240](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512240).
D.G. Levkov, V.A. Rubakov, S.V. Troitsky, Y.A. Zenkevich, [*to appear*]{}.
A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 4004, [hep-ph/0005293](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0005293). L. Randall, M.D. Schwartz, JHEP [**0111**]{} (2001) 003, [hep-th/0108114](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0108114); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{} (2002) 081801, [hep-th/0108115](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0108115). W.D. Goldberger, I.Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 131601, [hep-th/0204160](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0204160).
R. Sundrum, [ arXiv:1106.4501](http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4501).
A. Muck, A. Pilaftsis, R. Ruckl, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 085037, [hep-ph/0110391](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0110391). R.S. Chivukula, D.A. Dicus, H.-J. He, Phys. Lett. B [**525**]{} (2002) 175, [hep-ph/0111016](http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0111016).
F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{} (2010) 081701, [arXiv:1006.0207](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0207). S. Di Chiara, C. Pica, F. Sannino, Phys. Lett. B [**700**]{} (2011) 229, [arXiv:1008.1267](http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1267).
E. Gates, J. Terning, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{} (1991) 1840. F. Sannino, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**40**]{} (2009) 3533, [arXiv:0911.0931](http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0931).
[^1]: Hereafter $\mu,\nu=0\dots 3$ and $M,N=0\dots3, 5$.
[^2]: The scalar potential $V(X)$ and boundary conditions for $X$ should be chosen accordingly.
[^3]: One can formally restore gauge invariance by introducing Stückelberg/spurion fields [@hirn1; @hirn2]. This does not make a theory healthy.
[^4]: In other models [@technicolor] one embeds electroweak group $N_f/2$ times and obtains $N_f/2$ times larger value of $S$ parameter.
[^5]: Including the Nambu-Goldstone bosons (technipions) [@bottom-up].
[^6]: At $v(z)=0$ this is the consequence of the fact that $A_n(z)$ satisfy the same equation as $V_n(z)$, but with the Dirichlet boundary condition at $z=z_{\mathrm{IR}}$ instead of the Neumann one. At $v(z)\ne 0$ the axial masses are shifted further upwards because the additional term in Eq. (\[eq:9\]) is positive.
[^7]: Calculations simplify in the ${\cal R}_\xi$ gauge [@R_xi] where the longitudinal components of massive vector modes can be traded at high energies for Nambu-Goldstone bosons.
[^8]: One can also lower $S$ by loop contributions from extra fermions [@extra_fermions].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Adversarial attacks are considered a potentially serious security threat for machine learning systems. Medical image analysis (MedIA) systems have recently been argued to be particularly vulnerable to adversarial attacks due to strong financial incentives. In this paper, we study several previously unexplored factors affecting adversarial attack vulnerability of deep learning MedIA systems in three medical domains: ophthalmology, radiology and pathology. Firstly, we study the effect of varying the degree of adversarial perturbation on the attack performance and its visual perceptibility. Secondly, we study how pre-training on a public dataset (ImageNet) affects the models’ vulnerability to attacks. Thirdly, we study the influence of data and model architecture disparity between target and attacker models. Our experiments show that the degree of perturbation significantly affects both performance and human perceptibility of attacks. Pre-training may dramatically increase the transfer of adversarial examples; the larger the performance gain achieved by pre-training, the larger the transfer. Finally, disparity in data and/or model architecture between target and attacker models substantially decreases the success of attacks. We believe that these factors should be considered when designing cybersecurity-critical MedIA systems, as well as kept in mind when evaluating their vulnerability to adversarial attacks.'
author:
- 'Suzanne C. Wetstein'
- 'Cristina González-Gonzalo'
- Gerda Bortsova
- Bart Liefers
- Florian Dubost
- Ioannis Katramados
- Laurens Hogeweg
- Bram van Ginneken
- 'Josien P.W. Pluim'
- Marleen de Bruijne
- 'Clara I. Sánchez'
- Mitko Veta
title: 'Adversarial Attack Vulnerability of Medical Image Analysis Systems: Unexplored Factors'
---
Introduction
============
Deep learning (DL) has been shown to achieve close or even superior performance to that of experts in medical image analysis (MedIA) applications, including in ophthalmology [@gulshan2016development; @ting2017development], radiology [@rajpurkar2017chestxnet], and pathology [@ref_bejnordi2017; @ref_bulten2020; @ref_wetstein2019]. This has created an opportunity for automation of certain tasks and the subsequent regulatory approval for the integration of DL systems in clinical settings [@abramoff2018pivotal].
A threat to DL systems is posed by so-called “adversarial attacks". Such attacks apply a carefully engineered, subtle perturbation to the target model’s input to cause misclassification. Such perturbed inputs, called “adversarial examples”, have been shown effective in fooling state-of-the-art systems [@ref_goodfellow2014; @madry2017towards]. Adversarial attack methods have been proposed for scenarios assuming different degrees of knowledge of the target system [@yuan2019adversarial]: from having full knowledge (“white-box” attacks) [@ref_goodfellow2014] to being agnostic to the (hyper)parameters of the target model (“black-box” attacks) [@papernot2017practical]. The latter usually use another network, commonly referred to as *surrogate*, to craft adversarial examples. Finlayson et al. [@ref_finlayson2019science; @ref_finlayson2018] have recently argued that adversarial attacks pose a disproportionately large threat in the medical domain due to two factors: first, certain parties involved in healthcare systems have very strong financial incentives to adversarially manipulate medical data, including images; second, certain characteristics of medical data and technological infrastructure around it may allow more effective and less detectable attacks. Several studies have investigated adversarial attack vulnerability of DL MedIA systems for classification and segmentation in different imaging modalities, including color fundus (CF) imaging [@ref_finlayson2018; @ma2019understanding; @ozbulak2019impact], chest X-ray [@ref_finlayson2018; @taghanaki2018vulnerability; @ma2019understanding], dermoscopy [@ref_finlayson2018; @ma2019understanding; @paschali2018generalizability; @ozbulak2019impact], and brain MRI [@paschali2018generalizability]. In these studies, adversarial attacks were proven effective in both white- and black-box settings. However, some crucial aspects of adversarial attacks on MedIA systems have not been studied yet: **Perturbation degree and perceptibility of attacks**: Most studies [@ref_finlayson2018; @paschali2018generalizability; @taghanaki2018vulnerability] only used one perturbation degree in their experiments, although this parameter highly affects performance. One study [@ma2019understanding] analyzed the impact of different degrees of perturbation, but only in a white-box setting. To our knowledge, no studies explored the effect of perturbation degree in black-box settings, which are more realistic. Furthermore, existing studies rarely discuss visual perceptibility of perturbations in adversarial examples, which might compromise the attack’s effectiveness in MedIA settings where human input is required.
**Pre-training**: Pre-training may positively affect the transfer of adversarial attacks between target and surrogate models, since it increases the similarity between them. This could mean that this popular design choice [@litjens2017survey] should be reconsidered as it poses a security risk. Existing studies on adversarial attacks often use target and surrogate models that were pre-trained on the same data, specifically ImageNet [@ref_finlayson2018; @ma2019understanding; @paschali2018generalizability], but do not study the influence of such pre-training on attack transferability.
**Data and model architecture disparity**: Although some studies analyzed black-box attack transferability between targets and surrogates not sharing the same network architecture [@taghanaki2018vulnerability; @paschali2018generalizability], all studies assumed perfect data parity, i.e. surrogate and target models were trained on the exact same subset of the same dataset. This assumption is highly unrealistic when applied to real-world DL MedIA systems, which are most often closed source and use large amounts of private training data [@abramoff2016improved; @gonzalez2019evaluation; @GE_FDA]. In our study, we investigate these aspects of adversarial attacks in three MedIA applications: detection of referable diabetic retinopathy in CF images, classification of pathologies in chest X-Ray, and breast cancer metastasis detection in histological lymph node sections. Our findings have implications on the design of cyber-secure DL MedIA systems and on practices for evaluating adversarial attack vulnerability of these systems in realistic attack scenarios.
Methods
=======
Adversarial attacks
-------------------
In this study, we used two adversarial attack methods that were most commonly used in the literature with high effectiveness [@ref_finlayson2018; @ma2019understanding; @ozbulak2019impact; @taghanaki2018vulnerability; @paschali2018generalizability]: fast gradient sign method (FGSM) [@ref_goodfellow2014] and projected gradient descent (PGD) [@madry2017towards]. In FGSM, the adversarial perturbation is computed as the sign of the gradient of the loss with respect to the input image. This adversarial perturbation is subsequently multiplied by a parameter $\epsilon$, to control the perturbation degree, and added to the target image $x$ to create an adversarial example: $x_\textsf{adv} = x + \epsilon \textsf{sign}(\nabla_x\mathcal{L}(f(x; \theta), y)$, where $\mathcal{L}$ represents the loss, $f$ the selected network architecture, $\theta$ the corresponding parameters, and $y$ the image label. PGD is an iterative version of FGSM, in which several steps for computing the perturbation and adding it to the input are performed: $x^{(i+1)}_\textsf{adv} = \textsf{clip}_x^\epsilon \big\{ x^{(i)} + \alpha \textsf{sign}(\nabla_x\mathcal{L}(f(x^{(i)}; \theta), y) \big\}$, where $\alpha$ controls the step size and $\epsilon$ is the parameter regulating the maximum amount of perturbation added to every pixel. We applied both methods in the black-box setting, since we consider it to be the most realistic setting for MedIA systems. In this setting, $f'(\cdot, \theta')$ of a surrogate model is used to compute the attack and transfer it to a target model.
To control that the target model performance is reduced solely due to the adversarial perturbation, we additionally computed “control” noise. While existing works chose standard noise distributions such as Gaussian for this purpose [@paschali2018generalizability], we chose to compare adversarial perturbations with its spatially shuffled version to ensure the same degree of perturbation in adversarial and “control” examples.
Network training and data
-------------------------
We used two architectures as both target and surrogate models. We chose Inception-v3 [@ref_inceptionv3] and Densenet-121 [@ref_densenet121] as both were previously applied in our selected applications and achieved good performance [@gulshan2016development; @rajpurkar2017chestxnet; @guendrel2018learning; @ref_veeling]. All networks were trained using Adam optimization with learning rate decay and binary cross-entropy loss. For the dataset used in each application, a development and a test set were defined. The development set was used for training and validation of the target and surrogate models. We randomly divided all development sets, at patient-level, into two non-overlapping, equal-sized parts: *d1* and *d2* to be able to study the influence of data parity on attack transferability. A third set, *d2/2*, was created by randomly sampling half of *d2* to study the influence of dataset size. The independent test set was used to measure the performance of each model on clean and adversarial examples. The description of each dataset and dataset-specific network parameters are stated below.
### Ophthalmology
We used the Kaggle dataset for diabetic retinopathy (DR) detection [@kaggle2015diabetic], which contains 88,702 color fundus images with manually-labeled DR severity. In order to have more images available for development, as proposed in Finlayson et al. [@ref_finlayson2018], we merged the original training (35,126 images) and test sets (53,576 images) and split the images randomly at patient-level for development (88%) and testing (12%).
Pre-processing included extracting the field of view and rescaling to $512\times{512}$ pixels. The networks were trained to distinguish between non-referable (stages 0 to 1) and referable DR (stages 2 to 4) using batch class balancing, and flipping and rotation for data augmentation.
### Radiology
We used the ChestX-Ray14 dataset [@wang2017hospital], consisting of 112,120 frontal-view X-rays annotated with 14 pathology labels. The official data split (80%-20%) was used to define our development and test sets.
Pre-processing included downsampling images to $256 \times 256$ resolution. We used translation and horizontal flipping for data augmentation.
### Pathology
We used the PatchCamelyon (PCam) [@ref_veeling] dataset, which contains 327,680 patches extracted from histopathology images of lymph node sections, labeled with the presence of metastatic tissue in the patch center. The official data split (90%-10%) was used to define our development and test sets. The top layers of both model architectures were replaced with a global average pooling layer followed by a dense layer with one output and sigmoid activation to be able to handle the $96 \times 96$ resolution of the input. As data augmentation, we used flipping and color augmentation.
Experimental setups
===================
### Perturbation degree and perceptibility of attacks
In the first experiment, we studied the performance of FGSM and PGD attacks under different degrees of perturbation (controlled by $\epsilon$) and the visual perceptibility of the perturbations. We evaluated the attacks for $\epsilon$: 0.02, 0.04, and 0.06. These values were applied to images rescaled between -1 and 1. In early experiments, we found $\epsilon = 0.02$ to be visually imperceptible or very subtle across datasets. We therefore did not experiment with lower values of $\epsilon$. For the PGD attacks, we used $\alpha = 0.01$ and 20 iterations. In this experiment, all models were randomly initialized and trained on the same partition of the development set, *d1*.
### Pre-training
In the second experiment, we measured the attack effectiveness when target and surrogate are both pre-trained on ImageNet, both randomly initialized, or have different initializations (pre-trained or random). For this purpose, we trained four versions of each architecture (two pre-trained and two randomly initialized) to cover all possible target-surrogate combinations in black-box settings, using the same partition of the development set, *d1*.
### Data and model architecture disparity
This experiment focused on the effect of disparity in the data used for the development of target and surrogate model, as well as its interaction with architecture disparity. Here, we trained four randomly-initialized versions of each architecture: a target model trained on *d1* and three surrogate models trained on *d1*, *d2*, and *d2/2*, respectively.
In all experimental setups, the performance of the target models on the test set of each dataset was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) or mean AUC for the multi-class case.
Results and discussion
======================
Perturbation degree and perceptibility of attacks
-------------------------------------------------
The results of our experiments with different attack methods (FGSM and PGD) at different perturbation degrees can be found in Table \[diffattacks\]. Higher perturbation degrees lead to substantially lower performance of target models. Experiments with spatially shuffled noise suggest that at higher noise magnitudes part of the performance drop was due to image corruption by the noise, though to a rather small extent. FGSM and PGD performed similarly. Based on this observation, we chose to use both attacks in our subsequent experiments and report average results.
Data Noise
--------------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.06
Ophthalmology -
Ophthalmology adversarial 0.44 0.32 0.33 0.56 0.37 0.34
Ophthalmology shuffled 0.85 0.79 0.73 0.85 0.84 0.84
Radiology -
Radiology adversarial 0.62 0.57 0.55 0.64 0.54 0.49
Radiology shuffled 0.80 0.79 0.77 0.80 0.80 0.79
Pathology -
Pathology adversarial 0.56 0.38 0.33 0.56 0.41 0.36
Pathology shuffled 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
: Effects of perturbation degree on attack transferability. Average performance (AUC) over two model architectures is shown when using FGSM, PGD or “control” noise (spatially shuffled adversarial perturbations) with varying perturbation degrees. []{data-label="diffattacks"}
Figure \[fig\_perceptibility\] shows original images and their adversarial counterparts computed using FGSM attack at different perturbation degrees. As can be seen, applying the same amount of perturbation to different imaging modalities has a different effect on the perceptibility of the perturbation. In this experiment, we used our own visual perception. For the ophthalmology and pathology datasets, we found the perturbation perceptible at $\epsilon = 0.04$ or larger. For the radiology dataset, the perturbations were already perceptible at $\epsilon = 0.02$, albeit quite subtle. These differences in perceptibility could occur because of differences in color, homogeneity, contrast, and resolution between the imaging modalities. Furthermore, the judgement of perceptibility is subjective and depends on the background and goal of the observer. Adversarial attack perceptibility by trained medical experts could be examined in future studies.
![ Original and adversarial images created with FGSM using different perturbation magnitudes. []{data-label="fig_perceptibility"}](figure_1small){width="\textwidth"}
In summary, we found that perturbation degree significantly affects both performance and visual perceptibility of attacks. It is important to study higher perturbation degrees to not underestimate the attack vulnerability of the studied system. However, an attack performed using a conspicuous degree of perturbation could be easily discovered by a (trained) human and thus neutralized. Following this logic, for our further experiments, we chose to report attacks using $\epsilon = 0.02$, as for two out of three applications this was the highest perturbation degree that was still visually subtle.
Pre-training
------------
Table \[pretraining\] summarizes our experiments on the effect of pre-training on adversarial attack transferability. In the ophthalmology and radiology datasets, the attack transferability between pre-trained models was substantially higher than that between randomly initialized models. This effect was very pronounced in the ophthalmology dataset, in which pre-training also gave the highest performance boost on clean examples. In both datasets, the effect was consistent: for all eight combinations of attack method and target and surrogate pairs, pre-trained targets had lower performance when attacked by pre-trained surrogates, compared to their randomly initialized counterparts. In the pathology dataset, however, the opposite effect was observed with similar consistency.
Target Surrogate
---------- ----------- ------------ ------ ------------ ------ ------------ ------
ImageNet -
ImageNet ImageNet 0.12 (13%) Avg: 0.52 (64%) Avg: 0.68 (78%) Avg:
ImageNet Random 0.83 (88%) 51% 0.64 (78%) 71% 0.73 (84%) 81%
Random -
Random ImageNet 0.67 (79%) Avg: 0.73 (91%) Avg: 0.65 (75%) Avg:
Random Random 0.50 (58%) 69% 0.63 (79%) 85% 0.56 (65%) 70%
: Effects of pre-training on attack transferability. Average performance (AUC) over FGSM and PGD ($\epsilon$=0.02) and two model architectures is shown. Average relative performance with respect to the no-attack setting is shown in brackets.[]{data-label="pretraining"}
In the ophthalmology and pathology datasets, pre-trained targets were consistently less vulnerable to the attacks by randomly initialized surrogates than randomly initialized targets to the attacks of pre-trained surrogates. The opposite consistent effect was observed in the radiology dataset. On average, pre-trained networks were moderately more vulnerable to attacks in ophthalmology and radiology datasets and slightly less in the pathology dataset. We believe the increased transfer between pre-trained models may occur because their decision boundaries are more similar than those of randomly initialized models. This may hold more strongly for models where pre-training decreases the number of training epochs and/or improves the performance. Overall, we observed that pre-training MedIA networks on ImageNet may dramatically increase the transfer of adversarial examples; the larger the performance gain achieved by pre-training, the larger the transfer. We believe this effect should be considered when designing secure DL MedIA systems for deployment in clinical practice, as well as in future studies on adversarial attacks, since pre-training is an optional (although popular) design choice and introduces a possible vulnerability to attacks.
Data and model architecture disparity
-------------------------------------
The effects of data and model architecture disparity between target and surrogate models can be seen in Table \[diffdata\]. For all datasets, networks were substantially less susceptible to attacks crafted using surrogates with the same architecture but trained on a different data subset (*d2* or *d2/2*). This held for both target architectures and both attack methods. Decreasing the surrogate training set size (from *d2* to *d2/2*) led to a drop in the attack performance for the ophthalmology and radiology data. When the architecture of the surrogate was different, however, data disparity between the target and surrogate substantially decreased the attack performance only for the ophthalmology data. Disparity in the model architecture had greater effect on attack performance than disparity in data for radiology and pathology data; for the ophthalmology data, it had equal or smaller effect, depending on the degree of data disparity. We believe that, since most MedIA systems are closed source and use private training data, the attack scenario in which data and model parameters of target and surrogate do not (completely) overlap is more realistic than one assuming data and model parity. Our results show that in case of disparity the attacks perform substantially poorer than in case of parity, which is commonly assumed by existing studies [@ref_finlayson2018; @ma2019understanding; @taghanaki2018vulnerability; @paschali2018generalizability]. By the same token, designers of MedIA systems could consider using private data rather than public; keeping model information private; and designing custom systems instead of using standard architectures.
Architecture Training set Ophthalmology Radiology Pathology
-------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- -------------
- - 0.86 (100%) 0.80 (100%) 0.87 (100%)
Same d1 0.44 (52%) 0.55 (69%) 0.41 (47%)
Same d2 0.56 (65%) 0.64 (80%) 0.67 (77%)
Same d2/2 0.75 (88%) 0.66 (83%) 0.65 (75%)
Different d1 0.55 (65%) 0.70 (88%) 0.71 (82%)
Different d2 0.66 (77%) 0.70 (88%) 0.74 (85%)
Different d2/2 0.80 (93%) 0.72 (90%) 0.71 (81%)
: Effects of data and model architecture parity on attack transferability. Average performance (AUC) over FGSM and PGD ($\epsilon$=0.02) and two model architectures is shown, with surrogate models trained on different sets. Average relative performance with respect to the no-attack setting is shown in brackets.[]{data-label="diffdata"}
Conclusion
==========
In our experiments, we observed that higher perturbation levels lead to increased success of attacks, but also to increased visual perceptibility, which might compromise their effectiveness in MedIA settings where human input is required. We observed that pre-training MedIA networks on ImageNet may dramatically increase the transfer of adversarial examples; the larger the performance gain achieved by pre-training, the larger the transfer. Lastly, dataset and model architecture disparity between target and surrogate models can substantially decrease the success of attacks. We believe that these factors should be considered in the design of cybersecurity-critical MedIA systems, as well as kept in mind when evaluating vulnerability of these systems to adversarial attacks.
[8]{} Gulshan, V., Peng, L., Coram, M., Stumpe, M. C., Wu, D., Narayanaswamy, A., et al: Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA. **316**(22), 2402–2410 (2016)
Ting, D. S. W., Cheung, C. Y. L., Lim, G., Tan, G. S. W., Quang, N. D., Gan, A., et al: Development and validation of a deep learning system for diabetic retinopathy and related eye diseases using retinal images from multiethnic populations with diabetes. JAMA. **318**(22), 2211–2223 (2017)
Rajpurkar, P., Irvin, J., Zhu, K., Yang, B., Mehta, H., Duan, T. et al: Chexnet: Radiologist-level pneumonia detection on chest x-rays with deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05225. (2017)
Bejnordi, B.E., Veta, M., Van Diest, P.J., Van Ginneken, B., Karssemeijer, N., Litjens, G., et al: Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer. JAMA **318**(22), 2199–2210 (2017)
Bulten, W., Pinckaers, H., van Boven, H., Vink, R., de Bel, T., van Ginneken, B., et al: Automated deep-learning system for Gleason grading of prostate cancer using biopsies: a diagnostic study. The Lancet Oncology. In press. (2020)
Wetstein, S. C., Onken, A. M., Luffman, C., Baker, G. M., Pyle, M. E., Kensler, K. H., et al: Deep learning assessment of breast terminal duct lobular unit involution: towards automated prediction of breast cancer risk. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00036. (2019)
Abràmoff, M. D., Lavin, P. T., Birch, M., Shah, N., & Folk, J. C.: Pivotal trial of an autonomous AI-based diagnostic system for detection of diabetic retinopathy in primary care offices. NPJ digital medicine. **1**(1), 1–8. (2018)
Goodfellow, I. J., Shlens, J., & Szegedy, C.: Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572 (2014)
Madry, A., Makelov, A., Schmidt, L., Tsipras, D., & Vladu, A.: Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06083. (2017)
Yuan, X., He, P., Zhu, Q., & Li, X.: Adversarial examples: Attacks and defenses for deep learning. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems. **30**(9), 2805–2824. (2019)
Papernot, N., McDaniel, P., Goodfellow, I., Jha, S., Celik, Z. B., & Swami, A.: Practical black-box attacks against machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Asia conference on computer and communications security, 506–519. (2017)
Finlayson, S. G., Bowers, J. D., Ito, J., Zittrain, J. L., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S.: Adversarial attacks on medical machine learning. Science **363**(6433), 1287–1289 (2019)
Finlayson, S. G., Chung, H. W., Kohane, I. S., & Beam, A. L.: Adversarial attacks against medical deep learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.05296 (2018)
Ma, X., Niu, Y., Gu, L., Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., Bailey, J., & Lu, F.: Understanding Adversarial Attacks on Deep Learning Based Medical Image Analysis Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10456. (2019)
Ozbulak, U., Van Messem, A., & De Neve, W.: Impact of Adversarial Examples on Deep Learning Models for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, 300–308. Springer, Cham. (2019)
Taghanaki, S. A., Das, A., & Hamarneh, G.: Vulnerability analysis of chest x-ray image classification against adversarial attacks. In Understanding and Interpreting Machine Learning in Medical Image Computing Applications, 87–94. Springer, Cham. (2018)
Paschali, M., Conjeti, S., Navarro, F., & Navab, N.: Generalizability vs. robustness: adversarial examples for medical imaging. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00504. (2018)
Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., Setio, A. A. A., Ciompi, F., Ghafoorian, M. et al: A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Medical image analysis. **42**, 60–88. (2017)
Abràmoff, M. D., Lou, Y., Erginay, A., Clarida, W., Amelon, R., Folk, J. C., & Niemeijer, M.: Improved automated detection of diabetic retinopathy on a publicly available dataset through integration of deep learning. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. **57**(13), 5200–5206. (2016)
González‐Gonzalo, C., Sánchez‐Gutiérrez, V., Hernández‐Martínez, P., Contreras, I., Lechanteur, Y. T., Domanian, A. et al: Evaluation of a deep learning system for the joint automated detection of diabetic retinopathy and age‐related macular degeneration. Acta ophthalmologica. In press. (2019)
GE Healthcare Receives FDA Clearance of First Artificial Intelligence Algorithms Embedded On-Device to Prioritize Critical Chest X-ray Review. GE Reports, genewsroom.com/press-releases/ge-healthcare-receives-fda-clearance-first-artificial-intelligence-algorithms (2019, September 12)
Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z.: Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2818–2826. (2016)
Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., & Weinberger, K. Q.: Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4700–4708. (2017)
Guendel, S., Grbic, S., Georgescu, B., Liu, S., Maier, A. and Comaniciu, D.: Learning to recognize abnormalities in chest x-rays with location-aware dense networks. In Iberoamerican Congress on Pattern Recognition, 757–765. Springer, Cham. (2018)
Veeling, B. S., Linmans, J., Winkens, J., Cohen, T., & Welling, M.: Rotation equivariant CNNs for digital pathology. In International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 210–218. Springer, Cham. (2018)
“Diabetic retinopathy detection competition,” Online, 2015. \[Online\]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/c/diabetic-retinopathy-detection/
Wang, X., Peng, Y., Lu, L., Lu, Z., Bagheri, M., & Summers, R. M.: Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classification and localization of common thorax diseases. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2097–2106. (2017)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Weighted least squares fitting to a database of quantum mechanical calculations can determine the optimal parameters of empirical potential models. While algorithms exist to provide optimal potential parameters for a given fitting database of structures and their structure property functions, and to estimate prediction errors using Bayesian sampling, defining an optimal *fitting database* based on potential predictions remains elusive. A testing set of structures and their structure property functions provides an empirical measure of potential transferability. Here, we propose an objective function for fitting databases based on testing set errors. The objective function allows the optimization of the weights in a fitting database, the assessment of the inclusion or removal of structures in the fitting database, or the comparison of two different fitting databases. To showcase this technique, we consider an example Lennard-Jones potential for Ti, where modeling multiple complicated crystal structures is difficult for a radial pair potential. The algorithm finds different optimal fitting databases, depending on the objective function of potential prediction error for a testing set.'
author:
- Pinchao Zhang
- 'Dallas R. Trinkle'
title: Database optimization for empirical interatomic potential models
---
Introduction
============
Atomic-scale simulations have the capability to predict the properties of defect structures that are often inaccessible by experimental techniques.[@Daw:1984on; @Baskes:1992qt; @Xu:1996eh; @Daw:1993kx; @Wirth:2000qf; @Lilleodden:2003ly; @Mishin:2001er; @Woodward:2008fk] These predictions require accurate and efficient calculations of energies and forces on atoms in arrangements that sample a variety of atomic environments, and may represent even different binding configurations. Accurate quantum mechanical methods are difficult to scale to large systems and long simulation times, while empirical interatomic potentials offer increased computational efficiency at a lower level of accuracy. Maximizing the efficiency of computational material science studies requires the development of potentials that are transferrable, i.e., capable of predicting properties outside their fitting range, and accurate for static and dynamic calculations.
However, without direct transferable derivations of interatomic potentials from quantum mechanical methods, empirical interatomic potentials require high-dimensional non-linear fitting. Many functional forms for empirical potentials have been proposed, including embedded-atom method (EAM)[@Daw:1993kx; @Li:2003tb], modified embedded-atom method (MEAM)[@Baskes:1989ya; @Baskes:1994ys; @Baskes:1992qt] and charged-optimized many-body potential (COMB).[@Yu:2007ce; @Shan:2010zi] There have been multiple implementations of different potential functional forms for various materials.[@Mishin:2001er; @Lenosky:2000bh; @Hennig:2008mb; @Park:2012sh; @Liu:1996zr; @Li:2003tb; @Fellinger:2010ys; @Sheng:2011vn] Even for the same type of materials, such as Cu[@Foiles:1986vy; @Zhou:2001iq; @Mishin:2001er] and Si[@Baskes:1987ws; @Baskes:1989ya; @Tersoff:1986tf; @Balamane:1992qb; @Lenosky:2000bh], different empirical interatomic potential models are proposed for different applications with different transferabilities. There are advanced techniques to optimize the potential parameters based on a weighted least-squares regression to a fitting database of experimental or quantum mechanical calculation data,[@Foiles:1986vy; @Daw:1993kx] including the force-matching method[@Ercolessi:1994vn] for empirical interatomic potential parameter optimization. In force-matching, a fitting database includes quantum mechanical force calculations for diverse atomic environments to obtain realistic empirical potential models. To study the transferability of the empirical potential model, Frederiksen *et al.* applied Bayesian statistics to empirical interatomic potential models: instead of using the best fit, an ensemble of neighboring parameter sets reveal the flexibility of the model.[@Frederiksen:2004dg] They showed that the standard deviation of the potential prediction of structure property function is a good estimate of the true error. However, even with these advances, the determination of empirical interatomic potentials relies on the selection and weighting of a fitting database without a clear, quantitative guide for the impact on predictions.
To address the issue of fitting database selection, we present an automated, quantitative fitting-database optimization algorithm based on prediction errors for a testing set using Bayesian statistics. We construct an objective function of the prediction errors in the testing set to optimize the relative weights of a fitting database. This includes the addition or removal of structures to a fitting database when weights change sign. We demonstrate the viability of the optimization algorithm with a simple interatomic potential model: Lennard-Jones potential fitting of Ti crystal structures. We choose this example as a radial potential has difficulty describing the stability of different crystal structures of a transition metal. The new algorithm also helps to understand the transferability of the empirical potential model for the structures in the testing set.
We start with a brief review of empirical potential models and parameter optimization using a fitting database. Next, we discuss Bayesian error estimation as it applies to our problem. Then we define an objective function with a testing set, and use this quantitative measure to devise an algorithm to optimize a fitting database. Lastly, we demonstrate this new approach on an example system with clear limitations: Lennard-Jones potential for titanium.
Interatomic potential models {#sec:model}
============================
The total energy and forces for the structure of interest are the most basic quantities to calculate since they determine the structural properties. In particular, we are interested in predictions that are derived from energies of atomic arrangements. In atomic-scale simulations, a structure $\alpha$ is a set of atomic positions $\vec{R_m}$ with chemical identities $\chi_m$: $\alpha=\{(\vec{R_m},\chi_m)\}$. The total energy of a structure $\alpha$ is $E_\alpha=E(\{(\vec{R_m},\chi_m)\})$ with forces $\vec{f_\alpha}=-\vec{\nabla}_R E_\alpha$. Density-functional theory (DFT)[@Hohenberg:1964zr; @Kohn:1965pb] calculations can provide accurate structural energies and forces, but their computational cost limits them to simulation system with at most a few thousand atoms. Other structural properties are derived from energies and forces, and so without loss of generality, we develop our approach based on energies and forces.
Parameterized empirical interatomic potentials offer a computationally efficient alternative to DFT. Potentials provide approximate energies and forces for atomic configurations that are inaccessibly large for DFT calculations. Generally, an empirical interatomic potential functional can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
E_\alpha(\theta)\equiv E(\{(\vec{R_i},\chi_i)\};\theta) = \frac{1}{2!}\sum_{mn}V_2^{\chi_m \chi_n}(\vec{R_m}-\vec{R_n};\theta)\\
+\frac{1}{3!}\sum_{mnl}V_3^{\chi_m \chi_n \chi_l}(\vec{R_m}-\vec{R_n},\vec{R_n}-\vec{R_l};\theta)+ \cdots ,
\label{eqn:pot}\end{gathered}$$ where $\theta$ are parameters, and $V_M^{\chi_1 \ldots \chi_k}$ is an interatomic potential function between $M$ atoms of chemical identity $\{\chi_1, \ldots ,\chi_k\}$. Symmetries of the potential functional form, such as permutation symmetry, translational symmetry, rotational symmetry, etc., can simplify the functional form. A general empirical interatomic potential that reproduces all DFT energy calculations accurately is computational intractable, since it would require a large number of many-body terms. Rather, we are interested in simpler potentials that provide accurate results for a smaller range of atomic configurations including perfect crystals and defect structures under various thermodynamic conditions; this includes potentials that may not be easily written in the form of [Eqn. (\[eqn:pot\])]{}, such as EAM and MEAM potentials.
The optimal potential parameters $\theta$ derive from comparison to predictions of a database of DFT calculations, and the performance of the potential is evaluated by a testing set of structure property predictions. A fitting database $F$ is a set $\{(\alpha, A_\alpha, w_\alpha)\}$ of structure property functions $A_\alpha$ with an associated structure $\alpha$ and positive (relative) weight $w_\alpha>0$. While a single structure will often have multiple structure property functions with unique weights for fitting, we simplify our notation by indexing on the structure; in what follows, sums over structures $\alpha$ indicate sums over all members of the database $F$. The structure property function $A_\alpha$ may be a scalar such as the energy (relative to a reference structure), vectors such as forces on the atom of the structures, stress tensors and more complicated structure property functions such as lattice constant, bulk modulus or vacancy formation energy or anything that can be defined from the energy $E_\alpha$. In the fitting database, we will compare the structure property functions evaluated using an empirical potential, with the values from DFT, though other choices are possible, such as experimental data. In the weighted least-squares (described later), we impose the trivial constraint $\sum_{\alpha \in F}w_\alpha = 1$, as only relative values of $w_\alpha$ are important. A testing set $T$ is a set $\{(\beta, A_\beta)\}$ of structures $\beta$ with structure property functions $A_\beta$. In a testing set, we will compare structure property functions evaluated using an empirical potential with *either* values from DFT, or using Bayesian sampling of the empirical potential, following Frederiksen *et al.*,[@Frederiksen:2004dg] which we will discuss in [Section \[sec:bayes\]]{}. There are no relative weights for structures in a testing set; rather, these represent a set of predictions whose errors we will evaluate.
In order to assess the prediction errors of the structure property functions, we define the prediction error function $\epsilon_\alpha(\theta)$ as $$\epsilon^2_\alpha(\theta)=\|A_\alpha(\theta)-A_\alpha\|_2,$$ where $A_\alpha(\theta)$ is the structure property function from the empirical atomic potential with parameters $\theta$, $A_\alpha$ is the structure property function from DFT, and $\|\cdot\|_2$ denotes the 2-norm of a $d$-dimensional vector $x$ $$\|x\|_2=\sum_{a=1}^d|x_m|^2.$$ We will take the error evaluation of the energy differences between two structures and forces as examples. For energy calculations, the structure property function $A_\alpha$ is $$A_\alpha=E_\alpha-E_0,$$ where $E_0$ is the energy of a reference structure, $0$. The potential energy prediction error is $$\epsilon_\alpha(\theta)=\left |(E_{\alpha}(\theta)-E_0(\theta))-(E_{\alpha}-E_0)\right |.
\label{eqn:Energy}$$ The force predictions errors are $$\epsilon^2_\alpha(\theta)=\|f_\alpha(\theta)-f_\alpha\|_2.
\label{eqn:Forces}$$ Then, the weighted summed squared error function for a fitting database $F$ is $$S(\theta, F)=\sum_{\alpha \in F} w_\alpha\epsilon^2_\alpha(\theta),$$
Bayesian Error Estimation {#sec:bayes}
=========================
We introduce Bayesian sampling to estimate the errors of structure property function predictions and quantitatively analyse the relative weight values in the fitting database. Given a fitting database, we calculate the prediction of structure property function $\langle A_\beta(\theta)\rangle_F$ and the error $\langle \epsilon^2_\beta(\theta)\rangle_F$ of the structure property function. We then derive the analytical expression of the gradient of the Bayesian errors with respect to the weights, $\frac{\partial \langle \epsilon^2_\beta(\theta)\rangle_F}{\partial w_{\alpha}}$. These gradients provide quantitative information on how structure property functions in the fitting database influence the Bayesian predictions of structure property functions in the testing set though weight change.
Bayesian statistics treats model parameters as random variables with a probability distribution given by a posterior distribution.[@Bolstad:2007we] According to the Bayes’ theorem, the posterior distribution of the parameters is a product of the prior distribution $\pi(\theta)$ and the likelihood function $L(\theta;F)$, $$P(\theta;F)\propto \pi(\theta) \times L(\theta;F),
\label{eqn:Bayes}$$ where the prior distribution $\pi(\theta)$ includes the information about the potential model before the we take the fitting data into account. Here we use the maximally unbiased prior distribution of a uniform distribution over a measurable set $\mathcal{H}$ of allowed parameters sets, $$\pi(\theta)=\left[\int_\mathcal{H} d\theta\right]^{-1},$$ though other choices are possible. Assuming the errors are independent and identically normally distributed, the likelihood function is[@Hogg:2004ce; @Frederiksen:2004dg] $$L(\theta;F) \propto \exp\left(-\frac{1}{W}\sum_{\alpha \in F} w_\alpha\epsilon^2_\alpha(\theta)\right),$$ where $$W=\inf_{\theta} S(\theta, F).$$ The log-likelihood function is proportional to the squared error function, $S(\theta, F)$. $${\log L}(\theta;F)=-\frac{S(\theta, F)}{W}=-\frac{1}{W}\sum_{\alpha \in F} w_\alpha\epsilon^2_\alpha(\theta),
\label{eqn:LogL}$$ Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, minimizing $S(\theta, F)$ is equivalent to maximizing the log-likelihood function. The maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the parameters ${\theta^\text{MLE}}$ is a function of the fitting database $F$, and $W=S({\theta^\text{MLE}}, F)$.
The Bayesian prediction of a function $A(\theta)$ is the mean $$\langle A(\theta)\rangle_F=\frac{\int P(\theta;F)A(\theta) \, d\theta}{\int P(\theta;F) \, d\theta}=\frac{\int_\mathcal{H} L(\theta;F)A(\theta)d\theta} {\int_\mathcal{H} L(\theta;F)d\theta} .
\label{eqn:mean}$$ All the averages are implicit functions of the relative weights in the fitting database. The Bayesian error is the mean squared error of the Bayesian prediction: $$\langle \epsilon_{A}^2(\theta)\rangle_F=|\langle A(\theta)\rangle_F-A|^2+\operatorname{var}_F(A(\theta)),
\label{eqn:error}$$ where $\operatorname{var}_F(A(\theta))=\langle A^2 (\theta)\rangle_F-\langle A(\theta)\rangle_F^2$ is the variance of the Bayesian prediction. The covariance of two functions $A_\alpha(\theta)$ and $A_\beta(\theta)$ represents the correlation between two functions: $$\operatorname{cov}_F(A_\alpha(\theta),A_\beta(\theta))=\langle A_\alpha(\theta)A_\beta(\theta)\rangle_F-\langle A_\alpha(\theta)\rangle_F\langle A_\beta(\theta)\rangle_F.$$ The derivative of a Bayesian prediction with respect to weight is $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial \langle A(\theta)\rangle_F}{\partial w_\alpha} &= \frac{\partial}{\partial w_\alpha}\frac{\int_\mathcal{H} L(\theta;F)A(\theta) \, d\theta}{\int_\mathcal{H} L(\theta;F) \, d\theta}\\
&=\operatorname{cov}_F\left(A(\theta), \frac{\partial {\log L}(\theta;F)}{\partial w_\alpha}\right).
\end{split}
\label{eqn:deriv1}$$ Note that $$\frac{\partial {\log L}(\theta;F)}{\partial w_\alpha} = - \frac{\epsilon_\alpha^2(\theta) + \frac{\partial W}{\partial w_\alpha}{\log L}(\theta;F)}{W}.
\label{eqn:deriv2}$$ The derivative of $W$ with respect to weight is found using the chain rule, $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial W}{\partial w_\alpha}
&=\left.\frac{\partial S(\theta;F )}{\partial w_\alpha}\right|_{{\theta^\text{MLE}}}\\
&\quad +\sum_n \left.\frac{\partial S(\theta;F )}{\partial \theta_n}\right|_{{\theta^\text{MLE}}} \frac{\partial {\theta^\text{MLE}}_n}{\partial w_\alpha}\\
&=\epsilon_\alpha^2({\theta^\text{MLE}}),
\end{split}
\label{eqn:deriv3}$$ as ${\theta^\text{MLE}}$ is an extremum of $S(\theta;F)$. Applying [Eqn. (\[eqn:deriv1\])]{}–[Eqn. (\[eqn:deriv3\])]{} to the Bayesian error $\langle \epsilon^2_\beta(\theta)\rangle_F$ yields $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial \langle \epsilon^2_\beta(\theta)\rangle_F}{\partial w_{\alpha}}&=\operatorname{cov}_F(\epsilon^2_\beta(\theta), - \frac{\epsilon_{\alpha}^2(\theta) + \epsilon_{\alpha}^2({\theta^\text{MLE}}){\log L}(\theta)}{W}) \\
&=-\frac{1}{W}\left [C^F_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{\epsilon_{\alpha}^2({\theta^\text{MLE}})}{W}\operatorname{cov}_F(\epsilon^2_\beta(\theta),S(\theta;F)\right] \\
&=-\frac{1}{W}\left [C^F_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{\epsilon_{\alpha}^2({\theta^\text{MLE}})}{W}\sum_\gamma w_\gamma C^F_{\beta\gamma}\right],
\end{split}
\label{eqn:dedw}$$ where $$C^F_{\alpha\beta}=C^F_{\beta\alpha}=\operatorname{cov}_F(\epsilon^2_\alpha(\theta),\epsilon^2_{\beta}(\theta)).$$ We define the error of a structure property function in a testing set without DFT calculations by approximating the unknown DFT calculations of the structure property function with its Bayesian prediction. Based on [Eqn. (\[eqn:error\])]{}, $\langle \epsilon^2(\theta)\rangle_F$ is approximated by $\operatorname{var}_F(A(\theta))$, and so a testing set can include structures *in the absense of* DFT calculations.
We need to evaluate the integral in [Eqn. (\[eqn:mean\])]{} to calculate the Bayesian predictions and Bayesian error estimation. For complicated high-dimensional, non-linear models such as empirical potentials, the integral cannot be evaluated in closed form, and the high-dimensionality makes direct numerical quadrature converge slowly. We instead use Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to numerically integrate. The chain of $N_\text{samples}$ will contain a set of $N$ independent samples $\{\theta_n\}$ (where $N_\text{samples}/N$ is the autocorrelation length), and the numerical estimate of the mean is $$\langle A_\alpha(\theta)\rangle_F=\frac{\int P(\theta;F)A_\alpha(\theta) \, d\theta}{\int P(\theta;F) \, d\theta}\approx \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N A_\alpha(\theta_n),
\label{eqn:MCMC}$$ with a sampling error of $\sqrt{\operatorname{var}_F(A_\alpha(\theta))/N}$. Hence, once fitting is complete, the “best” set of parameters ${\theta^\text{MLE}}$ defines the empirical potential for predictions, while the ensemble of parameters $\{\theta_n\}$ allows the estimation of errors on those predictions.
Database Optimization {#sec:optimization}
=====================
We define an optimal fitting database based on Bayesian errors in the testing set. An empirical potential model should reproduce DFT calculations for a set of atomic environments described by structures in a testing set, and so the Bayesian errors of structure property functions in the testing set are the quantities of interest. Because different types of structure property functions have different units, different error magnitudes, and different degrees of freedom, we need an unbiased choice of objective function to evaluate different fitting database performances based on the Bayesian errors for the same testing set. Here, we consider the difference of the logarithm of the Bayesian errors for one structure property function for two different fitting databases, $F_1$ and $F_2$ $$\ln \langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}-\ln\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}=\ln \frac{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}}{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}}=\ln\left(1+\frac{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}-\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}}{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}}\right).$$ If $\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}-\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}$ is small, then $\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}\approx\frac{1}{2}\left(\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}+\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}\right)$, and $$\ln \langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}-\ln\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}\approx \frac{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}-\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}}{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}}\approx 2\frac{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}-\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}}{\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_1}+\langle\epsilon_\beta^2\rangle_{F_2}}.$$ Then the right side of the equation is a relative difference in errors. We propose the objective function of a fitting database $F$ with testing set $T$, $$O(F;T)=\sum_{\beta \in T} \ln \langle\epsilon_\beta^2(\theta)\rangle_F,
\label{eqn:Obj_func}$$ so that $O(F_1,T)-O(F_2,T)$ is approximately the sum of relative differences in error. Then, the optimal fitting database minimizes the sum log Bayesian errors for a testing set $T$. The objective function is implicitly dependent on the relative weights in the fitting database through the Bayesian error. The gradient of the objective function with respect to weight is analytically calculable (c.f., [Eqn. (\[eqn:dedw\])]{}). We obtain the optimal weights in the fitting database by minimizing the objective function. Hence we will be able to compare potentials fitted with different fitting databases with respect to the same testing set.
However, the minimum of the objective function can be trivial for pathological fitting databases and testing set combinations. A pathological fitting database and testing set combination is an *underdetermined* fitting database, where the MLE predictions can match the true values of a DFT calculation in both the fitting database and testing set. Thus, if $\langle\epsilon_\beta^2(\theta)\rangle_F\to0$ for any structure $\beta$, then $O(F;T)$ approaches $-\infty$ logarithmically. In order to eliminate the trivial minimum of pathological databases, we introduce a threshold function $t(x)$, $$t(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
x & \colon \mbox{$x \geq 2\epsilon^2_0$}\\
x^2/4\epsilon^2_0+\epsilon^2_0 & \colon \mbox{$x < 2\epsilon^2_0$}\end{array} \right. ,$$ that creates a finite minimum of $\langle\epsilon_\beta^2(\theta)\rangle_F$ at $\epsilon_0$. We can choose different error tolerances $\epsilon_0$ for each testing set structure property function. The objective function is then $$O(F;T)=\sum_{\beta\in T} \ln t(\langle\epsilon_\beta^2(\theta)\rangle_F),
\label{eqn:Obj_func_00}$$ and the derivative of the objective function is $$\frac{\partial O(F;T)}{\partial w_{\alpha}}=\sum_{\beta\in T} \frac{t'(\langle \epsilon_{\beta}^2(\theta)\rangle_F)}{\langle \epsilon_{\beta}^2(\theta)\rangle_F}\frac{\partial \langle \epsilon_{\beta}^2(\theta)\rangle_F}{\partial w_{\alpha}},$$ where the derivative calculations are from [Eqn. (\[eqn:dedw\])]{} and [Eqn. (\[eqn:derv\_thres\])]{}. The derivative of the threshold function is $$t'(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1 & \colon \mbox{$x \geq 2\epsilon^2_0$}\\
x/2\epsilon^2_0 & \colon \mbox{$x < 2\epsilon^2_0$}\end{array} \right. .
\label{eqn:derv_thres}$$ Finally, note that as our likelihood function is independent of $\sum_\alpha w_\alpha$, so $$\sum_\alpha w_\alpha \frac{\partial O(F; T)}{\partial w_\alpha} = 0.$$
The optimal weights are found by minimizing $O(F; T)$, and this includes the addition and removal of structures from the fitting database. According to the definition of the likelihood function, [Eqn. (\[eqn:LogL\])]{}, the fitting database could include any structures with DFT calculations with a non-negative relative weight value. Structures with positive weight values are structures to fit, and all the other structures that do not contribute to the fitting will have a weight of zero. The optimal weight value can be determined *even for structures not presently in the fitting database*. A structure is added to the fitting database if its optimal weight value is positive, as inclusion of that structure decreases the relative error in the testing set. A structure is removed from the fitting database if its optimal weight value is zero or negative, since removing the structure decreases the relative error in the testing set.
![Schematic of a new fitting database optimization algorithm. After selecting a testing set $T$, and an initial fitting database $F$, we find the best set of potential parameters, given by the maximum likelihood estimate ${\theta^\text{MLE}}$. We then use Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to generate an ensemble of $\{\theta_n\}$ independent parameters; with this ensemble, we estimate the prediction errors $\langle \epsilon_\beta(\theta)^2\rangle_F$ and compute the gradient of the objective function $O(F; T)$. If the gradients are nonzero, we determine optimal weights $w_\alpha$, as well as consider addition ($w^\text{optimal}_\alpha>0$) or removal ($w^\text{optimal}_\alpha<0$) of structures from the database, and reenter the loop. Once the gradients are zero, we can determine if the testing set errors are acceptable for use; if not, either the range of transferability is lower—indicating a smaller testing set $T$ is needed—or the potential function requires additional flexibility to increase the transferability, and the algorithm is reentered.[]{data-label="fig:flow_chart"}](fig1.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
[Fig. \[fig:flow\_chart\]]{} outlines the new interatomic potential development algorithm based on Bayesian statistics. It starts with a conventional interatomic potential fitting procedure by selecting a potential functional form and DFT structural energies and forces forming a DFT data set. We build the fitting database with a set of structures from the DFT data set and assign each structure with a relative weight. The testing set also contains a set of structures from the DFT data set that test the ability of the potential to model atomic environment outside of the fitting data. We apply non-linear weighted least squares regression to obtain the MLE of parameters of the empirical potential model, and use Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)[@Givens:2005vn] sampling of the posterior distribution to generate the ensemble of parameters around the MLE. We calculate the mean-squared errors of the testing set structures using the parameter ensemble, and construct the objective function and its gradients. Next, we apply a conjugate-gradient method to optimize the objective function and obtain the optimal weights of the fitting database; we can also determine if structures should be added or removed from the fitting database. This step can take advantage of structural searching methods,[@Feng:2008] for example, to identify candidate structures, though we do not do so here. We repeat the circuit with the modified relative weight set of the fitting database until the optimal weights converge.
The testing set is the key component of this approach not only because the objective function consists of the mean squared errors of the testing set structures, but also the empirical potential predictions for structures in the testing set should have small errors—whether that is known from comparison with DFT calculations or estimated from Bayesian sampling *without* DFT. With the relative errors in the testing set minimized, any weight deviation from the optimal will result in an increase in relative errors. This means that while we could choose weights to reduce the error of one or several testing set structure property function predictions, it will worsen the predictions of other structures and the trade-off is not worthwhile. Although we are able to optimize the fitting database of the empirical potential models, an optimal fitting database does not guarantee a reliable empirical potential model. The optimization algorithm provides the best possible empirical interatomic potential for a given a fitting database and a given testing set, but it has no judgment on whether the optimal Bayesian errors are acceptable; they can, in fact, be quite large. This can occur if the empirical potential model does not contain the relevant physics to describe the atomic environments in the testing set, which produces reduced transferability. Then, we must—for predictive empirical potential methods—decide to improve the potential model itself to increase transferability or remove structures from the testing set to optimize for reduced transferability.
Implementation on Lennard-Jones Potential fitting of Ti {#sec:LJ-Ti}
=======================================================
Potential form and calculation details
--------------------------------------
We apply the database optimization algorithm to a simple empirical interatomic potential model, the Lennard-Jones potential. The Lennard-Jones potential is a two-parameter pair potential: $$\begin{split}
V_2(r;r_0,E_\text{b})=&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
4E_\text{b}\left[\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^{12}-\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^6\right]& \colon \mbox{$r \leq r_{\text{cutoff}}$}\\
0 & \colon \mbox{$r > r_{\text{cutoff}}$}\end{array} \right.\\
&-V_2(r_\text{cutoff};r_0,E_\text{b})
\end{split}
\label{eqn:LJ}$$ where $E_\text{b}$ is the binding energy of a dimer with a separation of $\sqrt[6]{2}r_0$. We choose the cutoff radius $r_{\textrm{cutoff}}=3r_0$, and the allowable parameters are $r_0>0, E_\text{b}>0$.
hcp bcc fcc hexagonal A15 $\omega$
--------------- ------- ------- ------- ----------- ------- ----------
*a* (Å) 2.947 3.261 4.124 2.739 5.192 4.590
*c/a* 1.583 N/A N/A 0.999 N/A 0.619
$E$/atom (eV) 0.000 0.108 0.058 0.353 0.192 –0.005
: DFT energy calculations of Ti crystal structures. Six different crystal structures were calculated using DFT-GGA. The six crystal structures are hcp, bcc, fcc, simple hexagonal, A15 and $\omega$. The common low temperature phase is hcp, bcc is the high temperature phase, and $\omega$ is a high pressure phase nearly degenerate in energy with hcp.[]{data-label="tab:Ti_DFT"}
The DFT data set contains six different crystal structures of Ti and the energy versus volume data for all six structures. The DFT calculations are performed with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vasp</span>[@Kresse:1993wy; @Kresse:1996um], a plane-wave density functional code. We apply a Ti ultrasoft Vanderbilt type pseudopotential,[@Vanderbilt:1990], with a plane-wave cutoff energy of 400eV for energy convergence of 0.3meV/atom.[@Hennig:2008mb] The k-point meshes for different structures are, $16\times16\times12$ for hcp, $32\times32\times32$ for bcc, $24\times24\times24$ for fcc, $16\times16\times16$ for hexagonal, $8\times8\times8$ for A15 and $12\times12\times20$ for $\omega$, with Methfessel-Paxton smearing parameter of 0.2eV to obtain an energy accuracy of 1meV/atom.[@Hennig:2005kx; @Hennig:2008mb] The energy versus volume data includes four different structures with volume of the unit cell as $0.95V_0, 0.975V_0, 1.025V_0$ and $1.05V_0$, where $V_0$ is the unit cell volume of the equilibrium structure. The fitting databases are built from various energy differences and energy versus volume data combinations among the six crystal structures. We generate the Markov chain of the potential parameters using the Metropolis-Hasting algorithm.[@Givens:2005vn] The ensemble of the potential parameters contains $10^4$ independent parameter sets from the MCMC simulation with $10^6$ attempted steps, with an auto-correlation length of approximately 100. We use a reweighting scheme discussed in Appendix \[app:reweight\] to approximate the objective function values for all possible sets of weights with only one sampling run. Since a radial potential model does not describe the physics of metallic bonding, we expect that the Lennard-Jones potential will not be transferable for testing sets containing many different structures. Our goal is for the algorithm to identify this lack of transferability in the optimization. We systematically consider different types of fitting databases and testing sets with this in mind.
Two structured fitting database
-------------------------------
We start with a simple fitting database that contains two structural energy differences, and a testing set with the same structures. [Fig. \[fig:binary\]]{} shows two typical objective function behaviors considering all possible weight combinations of two different two-structured fitting database and testing set combinations. [Fig. \[fig:binary01\]]{} shows the behavior of the objective function of a fitting database with $E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}$ and $E_{\text{A15-fcc}}$. The objective function has a unique minimum with a specific relative weight ratio of the two structures. Moreover, if we calculate the derivative of the objective function with respect to weight at endpoints (where one weight is zero), we can see that each derivative of the objective function with respect to weights indicates that the other structure should be added to the fitting database. Therefore the optimal weight value for both fitting database structures are positive, and we refer this as a “mixed” fitting database. On the other hand, [Fig. \[fig:binary02\]]{} shows a fitting database with $E_{\text{fcc-bcc}}$ and $E_{\text{hcp-bcc}}$. The objective function has minima at the endpoints, which means that a fitting database containing both $E_{\text{hcp-bcc}}$ and $E_{\text{fcc-bcc}}$ has higher relative errors for the testing set than a “pathological” fitting databases with only one structure. This is due to the non-transferability between hcp and fcc structures. We refer to these pathological cases as “unmixed” fitting databases.
[Fig. \[fig:binary\_all\]]{} shows the result of optimizing all possible combinations of two-structured fitting databases with two energy differences sharing a common reference structure. Databases with physical MLEs with positive $E_\text{b}$ and $r_0$ are either mixed or unmixed two-structured fitting databases. Most mixed fitting databases include fcc, bcc, hex and A15 structures and most unmixed fitting databases includes hcp or $\omega$ energy differences. By exploring a wide phase space (six crystal structures of Ti) of Lennard-Jones potential fitting, we have shown that the database optimization algorithm offers an automated, systematic and quantitative way of analyzing empirical potential model fitting with different fitting and testing sets.
![All two-structured fitting databases, testing against the same two-structured testing set, where the energy differences share a common reference structure. The green elements represent mixed fitting databases, the red elements indicate unmixed fitting databases, and the $\times$ elements shows databases without a physical MLE.[]{data-label="fig:binary_all"}](fig3.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
Three-structured fitting database
---------------------------------
We next apply the database optimization algorithm to the three-structured fitting databases where the testing set contains the same structures as the fitting database. [Fig. \[fig:fhexA15\]]{} is the Gibbs triangle (so that $\sum_\alpha w_\alpha = 1$) contour plot for the objective function for a fitting database constructed from $E_{\text{fcc-bcc}}$, $E_{\text{hex-bcc}}$ and $E_{\text{A15-bcc}}$. All three of the simpler two-structured fitting databases contained in the three-structured fitting database are mixed fitting databases, and there exists a global minimum in the interior of the Gibbs triangle. The optimal weights for all three fitting database structures are positive, with an optimal weight set $w_{E_{\text{fcc-bcc}}}=0.42$, $w_{E_{\text{hex-bcc}}}=0.42$, $w_{E_{\text{A15-bcc}}}=0.16$. If we start with any two-structured fitting database and consider the optimal weight value for the third structure, the gradients of the objective function for the third structure are negative. This indicates that the inclusion of the third structure will decrease the relative errors. [Fig. \[fig:poly01\]]{} shows the comparison of the prediction distributions with equal weights and optimal weights, where the optimal weight set provides reasonable predictions for all three testing set structures. Note, however, that we are only testing energies at *one volume* for each structure; we will consider the addition of volume changes in [Section \[sec:e\_vs\_vol\]]{}.
![Gibbs triangle contour plot of the objective function of the three-structured fitting database fcc+hex+A15 with bcc as reference structure and the testing set contains the same structures. The optimal database, marked by $\times$, is obtained in the interior area with weights $w_{E_{\text{fcc-bcc}}}=0.42$, $w_{E_{\text{hex-bcc}}}=0.42$, $w_{E_{\text{A15-bcc}}}=0.16$.[]{data-label="fig:fhexA15"}](fig4.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
![Three-structured fitting database prediction distribution for fcc+hex+A15, with bcc as reference structure. The first row of distributions are calculated with equal weights, and the second row are calculated with the optimal weight set, $w_{E_{\text{fcc-bcc}}}=0.42$, $w_{E_{\text{hex-bcc}}}=0.42$, $w_{E_{\text{A15-bcc}}}=0.16$.[]{data-label="fig:poly01"}](fig5.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
[Fig. \[fig:bhexA15\]]{} is a Gibbs triangle for a three-structured fitting database constructed from $E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}$, $E_{\text{hex-fcc}}$, and $E_{\text{A15-fcc}}$. While all three of the two-structured fitting databases are mixed fitting databases, the minimum occurs between $E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}$ and $E_{\text{hex-fcc}}$. The optimal weight values are $w_{E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}}=0.46, w_{E_{\text{hex-fcc}}}=0.54$ and $w_{E_{\text{A15-fcc}}}=0$. The gradient of $w_{E_{\text{A15-fcc}}}$ from the two-structured fitting database $E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}$ and $E_{\text{hex-fcc}}$ is positive meaning fitting to $E_{\text{A15-fcc}}$ will increase the relative errors in the testing set. [Fig. \[fig:poly02\]]{} shows comparison of the prediction distributions evaluated at equal weights and optimal weights. The prediction distribution shows that the optimal testing errors for all three structures are all about 5meV. Therefore, it suggests that for Lennard-Jones potential, one can fit bcc and hex structures to predict A15 structure well.
![Gibbs triangle contour plot of the objective function of the three-structured fitting database bcc+hex+A15, with fcc as reference structure and the testing set contains the same structures. The optimal database, marked by $\times$, is on the edge of $E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}$ and $E_{\text{hex-fcc}}$ for a two-structured fitting database with weights $w_{E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}}=0.46, w_{E_{\text{hex-fcc}}}=0.54$ and $w_{E_{\text{A15-fcc}}}=0$.[]{data-label="fig:bhexA15"}](fig6.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
![Three-structured fitting database prediction distribution for bcc+hex+A15 with fcc as reference structure. The first row of distributions are calculated with equal weights and the second row are calculated with the optimal weight set, $w_{E_{\text{bcc-fcc}}}=0.46, w_{E_{\text{hex-fcc}}}=0.54$ and $w_{E_{\text{A15-fcc}}}=0$.[]{data-label="fig:poly02"}](fig7.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
[Fig. \[fig:fhexA15hcp\]]{} is a Gibbs triangle for a three-structured fitting database constructed from $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$ and $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$. Now, all three of the two-structured fitting databases are unmixed fitting databases. Based on the Gibbs triangle contour plot of the objective function, the optimal database includes only one structure $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$. Adding any of our candidate structures to this will increase the relative errors and worsen the predictions. [Fig. \[fig:poly03\]]{} shows comparison of the prediction distributions evaluated at initial weight and optimal weight. The potential yields a very good prediction for $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$, but poor estimates for the other two structures. If we use this optimal Lennard-Jones potential to predict $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$ and $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$, the optimal distributions show that the probability of getting the true values are very low. For $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, the true value is 58meV with Bayesian errors of 93meV, and for $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$, the true value is 192meV with Bayesian error of 30.8meV. It reveals that the optimal Lennard-Jones potential is not transferrable for this testing set, as we expect.
![Gibbs triangle contour plot of the objective function of the three-structured fitting database, fcc+hex+A15 with hcp as reference structure and the testing set contains the same structures. The optimal database, marked by $\times$, is at the corner of $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$ for a single database with the optimal weights $w_{E_{\text{bcc-hcp}}}=0, w_{E_{\text{hex-hcp}}}=1$ and $w_{E_{\text{A15-hcp}}}=0$.[]{data-label="fig:fhexA15hcp"}](fig8.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
![Three-structured fitting database prediction distribution for fcc+hex+A15 with hcp as reference structure. The first row of distributions are calculated with equal weights and the second row is calculated with the optimal weight set, $w_{E_{\text{bcc-hcp}}}=0, w_{E_{\text{hex-hcp}}}=1$ and $w_{E_{\text{A15-hcp}}}=0$.[]{data-label="fig:poly03"}](fig9.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
Structural energy differences and volume changes {#sec:e_vs_vol}
------------------------------------------------
Next we apply the algorithm to larger fitting database and testing set combinations. The testing set includes the energy differences between hcp and the other five structures and hcp energy versus volume data. We use four hcp structures with unit-cell volumes of $0.95V_0, 0.975V_0, 1.025V_0$ and $1.05V_0$, for the hcp equilibrium volumes $V_0$. The fitting database starts with the same set of structures and the hcp energy versus volume data. For the four structures representing the hcp energy versus volume data, we constrain their weights to be equal during weight optimization. The $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$ and hcp energy versus volume data have optimal weight values: $w_{E_{\text{hex-hcp}}}=0.548$ and $w_{\text{hcp-e-vol}}=0.452$, and all other weights are zero. [Fig. \[fig:e\_vol\_hcp2\]]{} shows that after weight optimization, the inclusion of hcp energy versus volume data improves the prediction of the shape of the energy versus volume curve. It also shows the automatic removal of structures from the database by the optimization algorithm.
![Prediction for the hcp energy versus volume curve with fitting database including $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$ and hcp energy versus volume data and testing set including all hcp energy differences and hcp energy versus volume data. $E_\text{hcp}(V)$ with (a) an equal weight set and (b) with the optimal weight set: $w_{E_{\text{hex-hcp}}}=0.548$, $w_{E_\text{hcp}(V)}=0.452$ and all other weights 0.[]{data-label="fig:e_vol_hcp2"}](fig10.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
We next expand our testing set to include energy versus volume data for all six structures along with the structural energy differences. Our fitting database starts with all structural energy differences, and the hcp energy versus volume data—but not the other energy versus volume data. Now, the $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$ energy difference and hcp energy versus volume data have optimal weight values $w_{E_{\text{hex-hcp}}}=0.454$ and $w_{\text{hcp-e-vol}}=0.546$. In [Fig. \[fig:e\_vol\_hcp3\]]{}, after weight optimization, the predictions for hcp energy versus volume data improve significantly compared to the initial equal weight guess. [Fig. \[fig:bf\_e\_vol\]]{} shows that the optimal fitting database offers a close prediction of the shape of fcc energy versus volume curve, which is expected since the fcc and hcp structures have the same first nearest neighbor atoms. Bayesian error of the four bcc energy differences is too large to have a good predictions for the bcc energy versus volume curve. Similarly, in [Fig. \[fig:hexomega\_e\_vol\]]{}, sloppy predictions for hex and $\omega$ energy versus volume data are obtained from the optimized fitting database. Hence, the optimal Lennard-Jones potential with the given fitting database and testing set combination does not have enough flexibility to predict energy versus volume curve for bcc, hex and $\omega$.
![Prediction for the hcp energy versus volume curve with fitting database including $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$ and hcp energy versus volume data and testing set including all hcp energy differences and all six energy versus volume data. $E_\text{hcp}(V)$ with (a) an equal weight set and (b) with the optimal weight set: $w_{E_{\text{hex-hcp}}}=0.454$, $w_{\text{hcp-e-vol}}=0.546$ and and all other weights 0.[]{data-label="fig:e_vol_hcp3"}](fig11.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
![Prediction for the bcc and fcc energy versus volume curve with fitting database including $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$, and hcp energy versus volume data, and testing set including all hcp energy differences and all six energy versus volume data. (a) $E_\text{bcc}(V)$ and (b) $E_\text{fcc}(V)$ with the optimal weight set from [Fig. \[fig:e\_vol\_hcp3\]]{}.[]{data-label="fig:bf_e_vol"}](fig12.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
![Prediction for the hex and $\omega$ energy versus volume curve with fitting database including $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$, and hcp energy versus volume data, and testing set including all hcp energy differences and all six energy versus volume data. (a) $E_\text{hex}(V)$ and (b) $E_\omega(V)$ with the optimal weight set from [Fig. \[fig:e\_vol\_hcp3\]]{}.[]{data-label="fig:hexomega_e_vol"}](fig13.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
Defect structures without DFT data
----------------------------------
Finally, we demonstrate the inclusion of a structure without DFT calculations in the testing set. As we explained in [Section \[sec:bayes\]]{}, we assign the structure property prediction as the mean value of the ensemble of the prediction. The “unknown" structure we add in the testing set is an unrelaxed hcp $4\times4\times3$ supercell containing one vacancy, and the structure property function is the vacancy formation energy. As we are not including DFT data, the comparison is to the mean value of the vacancy formation energy from our empirical potential. The fitting database includes $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$ and $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$ and hcp energy versus volume data. The testing set consists of all hcp energy difference, all six energy versus volume data and the single hcp vacancy configuration. [Fig. \[fig:vacancy\]]{} shows the prediction distributions of the vacancy formation energy before optimization and after optimization. The $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$ energy difference and hcp energy versus volume data have optimal weight values: $w_{E_{\text{hex-hcp}}}=0.447$ and $w_{\text{hcp-e-vol}}=0.553$. The result shows a significant variance reduction for the vacancy formation energy prediction. It suggests that the prediction will be accurate if the DFT calculation locates within the high likelihood parameter neighborhood of the empirical potential prediction.
![Prediction for the hcp vacancy formation energy for two different fitting databases. The fitting database is equally weighted $E_{\text{fcc-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{hex-hcp}}$, $E_{\text{A15-hcp}}$ and hcp energy versus volume data. The bottom is an optimized fitting database where the testing set includes all hcp energy differences, all six energy versus volume data and vacancy configuration. However, the vacancy formation energy from DFT *is not used as input*, and instead is estimated from the potential prediction.[]{data-label="fig:vacancy"}](fig14.pdf){width="\figwidth"}
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
We combine conventional potential parameter optimization methods and the Bayesian sampling technique to propose a new definition of optimal fitting database of empirical interatomic potential models. We choose an objective function as a function of prediction errors for the testing set, and show that minimizing the objective function is equivalent to minimizing the sum of relative errors in the testing set. We optimize the relative weights in the fitting database to minimize the objective function and quantitatively determine the inclusion and removal of structures in the fitting database. Moreover, the performances of two different fitting databases applied on the same testing set can be compared. The algorithm is demonstrated by a simple classical potential model, Lennard-Jones potential fitting of Ti. We go through all possible combinations of two-structured and three-structured fitting databases and analyze the behavior of the objective function with respect to weight change. The new algorithm leads to the best possible empirical interatomic potential model based on the current fitting database and testing set combination.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors thank Yuguo Chen, Henry Wu, and Michael Fellinger for useful comments. This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research through ONR Award No. N000141210752.
Reweighting of the sampling chain {#app:reweight}
=================================
When weights are changed in the database, we need to reevaluate the mean in [Eqn. (\[eqn:mean\])]{} using [Eqn. (\[eqn:MCMC\])]{}. A change to the weights in the fitting database changes the likelihood function to $L(\theta;F^*)$. We rewrite $\langle A(\theta)\rangle_{F^*}$ as $$\begin{split}
\langle A(\theta)\rangle_{F^*} &=\frac{\int \frac{P(\theta;F^*)}{P(\theta;F)}A(\theta)P(\theta;F) \, d\theta}{\int \frac{P(\theta;F^*)}{P(\theta;F)}P(\theta;F) \, d\theta}=\frac{\int \frac{L(\theta;F^*)}{L(\theta;F)}A(\theta)P(\theta;F) \, d\theta}{\int \frac{L(\theta;F^*)}{L(\theta;F)}P(\theta;F) \, d\theta}\\
&\approx \frac{\sum_{i=1}^N A(\theta_i)\frac{L(\theta_i;F^*)}{L(\theta_i;F)}}{\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{L(\theta_i;F^*)}{L(\theta_i;F)}}.
\end{split}$$ Thus a reweighting term is assigned to the original data, and provides new predictions without requiring a new sampling chain.
[36]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.29.6443) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.2727) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.6941) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0920-2307(93)90001-U) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0022-3115(99)00166-X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0022-5096(02)00119-9) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.63.224106) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.045507) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.125101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.40.6085) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0965-0393/2/i=1/a=011) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.75.085311) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.81.125328) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0965-0393/8/i=6/a=305) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.78.054121) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.85.214121) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0965-0393/4/i=3/a=004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.144119) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.83.134118) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.33.7983) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S1359-6454(01)00287-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2666) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.632) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.46.2250) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0295-5075/26/i=8/a=005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.165501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.47.558) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat1292)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In graph theory a partition of the vertex set of a graph is called equitable if for all pairs of cells all vertices in one cell have an equal number of neighbours in the other cell. Considering the implications for the adjacency matrix one may generalize that concept as a block partition of a complex square matrix s.t. each block has constant row sum. It is well known that replacing each block by its row sum yields a smaller matrix whose multiset of eigenvalues is contained in the initial spectrum. We generalize this approach to weighted row sums and rectangular matrices and derive an efficient unitary transformation which approximately block triangularizes a matrix w.r.t. an arbitrary partition. Singular values and Hermiticity (if present) are preserved. The approximation is exact in the equitable case and the error can be bounded in terms of unitarily invariant matrix norms.'
author:
- Mario Thüne
bibliography:
- 'MTh\_EEPfEBT\_ref.bib'
title: Exploiting Equitable Partitions for Efficient Block Triangularization
---
Introduction
============
Equitable Partitions
--------------------
Let $\Gamma$ be a (multi-)graph and let $\mathbf{A}$ be its adjacency matrix, whose entries $a_{vw}$ are the number of edges connecting vertices $v$ and $w$. Let $\Pi=\left(c_1,\ldots,c_k\right)$ be a partition of the vertex set of $\Gamma$ into $k$ cells, inducing a block partition of $\mathbf{A}$, i.e. a simultaneous (disjoint and exhaustive) partition of its rows and columns. It is convenient to define an *indicator matrix* of a partition as
\[defB\] $$\mathbf{B}=\left(b_{vi}\right)\in\left\{0,1\right\}^{N\times k}\text{ with }b_{vi}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}1&\text{, if item $v$ is in cell $i$}\\0&\text{, else.}\end{array}\right.$$
The partition $\Pi$ is called equitable if all vertices of $\Gamma$ in the same cell have the same number of neighbours in any cell. Equivalently, we may call it equitable if each induced submatrix of $\mathbf{A}$ has constant row sum. The equitable partitions of $\mathbf{A}$ ordered by refinement form a lattice which contains the trivial equitable partition, in which every cell has size exactly one, as the minimum. From the definition it follows that a partition of $\mathbf{A}$ is equitable if and only if there exits a matrix $\mathbf{\Theta}=\left(\theta_{ij}\right)$ s.t. $$\label{equiCentral}
\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}\mathbf{\Theta}
\quad\text{i.e.}\quad
\forall\ i,j\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}\ \forall\ u\in\left\{1,\ldots,n_i\right\}\ \sum\limits_v^{n_j}\mathbf{A}_{ij,{uv}}=\theta_{ij}.$$ The matrix $\mathbf{\Theta}$ is called the quotient of the partition. Its entries $\theta_{ij}$ are the constant row sums of the matrix blocks $A_{ij}$ induced by the cells $c_i$ and $c_j$, which are the number of edges connecting a fixed vertex in $c_i$ to vertices in $c_j$.
Applications in Graph and Matrix Theory
---------------------------------------
The notion of equitable partitions was developed in graph theory. In network analysis the same concept is also known as *exact coloration* [@EB94RegEqu] or *exact role assignment* [@lerner2005assignments]. It is closely related to *graph fibration* [@BV02FibGra] and arises naturally in the context of graph automorphisms problems since every non trivial automorphism induces a non trival equitable partition. As graph invariants which can be searched for quickly using quite efficient algorithms, equitable partitions are useful in attacking graph isomorphism problems. In that context they are also known as *1-dimensional Weisfeiler-Lehman stabilizers* [@CFI92OptLow].Block partitioned matrices s.t. each block has constant row sum are called *block-stochastic matrices*. In the context of markov chains the technique of *lumping* exploits equitable partitions in order to reduce the number of states [@Buchholz94]. The quotient $\mathbf{\Theta}$ is also known as the *front divisor* [@CDS80SpeGra]. Famously, the spectrum of $\mathbf{\Theta}$, called the main spectrum, is a subset of the spectrum of $\mathbf{A}$ since the columns of $\mathbf{B}$ span an invariant subspace if holds. Therefore, there is a similarity transformation which $2\times2$ block triangularizes $\mathbf{A}$ s.t. one diagonal block is the quotient. Such a transformation can be constructed and applied efficiently in a way provided in [@H59AppThe], [@Chang2011559]. The block triangularization method given below differs from that approach in order to fit in a generalized framework of equitability and provides efficient unitary transformations.
Aim and Outline
---------------
We will generalize the notion of ordinary equitable partitions to arbitrary weighted partitions of the rows and columns of complex matrices. According to a given partition we derive an efficient and stable unitary similarity transformation in order to $2\times2$ block triangularize the matrix up to an error term, which is minimized w.r.t. to several matrix norms and vanishes if and only if exact equitability holds. The transformation can be computed in $O\left(N\right)$ and applied in $O\left(N^2\right)$. It can be further generalized enabling the application to rectangular matrices while maintaining the unitarity property. However the further generalized transformation does only preserve the singular values, but (in general) not the spectrum.Despite offering insides into the structure of objects represented by a graph or a matrix our notion of equitability and its corresponding transformation may be used for compression and for preprocessing eigen and singular value problems. Although describing our transformation as an efficient compression method may seem to suggest that the exploited structure is, in a sense, rare, the concept of equitable partitions, as indicated above, is rather common in various applications, where it is found directly in the studied problem or as an interesting exceptional or ideal case. The usefulness might be increased in particular by the fact that deviations from an exact equitability may be allowed within our framework. In order to get used to the concept and some notation, we briefly discuss in section the special case of an ordinary unweighted equitable partition of a complex square matrix including the derivation of the associated efficient unitary block triangularization and we give an example. In the main part, section , we consider weighted not necessarily equitable partitions introducing the deviation matrix and give our main theorem. In section we consider non exact equitability as an eigenvalue perturbation, give a short overview of several other known generalizations of equation , and briefly consider the problem of finding an equitable partition. Our further generalized version of the concept applicable to rectangular matrices can be found in the appendix.Throughout the article we use the apostrophe to denote the complex conjugated transpose without distinguishing between real and complex operands and we utilize the following notation
Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$. $\mathbf{j}_n=(\hspace{0.1em}\underbrace{1,\ldots,1}_{\text{$n$ times}}\hspace{0.1em})'$ and $\mathbf{f}_n=(1,\hspace{-0.5em}\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{\text{$(n-1)$ times}}\hspace{-0.5em})'$.
Unweighted Equitable Partitions {#secUEP}
===============================
Indicator Matrix and Quotient
-----------------------------
Let $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ and let $\Pi=\left(c_1,\ldots,c_k\right)$ be a simultaneous (disjoint and exhaustive) partition of its rows and columns with *indicator matrix* $\mathbf{B}$ as in definition . Let $\mathbf{A}_{ij}\in\mathbf{C}^{n_i\times n_j}$ be the matrix block in $\mathbf{A}$ induced by row cell $c_i$ and column cell $c_j$. Let $n_i$ be the size of the cell $c_i$ and let $$\mathbf{N}=\left(\mathbf{B}'\mathbf{B}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\sqrt{n_1},\ldots,\sqrt{n_k}\right)$$ We introduce the front quotient, the rear quotient and the Rayleigh quotient respectively as $$\mathbf{E}^{-}=\mathbf{N}^{-2}\mathbf{B}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B},\quad
\mathbf{E}^{+}=\mathbf{B}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{N}^{-2},\quad
\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{0}}=\mathbf{N}^{-1}\mathbf{B}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{N}^{-1}$$ We call $\mathbf{A}$ *front equitable* (i) and respectively *rear equitable* (ii) w.r.t. $\mathbf{B}$ if $$\label{FReq_part}
\left(i\right)\ \mathbf{A}\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}\mathbf{E}^{-}\quad,\quad
\left(ii\right)\ \mathbf{B}'\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{E}^{+}\mathbf{B}'.$$ It is easy to see that for Hermitian matrices row equitability and column equitability imply each other. For the rest of this section we assume front equitability, i.e. $$\label{fronteq}
\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{j}_{n_j}=e^{-}_{ij}\mathbf{j}_{n_i}\quad \forall\ i,j\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}.$$
Block Triangularization
-----------------------
In order to block triangularize $\mathbf{A}$ according to $\mathbf{B}$ we utilize the Householder matrices $$\label{EPhouseholder}
\mathbf{H}_i=\mathbf{I}_{n_i}-2\frac{\mathbf{y}_i\mathbf{y}_i'}{\mathbf{y}_i'\mathbf{y}_i}\ ,\quad
\mathbf{y}_i=\mathbf{j}_{i}+\sqrt{n_i}\mathbf{f}_{n_i}.$$ The following useful relations are easily verified $$\label{EPrelations}
\mathbf{H}_i\mathbf{f}_{n_i}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_i}}\mathbf{j}_{n_i}\quad,\quad
\mathbf{H}_i'\mathbf{j}_{n_i}=-\sqrt{n_i}\mathbf{f}_{n_i}.$$ In order to simplify notations but w.l.o.g. we assume *suitable indexing* which means that $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are indexed in such a way that for $u$ in cell $c_i$ and $v$ in cell $c_j$ it holds that $i<j$ implies $u<v$. Then our proposed transformation of $\mathbf{A}$ can be written conveniently in matrix form using the matrix $$\mathbf{\tilde{H}}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{H}_1,\ldots,\mathbf{H}_k\right),$$ which is explicitly block diagonal and, according to , unitary. $$\label{transformA}
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}=\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{\tilde{H}}
=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{11}&\cdots&\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{1k}\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{k1}&\cdots&\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{kk}
\end{array}\right)
\quad\text{with}\quad
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}=\mathbf{H}_{i}'\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{H}_{j}.$$ By and there exists a matrix $\mathbf{E}=\left(e_{ij}\right)$ s.t. $$\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}\mathbf{f}_{j}=e_{ij}\mathbf{f}_{n_i},$$ which immediately shows that each $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}$ is block triangular with the left upper block being the scalar $e_{ij}$. Therefore, there is a readily available, in general not unique permutation matrix $\mathbf{\Omega}$ such that $$\mathbf{\hat{A}}=\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{A}}\mathbf{\Omega}=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{E}&\mathbf{D}\\\mathbf{0}&\mathbf{F}\end{array}\right)$$ is explicitly block triangular. Since the applied transformations are unitary, the spectrum and the singular values of $\mathbf{A}$ are preserved. We will refer to $\mathbf{F}$, which in general depends on the indexing of $\mathbf{A}$ and on $\mathbf{\Omega}$, as a *factor*. One shows that all factors are unitarily equivalent and that by similarity $$\sigma\left(\mathbf{A}\right)=\sigma\left(\mathbf{E}\right)+\sigma\left(\mathbf{F}\right).$$ Additionally, if $\mathbf{v}$ is an eigenvector of $\mathbf{\hat{A}}$ then $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}\mathbf{\Omega}\mathbf{v}$ is an eigenvector of $\mathbf{A}$ to the same eigenvalue. One also shows that $\mathbf{D}$ vanishes if and only if rear equitability holds. The computational costs for the transformation $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}$ are of order $O\left(n_in_j\right)$ on each subblock for we apply only matrix vector multiplication and matrix addition since $\mathbf{H}_i$ is a rank one update of the identity. Therefore, the total costs are of order $O\left(N^2\right)$. Since $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}\mathbf{\Omega}$ is unitary, Hermiticity (if present) of $\mathbf{A}$ is preserved. Numeric stability is supported by using Householder matrices. Note that in this section we constructed $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}$ s.t. $\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{0}}$. In the general case those two matrices are unitarily equivalent but not necessarily identical.
Example
-------
Let $$\mathbf{A}_0=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&2&3&3&3&2\\
2&4&3&1&2&1\\
3&3&1&4&1&1\\
3&1&4&0&2&3\\
3&2&1&2&3&2\\
2&1&1&3&2&4
\end{array}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad
\mathbf{P}_0=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&1\\
0&0&0&1&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&1&0\\
0&0&1&0&0&0
\end{array}\right)$$ One verifies that $\mathbf{A}_0$ is (unweighted) front equitable w.r.t. $\Pi_0=\left(1\vert2,6\vert3,4,5\right)$. Using the permutation $\mathbf{P}_0$ we can transform it into the suitably indexed form $$\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{P}_0'\mathbf{A}_0\mathbf{P}_0=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&2&2&3&3&3\\
2&4&1&1&2&3\\
2&1&4&3&2&1\\
3&1&3&0&2&4\\
3&2&2&2&3&1\\
3&3&1&4&1&1
\end{array}\right),$$ which is (unweighted) front equitable w.r.t. $\Pi=\left(1\vert2,3\vert4,5,6\right)$ with front quotient $$\mathbf{E}^{-}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&4&9\\
2&5&6\\
3&4&6
\end{array}\right).$$ One may employ $$\mathbf{H}_1=\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{j}_1\right)=-1,$$ $$\mathbf{H}_2=\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{j}_2\right)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&1\\1&-1\end{array}\right),$$ $$\mathbf{H}_3=\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{j}_3\right)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1&1&1\\1&\frac{1+\sqrt{3}}{-2}&\frac{1-\sqrt{3}}{-2}\\1&\frac{1-\sqrt{3}}{-2}&\frac{1+\sqrt{3}}{-2}\end{array}\right)$$ and $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{H}_1,\mathbf{H}_2,\mathbf{H}_3\right)$ to transform $\mathbf{A}$ s.t. $$\mathbf{\tilde{A}}=\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{\tilde{H}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}&0&\frac{9}{\sqrt{3}}&0&0\\
\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}&5&0&6\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}&0&0\\
0&0&3&0&\mbox{-}3\scalebox{0.8}{\mbox{+}}\sqrt{3}&\mbox{-}3\mbox{-}\sqrt{3}\\
\frac{9}{\sqrt{3}}&6\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}&0&6&0&0\\
0&0&\mbox{-}3\scalebox{0.8}{\mbox{+}}\sqrt{3}&0&\sqrt{3}\mbox{-}1&\mbox{-}6\\
0&0&\mbox{-}3\mbox{-}\sqrt{3}&0&\mbox{-}6&\mbox{-}\sqrt{3}\mbox{-}1
\end{array}\right).$$ Using the permutation $\mathbf{\Omega}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&1
\end{array}\right)$ we obtain the matrix $$\mathbf{\hat{A}}=\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{A}}\mathbf{\Omega}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
1&\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{9}{\sqrt{3}}&0&0&0\\
\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}&5&6\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}&0&0&0\\
\frac{9}{\sqrt{3}}&6\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}&6&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&3&\mbox{-}3\scalebox{0.8}{\mbox{+}}\sqrt{3}&\mbox{-}3\mbox{-}\sqrt{3}\\
0&0&0&\mbox{-}3\scalebox{0.8}{\mbox{+}}\sqrt{3}&\sqrt{3}\mbox{-}1&\mbox{-}6\\
0&0&0&\mbox{-}3\mbox{-}\sqrt{3}&\mbox{-}6&\mbox{-}\sqrt{3}\mbox{-}1
\end{array}\right),$$ which is explicitly reducible. Since $\mathbf{A}$ is Hermitian, the (unweighted) partition $\Pi$ induces front and rear equitability and we actually obtain a block diagonal form. Note that both blocks are Hermitian but the front quotient $\mathbf{E}^{-}$ is not. One verifies that $$\mathbf{E}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{9}{\sqrt{3}}\\
\frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}&5&6\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}\\
\frac{9}{\sqrt{3}}&6\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}&6
\end{array}\right)=\operatorname{diag}\left(1,2,3\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{E}^{-}\operatorname{diag}\left(1,2,3\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Let $\mathbf{F}$ denote the lower diagonal block of $\mathbf{\hat{A}}$. Let $\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{E}}$ and $\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{F}}$ be the eigenvector matrices of $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{F}$, respectively. Then one shows that $$\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{P}_0\mathbf{\tilde{H}}\mathbf{\Omega}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{E}}&\mathbf{0}\\\mathbf{0}&\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{F}}\end{array}\right)$$ is an eigenvector matrix of $\mathbf{A}$. Note that $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ need more storage than $\mathbf{\hat{A}}$, $\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{E}}$, and $\mathbf{V}_{\mathbf{F}}$. The transformations $\mathbf{P}_0$, $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}$ and $\mathbf{\Omega}$ follow from $\Pi_0$ which can be stored as a vector. Due to the small size the blocks of $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}$ were given explicitly as dense matrices. For larger problems one would prefer the usual sparse form as a rank one update of the identity given in .
Weighted Equitable Partitions {#secWEP}
=============================
Preliminaries
-------------
In this section we generalize equitable partitions and accordingly the proposed block triangularization method for square matrices. We introduce the generalized quotient defined for arbitrary partitions of a matrix as a generalization of front and rear quotient. We also introduce the deviation vectors and the deviation matrix and utilize the norm of the latter in order to quantify deviations of a given partition from our generalized notion of equitability. The generalization of the efficient unitary similarity transformation introduced above yields a block triangularization up to an error term due to the deviation from equitability. A further generalization applicable to rectangular matrices preserving only singular values but in general not the spectrum is discussed in the appendix.Note that whenever we invert a matrix explicitly (i.e. not by complex conjugated transposition) this matrix is diagonal. The occasional uses of the pseudo inverse with the property $$c^{\dagger}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
0&,c=0\\ \frac{1}{c}&,\text{else}
\end{array}\right. ,\quad c\in\mathbb{C}$$ may be regarded as merely technical.
Complex Householder Transformations
-----------------------------------
This subsubsection aims at the transformation in definition and its properties given in . We consider elementary unitary matrices (EUMs) which are rank (at most) one updates of the identity and necessarily (in order to be unitary) [@S95EleUni] of the form $$\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{y}\right)=\mathbf{I}-\frac{2}{1+i\gamma}\left(\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}\right)^{\dagger}\mathbf{y}\mathbf{y}',\quad\mathbf{y}\in\mathbb{C}^{n},\gamma\in\mathbb{R}.$$ EUMs are a complex generalization of real Householder matrices [@H58UniTri], [@L96ComEle]. We observe that for $c\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\left\{0\right\}$ and $\mathbf{P}$ being a permutation matrix $$\label{eqEscale}
\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,c\mathbf{y}\right)=\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{y}\right)\ ,\quad
\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{P}\mathbf{y}\right)=\mathbf{P}\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{y}\right)\mathbf{P}'.$$ Let $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{z}$ be non vanishing complex vectors. We seek an EUM mapping $\mathbf{z}$ into the direction of $\mathbf{x}$, i.e. a complex vector $\mathbf{y}$ and a real number $\gamma$ s.t. $$\label{eqEytox}
\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{y}\right)\mathbf{z}=\alpha\mathbf{x}\quad\text{with}\quad\alpha\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\left\{0\right\},$$ which implies that $\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert$ and $\lVert\mathbf{z}\rVert$ determine $\alpha$ up to a phase factor $$\sqrt{\left(\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{y}\right)\mathbf{z}\right)
'\left(\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{y}\right)\mathbf{z}\right)}=
\lVert\mathbf{z}\rVert=\left|\alpha\right|\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert.$$ Again by $\mathbf{y}$ is a linear combination of $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{z}$, namely $$\label{u=y+ax=cu}
\mathbf{z}-\alpha\mathbf{x}=\frac{2}{1+i\gamma}\left(\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{y}\right)^{\dagger}\left(\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{z}\right)\mathbf{y}.$$ Since according to scaling of $\mathbf{y}$ does not change $\mathbf{U}\left(\gamma,\mathbf{y}\right)$ we may choose $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{x}-\frac{1}{\alpha}\mathbf{z}$. We are particular interested in the case $\mathbf{z}=\mathbf{f}_n$. Setting $\alpha=\beta\left|\alpha\right|$ and using , we reach in the non trivial case, $\mathbf{y}\neq0$, $$\label{eqGamma}
\gamma\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)=
\left(\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert-\operatorname{Re}\left(\beta x^1\right)\right)^{\dagger}\operatorname{Im}\left(\beta x^1\right).$$ Thus, the required EUM of $\mathbf{f}_n$ into the direction of $\mathbf{x}$ is determined up to a complex parameter $\beta$ lying on the unit circle. We introduce $$\label{H=U}
\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)=
\mathbf{U}\left({\gamma\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)},
\mathbf{x}-\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert\overline{\beta}\mathbf{f}_n\right)\text{ with }
\left|\beta\right|=1$$ and give an explicit definition.
\[def\_H(x)\] Let $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{C}^n$ with $\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert>0$, let $x^1=\mathbf{f}_n'\mathbf{x}$ denote its first entry and let $\beta$ be a complex number with $\left|\beta\right|=1$, then $$\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{I}_n & ,\frac{1}{\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert}\mathbf{x}=\overline{\beta}\mathbf{f}_n\\
\mathbf{I}_n+\frac{
\left(\mathbf{x}-\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert\overline{\beta}\mathbf{f}_n\right)
\left(\mathbf{x}-\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert\overline{\beta}\mathbf{f}_n\right)'}
{\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert\overline{\beta}\left(
\overline{x^1}-\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert\beta\right)} & ,\text{ else. }
\end{array}\right.$$
Using $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{x}-\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert\overline{\beta}\mathbf{f}_n$ we may rewrite $$\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)=\mathbf{I}_n+
\frac{\beta}{\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert}\left(\mathbf{y}'\mathbf{f}_n\right)^{\dagger}
\mathbf{y}\mathbf{y}'=\mathbf{I}_n-\left(\mathbf{x}'\mathbf{y}\right)^{\dagger}\mathbf{y}\mathbf{y}'.$$ And we summarize the following properties $$\label{eq_relations_H}
\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)\mathbf{f}_n
=\frac{\beta}{\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert}\mathbf{x}\quad
\text{and}\quad\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)'\mathbf{x}
=\frac{\lVert\mathbf{x}\rVert}{\beta}\mathbf{f}_n.$$ Since $\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)$ is a rank one update of $\mathbf{I}_n$, it can be stored with $O\left(n\right)$ and multiplied with a square matrix of size $n$ in $O\left(n^2\right)$. Note that $\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)$ crucially depends on the ordering of the entries of $\mathbf{x}$, $$\label{eq_permdependent_H}
\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{P}'\mathbf{x},\beta\right)\neq\mathbf{P}'\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{x},\beta\right)\mathbf{P}\quad\text{for general $\mathbf{x}$ and permutation matrix $\mathbf{P}$}.$$ Although its norm is determined to be $1$, the actual choice of $\beta$ is arbitrary. We may exploit that freedom in order to enhance the numerical properties of $\mathbf{H}\left(\beta,\mathbf{x}\right)$. Particular useful is a choice s.t. $\beta x^1\in\mathbb{R}$, implying $\gamma=0$ by and leading to a Hermitian matrix. Furthermore, for real $\mathbf{x}$, $\beta\in\left\{-1,1\right\}$ ensures a real matrix. A practical recommendation might be
\[beta0\] $\beta_0\left(\mathbf{x}\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{\overline{x^1}}{\left|x^1\right|}&, x^1\neq0\\
1&, x^1=0\end{array}\right.\quad,\ \mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{C}^n$,
which supports numerical stability and coincides with the usual recommendation for the numerical construction of a real Householder matrix. In the previous section we applied $\beta_0$ tacitly.
Weighted Partition, Quotient and Deviation Matrix
-------------------------------------------------
Let $\Pi=\left(c_1,\ldots,c_k\right)$ be a partition of $\{1,\ldots,N\}$ into $k$ cells with indicator matrix $\mathbf{B}$. Let $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ and $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$. We introduce the *weighted indicator matrix* .
\[defWIM\] Let $\Pi=\left(c_1,\ldots,c_k\right)$ be a partition of $\left\{1,\ldots,N\right\}$. Let $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^N$ and let $w^v$ denote its $v$-th entry. $$\mathbf{W}=\left(w_{vi}\right)\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times k}\text{ with }w_{vi}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}w^v&\ v\in c_i\\0&\text{, else}\end{array}\right.$$
A weighted indicator matrix $\mathbf{W}$ is called *admissible* if $\lVert\mathbf{w}_i\rVert$ for all vector blocks $\mathbf{w}_i$ induced by $c_i$. This implies that $\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}$ is invertible and ultimately ensures that the complete spectrum of the quotient, to be defined below, is contained in the spectrum of $\mathbf{A}$. For the rest of this section we assume admissibility.We call $\mathbf{W}$ *suitably indexed* if for $u\in c_i,v\in c_j$ it holds that $i<j$ implies $u<v$. In that case the index set is ordered block wise and $\mathbf{W}$ is explicitly block diagonal. In order to simplify the exposition, we may w.l.o.g. assume a suitable indexing.
\[defFM\]Let $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ and let $\mathbf{W}$ be an admissible weighted indicator matrix and let $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$. The *generalized quotient* $\mathbf{E}^{\alpha}$ is given by $$\mathbf{E}^{\alpha}=\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{-\frac{1-\alpha}{2}}\mathbf{W}'
\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{-\frac{1+\alpha}{2}}.$$
We call $\mathbf{E}^{0}$ the *Rayleigh quotient*. The matrix entries of $\mathbf{E}^{\alpha}$ are $$e^{\alpha}_{ij}=\left(\frac{1}{\lVert\mathbf{w}_i\rVert}\right)^{\left(1-\alpha\right)}
\mathbf{w}_i'\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{w}_j
\left(\frac{1}{\lVert\mathbf{w}_j\rVert}\right)^{\left(1+\alpha\right)}.$$ Since $\mathbf{E}^{\alpha}=\left(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{W}\right)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\mathbf{E}^0\left(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{W}\right)^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}$, all generalized quotients are similar. We distinguish the *front quotient* $\mathbf{E}^{-}=\mathbf{E}^{-1}$ and the *rear quotient* $\mathbf{E}^{+}=\mathbf{E}^{1}$. The matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is called *front equitable* w.r.t. $\mathbf{W}$ if and only if $$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}=\mathbf{W}\mathbf{E}^{-}
\quad\text{, i.e.}\quad
\forall\ i,j\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}\ \mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{w}_{j}=e^{-}_{ij}\mathbf{w}_{i}$$ and we call $\mathbf{A}$ *rear equitable* w.r.t. $\mathbf{W}$ if and only if $$\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{A}={\mathbf{E}^{+}}\mathbf{W}'
\quad\text{, i.e.}\quad
\forall\ i,j\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}\ \mathbf{w}_{i}'\mathbf{A}_{ij}={e^{+}_{ij}}\mathbf{w}_{j}'.$$
Maintaining the notation above the *front* and *rear deviation vectors* are defined respectively as $$\mathbf{t}^{-}_{ij}=\frac{1}{\lVert\mathbf{w}_j\rVert}\left(\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{w}_{j}-e^{-}_{ij}\mathbf{w}_{i}\right)
\quad\text{ and }\quad
{\mathbf{t}^{+}_{ij}}=\frac{1}{\lVert\mathbf{w}_i\rVert}\left({\mathbf{w}_{i}'\mathbf{A}_{ij}}-{e^{+}_{ij}}\mathbf{w}_{j}'\right)',$$ and the *front* and *rear deviation matrices* are $$\mathbf{T}^{\pm}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{t}^{\pm}_{11}&\cdots&\mathbf{t}^{\pm}_{1k}\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\mathbf{t}^{\pm}_{k1}&\cdots&\mathbf{t}^{\pm}_{kk}
\end{array}\right)\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times k}\ \ ,\textrm{i.e.}\ \
\begin{array}{lll}
\mathbf{T}^{-}=\left(\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}-\mathbf{W}\mathbf{E}^{-}\right)\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\\
\\
\mathbf{T}^{+}=
\left(\mathbf{A}'\mathbf{W}-\mathbf{W}{\mathbf{E}^{+}}'\right)\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{array}$$
The entries of $\mathbf{E}^{\pm}$ and the deviation vectors have an intuitive interpretation in the framework of ordinary equitability arising for $\mathbf{w}_i=\mathbf{j}_{n_i}$. Then $e^{-}_{ij}$ and $\lVert\mathbf{t}^{-}_{ij}\rVert$ ($e^{+}_{ij}$ and $\lVert\mathbf{t}^{+}_{ij}\rVert$) are the mean and the standard deviation of the row (column) sums of $\mathbf{A}_{ij}$.Scaling the vector blocks $\mathbf{w}_{i}$ by $\mu_i\in\mathbb{C}\setminus\left\{0\right\}$ changes the entries of the generalized quotient to $\mu_i^{\alpha}e^{\alpha}_{ij}\mu_j^{-\alpha}$ although such a transformation sustains equitability (if present). Note that $e^{0}_{ij}$ and $\lVert{\mathbf{t}^{\pm}_{ij}}\rVert$, and therefore the singular values of $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$, are independent of such a scaling. By definition, $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$ is an all zero matrix if and only if its respective equitability holds. At the end of this section, we will consider suitable norms of $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$ as measures for deviation from equitability.
(Approximate) Block Triangularization
-------------------------------------
Let $\mathbf{W}$ be an admissible weighted indicator matrix of a partition $\Pi=\left(c_1,\ldots,c_k\right)$ with weight vector $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ and indicator matrix $\mathbf{B}$. Let $\mathbf{w}_i$ be induced by $c_i$. Replacing $\mathbf{w}_i$ by $\mathbf{f}_{n_i}$ for all $i$ yields the new vector $\mathbf{f}$. Let $\mathbf{N}=\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and let $\mathbf{V}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_k\right)$ be a unitary diagonal matrix of size $k$. We introduce $$\mathbf{Y}\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{V}\right)=\mathbf{Y}\left(\mathbf{w},\Pi,\mathbf{V}\right)=\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{w}\right)\mathbf{B}
-\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{f}\right)\mathbf{B}\mathbf{N}\mathbf{V}',$$ which has the form of a weighted indicator matrix. The actual choice of $\mathbf{V}$ is a priori arbitrary. This freedom may be exploited in order to enhance the numerical properties of the transformation matrix given in the next definition.
\[defH\] Let $\mathbf{Y}$ be derived from an admissible weighted indicator matrix $\mathbf{W}$ and a unitary diagonal matrix $\mathbf{V}$ as above, then $$\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{V}\right)=\mathbf{I}_N-\mathbf{Y}\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{Y}\right)^{\dagger}\mathbf{Y}'.$$
Since $\mathbf{Y}$ and $\mathbf{W}$ have the same block diagonal form, $\mathbf{Y}'\mathbf{W}$ is a diagonal matrix and $\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{V},\mathbf{W}\right)$ is block diagonal, hence its numerical properties are comparable to those of a single Householder matrix. In particular, the costs for computing and storing are of order $O\left(N\right)$, and it can be applied to a square matrix in $O\left(N^2\right)$. For suitably indexed $\mathbf{W}$ the block diagonal form of $\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{V}\right)$ is explicit, $$\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{V}\right)=\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_1,\beta_1\right),\ldots,\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_k,\beta_k\right)\right).$$ The diagonal blocks are given in definition . For $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ we consider $$\mathbf{\tilde{A}}=\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{V}\right)'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{V}\right)\quad\text{with}\quad\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}=\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_i,\beta_i\right)'\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_j,\beta_j\right).$$ By the properties of the $\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_i,\beta_i\right)$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}\mathbf{f}_{n_j}&\sim \mathbf{f}_{n_i}\ \forall i,j
\text{ if and only if }\mathbf{A}\text{ is front equitable w.r.t. }\mathbf{W},\\
\mathbf{f}_{n_i}'\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}&\sim \mathbf{f}_{n_j}'\ \forall i,j
\text{ if and only if }\mathbf{A}\text{ is rear equitable w.r.t. }\mathbf{W}.\end{aligned}$$ If we consider for a moment front (row) equitability, the first column (row) of each block $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}$ would be all zero from its second to last entry. This implies an implicit block triangular form of $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}$, which can be made explicit by the following permutation mapping the first index of each cell accordingly into $\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}$.
\[defOmega\] Let $\mathbf{n}=\left(n_1,\ldots,n_k\right)$ be a sequence of $k$ positive integers with $\sum_{i=1}^{k}n_i=N$. The permutation $\Omega_{\mathbf{n}}: \left\{1,\ldots,N\right\}\to\left\{1,\ldots,N\right\}$ is defined by $$\Omega_{\mathbf{n}}\left(m_i+\sum\limits_{j=i}^{i-1}n_j\right)
=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
i & ,m_i=1\\
k-i+m_i+\sum\limits_{j=i}^{i-1}n_j & ,m_i\in\left\{2,\ldots,n_i\right\}
\end{array}
\right.$$ with $i\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}$.
We proceed with the general case and give the following theorem, which may be seen as a corollary of theorem . In order to keep this section self contained, it is proven independently.
\[theo1\] Let $\Pi=\left(c_1,\ldots,c_k\right)$ be an admissible partition for $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times N}$ and $\mathbf{w}\in\mathbb{C}^{N}$ with weighted indicator matrix $\mathbf{W}\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times k}$, generalized quotient $\mathbf{E}^{\alpha}$ and deviation matrices $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$. Let $\mathbf{V}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_k\right)$ be a unitary diagonal matrix and let $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}=\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{V}\right)$ as in definition and let $\mathbf{\Omega}$ be the permutation matrix corresponding to $\Omega_{\left(\left|c_1\right|,\ldots,\left|c_k\right|\right)}$. Let $$\mathbf{\tilde{A}}=\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{\tilde{H}}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{11}&\cdots&\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{1k}\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{k1}&\cdots&\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{kk}\\
\end{array}\right)
,\quad
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}=\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_{i},\beta_i\right)'\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_{j},\beta_j\right)$$ and $$\mathbf{\hat{A}}=\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{A}}\mathbf{\Omega}=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{E}^{\phantom{-}}&{\mathbf{D}^{+}}'\\
\mathbf{D}^{-}&\mathbf{F}^{\phantom{+}}
\end{array}\right)\quad\text{with}\quad
\mathbf{E}\in\mathbb{C}^{k\times k}.$$ Then $\mathbf{\hat{A}}$ is unitarily similar to $\mathbf{A}$, the upper left block $\mathbf{E}$ is unitarily similar to the Rayleigh quotient $\mathbf{E}^0$ and the off-diagonal blocks $\mathbf{D}^{\pm}$ have the same singular values as $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$, respectively. Additionally, any eigenvector $\mathbf{\hat{z}}$ of $\mathbf{\hat{A}}$ yields an eigenvector $\mathbf{z}=\mathbf{\tilde{H}}\mathbf{\Omega}\mathbf{\hat{z}}$ of $\mathbf{A}$ to the same eigenvalue.
Unitary similarity to $\mathbf{A}$ follows from the unitarity of $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}$ and $\mathbf{\Omega}$.Considering the matrix blocks $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}$ of $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}$ induced by cells $c_i$ and $c_j$ we have $$e_{ij}=\mathbf{f}_{n_i}'\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}\mathbf{f}_{n_j}=
\frac{\overline{\beta_i}}{\lVert\mathbf{w}_i\rVert}
\frac{\beta_j}{\lVert\mathbf{w}_j\rVert}
\mathbf{w}_{i}'\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{w}_{j}=
\frac{\beta_j}{\beta_i}e^{0}_{ij}.$$ By $\mathbf{\Omega}$ those $e_{ij}$ are mapped accordingly into the upper left block $\mathbf{E}$. Therefore, we may rewrite $\mathbf{E}=\mathbf{V}'\mathbf{E}^0\mathbf{V}$, which proofs unitary similarity of $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{E}^{0}$.In order to show that $\mathbf{D}^{\pm}$ is unitarily equivalent to $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$, we observe that by the properties of $\mathbf{\Omega}$ we can write $\mathbf{D}^{\pm}$ as $$\mathbf{D}^{\pm}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{d}^{\pm}_{11}&\cdots&\mathbf{d}^{\pm}_{1k}\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\mathbf{d}^{\pm}_{k1}&\cdots&\mathbf{d}^{\pm}_{kk}\\
\end{array}\right)\in\mathbb{C}^{\left(N-k\right)\times k},$$ wherein $\mathbf{d}^{-}_{ij}$ is the first column and ${\mathbf{d}^{+}_{ij}}'$ is the first row of the matrix block $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}$ starting from the second entry. We have $$\left(\begin{array}{c}\hspace{-0.5em}0\\\mathbf{d}^{-}_{ij}\end{array}\right)=
\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}\mathbf{f}_{n_j}-e^{-}_{ij}\mathbf{f}_{n_i}=
\mathbf{H}\left(\beta_i,\mathbf{w}_i\right)'\mathbf{t}^{-}_{ij},$$ $$\left(0,{\mathbf{d}^{+}_{ij}}'\ \right)=
\mathbf{f}_{n_i}'\mathbf{\tilde{A}}_{ij}-e^{+}_{ij}\mathbf{f}_{n_j}'=
{\mathbf{t}^{+}_{ij}}'\mathbf{H}\left(\beta_j,\mathbf{w}_j\right),$$ which shows that $$\label{OHT=0D}
\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{T}^{\pm}=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}^{\phantom{\pm}}\\\mathbf{D}^{\pm}
\end{array}\right).$$ The eigenvector relation can be shown by applying $\mathbf{\tilde{H}}\mathbf{\Omega}$ from the left to $$\lambda\mathbf{\hat{z}}=\mathbf{\hat{A}}\mathbf{\hat{z}}=
\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{z}.$$
Deviation from Equitability
---------------------------
Let $\lVert\cdot\rVert_{U}$ denote a unitarily invariant norm.
\[cor1\] $$\lVert\mathbf{D}^{\pm}\rVert_{U}=\lVert\mathbf{T}^{\pm}\rVert_{U}.$$
\[cor2\] Let $\mathbf{T}^{-}_{\mathbf{\Theta}}=
\left(\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}-
\mathbf{W}\mathbf{\Theta}\right)\mathbf{N}^{-1}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{+}_{\mathbf{\Theta}}=\mathbf{N}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{A}-
\mathbf{\Theta}\mathbf{W}'\right)$ with $\mathbf{N}=\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$. Then $$\lVert\mathbf{T}^{\pm}\rVert_{U}=
\min_{\mathbf{\Theta}}\lVert\mathbf{T}^{\pm}_{\mathbf{\Theta}}\rVert_{U}.$$ The minimum is unique if $\lVert\cdot\rVert_{U}$ is a Schatten norm.
Applying $\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'$ from the left and $\mathbf{V}'$ from the right to $\mathbf{T}^{-}_{\mathbf{\Theta}}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{T}^{-}_{\mathbf{\Theta}}\mathbf{V}'\rVert_U&=
\lVert\mathbf{\bar{A}}
\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'
\mathbf{W}\mathbf{N}^{-1}\mathbf{V}-
\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{W}\mathbf{\Theta}\mathbf{N}^{-1}\mathbf{V}\rVert_U\nonumber\\
&=\lVert\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{E}^{\phantom{-}}\\\mathbf{D}^{-}\end{array}\right)
-\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{V}'\mathbf{N}
\mathbf{\Theta}\mathbf{N}^{-1}\mathbf{V}\\
\mathbf{0}\end{array}\right)\rVert_U\end{aligned}$$ using $\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{\tilde{H}}'\mathbf{W}=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{V}'\mathbf{N}\\
\mathbf{0}\end{array}\right)
$. The last term is readily minimized for $$\Theta=\mathbf{N}^{-1}\mathbf{V}\mathbf{E}\mathbf{V}'\mathbf{N}=\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{E}^{0}\left(\mathbf{W}'\mathbf{W}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{E}^{-}.$$ Obviously, the minimization is unique for several $\lVert\cdot\rVert_{U}$ including the Schatten norms. A similar proof applies for $\mathbf{T}^{+}$.
The idea underlying the last proof is essentially the same as in [@Dax20101234 proof of theorem 11]. A particular useful choice for ${\lVert\cdot\rVert_{U}}$ might be the Frobenius norm, which upper bounds the spectral norm. Its square is simply the sum of the squared norms of the deviation vectors. One may also think of other characterizations for approximate equitable partitions which have moderate computational costs, for instance the number of nonzero columns of $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$, which upper bounds the rank.
Discussion and Remarks {#secDMR}
======================
Relating Equitability Deviation and Spectral Deviation
------------------------------------------------------
Since $\mathbf{\hat{A}}$ and $\mathbf{A}$ are unitarily similar and by corollaries and of theorem , we may in a sense ’measure’ the deviation of a partition from being equitable by using a suitable unitarily invariant norm of $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$, yielding a norm of $\mathbf{D}^{\pm}$, which in turn may serve as a measure for the deviation of the joint eigenvalue sets or the joint singular value sets of $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{F}$ from the respective values of $\mathbf{A}$.As an example we consider the spectral norm and the eigenvalue bound of Weyl for Hermitian matrices. Assuming Hermiticity we may set $\mathbf{D}^{\pm}=\mathbf{D}$ and $$\mathbf{\hat{A}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{E}&\mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0}&\mathbf{F}\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{0}&\mathbf{D}'\\
\mathbf{D}&\mathbf{0}\end{array}\right).$$ Let $\mu_1\leq\ldots\leq\mu_N$ be the joint spectrum of Hermitian $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{F}$, $\lambda_1\leq\ldots\leq\lambda_N$ the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{A}$ and let $\tau_{\text{spec}}$ be the largest singular value of $\mathbf{D}$. We have $$\left|\mu_i-\lambda_i\right|\leq\tau_{\text{spec}}\ ,\ 1\leq i\leq N$$ by the Weyl inequalities. Many more pertubation bounds on eigenvalues and singular values and thier corresponding vectors are feasible, e.g. [@EI98AbsPer],[@Deif1995403],[@E85OptBou].
Cognate Concepts
----------------
The notion of quasi-block-stochastic matrices of Kuich [@K68QuaBlo] as a generalization of quasi-stochastic matrices [@H55QuaSto] bears a close resemblance to our notion of equitability. A minor difference is that for quasi-block-stochastic matrices it is required that the first entry of each $\mathbf{v}_i$ has to be $1$. Kuich also describes how to exploit this structure to triangularize a (real) matrix by a (real, in general not unitary) similarity transformation using a theorem of Haynsworth [@H59AppThe]. Another similar but less general concept is used by Fiol and Carriga and is called *pseudo-regular* partitions. It considers a positive eigenvector $\mathbf{v}$ of binary matrices [@F99EigInt pp. 278/9]. The partition $\Pi$ of the matrix is pseudo-regular if $\mathbf{v}$ and $\Pi$ induce a (weighted) equitable partition. Since $\mathbf{v}$ is fixed up to a positive scale factor, the pseudo-quotient (i.e. front divisor) is unique.There are some more techniques in network analysis which can be described as variations of and which are used to partition the node set of a graph (=assigning roles) according to structural properties and to derive a smaller graph (the quotient or image graph) which gives a condensed representation of essential relations between the cells (=roles) of that partition. Some of those are without apparent regard to the spectrum. For instance, Kate and Ravindran introduced *epsilon equitable* partitions for (an adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$ of) a simple graph [@KR09EpsEqu]. Let $\Pi=\left(c_1,\ldots,c_k\right)$ be a partition of the node set of $\mathbf{A}$. Let $\mathbf{A}_{ij}$ be induced by the $i$-th row cell and the $j$-th column cell. Let $\mathbf{r}_{ij}=\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{j}_{n_j}$ be a column vector of length $n_i=\left|c_i\right|$. If $$\forall\ i,j\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}\quad\max\limits_{1\leq v,w\leq n_i} \left|\mathbf{r}_{ij,v}-\mathbf{r}_{ij,w}\right|\leq\epsilon$$ then $\Pi$ is called $\epsilon$-equitable. The ordinary equitable partition arises for $\epsilon=0$. Another variation of can be employed to describe the concept of *regular equivalence* [@EB94RegEqu], which is defined by the restriction that for a partition $\Pi$ any vector $\mathbf{r}_{ij}=\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{j}_{n_j}$ must have either no zero entry or all entries zero i.e. $$\forall\ i,j\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}\quad\prod_v\mathbf{r}_{ij,v}=0\Rightarrow\sum_v\left|\mathbf{r}_{ij,v}\right|=0.$$
Finding Equitable Partitions
----------------------------
There are several algorithms for finding ordinary equitable partitions of graphs and matrices, for instance [@B99CompEP], [@GKMS14]. We sketch the most often employed top-down approach made suitable to the case of finding an ordinary front equitable partition of a complex matrix $\mathbf{A}$. At each step one considers a temporary partition (initially often the single cell partition) and (sequentially) subdivides any cell $c_i$ for any $j$ according to the entries of $\mathbf{A}_{ij}\mathbf{j}_{n_j}$, called colors, s.t. each subcell is induced by a unique color, until this subdivision is non trivial, resulting in a refined partition. One iterates until any feasible subdivision is trivial, i.e. the final partition is the unique coarsest front equitable refinement (w.r.t. to the initial partition). Of course, this can be adapted for the weighted case. However, if the weight vector $\mathbf{w}$ has no zero entries one may employ the sketched procedure for the unweighted case readily by considering the matrix $\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{w}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{A}\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{w}\right)$. This follows by left multiplication of $\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{w}\right)^{-1}$ to the equitability condition $$\mathbf{A}\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{w}\right)\mathbf{B}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{w}\right)\mathbf{B}\mathbf{E}^{-}.$$ In general, the choice of a weight vector $\mathbf{w}$ may be guided by insights into the problem underlying the considered matrix $\mathbf{A}$. In search for $\mathbf{w}$, one may also exploit that the columns of the weighted indicator matrix $\mathbf{W}$ are a basis for the linear span of all eigenvectors of $\mathbf{A}$ corresponding to eigensolutions of $\mathbf{E}^{-}$. As an example, let $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ be two such eigenvectors for different eigenvalues. Considering them separately using the top down approach above one finds the single cell partition since $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ are eigenvectors. This may be avoided by using a non trivial linear combination, which lies in the linear span of the columns of $\mathbf{W}$ but is not an eigenvector.How to find partitions with suitably small but non zero deviation from equitability is out of the scope of this article.
Generalization as a Singular Value Decomposition
================================================
Our proposed method for block triangularization can be described as an employment of a one-step singular value decomposition (SVD) of the weighted indicator matrix $\mathbf{W}$ as $$\mathbf{W}=\left[\mathbf{\tilde{H}}\mathbf{\Omega}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{N}\\\mathbf{0}\end{array}\right)\mathbf{V}'$$ wherein the square diagonal matrix $\mathbf{N}$ contains the singular values of $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{V}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_k\right)$ is unitary diagonal. In deed, if we interpret $\mathbf{f}_{n_i}$ and the vector blocks $\mathbf{w}_i$ as matrices in $\mathbb{C}^{n_i\times1}$, then $\mathbf{w}_i$ has the SVD $$\mathbf{w}_i=
\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_i,\beta_i\right)
\frac{\lVert\mathbf{w}_i\rVert}{\beta_i}\mathbf{f}_{n_i}=
\mathbf{H}\left(\mathbf{w}_i,\beta_i\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}\lVert\mathbf{w}_i\rVert\\\mathbf{0}\end{array}\right)
\overline{\beta_i}.$$ In that view, one may obtain a generalization by replacing the non vanishing vector blocks $\mathbf{w}_i$ by rectangular matrix blocks $\mathbf{W}_i$ with maximal column rank. In the remainder of this section we build on this idea and derive an approximate block triangularization of a rectangular matrix $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{C}^{m\times n}$, using given SVDs of a pair of block diagonal matrices with maximal column rank, acting on the rows and columns of $\mathbf{A}$ respectively and separately.For notational convenience we define a $2\times 1$ block matrix with empty lower block and the identity matrix in the square upper block.
\[defInr\] Let $r$ and $n$ be positive integers with $r\leq n$. $$\mathbf{I}_n^r=
\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{I}_r\\\mathbf{0}\end{array}\right)\in\left\{0,1\right\}^{n\times r}.$$
We may identify $\mathbf{I}_{n}^1=\mathbf{f}_{n}$. As a block diagonal generalization we define
\[defInrBD\] Let $\mathbf{r}=\left(r_1,\ldots,r_k\right)$ and $\mathbf{n}=\left(n_1,\dots,n_k\right)$ be ordered sequences of positive integers, s.t. $r_i\leq n_i$. $$\mathbf{I}_{\mathbf{n}}^{\mathbf{r}}=\operatorname{diag}\left(\mathbf{I}_{n_1}^{r_1},\ldots,\mathbf{I}_{n_k}^{r_k}\right).$$
We will also utilize the following permutation.
\[defOmGen\] Let $\mathbf{r}=\left(r_1,\dots,r_k\right)$ and $\mathbf{n}=\left(n_1,\dots,n_k\right)$ be ordered sequences of positive integers s.t. $\forall\ i\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}\ r_i\leq n_i$. Let $r=\sum_ir_i$ and $n=\sum_in_i$. Then $\Omega_{\mathbf{n}}^{\mathbf{r}}: \left\{1,\ldots,n\right\}\to\left\{1,\ldots,n\right\}$ is defined by $$\Omega_{\mathbf{n}}^{\mathbf{r}}\left(s_i+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{i-1}n_j\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
s_i+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{i-1}r_j&,0<s_i\leq r_i\\
s_i+r+\sum\limits_{j=1}^{i-1}\left(n_j-r_j\right)&,r_i<s_i\leq n_i\end{array}\right.$$ with $i\in\left\{1,\ldots,k\right\}$.
$\Omega_{\mathbf{n}}^{\mathbf{r}}$ maps the first $r_i$ elements of cell $i$ into the first $r$ elements.
\[PropOmega\] In the notation of definitions and above, let $\mathbf{\Omega}$ be the permutation matrix corresponding to $\Omega_{\mathbf{n}}^{\mathbf{r}}$. Then $\mathbf{\Omega}'\mathbf{I}_{\mathbf{n}}^{\mathbf{r}}=\mathbf{I}_n^r.$
\[defAllGen\] Let $\mathbf{W}^{-}\in\mathbb{C}^{m\times q}$ be a block diagonal matrix with $l$ diagonal blocks $\mathbf{W}^{-}_i\in\mathbb{C}^{m_i\times q_i}$ of rank $q_i$ and let $\mathbf{W}^{+}\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times r}$ be a block diagonal matrix with $k$ diagonal blocks $\mathbf{W}^{+}_i\in\mathbb{C}^{n_i\times r_i}$ each of rank $r_i$. Let singular value decompositions for the $\mathbf{W}^{-}_i$ be given by $$\mathbf{W}^{-}_i=\mathbf{U}^{-}_i\mathbf{S}^{-}_i{\mathbf{V}^{-}_i}'=
\mathbf{U}^{-}_i\left(\mathbf{I}_{m_i}^{q_i}\mathbf{N}^{-}_i\right){\mathbf{V}^{-}_i}'$$ with square unitary $\mathbf{U}^{-}_i\in\mathbb{C}^{m_i\times m_i}$ and $\mathbf{V}^{-}_i\in\mathbb{C}^{q_i\times q_i}$, and with $\mathbf{S}^{-}_i=\mathbf{I}_{m_i}^{q_i}\mathbf{N}^{-}_i$ wherein $\mathbf{N}^{-}_i\in\mathbb{R}^{q_i\times q_i}$ is a square diagonal matrix with positive diagonal elements. Let $\mathbf{U}^{-}\in\mathbb{C}^{m\times m}$, $\mathbf{S}^{-}\in\mathbb{C}^{m\times q}$, $\mathbf{N}^{-}\in\mathbb{R}^{q\times q}$, and $\mathbf{V}^{-}\in\mathbb{C}^{q\times q}$ be block diagonal with $l$ diagonal blocks given by $\mathbf{U}^{-}_i$, $\mathbf{S}^{-}_i$, $\mathbf{N}^{-}_i$, and $\mathbf{V}^{-}_i$, respectively. Let $\mathbf{\Omega
}^{-}$ be the permutation matrix corresponding to the permutation $\Omega^{\left(q_1,\dots,q_l\right)}_{\left(m_1,\dots,m_l\right)}$ s.t. ${\mathbf{\Omega}^{-}}'\mathbf{S}^{-}=\mathbf{I}_m^q\mathbf{N}^{-}$. This induces a singular value decomposition of $\mathbf{W}^{-}$ as $$\mathbf{W}^{-}=\mathbf{U}^{-}\left({\mathbf{\Omega}^{-}}'\mathbf{S}^{-}\right){\mathbf{V}^{-}}'=\mathbf{U}^{-}\left(\mathbf{I}_m^q\mathbf{N}^{-}\right){\mathbf{V}^{-}}'.$$ Let the corresponding relations hold for $\mathbf{W}^{+}$ and let $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{C}^{m\times n}$. Define the *Rayleigh quotient* $\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{0}}\in\mathbb{C}^{q\times r}$ as a block matrix with $$\mathbf{E}^{0}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{E}^{0}_{11}&\cdots&\mathbf{E}^{0}_{1n}\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\mathbf{E}^{0}_{1m}&\cdots&\mathbf{E}^{0}_{mn}
\end{array}\right)
,\quad
\mathbf{E}^{0}_{ij}=
\mathbf{V}^{-}_{i}{\mathbf{I}^{q_i}_{m_i}}'{\mathbf{U}^{-}_{i}}'
\mathbf{A}_{ij}
\mathbf{U}^{+}_{j}\mathbf{I}^{r_j}_{n_j}{\mathbf{V}^{+}_{j}}'\in\mathbb{C}^{q_i\times r_j}.\nonumber$$ The *front* and [rear deviation matrices]{}, $\mathbf{T}^{-}\in\mathbb{C}^{m\times r}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{+}\in\mathbb{C}^{n\times q}$ respectively, are block matrices with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{T}^{-}_{ij}=&
\phantom{(}\mathbf{A}_{ij}\phantom{)}\mathbf{U}^{+}_{j}\mathbf{I}^{r_j}_{n_j}{\mathbf{V}^{+}_{j}}'-
\mathbf{U}^{-}_{i}\mathbf{I}^{q_i}_{m_i}{\mathbf{V}^{-}_{i}}'\phantom{(}\mathbf{E}^{0}_{ij}\phantom{)'}\in\mathbb{C}^{m_i\times r_i},\nonumber\\
\mathbf{T}^{+}_{ij}=&
\left(\mathbf{A}_{ij}\right)'\mathbf{U}^{-}_{i}\mathbf{I}^{q_i}_{m_i}{\mathbf{V}^{-}_{i}}'-
\mathbf{U}^{+}_{j}\mathbf{I}^{r_j}_{n_j}{\mathbf{V}^{+}_{j}}'\left(\mathbf{E}^{0}_{ij}\right)'\in\mathbb{C}^{n_i\times q_i}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the notation of definition , $\mathbf{E}^{0}$, $\mathbf{T}^{-}$, and $\mathbf{T}^{+}$ are identical for all singular value decompositions of $\mathbf{W}^{-}$ and $\mathbf{W}^{+}$ which obey the block diagonal form.
$\mathbf{E}^{0}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$ can be entirely expressed in terms of $\mathbf{W}^{\pm}$ since $$\mathbf{U}^{-}\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{q}}_{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{V}^{-}}'=\mathbf{W}^{-}\left({\mathbf{W}^{-}}'\mathbf{W}^{-}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\text{and}\ \
\mathbf{U}^{+}\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{r}}_{\mathbf{n}}{\mathbf{V}^{+}}'=\mathbf{W}^{+}\left({\mathbf{W}^{+}}'\mathbf{W}^{+}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}^{0}&=\left({\mathbf{W}^{-}}'\mathbf{W}^{-}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}{\mathbf{W}^{-}}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}^{+}\left({\mathbf{W}^{+}}'\mathbf{W}^{+}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}},
\\
\mathbf{T}^{-}&=
\mathbf{A}\mathbf{W}^{+}
\left({\mathbf{W}^{+}}'\mathbf{W}^{+}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}-
{\mathbf{W}^{-}}'\left({\mathbf{W}^{-}}'\mathbf{W}^{-}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\mathbf{E}^{0},
\\
\mathbf{T}^{+}&=
\mathbf{A}'\mathbf{W}^{-}
\left({\mathbf{W}^{-}}'\mathbf{W}^{-}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}-
{\mathbf{W}^{+}}'
\left({\mathbf{W}^{+}}'\mathbf{W}^{+}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
{\left(\mathbf{E}^{0}\right)}'.\end{aligned}$$
\[theoGen\] In the notation of definition above, let $$\mathbf{\hat{A}}={\mathbf{\Omega}^{-}}'{\mathbf{U}^{-}}'\mathbf{A}\mathbf{U}^{+}\mathbf{\Omega}^{+}=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{\phantom{f}}}&{\mathbf{D}^{+}}'\\
\mathbf{D}^{-}&\mathbf{F}^{\mathrm{\phantom{r}}}
\end{array}\right)\quad\text{with}\quad\mathbf{E}\in\mathbb{C}^{q\times r}.$$ and let $\lVert\cdot\rVert_{U}$ be a unitarily invariant matrix norm. Then $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{E}^{0}$ are unitarily equivalent, $\mathbf{D}^{\pm}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{\pm}$ have the same singular values, respectively, and $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert\mathbf{T}^{-}\rVert_{U}=&\min_{\mathbf{\Theta}}\lVert
\mathbf{A}\mathbf{U}^{+}\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{r}}_{\mathbf{n}}{\mathbf{V}^{+}}'-
\mathbf{U}^{-}\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{q}}_{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{V}^{-}}'\mathbf{\Theta}\rVert_{U}\nonumber\\
\lVert\mathbf{T}^{+}\rVert_{U}=&\min_{\mathbf{\Theta}}\lVert
\mathbf{A}'\mathbf{U}^{-}\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{q}}_{\mathbf{m}}{\mathbf{V}^{-}}'-
\mathbf{U}^{+}\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{r}}_{\mathbf{n}}{\mathbf{V}^{+}}'\mathbf{\Theta}'
\rVert_{U}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Unitary equivalence of $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{E}^{0}$ follows from $$\mathbf{E}={\mathbf{I}^{q}_{m}}'\mathbf{\hat{A}}{\mathbf{I}^{r}_{n}}=
\operatorname{diag}\left(
\mathbf{U}^{-}_{1}\mathbf{I}^{q_1}_{m_1},\ldots,
\mathbf{U}^{-}_{l}\mathbf{I}^{q_l}_{m_l}\right)'
\mathbf{A}
\operatorname{diag}\left(
\mathbf{U}^{+}_{1}\mathbf{I}^{r_1}_{n_1},\ldots,
\mathbf{U}^{+}_{k}\mathbf{I}^{r_k}_{n_k}\right),$$ which uses proposition , yielding $\mathbf{E}^{0}=\mathbf{V}^{-}\mathbf{E}{\mathbf{V}^{+}}'.$That $\mathbf{D}^{-}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{-}$ share the same multiset of singular values follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{0}^{\phantom{-}}\\\mathbf{D}^{-}\end{array}\right)&=
\mathbf{\hat{A}}\mathbf{I}^{r}_{n}-\mathbf{I}^{q}_{m}\mathbf{E}=
{\mathbf{\Omega}^{-}}'{\mathbf{U}^{-}}'\mathbf{A}
\mathbf{U}^{+}\mathbf{\Omega}^{+}\mathbf{I}^{r}_{n}-
\mathbf{I}^{q}_{m}{\mathbf{V}^{-}}'\mathbf{E}^{0}{\mathbf{V}^{+}}\nonumber\\
&={\mathbf{\Omega}^{-}}'{\mathbf{U}^{-}}'\mathbf{T}^{-}{\mathbf{V}^{+}}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof for $\mathbf{D}^{+}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{+}$ is analogous.Applying the unitary matrices ${\mathbf{\Omega}^{-}}'{\mathbf{U}^{-}}'$ from the left and ${\mathbf{V}^{+}}$ from the right to the second term in the penultimate equation of theorem yields $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\mathbf{\Theta}}
\lVert\mathbf{\tilde{A}}
{\mathbf{\Omega}^{+}}'\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{r}}_{\mathbf{n}}-
{\mathbf{\Omega}^{-}}'\mathbf{I}^{\mathbf{q}}_{\mathbf{m}}
{\mathbf{V}^{-}}'\mathbf{\Theta}\mathbf{V}^{+}\rVert_U
=\lVert\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{E}^{\phantom{-}}\\\mathbf{D}^{-}\end{array}\right)
-\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\mathbf{V}^{-}}'
\mathbf{\Theta}\mathbf{V}^{+}\\
\mathbf{0}\end{array}\right)\rVert_U.\end{aligned}$$ The last term is readily minimized for $\mathbf{\Theta}={\mathbf{V}^{-}}\mathbf{E}{\mathbf{V}^{+}}'=\mathbf{E}^{0}.$ The minimum is obviously unique if $\lVert\cdot\rVert_U$ is a Schatten norm. A similar proof applies for the minimum property of $\mathbf{T}^{+}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We implement an infinite iteration scheme of Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions to establish an energy estimate on the one-dimensional cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) in $C_tL^2({\mathbb{T}})$, without using any auxiliary function space. This allows us to construct weak solutions of NLS in $C_tL^2({\mathbb{T}})$ with initial data in $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$ as limits of classical solutions. As a consequence of our construction, we also prove unconditional well-posedness of NLS in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$ for $s \geq \frac{1}{6}$.'
address:
- |
Zihua Guo\
School of Mathematics\
Institute for Advanced Study\
Einstein Drive\
Princeton\
NJ 08540\
USA
- |
Soonsik Kwon\
Department of Mathematical Sciences\
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology\
335 Gwahangno\
Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea
- |
Tadahiro Oh\
Department of Mathematics\
Princeton University\
Fine Hall\
Washington Rd.\
Princeton, NJ 08544-1000, USA
author:
- 'Zihua Guo, Soonsik Kwon, and Tadahiro Oh'
title: 'Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction for unconditional well-posedness of the periodic cubic NLS'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction {#SEC:1}
============
Nonlinear Schrödinger equation
------------------------------
We consider the Cauchy problem for the cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLS) on the one-dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}= {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$: $$\label{NLS1}
\begin{cases}
i u_t - u_{xx} = \pm u |u|^2 \\
u|_{t= 0} = u_0,
\end{cases}~(x, t) \in {\mathbb{T}}\times {\mathbb{R}},$$
where $u$ is a complex-valued function. In this paper, we study unconditional well-posedness of . One-dimensional cubic NLS is known to be completely integrable. However, our argument does not use such integrability structure of in an explicit manner. Moreover, due to the local-in-time nature of our argument, it does not matter whether the equation is defocusing (with $-$ sign) or focusing (with $+$ sign.) Hence, we simply assume that it is defocusing in the following.
In [@BO1], Bourgain introduced a new weighted space time Sobolev space $X^{s, b}$, whose norm is given by $$\label{XSB}
\|u\|_{X^{s, b}({\mathbb{T}}\times {\mathbb{R}})}
= \| {\langle {\partial_x}\rangle}^s {\langle i {\partial_t}- {\partial_x}^2 \rangle}^b (u) \|_{L^2 ({\mathbb{T}}\times {\mathbb{R}})},$$
where ${\langle \,\cdot\, \rangle} = 1 +|\cdot|$. After establishing the periodic $L^4$-Strichartz estimate $$\label{L4}
\|u\|_{L^4_{x, t}} \lesssim \|u\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}},$$ Bourgain proved that is locally well-posed in $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$. Thanks to the $L^2$-conservation law, this immediately implied global well-posedness of in $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$. This well-posedness result is known to be sharp in view of the ill-posedness results of in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s<0$, by Burq-Gérard-Tzvetkov [@BGT], Christ-Colliander-Tao [@CCT1; @CCT2], and Molinet [@MOLI]. Recently, there have been several studies on constructing solutions of (the renormalized version of) in larger spaces than $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$. See Christ [@CH1] and Colliander-Oh [@CO].
Our main goal in this paper is twofold.
- We construct weak solutions of with $u_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{T}})$, by directly establishing an energy estimate in $C([0, T]; L^2)$ [*without*]{} using any auxiliary function space.
- We establish a uniqueness statement of solutions of . For this part, we assume sufficient regularity on solutions. In particular, we assume that a solution $u$ is in $C([0, T]; H^s)$ for some $s\geq \frac{1}{6}$.
First, let us discuss what we mean by solutions in $C([0, T]; L^2)$. For this purpose, we use the following notions from Christ [@CH1; @CH2].
\[DEF:1\] A sequence of Fourier cutoff operators is a sequence of Fourier multiplier operators $\{T_N\}_{N\in \mathbb{N}}$ on $\mathcal{D'}({\mathbb{T}})$ with multipliers $m_N:\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{C}$ such that (i) $m_N$ has a compact support on $\mathbb{Z}$ for each $N \in \mathbb{N}$, (ii) $m_N$ is uniformly bounded, and (iii) $m_N$ converges pointwise to $1$, i.e. $\lim_{N\to \infty} m_N(n) = 1$ for any $n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
The following definition is in particular important in making sense of the nonlinearity $\mathcal{N}(u) := u |u|^2$, when a function $u$ is merely in $C([0, T]: L^2({\mathbb{T}}))$.
\[DEF:2\] Let $u \in C([0, T]; L^2({\mathbb{T}}))$. We say that $\mathcal{N}(u)$ exists and is equal to a distribution $w \in \mathcal{D}'({\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T))$ if for every sequence $\{T_N\}_{N\in \mathbb{N}}$ of (spatial) Fourier cutoff operators, we have $$\label{NON1}
\lim_{N\to \infty} \mathcal{N}(T_N u) = w$$
in the sense of distributions on ${\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T)$.
\[DEF:3\] We say that $u \in C([0, T]; H^s({\mathbb{T}}))$ is a weak solution of NLS in the extended sense if (i) $u\big|_{t=0} = u_0$, (ii) the nonlinearity $\mathcal{N}(u)$ exists in the sense of Definition \[DEF:2\], and (iii) $u$ satisfies in the sense of distributions on ${\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T)$, where the nonlinearity $\mathcal{N}(u) = u |u|^2$ is interpreted as above.
In the following, we construct weak solutions of with $u_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{T}})$, by directly establishing an energy estimate in $C([0, T]; L^2)$ without using any auxiliary function space. Our first result is the following.
\[thm0\] Let $s \geq 0$. Then, for $u_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, there exists a weak solution $u \in C([0, T]; H^s({\mathbb{T}}))$ of NLS with initial condition $u_0$ in the sense of Definition \[DEF:3\], where the time $T$ of existence depends only on $\|u_0\|_{H^s}$. Moreover, the solution map is Lipschitz continuous.
\[REM:1\] In view of the embedding $H^s({\mathbb{T}}) \subset L^3({\mathbb{T}})$ for $s\geq \frac{1}{6}$, it follows that when $s\geq \frac{1}{6}$, the solution $u$ in Theorem \[thm0\] indeed satisfies NLS in the usual distributional sense as a space-time distribution. Moreover, for each fixed $t \in (0, T)$, it satisfies the equation as a spatial distribution on ${\mathbb{T}}$.
In Theorem \[thm0\], the uniqueness holds only as a limit of classical solutions. This in particular implies that the solutions in Theorem \[thm0\] coincide with the solutions constructed in Bourgain’s $L^2$ well-posedness result [@BO1]. Hence, they lie in the class $$\label{Bourgain}
C([0,T];L^2({\mathbb{T}}))\cap X_T^{0,\frac{3}{8}}
\subset C([0,T];L^2({\mathbb{T}}))\cap L^4_{x, T},$$
where $X_T^{0,\frac{3}{8}}$ denotes the local-in-time version of $X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}$ and $L^4_{x, T} = L^4 ({\mathbb{T}}\times [0, T])$.
Now, let us turn to the uniqueness statement of solutions of . Recall the following definition from Kato [@KATO]. We say that a Cauchy problem is [*unconditionally well-posed*]{} in $H^s$ if for every initial condition $u_0 \in H^s$, there exist $T>0$ and a [*unique*]{} solution $u \in C([0, T];H^s)$ such that $u(0) = u_0$. Also, see [@FPT]. We refer to such uniqueness in $C([0, T];H^s)$ without intersecting with any auxiliary function space as [*unconditional uniqueness*]{}. Unconditional uniqueness is a concept of uniqueness which does not depend on how solutions are constructed.
As mentioned above, the $L^2$ well-posedness result in [@BO1] assumes that solutions are a priori in $X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}$ (locally in time) due to the use of the periodic $L^4$ Strichartz estimate . Thus, the uniqueness in [@BO1] holds only in the class . Namely, the uniqueness of solutions in [@BO1] holds [*conditionally*]{}, since uniqueness may not hold without the restriction of the auxiliary function space $X_T^{0,\frac{3}{8}}$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm0\] only uses a direct energy estimate in $C([0, T]; L^2)$. For a general solution $u \in C([0, T]; L^2)$, we need to perform the argument through an approximating smooth solution $u_n$. However, if $u \in C([0, T]; H^s)$ for some $s \geq \frac{1}{6}$, we do not need such an approximating sequence of smooth solutions and directly work on $u$. This yields the following uniqueness of solutions to in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, $s \geq \frac{1}{6}$.
\[thm1\] Let $s \geq \frac{1}{6}$. Then, for $u_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{T}})$, the solution $u $ with initial condition $u_0$ constructed in Theorem \[thm0\] is unique in $C([0, T]; H^s({\mathbb{T}}))$.
Theorem \[thm1\] with the $L^2$-conservation law for yields the following corollary.
\[cor1\] Let $s \geq \frac{1}{6}$. NLS is unconditionally globally well-posed in $H^s({\mathbb{T}})$.
Note that Theorem \[thm1\] is an improvement of Bourgain’s result [@BO1] in the aspect of uniqueness, at least for $s \geq \frac{1}{6}$. We also point out that, for $s < 0$, there is the non-uniqueness result in $C_tH^s({\mathbb{T}})$ by Christ [@CH1] (for solutions in extended sense as in Definition \[DEF:3\].) See [@CH1] for details.
Many of the unconditional uniqueness results use some auxiliary function spaces (such as Strichartz spaces and $X^{s, b}$ spaces), which are designed to be large enough to contain $C([0, T];H^s)$ such that desired nonlinear estimates hold. See, for instance, Zhou [@Z]. However, we simply use the $C([0, T];H^s)$-norm in the proof of Theorem \[thm1\].
For $s > \frac{1}{2}$, an a priori estimate in $C([0, T];H^s)$ easily follows from Sobolev embedding theorem. The challenge is to go below this regularity. We achieve this goal by implementing an infinite iteration scheme for the [*Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions.*]{} See Subsection \[SUBSEC:1.2\] for a discussion on the Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction. This method provides a new method to prove well-posedness of PDEs.
In [@CH2], Christ used the power series argument to construct solutions to the (renormalized) cubic NLS in $C([0, T]; \mathcal{F}L^{s,p})$, $s\geq 0$, $p \in [1, \infty)$, where the Fourier-Lebesgue space $\mathcal{F}L^{s,p}$ is defined by the norm $\|f\|_{\mathcal{F}L^{s,p}} = \|{\langle n \rangle}^s {\widehat}{f}(n)\|_{\ell^p_n}$. This argument involves a power series expansion of solutions in terms of initial data and uses only the $C([0, T]; \mathcal{F}L^{s,p})$-norm. However, this construction does not provide uniqueness.[^3] When $p = 2$, a slight modification of his argument can be applied to the original cubic NLS for construction of solutions in $C([0, T]; H^s)$, $s\geq0$ (without any auxiliary norms.) It may be of interest to compare and possibly combine two infinite iteration arguments in [@CH2] and this paper.
We prove Theorems \[thm0\] and \[thm1\] by establishing [*a priori*]{} estimates, where we only use the $C_tH^s_x$-norm of solutions. In the next subsection, we briefly describe the idea of Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions.
Before doing so, let us introduce an equivalent formulation to . Let $S(t) = e^{-i t{\partial_x}^2}$ denote the semigroup to the linear Schrödinger equation: $i u_t - u_{xx} = 0$. We apply a change of coordinates: $v(t) = S(-t) u(t) = e^{it{\partial_x}^2} {u}(t)$, i.e. ${\widehat}{v}(n, t) = e^{-in^2t} {\widehat}{u}(n,t)$. For simplicity of notation, we use $v_n = v_n(t)$ to denote ${\widehat}{v}(n, t)$. Then, $v$ satisfies the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NLS3}
{\partial_t}v_n (t)& = i {\mathfrak{N}}(v, v, v)(n, t)\\
:& = i
\sum_{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3 }
e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t }
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\notag \\
& =
i \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3 \\ n_2 \ne n_1, n_3} }
e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t }
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}
+ i
\sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3 \\ n_2 = n_1 \text{ or }n_3} }e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t }
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\notag \\
& =: i\, {\mathfrak{N}}_1(v, v, v)(n, t) + i {\mathfrak{R}}_1(v, v, v)(n, t).
\end{aligned}$$
Note that $v(0) = u_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{T}})$. The phase function $\Phi(\bar{n})$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi}
\Phi(\bar{n}):& = \Phi(n, n_1, n_2, n_3) = n^2 - n_1^2 + n_2^2- n_3^2 \notag \\
& = 2(n_2 - n_1) (n_2 - n_3)
= 2(n - n_1) (n - n_3),\end{aligned}$$
where the last two equalities hold under $n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3$. From , it follows that ${\mathfrak{N}}_1$ corresponds to the non-resonant part (i.e. $\Phi(\bar{n})\ne 0$) of the nonlinearity. Throughout this paper, we introduce several multilinear expressions.[^4] We often suppress its dependence on $t$ and its multiple arguments $v$. For example, we write $({\mathfrak{N}}_1)_n$ or ${\mathfrak{N}}_1(v)_n$ for ${\mathfrak{N}}_1(v, v, v)(n, t)$.
As is well known, working in terms of $v$ has certain advantages. In [@BO1], Bourgain made an effective use of this coordinate (called interaction representation in Quantum Mechanics [@G]) by introducing the $X^{s, b}$ spaces. From the definition , we have $\|u\|_{X^{s, b}} = \|v\|_{H^b_tH^s_x}$, i.e. a function $u$ is in $X^{s, b}$ if and only if its interaction representation $v(t) = S(-t) u(t)$ is in the classical Sobolev space $H^b_t H^s_x$.
Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction: formal argument {#SUBSEC:1.2}
-----------------------------------------------------
First, let us describe the classical [*Poincaré-Dulac Theorem*]{}. Consider a formal vector-valued power series $Ax + F(x) := Ax + \sum_{j = a}^\infty f_j(x)$, with some $a \geq 2$, in $n$ variables $x = (x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n)$, where $f_j(x)$ denotes nonlinear terms of degree $j$ in $x$. Assume that the eigenvalues of $A$ are distinct. Then, [*Poincaré-Dulac Theorem*]{} [@A] states the following. Given a differential equation $$\label{PD1}
{\partial_t}x = Ax + F(x) = Ax + \sum_{j = a}^\infty f_j(x),$$
we can introduce a sequence of formal changes of variables $$\begin{aligned}
& z_1 = x + y_1, \notag \\
& z_2 = z_1 + y_2 = x+ y_1 + y_2, \notag \\
& \hphantom{XX} \vdots \notag \\
& z = z_\infty = x + \sum_{j = 1}^\infty y_j, \label{PD5}\end{aligned}$$
to reduce the system to the canonical form: $$\label{PD2}
{\partial_t}z = A z + G(z)
= Az + \sum_{j = a}^\infty g_j(z),$$
where $g_j(z)$ in the series $G(z) = \sum_{j = a}^\infty g_j(z) $ denotes [*resonant*]{} monomials of degree $j$ in $z$.[^5] Moreover, after the $k$th step, we have $$\label{PD6}
{\partial_t}z_k = A z_k + G_k (z_k),$$
where monomials of degree up to $k(a-1)+a-2$ in $G_k (z_k)$ are all resonant.
With ${\widetilde}{x}(t) = e^{-tA} x(t)$, ${\widetilde}{y}_j(t) = e^{-tA} y_j(t)$, and so on, namely “working in terms of the interaction representations,” we can rewrite the original equation as $$\label{PD3}
{\partial_t}{\widetilde}{x} = e^{-tA} F(e^{tA} {\widetilde}{x}),$$
and the resulting canonical equations and as $$\label{PD4}
\begin{cases}
{\partial_t}{\widetilde}{z}_k = e^{-tA} G_k (e^{tA} {\widetilde}{z}_k), & \text{after the $k$th step,}\\
{\partial_t}{\widetilde}{z} = e^{-tA} G(e^{tA} {\widetilde}{z}), & k = \infty.
\end{cases}$$
Note that the right hand sides of consist of only resonant monomials when $k = \infty$ (and up to degree $k(a-1) + a-2$ after the $k$ th step.) After integrating in time, we obtain $$\label{PD9}
\begin{cases}
{\widetilde}{z}_k (t) = {\widetilde}{z}_k(0) + \int_0^t e^{-t'A} G_k (e^{t'A} {\widetilde}{z}_k(t')) dt',
& \text{after the $k$th step,}\\
{\widetilde}{z}(t) = {\widetilde}{z}(0) +\int_0^t e^{-t'A} G(e^{t'A} {\widetilde}{z}(t'))dt',
& k = \infty.
\end{cases}$$
With , we formally have
1. After the $k$th step: $$\label{PD7}
{\widetilde}{x}(t) = {\widetilde}{x}(0) - \sum_{j = 1 }^k \big[\, {\widetilde}{y}_j(t)
-{\widetilde}{y}_j(0) \big]+ \int_0^t e^{-t'A} G_k (e^{t'A} {\widetilde}{z}_k (t'))dt'.$$
Recall that monomials of degree up to $k(a-1)+a-2$ in $G_k (z_k)$ are all resonant.
2. With $k = \infty$: $$\label{PD8}
{\widetilde}{x}(t) = {\widetilde}{x}(0) - \sum_{j = 1}^\infty \big[\, {\widetilde}{y}_j(t)
- {\widetilde}{y}_j(0) \big]+ \int_0^t e^{-t'A} G (e^{t'A} {\widetilde}{z}(t')) dt'.$$
The point of the classical Poincaré-Dulac normal form is to renormalize the flow so that it is expressed in terms of resonant terms as in , , and . However, for our purpose, the formulations and turn out to be more useful.
In the following, we take the infinite dimensional system , and formally apply the Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions to it. In order to prove Theorems \[thm0\] and \[thm1\], we present the revised application of the Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions [*with estimates*]{} in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\].
The term ${\mathfrak{R}}_1(v)$ in consists of only resonant monomials, and thus we leave it as it is. Now, apply [*differentiation by parts*]{}, i.e. integration by parts without an integration symbol - this terminology was introduced in Babin-Ilyin-Titi [@BIT] - on the non-resonant part ${\mathfrak{N}}_1(v)$: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathfrak{N}}_1(v))_n & = {\partial_t}\bigg[ i \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3 \\ n_2 \ne n_1, n_3} }
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{ \Phi(\bar{n})}
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\bigg] \notag \\
&\hphantom{X} - i \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3 \\ n_2 \ne n_1, n_3} }
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{ \Phi(\bar{n})}
{\partial_t}\big( v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\big) \notag\\
& =: {\partial_t}({\mathfrak{N}}_{21})_n + ({\mathfrak{N}}_{22})_n. \label{fN1}\end{aligned}$$
For simplicity of presentation, let us drop the complex number $i$ and simply use $1$ for $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$ appearing in the following formal computation. Moreover, assume that the time derivative falls on the first factor $v_{n_1}$ of $v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}$ in the second term ${\mathfrak{N}}_{22}$ in , counting the multiplicity. Then, from , we have $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathfrak{N}}_{22})_n
& = 3 \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3 \\ n_2 \ne n_1, n_3} }
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{ \Phi(\bar{n})}
\, ({\mathfrak{N}})_{n_1}
{\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\notag\\
& =
3 \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3 \\ n_2 \ne n_1, n_3} }
\sum_{n_1 = m_1 - m_2 + m_3 }
\frac{e^{- i (\Phi(\bar{n})+ \Phi(\bar{m}))t } }{ \Phi(\bar{n})}
v_{m_1} {\overline}{v}_{m_2}v_{m_3} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3} \label{fN22} .\end{aligned}$$
As before, the phase function $\Phi(\bar{m})$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Phi_m}
\Phi(\bar{m}):& = \Phi(n_1, m_1, m_2, m_3) = n_1^2 - m_1^2 + m_2^2- m_3^2 \notag \\
& = 2(m_2 - m_1) (m_2 - m_3)
= 2(n_1 - m_1) (n_1 - m_3),\end{aligned}$$
where the last two equalities hold under $n_1 = m_1 - m_2 + m_3$.
In particular, ${\mathfrak{N}}_{22}$ consists of quintic monomials. Then, from , , and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v1}
v(t) = v(0) + {\mathfrak{N}}_{21}(t) - {\mathfrak{N}}_{21}(0)
+ \int_0^t {\mathfrak{R}}_1(t') + {\mathfrak{N}}_{22}(t') dt'.\end{aligned}$$
This corresponds to with $k = 1$ (and $ a = 3$.) Indeed, all of the cubic monomials in the integrand of are in ${\mathfrak{R}}_1$, and they are all resonant, verifying the condition $3 = k + a - 1$ with $k = 1$ and $a = 3$. Also, ${\mathfrak{N}}_{21}$ corresponds to the first correction term ${\widetilde}{y_1}$ and its degree is 3.
In the second step, we can divide ${\mathfrak{N}}_{22}$ into its resonant part ${\mathfrak{R}}_1$ and non-resonant part ${\mathfrak{N}}_2$, according to $\Phi(\bar{n})+ \Phi(\bar{m}) = 0$ or $\ne 0$. Then, we apply differentiation by parts on the non-resonant part ${\mathfrak{N}}_2$. This yields $$\label{fN2}
{\mathfrak{N}}_2 = {\partial_t}{\mathfrak{N}}_{31} + {\mathfrak{N}}_{32}$$
where ${\mathfrak{N}}_{31}$ consists of quintic monomials and ${\mathfrak{N}}_{32}$ consists of septic monomials. Moreover, the constant appearing in front of the summation is $3\cdot 5$. (We assume that the time derivative falls on the first of the five factors, and thus we need to count the multiplicity.) See . Then, from , , and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{v2}
v(t) = v(0) + \sum_{j = 1}^2 \big[\, {\mathfrak{N}}_{(j+1) 1}(t) - {\mathfrak{N}}_{(j+1)1}(0)\big]
+ \int_0^t {\mathfrak{R}}_1(t') + {\mathfrak{R}}_2(t') + {\mathfrak{N}}_{32}(t') dt',\end{aligned}$$
corresponding to with $k = 2$ (and $ a = 3$.) Since ${\mathfrak{N}}_{32}$ consists of septic terms, all the terms up to degree 5 in the integrand in are in ${\mathfrak{R}}_1$ or ${\mathfrak{R}}_2$, and hence they are resonant.
In this way, we can repeat this formal procedure indefinitely. However, for our purpose, we need to estimate each term in $C_t H^s$, and there are three potential difficulties.
1. We need to estimate higher and higher order monomials. This corresponds to establishing multilinear estimates with higher and higher degrees of nonlinearities.
2. At the $k$th step, the number of factors on which the time derivative falls is $2k+1$. Thus, the constants grow like $3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot \cdots \cdot (2k+1)$.
3. Our multilinear estimates need to provide small constants on the terms [*without*]{} time integration, i.e. on the boundary terms, such as $ {\mathfrak{N}}_{21}(t) - {\mathfrak{N}}_{21}(0)$ in and $\sum_{j = 1}^2 \big[\, {\mathfrak{N}}_{(j+1)1}(t) - {\mathfrak{N}}_{(j+1)1}(0)\big]$ in . (We can introduce small constants for the terms inside time integration by making the time interval of integration sufficiently small, depending on $\|u_0\|_{L^2}$.)
In the following two sections, we revise this formal iteration of Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions to treat these three issues. In particular, when we apply differentiation by parts on the non-resonant part ${\mathfrak{N}}_k$ consisting of monomials of degree $2k+1$, we first divide it into two parts: a part on which we can directly establish $(2k+1)$-linear estimate (without differentiation by parts) and a part on which we can not establish any $(2k+1)$-linear estimate. Then, we apply differentiation by parts on the second part. The issues (2) and (3) can be treated by introducing different levels of thresholds for separating resonant and non-resonant parts at each iteration step. See , , , and . Lastly, we point out that the crucial tool for establishing multilinear estimates is the divisor counting argument (as in the proof of the periodic $L^4$- and $L^6$-Strichartz estimates by Bourgain [@BO1].) See .
A precursor to this argument appears in the work by Babin-Ilyin-Titi [@BIT] for KdV on ${\mathbb{T}}$, followed by the authors [@KO] for mKdV on ${\mathbb{T}}$.[^6] Note that two iterations were sufficient in [@BIT; @KO] (in [@KO], the second differentiation by parts is performed in a slightly different manner in the endpoint case) whereas, for cubic NLS, we need to iterate the argument infinitely many times. This is perhaps due to weaker dispersion of the Schrödinger equation as compared to that of the Airy equation (= linear part of KdV and mKdV.) Also, Shatah [@SHA] and, more recently, Germain-Masmoudi-Shatah [@GMS] use ideas from Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction[^7] (to send a quadratic term into a cubic one by one iteration.) However, their goal is global-in-time behavior of small solutions, and is different from ours (local-in-time with large data.)
Note that the Poincaré-Dulac normal form can be (formally) applied to non-Hamiltonian equations, whereas the Birkhoff normal form is for Hamiltonian equations. See Bourgain [@BO2; @BO3] and Colliander-Kwon-Oh [@CKO] for inductive argument on the application of the Birkhoff normal form. We point out that the argument in [@BO2; @BO3; @CKO] is for large times with finite numbers of iterations, whereas our argument is local-in-time with an infinite number of iterations.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[SEC:2\], we present the first step of (a revised version of) Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction along with relevant estimates. In Section \[SEC:3\], we introduce some notations and implement an infinite iteration scheme of (a revised version of) Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions, establishing estimates on the terms appearing at each step. In Section \[SEC:4\], we first express a smooth solution as a sum of infinite series (see ), and make sense of such a representation by the estimates in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\]. Then, we construct a weak solution in $C([0, T];L^2)$ with initial condition in $L^2$. In Section \[SEC:5\], we work on $H^s$ for $s\geq \frac{1}{6}$ and justify the formal argument in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\]. This proves unconditional uniqueness in $C([0, T];H^s)$ for $s\geq\frac{1}{6}$.
Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction, Part 1: basic setup {#SEC:2}
=========================================================
In this section, we discuss the first step of Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction. In the following, we take $s = 0$ for simplicity, and estimate each multilinear expression appearing in the discussion by the $L^2_x$-norm, independent of time. Namely, we establish direct $C_t L^2_x$ estimates. Then, we implement an infinite iteration scheme in the next section. As in Section \[SEC:1\], we often drop the complex number $i$ and simply use $1$ for $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$ in the following.[^8] Lastly, in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\], we perform all the formal computations, assuming that $u$ (and hence $v$) is a smooth solution. In Section \[SEC:5\], we justify our formal computations when $ u \in C_t H^s$, $ s\geq \frac{1}{6}$.
First, we write the nonlinearity $u|u|^2$ in as $$\begin{aligned}
u|u|^2 & = \bigg( {u} |{u}|^2 - 2{u} \fint_{\mathbb{T}}\ |{u}|^2 dx\bigg) + 2{u} \fint_{\mathbb{T}}\ |{u}|^2 dx\notag \\
& = \sum_{n_2 \ne n_1, n_3} {\widehat}{{u}}(n_1){\overline}{{{u}}(n_2)}{\widehat}{{u}}(n_3)
e^{i(n_1 - n_2 + n_3)x} -
\sum_n {\widehat}{{u}}(n)|{\widehat}{{u}}(n)|^2 e^{inx}\\
& \hphantom{X}
+ 2\bigg(\fint_{\mathbb{T}}\ |{u}|^2 dx\bigg) \sum_n {\widehat}{u}(n) e^{inx},\end{aligned}$$
where $\fint_{\mathbb{T}}|u|^2 dx := \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{T}}|u|^2 dx$. Then, can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NLS4}
{\partial_t}v_n & = i
\sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\ n_2\ne n_1, n_3} }
e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t }
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}
- i|v_n|^2 v_n
+2 i \bigg(\fint_{\mathbb{T}}\ |v|^2 dx\bigg) v_n \notag \\
& =: i\, {\mathcal{N}}_1(v)(n) -i\, {\mathcal{R}}_1(v)(n) + i {\mathcal{R}}_2(v)(n),
\end{aligned}$$
where the phase function $\Phi(\bar{n})$ is as in . From , it follows that ${\mathcal{N}}_1$ corresponds to the non-resonant part (i.e. $\Phi(\bar{n})\ne 0$) of the nonlinearity and ${\mathcal{R}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_2$ correspond to the resonant part.
\[LEM:R1\] Let ${\mathcal{R}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_2$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R1_1}
\| {\mathcal{R}}_j(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim \|v\|_{L^2}^3,\\
\| {\mathcal{R}}_j(v) - {\mathcal{R}}_j(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
\big(\|v\|_{L^2}^2 + \|w\|_{L^2}^2\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2} \label{R1_2}\end{aligned}$$
for $j = 1, 2$.
For ${\mathcal{R}}_1$, this is clear from $\ell^2_n \subset \ell^6_n$. For ${\mathcal{R}}_2$, the result follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, once we note $$\begin{aligned}
2\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{T}}& |v|^2 dx\bigg) v_n
- 2\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{T}}|w|^2 dx\bigg) w_n\\
& = 2\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{T}}v ({\overline}{v} - {\overline}{w}) dx + \int_{\mathbb{T}}(v - w){\overline}{w} dx\bigg) v_n
+2
\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{T}}\ |v|^2 dx\bigg) (v_n -w_n). \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Next, we consider the non-resonant part ${\mathcal{N}}_1$. Let $N >0$ be a large parameter. (As we see later, $N = N(\|u_0\|_{L^2})$.) First, we write $$\label{N1}
{\mathcal{N}}_1 = {\mathcal{N}}_{11} + {\mathcal{N}}_{12},$$
where ${\mathcal{N}}_{11}$ is the restriction of ${\mathcal{N}}_1$ onto $A_N$, where $A_N = \bigcup_n A_N(n)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A_N}
A_N(n):= \big\{ (n, n_1, n_2, n_3); & \ n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3, \ n_1, n_3 \ne n, \notag\\
& |\Phi(\bar{n})| = |2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)| \leq N \big\}\end{aligned}$$
and ${\mathcal{N}}_{12} := {\mathcal{N}}_1 - {\mathcal{N}}_{11}$.
Recall the following number theoretic fact [@HW]. Given an integer $m$, let $d(m)$ denote the number of divisors of $m$. Then, we have $$\label{divisor}
d(m) \lesssim e^{c\frac{\log m}{\log\log m} }
(= o(m^{\varepsilon}) \text{ for any }{\varepsilon}>0.)$$
With , we estimate ${\mathcal{N}}_{11}$ as follows.
\[LEM:N11\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}_{11}$ be as above. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N11_1}
\| {\mathcal{N}}_{11}(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{\frac{1}{2}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^3,\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}_{11}(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_{11}(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{\frac{1}{2}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^2 + \|w\|_{L^2}^2\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N11_2}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. Fix $n, \mu \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $|\mu| \leq N$. Then, from , there are at most $o(N^{0+})$ many choices for $n_1$ and $n_3$ (and hence for $n_2$ from $n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3$) satisfying $$\label{muu}
\mu = 2(n - n_1) (n - n_3).$$
Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_{11}\|_{L^2}
& = \bigg(\sum_n \Big|
\sum_{|\mu|\leq N } \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\ n_2\ne n_1, n_3\\\mu = \Phi(\bar{n})} }
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}
\Big|^2\bigg)^\frac{1}{2} \\
& \leq \bigg\{ \sum_n \bigg(\sum_{|\mu|\leq N} N^{0+} \bigg)
\bigg(\sum_{
\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\n_1, n_3}} |v_{n_1}|^2
|v_{n_1 + n_3-n}|^2|v_{n_3}|^2\bigg)
\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \lesssim N^{\frac{1}{2}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^3.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Now, we apply (the first step of) Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction to the remaining non-resonant part ${\mathcal{N}}_{12}$. Namely, we differentiate ${\mathcal{N}}_{12}$ by parts (i.e. apply the product rule on differentiation in a reversed order) and write $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{N}}_{12}(v)_n & =
\sum_{ A_N(n)^c}
{\partial_t}\bigg( \frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{-i\Phi(\bar{n})}\bigg)
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3} \notag \\
& =
i \sum_{ A_N(n)^c}
{\partial_t}\bigg[
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\bigg] \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXX}
-i \sum_{A_N(n)^c}
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
{\partial_t}\big( v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\big) \notag \\
& =
i {\partial_t}\bigg[
\sum_{ A_N(n)^c}
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\bigg] \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXX}
-i \sum_{A_N(n)^c}
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
{\partial_t}\big( v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\big) \notag \\
& =: {\partial_t}({\mathcal{N}}_{21})_n + ({\mathcal{N}}_{22})_n. \label{N12}\end{aligned}$$
Note that we formally exchanged the order of the sum and the time differentiation in the first term at the third equality. See Section \[SEC:5\] for more on this issue.
In the following, we assume that the frequencies $(n, n_1, n_2, n_3)$ are on $A_N^c$ defined in , and we may not state it explicitly.
\[LEM:N21\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}_{21}$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N21_1}
\| {\mathcal{N}}_{21}(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-\frac{1}{2}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^3,\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}_{21}(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_{21}(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-\frac{1}{2}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^2 + \|w\|_{L^2}^2\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N21_2}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. On $A_N^c$, we have $|\mu| > N$ where $\mu$ is as in . As before, for fixed $n, \mu \in \mathbb{Z}$, there are at most $o(|\mu|^{0+})$ many choices for $n_1$ and $n_3$. Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathcal{N}}_{21}\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim \bigg\{\sum_n
\bigg(\sum_{|\mu| >N}\frac{1}{|\mu|^2} |\mu|^{0+}\bigg)
\bigg( \sum_{n_1, n_3}
|v_{n_1}|^2 |{\overline}{v}_{n_2}|^2|v_{n_3}|^2\bigg)
\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \lesssim N^{-\frac{1}{2}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^3.
\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
By symmetry between $n_1$ and $n_3$, we can write the remaining term ${\mathcal{N}}_{22}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{N}}_{22})_n
& = - 2 i \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\ n_2\ne n_1, n_3 }}
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
\, {\partial_t}v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3} \notag \\
& \hphantom{xll} - i \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\ n_2\ne n_1, n_3 }}
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
v_{n_1} {\partial_t}{\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3} \notag \\
& =: ({\mathcal{N}}_{221})_n + ({\mathcal{N}}_{222})_n. \label{N22}\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we only estimate the first term ${\mathcal{N}}_{221}$ since ${\mathcal{N}}_{222}$ can be estimated analogously. From , ${\mathcal{N}}_{221}$ can be divided into two terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N221}
({\mathcal{N}}_{221})_n & =
2 \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\ n_2\ne n_1, n_3} }
\sum_{\substack{n_1 = m_1 - m_2 +m_3\\m_2 \ne m_1, m_3} }
\frac{e^{- i( \Phi(\bar{n})+ \Phi(\bar{m}) )t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
v_{m_1}{\overline}{v}_{m_2}v_{m_3}{\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3} \notag \\
& \hphantom{X} - 2 \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\ n_2\ne n_1, n_3} }
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
({\mathcal{R}}_{1}-{\mathcal{R}}_2)_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\notag\\
& =: ({\mathcal{N}}_{3})_n + ({\mathcal{N}}_{4})_n,\end{aligned}$$
where the phase function $\Phi(\bar{m})$ is as in . The second term ${\mathcal{N}}_4$ can be easily estimated.
\[LEM:N4\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}_{4}$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N4_1}
\| {\mathcal{N}}_{4}(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-\frac{1}{2}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^5,\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}_{4}(v) - {\mathcal{N}}_{4}(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-\frac{1}{2}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^4 + \|w\|_{L^2}^4\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N4_2}\end{aligned}$$
This lemma follows from Lemmata \[LEM:N21\] and \[LEM:R1\].
Now, it remains to estimate ${\mathcal{N}}_3$. As in , we separate ${\mathcal{N}}_3$ into two parts, depending on the size of the phase $\Phi(\bar{n})+\Phi(\bar{m})$ (see below), and estimate a part of ${\mathcal{N}}_3$, corresponding to “small” phase $\Phi(\bar{n})+\Phi(\bar{m})$, as in Lemma \[LEM:N11\]. See Lemma \[LEM:N\^2\_1\]. Then, we apply (the second step of) Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction to the remaining (non-resonant) part with “large” phase $\Phi(\bar{n})+\Phi(\bar{m})$. See . However, it turns out that in order to prove Theorems \[thm0\] and \[thm1\], we need to iterate this procedure infinitely many times. Hence, in the next section, we first set up a necessary machinery and perform such an infinite iteration to estimate ${\mathcal{N}}_3$.
Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction, Part 2: infinite iteration {#SEC:3}
================================================================
Notations: index by trees
-------------------------
In this section, we apply Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions infinitely many times to estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N3}
({\mathcal{N}}_3)_n = 2 \sum_{\substack{n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3\\ n_2\ne n_1, n_3} }
\sum_{\substack{n_1 = m_1 - m_2 +m_3\\m_2 \ne m_1, m_3} }
\frac{e^{- i( \Phi(\bar{n})+ \Phi(\bar{m}) )t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
v_{m_1}{\overline}{v}_{m_2}v_{m_3}{\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3} .\end{aligned}$$
In order to do so, we need to set up some notations. In the following, the complex conjugate signs on $v_{n_j}$ do not play any significant role, and thus we drop the complex conjugate sign. We also assume that all the Fourier coefficients $v_{n_j}$ are non-negative.
When we apply differentiation by parts, we obtain terms like ${\mathcal{N}}_{22}$ in , where the time derivative may fall on any of the factors $v_{n_j}$. In general, the structure of such terms can be very complicated, depending on where the time derivative falls. In the following, we introduce the notion of trees (in particular, of ordered trees in Definition \[DEF:tree3\]) for indexing such terms and frequencies arising in the general steps of the Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions. We point out that some of the definitions are similar, but that some are different from those in Christ [@CH2].
\[DEF:tree1\] Given a partially ordered set ${\mathcal{T}}$ with partial order $\leq$, we say that $b \in {\mathcal{T}}$ with $b \leq a$ and $b \ne a$ is a child of $a \in {\mathcal{T}}$, if $b\leq c \leq a$ implies either $c = a$ or $c = b$. If the latter condition holds, we also say that $a$ is the parent of $b$.
As in Christ [@CH2], our trees in this paper refer to a particular subclass of usual trees with the following properties:
\[DEF:tree2\] A tree ${\mathcal{T}}$ is a finite partially ordered set satisfying the following properties.
1. Let $a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4 \in {\mathcal{T}}$. If $a_4 \leq a_2 \leq a_1$ and $a_4 \leq a_3 \leq a_1$, then we have $a_2\leq a_3$ or $a_3 \leq a_2$,
2. A node $a\in {\mathcal{T}}$ is called terminal, if it has no child. A non-terminal node $a\in {\mathcal{T}}$ is a node with exactly three children denoted by $a_1, a_2$, and $a_3$,
3. There exists a maximal element $r \in {\mathcal{T}}$ (called the root node) such that $a \leq r$ for all $a \in {\mathcal{T}}$. We assume that the root node is non-terminal,
4. ${\mathcal{T}}$ consists of the disjoint union of ${\mathcal{T}}^0$ and ${\mathcal{T}}^\infty$, where ${\mathcal{T}}^0$ and ${\mathcal{T}}^\infty$ denote the collections of non-terminal nodes and terminal nodes, respectively.
Note that the number $|{\mathcal{T}}|$ of nodes in a tree ${\mathcal{T}}$ is $3j+1$ for some $j \in \mathbb{N}$, where $|{\mathcal{T}}^0| = j$ and $|{\mathcal{T}}^\infty| = 2j + 1$. Let us denote the collection of trees in the $j$th generation (i.e. with $j$ parental nodes) by $T(j)$, i.e. $$T(j) := \{ {\mathcal{T}}: {\mathcal{T}}\text{ is a tree with } |{\mathcal{T}}| = 3j+1 \}.$$
Now, we introduce the notion of ordered trees.
\[DEF:tree3\] We say that a sequence $\{ {\mathcal{T}}_j\}_{j = 1}^J$ is a chronicle of $J$ generations, if
1. ${\mathcal{T}}_j \in {T}(j)$ for each $j = 1, \dots, J$,
2. ${\mathcal{T}}_{j+1}$ is obtained by changing one of the terminal nodes in ${\mathcal{T}}_j$ into a non-terminal node (with three children), $j = 1, \dots, J - 1$.
Given a chronicle $\{ {\mathcal{T}}_j\}_{j = 1}^J$ of $J$ generations, we refer to ${\mathcal{T}}_J$ as an [*ordered tree*]{} of the $J$th generation. We denote the collection of the ordered trees of the $J$th generation by $\mathfrak{T}(J)$. Note that the cardinality of $\mathfrak{T}(J)$ is given by $$\label{cj1}
|\mathfrak{T}(J)| = 1\cdot3 \cdot 5 \cdot \cdots \cdot (2J-1) =: c_J.$$
Given two ordered trees ${\mathcal{T}}_J$ and ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal{T}}}_J$ of the $J$th generation, it may happen that ${\mathcal{T}}_J = {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{T}}}_J$ as trees (namely as graphs) according to Definition \[DEF:tree2\], while ${\mathcal{T}}_J \ne {\widetilde}{{\mathcal{T}}}_J$ as ordered trees according to Definition \[DEF:tree3\]. Namely, the notion of ordered trees comes with associated chronicles; it encodes not only the shape of a tree but also how it “grew”. Henceforth, when we refer to an ordered tree ${\mathcal{T}}_J$ of the $J$th generation, it is understood that there is an underlying chronicle $\{ {\mathcal{T}}_j\}_{j = 1}^J$.
\[DEF:tree4\] Given an ordered tree ${\mathcal{T}}$ (of the $J$th generation for some $J \in \mathbb{N}$), we define an index function ${\bf n}: {\mathcal{T}}\to \mathbb{Z}$ such that,
- $n_a = n_{a_1} - n_{a_2} + n_{a_3}$ for $a \in {\mathcal{T}}^0$, where $a_1, a_2$, and $a_3$ denote the children of $a$,
- $\{n_a, n_{a_2}\} \cap \{n_{a_1}, n_{a_3}\} = \emptyset$ for $a \in {\mathcal{T}}^0$,
- $|\mu_1| := |2(n_r - n_{r_1})(n_r - n_{r_3})| >N$, where $r$ is the root node, (recall that we are on $A_N^c$ - see ),
where we identified ${\bf n}: {\mathcal{T}}\to \mathbb{Z}$ with $\{n_a \}_{a\in {\mathcal{T}}} \in \mathbb{Z}^{\mathcal{T}}$.
We use $\mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}) \subset \mathbb{Z}^{\mathcal{T}}$ to denote the collection of such index functions ${\bf n}$.
\[REM:terminal\] Note that ${\bf n} = \{n_a\}_{a\in{\mathcal{T}}}$ is completely determined once we specify the values $n_a$ for $a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty$.
Given an ordered tree ${\mathcal{T}}_J$ of the $J$th generation with the chronicle $\{ {\mathcal{T}}_j\}_{j = 1}^J$ and associated index functions ${\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_J)$, we would like to keep track of the “generations” of frequencies. In the following, we use superscripts to denote such generations of frequencies.
Fix ${\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_J)$. Consider ${\mathcal{T}}_1$ of the first generation. Its nodes consist of the root node $r$ and its children $r_1, r_2, $ and $r_3$. We define the first generation of frequencies by $$\big(n^{(1)}, n^{(1)}_1, n^{(1)}_2, n^{(1)}_3\big) :=(n_r, n_{r_1}, n_{r_2}, n_{r_3}).$$
From Definition \[DEF:tree4\], we have $$n^{(1)} = n^{(1)}_1 - n^{(1)}_2 + n^{(1)}_3, \quad n^{(1)}_2\ne n^{(1)}_1, n^{(1)}_3.$$
The ordered tree ${\mathcal{T}}_2$ of the second generation is obtained from ${\mathcal{T}}_1$ by changing one of its terminal nodes $a = r_k \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_1$ for some $k \in \{1, 2, 3\}$ into a non-terminal node. Then, we define the second generation of frequencies by $$\big(n^{(2)}, n^{(2)}_1, n^{(2)}_2, n^{(2)}_3\big) :=(n_a, n_{a_1}, n_{a_2}, n_{a_3}).$$
Then, we have $n^{(2)} = n_k^{(1)}$ for some $k \in \{1, 2, 3\}$, $$n^{(2)} = n^{(2)}_1 - n^{(2)}_2 + n^{(2)}_3, \quad n^{(2)}_2\ne n^{(2)}_1, n^{(2)}_3,$$
where the last identities follow from Definition \[DEF:tree4\].
As we see later, this corresponds to introducing a new set of frequencies after the first differentiation by parts. For example, in , we assumed that the time derivative falls on $v_{n_1^{(1)}}$. This corresponds to changing the “first” child $r_1 \in {\mathcal{T}}_1^\infty$ into a non-terminal node, and we have $$\big(n^{(2)}, n^{(2)}_1, n^{(2)}_2, n^{(2)}_3\big) :=(n_1, m_1, m_2, m_3).$$
After $j - 1$ steps, the ordered tree ${\mathcal{T}}_j$ of the $j$th generation is obtained from ${\mathcal{T}}_{j-1}$ by changing one of its terminal nodes $a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_{j-1}$ into a non-terminal node. Then, we define the $j$th generation of frequencies by $$\big(n^{(j)}, n^{(j)}_1, n^{(j)}_2, n^{(j)}_3\big) :=(n_a, n_{a_1}, n_{a_2}, n_{a_3}).$$
As before, from Definition \[DEF:tree4\], we have $$\label{freq}
n^{(j)} = n^{(j)}_1 - n^{(j)}_2 + n^{(j)}_3, \quad n^{(j)}_2\ne n^{(j)}_1, n^{(j)}_3.$$
Also, we have $n^{(j)} = n^{(m)}_k (=n_a)$ for some $m \in \{1, \dots, j-1\}$ and $k \in \{1, 2, 3\}$, since this corresponds to the frequency of some terminal node in ${\mathcal{T}}_{j-1}$.
In the following, we pictorially present an example of an ordered tree ${\mathcal{T}}\in \mathfrak{T}(4)$ with ${\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}})$: $$\xymatrix{
& & &n^{(1)} \ar[dll] \ar[d] \ar[drr]\\
& n^{(1)}_1 =n^{(2)} \ar[dl] \ar[d] \ar[dr] & & n^{(1)}_2& & n^{(1)}_3 = n^{(3)} \ar[dl] \ar[d] \ar[dr] &\\
n^{(2)}_1&n^{(2)}_2&n^{(2)}_3 = n^{(4)}\ar[dl] \ar[d] \ar[dr] &&n^{(3)}_1&n^{(3)}_2&n^{(3)}_3\\
&n^{(4)}_1&n^{(4)}_2&n^{(4)}_3&&&}$$
Here, we have ornamented the nodes with the values of ${\bf n}
= \{n_a\}_{a\in{\mathcal{T}}}
\in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}})$, specifying the generations of frequencies as discussed above.
We use $\mu_j$ to denote the corresponding phase factor introduced at the $j$th generation. Namely, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_j & = \mu_j \big(n^{(j)}, n^{(j)}_1, n^{(j)}_2, n^{(j)}_3\big)
:= \big(n^{(j)}\big)^2 - \big(n_1^{(j)}\big)^2 + \big(n_2^{(j)}\big)^2- \big(n_3^{(j)}\big)^2 \notag \\
& = 2\big(n_2^{(j)} - n_1^{(j)}\big) \big(n_2^{(j)} - n_3^{(j)}\big)
= 2\big(n^{(j)} - n_1^{(j)}\big) \big(n^{(j)} - n_3^{(j)}\big), \label{mu}\end{aligned}$$
where the last two equalities hold thanks to .
Lastly, for a fixed ordered tree ${\mathcal{T}}$, we denote by $B_j = B_j({\mathcal{T}})$ the set of all possible frequencies in the $j$th generation.
Example: second and third generations
-------------------------------------
Using these notations, we can rewrite ${\mathcal{N}}_3$ in as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N^2}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(2)} (n): = ({\mathcal{N}}_3)_n =
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2 )t } }{\mu_1}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2} v_{n_{a}}. \end{aligned}$$
Here, we included the contribution of a similar term arising from ${\mathcal{N}}_{222}$ in , i.e. when the time derivative falls on the second factor $v_{n_2}$.[^9] Strictly speaking, the new phase factor may be $\mu_1 - \mu_2$ when the time derivative falls on the complex conjugate. However, for our analysis, it makes no difference and hence we simply write it as $\mu_1 + \mu_2$. The same comments apply in the following. Also, recall that the set of frequencies are restricted onto $A_N^c$ defined in . See Definition \[DEF:tree4\] (iii). In the following, similar restrictions on $\mu_j$ appear, but we suppress such restrictions for simplicity of notations, when it is clear from the context.
Next, we divide the Fourier space into $$\label{C1}
C_1 = \big\{ |\mu_1 + \mu_2| \lesssim 5^3 |\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\big\}$$
and its complement $C_1^c$.[^10] Then, write $$\label{N^2_1}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(2)} = {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1 + {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_2,$$
where ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1$ is the restriction of ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}$ onto $C_1$ and ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_2 := {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)} - {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1$.
\[LEM:N\^2\_1\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N^2-1}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-\frac{1}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^5,\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-\frac{1}{200}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^4 + \|w\|_{L^2}^4\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N^2-2}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. Since we are on $A_N^c$ (see ), we have $|\mu_1| >N$. Next, we use the divisor counting argument as in the proof of Lemma \[LEM:N11\]. It follows from that for fixed $n$ and $\mu_1$, there are at most $o(|\mu_1|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(1)}_1$ and $n^{(1)}_3$ on $B_1$ (and hence for $n^{(1)}_2$ from $n^{(1)} = n^{(1)}_1 - n^{(1)}_2 + n^{(1)}_3$). Similarly, for fixed $n^{(2)} = n_1^{(1)}$ and $\mu_2$, there are at most $o(|\mu_2|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(2)}_1$, $n^{(2)}_2$, and $n^{(2)}_3$ on $B_2$.
The main point is to control $|\mu_2|$ in terms of $|\mu_1|$. From , we have $|\mu_2|\sim|\mu_1|$. Moreover, for fixed $|\mu_1|$, there are at most $O(|\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}})$ many choices for $\mu_2$. Hence, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_1(v)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}
\bigg(\sum_n \bigg|
\sum_{|\mu|> N }
\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n\\{\mu_1 = \mu}}}
\frac{1}{|\mu_1|} \prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2} v_{n_a}
\bigg|^2\bigg)^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \lesssim \bigg\{ \sum_n
\bigg(
\sum_{|\mu| >N } \frac{1}{|\mu|^2}\, |\mu|^{1-\frac{1}{100}+}\bigg)
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2} |v_{n_a}|^2
\bigg)\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \leq N^{-\frac{1}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^5. \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
Next, we apply (the second step of) Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction to ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_2$. Note that we have $$\label{mu2}
|\mu_1 + \mu_2| \gg 5^3 |\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}} > 5^3 N^{1-\frac{1}{100}}$$
on the support of ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_2$, i.e. on $C_1^c$. After differentiation by parts, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N^3}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_2 (n)
& = {\partial_t}\bigg[\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2 )t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2} v_{n_{a}} \bigg]\notag \\
& \hphantom{X} -
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}
\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n} }
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2)t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)}
\,
{\partial_t}\bigg(\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2 } v_{n_{a}}\bigg) \notag \\
& = {\partial_t}\bigg[\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2 )t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2} v_{n_{a}} \bigg]\notag \\
& \hphantom{X} -
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}
\sum_{b \in{\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2}
\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n} }
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2)t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)}
\, {\partial_t}v_{n_b}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2 \setminus \{b\}} v_{n_{a}} \notag \\
& = {\partial_t}\bigg[\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2 )t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2} v_{n_{a}} \bigg]\notag \\
& \hphantom{X} -
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}
\sum_{b \in{\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2}
\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n} }
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2)t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)}
\, ({\mathcal{R}}_1-{\mathcal{R}}_2)_{n_b}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2 \setminus \{b\}} v_{n_{a}} \notag \\
& \hphantom{X} - \sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_3 \in \mathfrak{T}(3)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_3)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2 +\mu_3)t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)}
\,\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_3} v_{n_{a}} \notag\\
& =: {\partial_t}{\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_0(n) + {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_r(n) + {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}(n).\end{aligned}$$
In the third equality, we used and replaced ${\partial_t}v_{n_b}$ by the resonant part $({\mathcal{R}}_1 -{\mathcal{R}}_2) (n_b)$ and the non-resonant part ${\mathcal{N}}_1(n_b)$. As for the contribution from the non-resonant part, we replace the frequency $n_b$ by $n_{b_1}, n_{b_2}$, and $n_{b_3}$ such that $n_b = n_{b_1} - n_{b_2} + n_{b_3}$ and $n_{b_2} \ne n_{b_1}, n_{b_3}$, which corresponds to extending the tree ${\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)$ (and ${\bf n }\in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)$) to ${\mathcal{T}}_3 \in \mathfrak{T}(3)$ (and to ${\bf n }\in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_3)$, respectively) by replacing the terminal node $b \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2$ into a non-terminal node with three children $b_1, b_2,$ and $b_3$.
First, let us estimate the easier terms ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_0$ and ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_r$.
\[LEM:N\^3\_0\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_0$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_0(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-1 + \frac{1}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^5, \label{N^3_0-1}\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_0(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_0(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-1 + \frac{1}{200}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^4 + \|w\|_{L^2}^4\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N^3_0-2}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. As in the proof of Lemma \[LEM:N\^2\_1\], it follows from that for fixed $n$ and $\mu_1$, there are at most $o(|\mu_1|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(1)}_1$, $n^{(1)}_2$, and $n^{(1)}_3$ on $B_1$. Similarly, for fixed $n^{(2)} = n_1^{(1)}$ and $\mu_2$, there are at most $o(|\mu_2|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(2)}_1$, $n^{(2)}_2$, and $n^{(2)}_3$ on $B_2$.
With ${\widetilde}{\mu}_2 = \mu_1 + \mu_2$, we have $|\mu_2| \lesssim \max (|\mu_1|, |{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|)$. Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_0(v)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim \sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)}\bigg\{ \sum_n
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{|\mu_1| >N\\ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_2| >5^3 N^{1-\frac{1}{100}}}}
\frac{1}{|\mu_1|^{2}|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{2}} \, |\mu_1|^{0+}|\mu_2|^{0+}
\bigg)\\
& \hphantom{XXXXXXXXX} \times
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_2)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_2} |v_{n_a}|^2
\bigg)\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \lesssim N^{-1 + \frac{1}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^5. \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
\[LEM:N\^3\_r\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_r$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_r(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-1 + \frac{1}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^7, \label{N^3_r-1}\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_r(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_r(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-1 + \frac{1}{200}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^6 + \|w\|_{L^2}^6\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N^3_r-2}\end{aligned}$$
This lemma follows from Lemmata \[LEM:N\^3\_0\] and \[LEM:R1\]. Note that, given ${\mathcal{T}}_2 \in \mathfrak{T}(2)$, we have $\#\{b: b \in {\mathcal{T}}_2\} = 5$.
Now, we treat ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}$. As before, we write $$\label{N^3_1}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(3)} = {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1 + {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_2,$$
where ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1$ is the restriction of ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}$ onto $$\label{C2}
C_2 = \big\{ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_3| \lesssim 7^3|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\big\}
\cup \big\{ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_3| \lesssim 7^3 |\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\big\},$$
where ${\widetilde}{\mu}_2 := \mu_1 + \mu_2$ and ${\widetilde}{\mu}_3 := \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \mu_3$, and ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_2 := {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)} - {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1$.
\[LEM:N\^3\_1\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N^3-1}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-\frac{1}{2}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^7,\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-\frac{1}{2}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^6 + \|w\|_{L^2}^6\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N^3-2}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. The proof is very similar to that of Lemma \[LEM:N\^2\_1\], i.e. we use the divisor counting argument. It follows from that for fixed $n$ and $\mu_1$, there are at most $o(|\mu_1|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(1)}_1, n^{(1)}_2,$ and $ n^{(1)}_3$ on $B_1$. For fixed $n^{(2)} = n_1^{(1)}$ and $\mu_2$, there are at most $o(|\mu_2|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(2)}_1$, $n^{(2)}_2$, and $n^{(2)}_3$ on $B_2$. Moreover, for fixed $n^{(3)} = n_1^{(2)}$ and $\mu_3$, there are at most $o(|\mu_3|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(3)}_1$, $n^{(3)}_2$, and $n^{(3)}_3$ on $B_3$.
First, we assume that $|{\widetilde}{\mu}_3| \lesssim |{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}$ holds in . Then, we have $|\mu_3|\sim|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|$ since ${\widetilde}{\mu}_3 = {\widetilde}{\mu}_2 + \mu_3$. Moreover, for fixed $|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|$, namely for fixed $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, there are at most $O(|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{1-\frac{1}{100}})$ many choices for ${\widetilde}{\mu}_3$, and hence for $\mu_3 = {\widetilde}{\mu}_3 - {\widetilde}{\mu}_2$. Also, we have $|\mu_2| \lesssim \max(|\mu_1|, |{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|)$ and . Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_1(v)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim \sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_3 \in \mathfrak{T}(3)}
\bigg(\sum_n \bigg|
\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_3)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{1}{|\mu_1||{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_3} v_{n_{a}}
\bigg|^2\bigg)^\frac{1}{2} \notag \\
& \lesssim \bigg\{ \sum_n
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{|\mu_1|>N\\ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_2| >5^3N^{1-\frac{1}{100}}}}
\frac{1}{|\mu_1|^{2}|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{2}} |\mu_1|^{0+}|\mu_2|^{0+}|\mu_3|^{0+}
|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\bigg) \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXXXXX} \times \bigg( \sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_3)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_3} |v_{n_{a}}|^2
\bigg)\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2} \notag \\
& \lesssim \bigg\{ \sum_n
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{|\mu_1|>N\\ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_2| >5^3N^{1-\frac{1}{100}}}}
\frac{1}{|\mu_1|^{2-}|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{1+\frac{1}{100}-}}\bigg)
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_3)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_3} |v_{n_{a}}|^2
\bigg)\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2} \notag\\
& \lesssim N^{-\frac{1}{2}} \|v\|_{L^2}^7. \label{N^3-3}\end{aligned}$$
If $|{\widetilde}{\mu}_3| \lesssim |\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}$ holds in , then, for fixed $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, there are at most $O(|\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}})$ many choices for ${\widetilde}{\mu}_3$, and hence for $\mu_3$. By repeating the same computation, we obtain $|\mu_1|^{-1-\frac{1}{100}+}|{\widetilde}{\mu}_2|^{-2+}$ in , yielding with $N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}$.
Next, we apply (the third step of) Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction to ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_2$. Note that we have $$\label{mu3}
|{\widetilde}{\mu}_3| = |\mu_1 + \mu_2+\mu_3| \gg 7^3 |\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}} > 7^3 N^{1-\frac{1}{100}}$$
on the support of ${\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_2$, i.e. on $C_2^c$. After differentiation by parts, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N^4}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(3)}_2 (n)
& = {\partial_t}\bigg[-\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_3 \in \mathfrak{T}(3)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_3)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2 +\mu_3)t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)( \mu_1 + \mu_2 +\mu_3)}
\, \prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_3} v_{n_{a}}
\bigg]\notag \\
& \hphantom{X} +
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_3 \in \mathfrak{T}(3)}
\sum_{b \in{\mathcal{T}}^\infty_3}
\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_3)\\{\bf n}_r = n} }
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2+\mu_3)t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)( \mu_1 + \mu_2 +\mu_3)}
\, ({\mathcal{R}}_1-{\mathcal{R}}_2)_{n_b}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_3 \setminus \{b\}} v_{n_{a}} \notag \\
& \hphantom{X} +
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_4 \in \mathfrak{T}(4)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_4)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i( \mu_1 + \mu_2 +\mu_3+\mu_4)t } }{\mu_1(\mu_1+\mu_2)( \mu_1 + \mu_2 +\mu_3)}
\,\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_4} v_{n_{a}} \notag\\
& =: {\partial_t}{\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_0 (n)+ {\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_r (n)+ {\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}(n).\end{aligned}$$
We can clearly estimate ${\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_0$ and $ {\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_r$, with $|\mu_1| >N$, , and , just as in Lemmata \[LEM:N\^3\_0\] and \[LEM:N\^3\_r\]. As for ${\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}$, we can write $${\mathcal{N}}^{(4)} = {\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_1 + {\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_2$$
as the restrictions onto $$\label{C3}
C_3 = \big\{ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_4| \lesssim 9^3 |{\widetilde}{\mu}_3|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\big\}
\cup \big\{ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_4| \lesssim 9^3 |\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\big\},$$
where ${\widetilde}{\mu}_4 := \mu_1 + \mu_2 + \mu_3+\mu_4$, and its complement $C_3^c$, respectively. Then, ${\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_1$ can be estimated as in Lemma \[LEM:N\^3\_1\] and we can apply (the fourth step of) Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction to ${\mathcal{N}}^{(4)}_2$. In this way, we iterate Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions.
General step: $J$th generation
------------------------------
After the $J$th step, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N^J+1}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(J)}_2 (n)
& = {\partial_t}\bigg[\mp
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_J \in \mathfrak{T}(J)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_J)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i {\widetilde}{\mu}_Jt } }{{\widehat}{\mu}_J}
\, \prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_J} v_{n_{a}}
\bigg]\notag \\
& \hphantom{X}
\pm
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_{J} \in \mathfrak{T}(J)}
\sum_{b \in{\mathcal{T}}^\infty_J}
\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_J)\\{\bf n}_r = n} }
\frac{e^{- i {\widetilde}{\mu}_Jt } }{{\widehat}{\mu}_J}
\, ({\mathcal{R}}_1-{\mathcal{R}}_2)_{n_b}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_J \setminus \{b\}} v_{n_{a}} \notag \\
& \hphantom{X}
\pm
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_{J+1} \in \mathfrak{T}(J+1)}\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_{J+1})\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\frac{e^{- i {\widetilde}{\mu}_{J+1}t } }{{\widehat}{\mu}_J}
\,\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_{J+1}} v_{n_{a}} \notag\\
& =: {\partial_t}{\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_0 (n)+ {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_r(n) + {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}(n),\end{aligned}$$
where ${\widetilde}{\mu}_J$ and ${\widehat}{\mu}_J$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{\mu}_J := \sum_{j = 1}^J \mu_j,
\quad \text{and} \quad {\widehat}{\mu}_J := \prod_{j = 1}^J {\widetilde}{\mu}_j.
$$
Keep in mind that $|\mu_1|>N$ and $$\label{muj}
|{\widetilde}{\mu}_j| \gg
(2j+1)^3\max ( |{\widetilde}{\mu}_{j-1}|^{1-\frac{1}{100}},
|\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}) >
(2j+1)^3N^{1-\frac{1}{100}},$$
for $j = 2, \dots, J.$ First, we estimate ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_0$ and ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_r$.
\[LEM:N\^J+1\_0\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_0$ be as in . Then, we have[^11] $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_0(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-\frac{J}{2}+\frac{(J-1)}{200}+}
\|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+1}, \label{N^J+1_0-1}\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_0(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_0(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-\frac{J}{2}+\frac{(J-1)}{200}+}
\big(\|v\|_{L^2}^{2J} + \|w\|_{L^2}^{2J}\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N^J+1_0-2}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. Note that there is an extra factor $\sim J$ when we estimate the difference in since $|a^{2J+1} - b^{2J+1}| \lesssim
\big(\sum_{j = 1}^{2J+1} a^{2J+1-j}b^{j-1} \big) |a - b |$ has $O(J)$ many terms. However, this does not cause a problem since the constant we obtain decays like a fractional power of a factorial in $J$ (as we see below in .) The same comment applies to Lemmata \[LEM:N\^J+1\_r\] and \[LEM:N\^J+1\_1\].
As in the proof of Lemma \[LEM:N\^3\_0\], for fixed $n^{(j)}$ and $\mu_j$, there are at most $o(|\mu_j|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(j)}_1$, $n^{(j)}_2$, and $n^{(j)}_3$. Also, note that $\mu_j$ is determined by ${\widetilde}{\mu}_1, \dots, {\widetilde}{\mu}_j$ and $$\label{mujj}
|\mu_j| \lesssim \max(|{\widetilde}{\mu}_{j-1}|, |{\widetilde}{\mu}_j|).$$
since $\mu_j = {\widetilde}{\mu}_{j}-{\widetilde}{\mu}_{j-1}$. Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_0(v)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
\sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_J \in \mathfrak{T}(J)}
\bigg\{ \sum_n
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{|\mu_1|>N \\ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_j|>(2j+1)^3N^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\\ j = 2, \dots, J} }
\prod_{k = 1}^J \frac{1}{|{\widetilde}{\mu}_k|^2}
\, |\mu_k|^{0+}\bigg) \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXXXXX} \times
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_J)\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_J} |v_{n_a}|^2
\bigg)\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2} \notag \\
& \lesssim \frac{c_J}{\prod_{j = 2}^J(2j+1)^{\frac{3}{2}-}}N^{-\frac{J}{2}+\frac{(J-1)}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+1}
\label{N^J+1_0-3} \\
&\lesssim N^{-\frac{J}{2}+\frac{(J-1)}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+1}, \notag\end{aligned}$$
where $c_J = |\mathfrak{T}(J)| $ is defined in .
\[LEM:N\^J+1\_r\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_r$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_r(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-\frac{J}{2}+\frac{(J-1)}{200}+}
\|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+3}, \label{N^J+1_r-1}\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_r(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_r(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-\frac{J}{2}+\frac{(J-1)}{200}+}
\big(\|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+2} + \|w\|_{L^2}^{2J+2}\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N^J+1_r-2}\end{aligned}$$
This lemma follows from Lemmata \[LEM:N\^J+1\_0\] and \[LEM:R1\]. Note that, given ${\mathcal{T}}_J \in \mathfrak{T}(J)$, we have $\#\{b: b \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_J\} = 2J+1$. This extra factor $2J+1$ does not cause a problem thanks to the fast decaying constant in .
Finally, we treat ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}$. As before, we write $$\label{N^J+1_1}
{\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)} = {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1 + {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_2,$$
where ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1$ is the restriction of ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}$ onto $$\label{CJ}
C_J = \big\{ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_{J+1}| \lesssim (2J+3)^3|{\widetilde}{\mu}_J|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\big\}
\cup \big\{ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_{J+1}| \lesssim (2J+3)^3|\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\big\}$$
and ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_2 := {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)} - {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1$. We estimate the first term ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1$ in the following lemma, while we apply Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction once again to the second term ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_2$ as in .
\[LEM:N\^J+1\_1\] Let ${\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1$ be as in . Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{N^J+1-1}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1(v)\|_{L^2} & \lesssim N^{-\frac{J-1}{2}+\frac{(J-2)}{200}+}\|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+3},\\
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1(v) - {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1(w)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim
N^{-\frac{J-1}{2}+\frac{(J-2)}{200}+} \big(\|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+2} + \|w\|_{L^2}^{2J+2}\big) \|v - w\|_{L^2}. \label{N^J+1-2}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove since follows in a similar manner. As before, we use the divisor counting argument. For fixed $n^{(j)}$ and $\mu_j$, there are at most $o(|\mu_j|^{0+})$ many choices for $n^{(j)}_1$, $n^{(j)}_2$, and $n^{(j)}_3$. Also, note that $\mu_j$ is determined by ${\widetilde}{\mu}_1, \dots, {\widetilde}{\mu}_j$
First, we assume that $ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_{J+1}| = |{\widetilde}{\mu}_J+\mu_{J+1}| \lesssim (2J+3)^3|{\widetilde}{\mu}_J|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}$ holds in . Then, we have $|\mu_{J+1}| \lesssim |{\widetilde}{\mu}_J|$. Also, for fixed ${\widetilde}{\mu}_J$, there are at most $o(|{\widetilde}{\mu}_J|^{1-\frac{1}{100}})$ many choices[^12] for ${\widetilde}{\mu}_{J+1}$ and hence for $\mu_{J+1} = {\widetilde}{\mu}_{J+1} - {\widetilde}{\mu}_J$. Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality with and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\mathcal{N}}^{(J+1)}_1(v)\|_{L^2}
& \lesssim \sum_{{\mathcal{T}}_{J+1} \in \mathfrak{T}(J+1)}
\bigg\{ \sum_n
\bigg(\sum_{\substack{|\mu_1|>N \\ |{\widetilde}{\mu}_j|>(2j+1)^3N^{1-\frac{1}{100}}\\ j = 2, \dots, J} }
|{\widetilde}{\mu}_J|^{1-\frac{1}{100}+}
\prod_{k = 1}^J \frac{1}{|{\widetilde}{\mu}_k|^2}
\, |\mu_k|^{0+} \bigg) \notag\\
& \hphantom{XXXXXX}
\times \bigg(\sum_{\substack{{\bf n} \in \mathfrak{N}({\mathcal{T}}_{J+1})\\{\bf n}_r = n}}
\prod_{a \in {\mathcal{T}}^\infty_{J+1}} |v_{n_{a}}|^2
\bigg)\bigg\}^\frac{1}{2} \notag\\
& \lesssim N^{-\frac{J-1}{2}+\frac{J-2}{200}-\frac{1}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+3}
\leq N^{-\frac{J-1}{2}+\frac{J-2}{200}+} \|v\|_{L^2}^{2J+3}. \label{N^J+1-3}\end{aligned}$$
by crudely estimating in $N$.
If $|{\widetilde}{\mu}_{J+1}| \lesssim (2J+3)^3|\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}$ holds in , then, for fixed $\mu_j$, $j = 1, \dots, J$, there are at most $O(|\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}})$ many choices for $\mu_{J+1}$. By repeating the same computation, we obtain $$|\mu_1|^{1-\frac{1}{100}}
\prod_{k = 1}^J \frac{1}{|{\widetilde}{\mu}_k|^2}
\, |\mu_k|^{0+}$$ in , yielding with $N^{-\frac{J-1}{2}+\frac{J-2}{200}+}$.
Existence of weak solutions {#SEC:4}
===========================
In this section, we put together all the lemmata in the previous sections and prove Theorems \[thm0\] in $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$, i.e. for $s = 0$. The argument for $s > 0$ follows in a similar manner and we omit the details. By performing an infinite iteration of Poincaré-Dulac normal form reductions described in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\], we have the following.
First consider a smooth solution $v$ of with smooth initial condition $v_0$. Then, it satisfies the Duhamel formulation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Duhamel2}
v(t) & = v_0 + i \int_0^t {\mathcal{N}}_1(v)(t') - {\mathcal{R}}_1(v)(t') + {\mathcal{R}}_2(t') dt'\notag \\
& = v_0 +i \int_0^t S(-t') \big[S(t')v(t')|S(t')v(t')|^2\big] dt'\end{aligned}$$
as a smooth function for each $t$. Then it [*formally*]{} satisfies[^13] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{41}
{\partial_t}v = {\partial_t}\sum_{j = 2}^\infty {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_0(v)
+ {\mathcal{R}}_1 +{\mathcal{R}}_2
+ \sum_{j = 2}^\infty {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_r(v) + \sum_{j = 1}^\infty {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_1(v).\end{aligned}$$
or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{42}
v(t) = {\Gamma}_{v_0}v(t) : = v_0 & + \sum_{j = 2}^\infty {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_0(v)(t)
- \sum_{j = 2}^\infty {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_0(v_0) \notag \\
& +
\int_0^t {\mathcal{R}}_1 (t')+ {\mathcal{R}}_2(t')+
\sum_{j = 2}^\infty {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_r(v)(t') + \sum_{j = 1}^\infty {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_1(v)(t')dt',\end{aligned}$$
where ${\mathcal{N}}_1^{(1)} = {\mathcal{N}}_{11}$ in , ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_0 = {\mathcal{N}}_{21}$ in , ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)} = {\mathcal{N}}_3$ in , and ${\mathcal{N}}^{(2)}_r = {\mathcal{N}}_4$ in . At this point, the right hand sides of and are merely formal expressions. In the following, we show that the series appearing on the right hand side of converge absolutely in $C([0, T];L^2)$ for sufficiently small $T>0$ if $v \in C([0, T];L^2)$.
First, define the partial sum operator ${\Gamma}_{v_0}^{(J)}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\Gamma}_{v_0}^{(J)} v(t) = v_0 + \sum_{j = 2}^J & {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_0(v)(t)
- \sum_{j = 2}^J {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_0(v_0) \notag \\
& +
\int_0^t {\mathcal{R}}_1 (t')+{\mathcal{R}}_2 (t')+
\sum_{j = 2}^J {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_r(v)(t') + \sum_{j = 1}^J {\mathcal{N}}^{(j)}_1(v)(t')dt'.
\label{43}\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we let $C_TL^2 = C([0, T];L^2)$. By Lemmata \[LEM:R1\], \[LEM:N11\], \[LEM:N\^J+1\_0\], \[LEM:N\^J+1\_r\], and \[LEM:N\^J+1\_1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\Gamma}_{v_0}^{(J)} v\|_{C_TL^2}
\leq & \ \|v_0\|_{L^2} +
C \sum_{j = 2}^J N^{-\frac{j-1}{2} +\frac{j-2}{200}+}
\big(\|v\|_{C_TL^2}^{2j-1} + \|v_0\|_{L^2}^{2j-1}\big)\notag \\
& \hphantom{XXX}+
CT \Big\{\|v\|_{C_TL^2}^3
+ \sum_{j = 2}^J
N^{-\frac{j-1}{2} +\frac{j-2}{200}+} \|v\|_{C_TL^2}^{2j+1} \notag\\
& \hphantom{XXXXXX}+
N^{\frac{1}{2}+}\|v\|_{C_TL^2}^3
+\sum_{j = 2}^J
N^{-\frac{j-2}{2} +\frac{j-3}{200}+}
\|v\|_{C_TL^2}^{2j+1}\Big\}.\label{44}\end{aligned}$$
[*Suppose*]{} that $\|v_0\|_{L^2} \leq R$ and $ \|v\|_{C_TL^2} \leq {\widetilde}{R}$ with ${\widetilde}{R} \geq R \geq 1$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\Gamma}_{v_0}^{(J)} v\|_{C_TL^2}
\leq & \ R +
C N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}R^3 \sum_{j = 0}^{J-2}
(N^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{200}+} R^2)^j
+ C N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}{\widetilde}{R}^3 \sum_{j = 0}^{J-2}
(N^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{200}+} {\widetilde}{R}^2)^j
\notag\\
& \hphantom{XXX} +
CT \Big\{(1+N^{\frac{1}{2}+}){\widetilde}{R}^3
+ N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}{\widetilde}{R}^5
\sum_{j = 0}^{J-2}
(N^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{200}+} {\widetilde}{R}^2)^j \notag \\
& \hphantom{XXXXXX}
+N^{-\frac{1}{200+}} {\widetilde}{R}^5 \sum_{j = 0}^{J-2}
(N^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{200}+} {\widetilde}{R}^2)^j
\Big\}.\label{45}\end{aligned}$$
Now, choose $N = N({\widetilde}{R})$ large such that $N^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{200}+} {\widetilde}{R}^2 \leq \frac{1}{2}$. For example, we can simply choose $$N^{-\frac{1}{3}} {\widetilde}{R}^2 \leq \tfrac{1}{2}
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
N \geq (2{\widetilde}{R}^2)^3.
\label{46}$$
Then, the geometric series in converge (even for $J = \infty$) and are bounded by 2. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\Gamma}_{v_0}^{(J)} v\|_{C_TL^2}
\leq R \ + \ &
2C N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}R^3
+ 2C N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}{\widetilde}{R}^3 \notag \\
& +
CT \Big\{(1+N^{\frac{1}{2}+}){\widetilde}{R}^2
+ 2 N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}{\widetilde}{R}^4
+2N^{-\frac{1}{200+}} {\widetilde}{R}^4
\Big\}{\widetilde}{R}.\label{47}\end{aligned}$$
Next, choose $T >0$ sufficiently small such that $$\label{48}
CT \Big\{(1+N^{\frac{1}{2}+}){\widetilde}{R}^2
+ 2 N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}{\widetilde}{R}^4
+2N^{-\frac{1}{200+}} {\widetilde}{R}^4
\Big\} < \tfrac{1}{10}.$$
From , we have $2C N^{-\frac{1}{2}+}{\widetilde}{R}^3
\leq C N^{-\frac{1}{6}+}{\widetilde}{R}$. Finally, by further imposing $N$ sufficiently large such that $$\label{49}
C N^{-\frac{1}{6}+} <\tfrac{1}{10},$$
we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\Gamma}_{v_0}^{(J)} v(t)\|_{C_TL^2}
\leq R+ \tfrac{1}{10} R \ +
\tfrac{1}{5} {\widetilde}{R}
= \tfrac{11}{10} R \ +
\tfrac{1}{5} {\widetilde}{R}.\label{410}\end{aligned}$$
We point out that this estimate also holds for $J = \infty$, and hence ${\Gamma}_{v_0} = {\Gamma}_{v_0}^{(\infty)}$ (= right hand side of ) is well-defined.
Next, given an initial condition $v_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{T}})$, we construct a solution $v \in C([0, T];L^2)$ in the sense of Definition \[DEF:3\]. First, take a sequence $\{v_0^{[m]}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}}$ of smooth functions such that $v_0^{[m]} \to v_0$ in $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$. (Simply take $v_0^{[m]} := \mathbb{P}_{\leq m} v_0$, where $\mathbb{P}_{\leq m}$ is the Dirichlet projection onto the frequencies $|n|\leq m$.) Let $R = \|v_0\|_{L^2} + 1$. Without loss of generality, assume that $\|v_0^{[m]}\|_{L^2} \leq R$.
In the following, we establish an a priori estimate on smooth solutions without the $L^2$-conservation so that the argument can be easily modified for $v_0 \in H^s$, $s>0$. Let $v^{[m]}$ denote the smooth global-in-time solution of cubic NLS with initial condition $v_0^{[m]}$. First, we use the continuity argument to show that $v^{[m]}$ satisfies on $[0, T]$ with $T = T(R)>0$, independent of $m \in \mathbb{N}$. (As we see later, it suffices to take $T = T(R)>0$ satisfying .) Fix $m \in \mathbb{N}$. Note that $\|v^{[m]}\|_{C_tL^2} = \|v^{[m]}\|_{C([0, t];L^2)}$ is continuous in $t$. Since $ \|v_0^{[m]}\|_{L^2} \leq R$, there exists a time interval $[0, T_1]$ with $T_1 > 0$ such that $ \|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T_1}L^2} \leq 4R$. Then, by repeating the previous computation with ${\widetilde}{R} = 4R $ (and keeping one of the factors as $ \|v\|_{C_{T_1}L^2}$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T_1}L^2} = \|{\Gamma}_{v_0^{[m]}} v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T_1} L^2}
\leq \tfrac{11}{10} R \ + \ &
\tfrac{1}{5} \|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T_1}L^2}\label{411}\end{aligned}$$
as long as $N$ and $T_1$ satisfy , , and . This implies that $$\label{412}
\|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T_1}L^2} \leq \tfrac{19}{10}R < 2R.$$
Hence, it follows from the continuity in $t$ of $ \|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{t}L^2}$ that there exists ${\varepsilon}> 0$ such that $ \|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T_1+{\varepsilon}}L^2} \leq 4R$. Then, from and with $T_1+{\varepsilon}$ in place of $T_1$, we conclude that $ \|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T_1+{\varepsilon}}L^2} \leq 2R$ as long as $N$ and $T_1+{\varepsilon}$ satisfy , , and . Note that these conditions are independent of $m \in \mathbb{N}$. In this way, we obtain a time interval $[0, T]$ such that $ \|v^{[m]}\|_{C_{T}L^2} \leq 2R$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$.
Moreover, by repeating a similar computation on the difference, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M3}
\| {\Gamma}_{v_0^{[m_1]}} v^{[m_1]} - & {\Gamma}_{v_0^{[m_2]}} v^{[m_2]}\|_{C_T L^2} \notag\\
& \leq
(1+ \tfrac{1}{10})\|v_0^{[m_1]}-v_0^{[m_2]}\|_{L^2}
+ \tfrac{1}{5}
\|v^{[m_1]}- v^{[m_2]}\|_{C_TL^2}\end{aligned}$$
by possibly taking larger $N$ and smaller $T$. Since $v^{[m_j]}$ is a (smooth) solution with initial condition $v_0^{[m_j]}$, namely $ v^{[m_j]}= {\Gamma}_{v_0^{[m_j]}} v^{[m_j]}$, it follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M4}
\|v^{[m_1]}- v^{[m_2]}\|_{C_T L^2}
\leq C'\|v_0^{[m_1]}-v_0^{[m_2]}\|_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$
for some $C' >0$. Hence, $\{v^{[m]}\}$ converges in $C([0, T]; L^2)$.
Let $v^\infty$ denote the limit. Next, we show that $u^\infty := S(t) v^\infty$ satisfies NLS on $[0, T]$ in the sense of Definition \[DEF:3\]. In the following, we drop $\infty$ in the superscript and simply denote $v^\infty$ and $u^\infty$ by $v$ and $u$. Also, let $u^{[m]}(t):= S(t) v^{[m]}(t)$, where $v^{[m]}$ is the smooth solution to with smooth initial condition $v_0^{[m]}$ as above. Note that $u^{[m]}$ is the smooth solution to with smooth initial condition $u_0^{[m]} := v_0^{[m]}$. Moreover, $u^{[m]}$ converges to $u$ in $C([0, T];L^2)$, since $v^{[m]}$ converges to $v$ in $C([0, T];L^2)$. Thus, ${\partial_t}u^{[m]}$ and ${\partial_x}^2 u^{[m]}$ converge to ${\partial_t}u$ and ${\partial_x}^2 u$ in $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T))$, respectively. Since $u^{[m]}$ satisfies for each $m$, we see that $$\mathcal{N}(u^{[m]}) : = u^{[m]}|u^{[m]}|^2
= - i {\partial_t}u^{[m]} + {\partial_x}^2 u^{[m]}$$
also converges to some distribution $w$ in $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T))$.
\[PROP:NON2\] Let $w$ be the limit of $\mathcal{N}(u^{[m]})$ in the distributional sense as above. Then, $w = \mathcal{N}(u)$, where $\mathcal{N}(u)$ on the right hand side is to be interpreted in the sense of Definition \[DEF:2\].
We present the proof of Proposition \[PROP:NON2\] at the end of this section. Assuming Proposition \[PROP:NON2\], we see that $u = u^\infty$ is a solution to in the extended sense as in Definition \[DEF:3\].
It follows from , , and (with $R = \|v_0\|_{L^2} + 1$ and ${\widetilde}{R} = 4R$) that the time of existence $T$ satisfies $T \gtrsim (1+\|v_0\|_{L^2})^{-\beta}$ for some $\beta > 0$. The Lipschitz dependence on initial data follows from , bypassing smooth approximations.
Lastly, for $s> 0$, we only have to note that all the lemmata in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\] hold true even if we replace the $L^2$-norm by the $H^s$-norm. Indeed, if $n^{(j)}$ is large, then there exists at least one of $n^{(j)}_1, n^{(j)}_2$, and $n^{(j)}_3$ satisfies $|n^{(j)}_k| \geq \frac{1}{3}|n^{(j)}|$, since we have $n^{(j)} = n^{(j)}_1 - n^{(j)}_2 + n^{(j)}_3$. Hence, in the estimates for the terms in the $J$th generation (Lemmata \[LEM:N\^J+1\_0\], \[LEM:N\^J+1\_r\], \[LEM:N\^J+1\_1\]), there exists at least one frequency $n^{(j)}_k$ (with some $j = 1, \dots, J$) such that $${\langle n \rangle}^s \leq 3^{js} {\langle n^{(j)}_k \rangle}^s \leq 3^{Js} {\langle n^{(j)}_k \rangle}^s.$$
Note that the constant grows exponentially in $J$. However, this exponential growth does not cause a problem thanks to the factorial decay in the denominator (as seen in the proof Lemma \[LEM:N\^J+1\_0\].)
\[Proof of Proposition \[PROP:NON2\]\]
Let $\{T_N\}_{N\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of Fourier cutoff multipliers as in Definition \[DEF:1\]. Fix a test function on ${\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T)$. Then, we need to show that given ${\varepsilon}> 0$, there exists $N_0$ such that for all $N \geq N_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NON3}
|{\langle w - {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u), \phi \rangle}| <{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
Write the left hand side of as $$\begin{aligned}
|{\langle w - {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u), \phi \rangle}|
\leq \ |{\langle w - {\mathcal{N}}(u^{[m]}), & \phi \rangle}|
+ |{\langle {\mathcal{N}}(u^{[m]}) - {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]} ), \phi \rangle}| \notag \\
& + |{\langle {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]} ) - {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u ), \phi \rangle}|.\end{aligned}$$
By definition of of $w$, we see that $$\label{NON4}
|{\langle w - {\mathcal{N}}( u^{[m]}), \phi \rangle}| <\tfrac{1}{3}{\varepsilon}$$
for sufficiently large $m\in \mathbb{N}$.
Next, consider the second term for [*fixed*]{} $m$. By writing ${\mathcal{N}}(u^{[m]}) - {\mathcal{N}}(T_{N} u^{[m]})$ in a telescoping sum, we only consider $$|{\langle {\mathcal{N}}\big((I - T_{N_1}) u^{[m]}, u^{[m]}, u^{[m]}\big), \phi \rangle}|,$$
where $\mathcal{N}(u_1, u_2, u_3) = u_1 {\overline}{u_2} u_3$ and $I$ denotes the identity operator. (The other terms in the telescoping sum have similar forms.) By Hölder inequality and Sobolev embedding, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NON5}
|{\langle {\mathcal{N}}\big((I - T_{N_1}) u^{[m]}, & u^{[m]}, u^{[m]}\big), \phi \rangle}|
\leq \|\phi\|_{L^2_{x, T}} \| u^{[m]}\|^2_{L^\infty_{x, T}}
\|(I - T_N) u^{[m]} \|_{L^2_{x, T}} \notag \\
& \leq C_\phi \| u^{[m]}\|^2_{C_T H^{\frac{1}{2}+}}
\|(I - T_N) u^{[m]} \|_{L^2_{x, T}} \notag \\
& \leq C_{\phi, m} \|(I - T_N) u^{[m]} \|_{L^2_{x, T}}, \end{aligned}$$
where $L^2_{x, T}$ denotes $L^2({\mathbb{T}}\times [0, T])$. Here, we used the fact that $\| u^{[m]}\|^2_{C_T H^{\frac{1}{2}+}}$ is a finite constant (depending on $m$.) By definition of the Fourier cutoff operators, $\big((I - T_N) u^{[m]}\big)^\wedge(n, t)$ converges pointwise in $n$ and $t$. Then, by Dominated Convergence Theorem, there exists $N_0 = N_0(m)$ such that $$\label{NON6}
\eqref{NON5} <\tfrac{1}{3}{\varepsilon}.$$
for all $N \geq N_0$.
As for the third term, first consider the sequence $\{{\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]})\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ for each fixed $N$. By applying the Poincaré-Dulac normal form reduction to $\{S(-t) {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]})\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ (which is basically the nonlinearity in the $v$-equation modulo $T_N$) as in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\], we see that $\{ {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]})\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T))$, as $m \to \infty$ for each fixed $N$ since $u^{[m]}$ is Cauchy in $C([0, T];L^2)$. Moreover, this convergence is uniform in $N$ since the multipliers for $T_N$ are uniformly bounded in $N$.
On the other hand, note that for fixed $N$, $T_N u $ is in $C_T H^\infty$, since the multiplier $m_N$ for $T_N$ has a compact support. Thus, ${\mathcal{N}}(T_N u ) = T_N u |T_N u|^2$ makes sense as a function. Hence, for [*fixed*]{} $N$, we can choose $m$ large such that $$\begin{aligned}
|{\langle {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]} ) - {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u ), \phi \rangle}|
& \leq \|\phi\|_{L^4_{x, T}} \big(\|T_N u^{[m]}\|^2_{L^4_{x, T}} + \|T_N u\|_{L^4_{x, T}}^2\big)
\|T_N u^{[m]} - T_N u \|^2_{L^4_{x, T}} \notag \\
& \leq C_{\phi, \|u\|_{C_TL^2}} M^\frac{3}{4} T^\frac{3}{4}
\| u^{[m]} - u \|^2_{C_T L^2} < \tfrac{1}{3}{\varepsilon},\end{aligned}$$
by Sobolev inequality, where $M = M(N)\in \mathbb{N}$ is chosen such that $\operatorname*{supp}(m_N) \subset [-M, M]$. i.e. ${\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]} )$ converges to ${\mathcal{N}}(T_N u )$ in $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T))$ as $m \to \infty$ for each fixed $N$.
Combining these two observations, we conclude that ${\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]} )$ converges to ${\mathcal{N}}(T_N u )$ in $\mathcal{D}'({\mathbb{T}}\times (0, T))$ as $m \to \infty$ [*uniformly*]{} in $N$. Namely, $$\label{NON7}
|{\langle {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u^{[m]} ) - {\mathcal{N}}(T_N u ), \phi \rangle}| <\tfrac{1}{3}{\varepsilon}$$
for all sufficiently large $m$, uniformly in $N$. Therefore, follows by first choosing $m$ sufficiently large such that and hold, then choosing $N_0 = N_0(m)$ such that holds.
Unconditional uniqueness in $C_tH^s$, $s\geq \frac{1}{6}$ {#SEC:5}
=========================================================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[thm1\]. More precisely, we justify the formal computations in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\] on the additional regularity assumption. Then, the Lipschitz bound implies the uniqueness. In the following, we justify our computations, assuming that $u$ is a solution to in $C([0, T]; L^3({\mathbb{T}}))$.
First, we make sense of the use of ${\partial_t}v_n (t) = e^{-in^2t} {\widehat}{u}(n, t)$ in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\]. Suppose that $u \in C([0, T]; L^3({\mathbb{T}}))$. Then, we have $u|u|^2 \in C([0, T]; L^1({\mathbb{T}}))$, and hence $\mathbb{P}_{\leq M} (u|u|^2) \in C([0, T]; H^\infty({\mathbb{T}}))$ for any $M \in \mathbb{N}$, where $\mathbb{P}_{\leq M}$ is the Dirichlet projection onto the frequencies $|n|\leq M$. This implies $({\partial_x}^2 \mathbb{P}_{\leq M}u)^\wedge \in C([0, T]; H^\infty({\mathbb{T}}))$. Hence, from the equation , we see that $(\mathbb{P}_{\leq M} {\partial_t}u)^\wedge \in C([0, T]; H^\infty({\mathbb{T}}))$. In particular, ${\widehat}{ u}(n, \cdot)$ is a $C^1$-function in $t$.
In Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\], we switched the order of summation and the time differentiation. For example, see . This can be justified, also by assuming $u \in C([0, T]; L^3({\mathbb{T}}))$. First, we state a lemma.
\[LEM:CONV1\] Let $\{f_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{D}'_t$. Suppose that $\sum_n f_n$ converges (absolutely) in $\mathcal{D}'_t$. Then, $\sum_n{\partial_t}f_n$ converges (absolutely) in $\mathcal{D}'_t$ and ${\partial_t}(\sum_n f_n ) = \sum_n {\partial_t}f_n$.
Recall that a sequence of distribution $g_n$ is said to converge to a distribution $g$ if, for all $\phi \in \mathcal{D}$, we have ${\langle g_n, \phi \rangle} \to {\langle g, \phi \rangle}$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle\sum_{n= 1}^\infty f'_n, \phi\Big\rangle
= \lim_{N \to \infty}
\Big\langle\sum_{n= 1}^N f'_n, \phi\Big\rangle
= \lim_{N \to \infty}
\sum_{n= 1}^N {\langle f'_n, \phi \rangle},\end{aligned}$$
if the right hand side exists. By the definition of a distributional derivative, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N \to \infty}
\sum_{n= 1}^N {\langle f'_n, \phi \rangle}
= - \lim_{N \to \infty}
\sum_{n= 1}^N {\langle f_n, \phi' \rangle},
$$
where the right hand side converges since $\sum_n f_n$ converges in $\mathcal{D}'$. Hence, $\sum_n f'_n$ converges in $\mathcal{D}'$. The second claim follows once we note the following. $$\begin{aligned}
- \lim_{N \to \infty}
\sum_{n= 1}^N {\langle f_n, \phi' \rangle}
= - \lim_{N \to \infty}
\Big\langle\sum_{n= 1}^N f_n, \phi'\Big\rangle
= - \Big\langle\sum_{n= 1}^\infty f_n, \phi'\Big\rangle
= \Big\langle {\partial_t}\Big(\sum_{n= 1}^\infty f_n\Big), \phi\Big\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
where the second equality follows from the definition of $\sum_n f_n$ as a distributional limit.
Now, we consider for fixed $n$. Then, we want to apply Lemma \[LEM:CONV1\] to a sequence $$\{ a_{n, n_1, n_2}(t) \}:=\bigg\{ \frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{2(n - n_1) (n - n_3)}
v_{n_1}(t) {\overline}{v}_{n_2}(t)v_{n_3}(t)\bigg\},$$
where $n = n_1 - n_2 + n_3$ and $(n, n_1, n_2, n_3) \in A(n)^c$. (Here, $a_{n, n_1, n_2}$ depends on several indices with a restriction (i.e. on $A_N(n)^c$), but we can arrange them to be a sequence.)
By Lemma \[LEM:N21\], $\sum_{A_N(n)^c} a_{n, n_1, n_2} $ converges absolutely and is bounded in $C([0, T])$ (for fixed $n$.) In particular, for each $n_1$ and $n_2$, $a_{n, n_1, n_2}$ is a distribution on $[0, T]$. By Lemma \[LEM:CONV1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial_t}\bigg[
\sum_{ A_N(n)^c}
& \frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{- i \Phi(\bar{n})}
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\bigg]
= \sum_{ A_N(n)^c}
{\partial_t}\bigg[
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{- i \Phi(\bar{n})}
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\bigg] \notag \\
& = \sum_{ A_N(n)^c}
{\partial_t}\bigg( \frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{-i\Phi(\bar{n})}\bigg)
v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}
+ \sum_{A_N(n)^c}
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{-i\Phi(\bar{n})}
{\partial_t}\big( v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\big). \label{CONV2}\end{aligned}$$
In the second equality, we applied the product rule. It is in this step that we needed the additional regularity $u \in C([0, T]; L^3)$ so that $v_n$ is continuously differentiable and the product rule is applicable. A similar argument justifies the exchange of the sum and the time differentiation in the $J$th generation. We omit the details.
Indeed, if we assume that $u \in C([0, T]; L^3)$, we can say more on this issue. First, note that from , we have ${\partial_t}v_n = e^{-in^2t} {\mathcal{N}}(S(-t) v)_n = e^{-in^2t} {\mathcal{N}}(u)_n$. Then, $$\|{\partial_t}v_n\|_{C_T \ell^\infty_n} = \|{\mathcal{N}}(u)_n\|_{C_T \ell^\infty_n}
\leq \|{\mathcal{N}}(u)\|_{C_T L^1_x} \leq \|u\|^3_{C_TL^3_x}.
\label{CONV3}$$
Hence, ${\partial_t}v_n \in C([0, T]; \ell^\infty_n)$. In the following, fix $n$. Then, by a variant of Lemma \[LEM:N21\], the second term on the right hand side of is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg| \sum_{A_N(n)^c}
\frac{e^{- i \Phi(\bar{n})t } }{-i\Phi(\bar{n})}
{\partial_t}\big( v_{n_1} {\overline}{v}_{n_2}v_{n_3}\big)\bigg|
\lesssim \|{\partial_t}v_n\|_{C_T \ell^\infty_n}\|v\|_{C_T L^2}^2
\leq \|u \|_{C_T L^3}^3\|v\|_{L^2}^2,\end{aligned}$$
where the convergence is absolute and uniform (in $t$.) The first term in can be written as $ e^{-in^2t} {\mathcal{N}}(u)_n$ and thus also converges in view of . (Here, the convergence is not absolute, but uniform in $t$.) Therefore, we can simply switch the sum and the time differentiation (i.e. the first equality in ) in classical sense. The argument for the $J$th generation is similar and we omit the details.
Lastly, the regularity $C([0, T]; L^3)$ was sufficient to justify the formal computations in Sections \[SEC:2\] and \[SEC:3\]. However, in order to prove the lemmata, which are proven on the Fourier side, we need a $L^2$-based space of the same scaling, namely $C([0, T]; H^\frac{1}{6})$.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} The authors would like to thank Prof. Nicolas Burq, Prof. Herbert Koch, and Prof. Nader Masmoudi for the helpful comments and discussions.
[99]{}
V.I. Arnold, [*Geometrical methods in the theory of ordinary differential equations,*]{} Second edition. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\], 250. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988. xiv+351 pp.
A. Babin, A. Ilyin, E. Titi, [*On the regularization mechanism for the periodic Korteweg-de Vries equation*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 64 (2011), no. 5, 591–648.
J. Bourgain, [*Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations I. Schrödinger equations*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 2, 107–156.
J. Bourgain, [*Remarks on stability and diffusion in high-dimensional Hamiltonian systems and partial differential equations,*]{} Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 24 (2004), no. 5, 1331–1357.
J. Bourgain, [*A remark on normal forms and the “$I$-method” for periodic NLS*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 94 (2004), 125–157.
N. Burq, P. Gérard, N. Tzvetkov, [*An instability property of the nonlinear Schr¨odinger equation on $\mathbb{S}^d$*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 9 (2002), no. 2–3, 323–335.
M. Christ, [*Nonuniqueness of weak solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation,*]{} arXiv:math/ 0503366v1 \[math.AP\].
M. Christ, [*Power series solution of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation,*]{} Mathematical aspects of nonlinear dispersive equations, 131–155, Ann. of Math. Stud., 163, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007.
M. Christ, J. Colliander, T. Tao, [*Asymptotics, frequency modulation, and low regularity ill-posedness for canonical defocusing equations,*]{} Amer. J. Math. 125 (2003), no. 6, 1235–1293.
M. Christ, J. Colliander, T. Tao, [*Instability of the Periodic Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation,*]{} arXiv:math/0311227v1 \[math.AP\].
J. Colliander, S. Kwon, T. Oh, [*A remark on normal forms and the “upside-down" I-method for periodic NLS: growth of higher Sobolev norms*]{}, arXiv:1010.2501v1 \[math.AP\].
J. Colliander, T. Oh, [*Almost sure well-posedness of the periodic cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation below $L^2({\mathbb{T}})$*]{}, to appear in Duke Math. J.
G. Furioli, F. Planchon, E. Terraneo, [*Unconditional well-posedness for semilinear Schrödinger and wave equations in $H^s$,*]{} Harmonic analysis at Mount Holyoke (South Hadley, MA, 2001), 147–156, Contemp. Math., 320, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003.
P. Germain, N. Masmoudi, J. Shatah, [*Global solutions for 3D quadratic Schrödinger equations,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not. 2009, no. 3, 414–432.
J. Ginibre, [*An introduction to nonlinear Schrödinger equations,*]{} Nonlinear waves (Sapporo, 1995), 85–133, GAKUTO Internat. Ser. Math. Sci. Appl., 10, Gakkōtosho, Tokyo, 1997.
A. Grünrock, S. Herr, [*Low regularity local well-posedness of the derivative nonlinear Schrödinger equation with periodic initial data,*]{} SIAM J. Math. Anal. 39 (2008), no. 6, 1890–1920.
G.H. Hardy, E.M. Wright, [*An introduction to the theory of numbers,*]{} Fifth edition. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1979. xvi+426 pp.
L. Molinet, [*On ill-posedness for the one-dimensional periodic cubic Schrödinger equation,*]{} Math. Res. Lett. 16 (2009), no. 1, 111–120.
T. Kato, [*On nonlinear Schrödinger equations. II. $H^s$-solutions and unconditional well-posedness,*]{} J. Anal. Math. 67 (1995), 281–306.
S. Kwon, T. Oh, [*On unconditional well-posedness of modified KdV*]{}, Internat. Math. Res. Not. (2011), doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnr156.
J. Shatah, [*Normal forms and quadratic nonlinear Klein-Gordon equations,*]{} Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 38 (1985), no. 5, 685–696.
H. Takaoka, Y. Tsutsumi, [*Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the modified KdV equation with periodic boundary condition,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004, no. 56, 3009–3040.
Y. Zhou, [*Uniqueness of weak solution of the KdV equation,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not. 1997, no. 6, 271–283.
[^1]: Z.G. is supported by the National Science Foundation under agreement No. DMS-0635607 and The S. S. Chern Fund. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or The S. S. Chern Fund.
[^2]: S.K. is supported in part by NRF grant 2010-0024017.
[^3]: Grünrock-Herr [@GH] proved (conditional) local well-posedness in $\mathcal{F}L^{s,p}$, $s\geq 0$, $p \in (2, \infty)$ via the fixed point argument. The uniqueness in [@GH] holds only in $C([0, T]; \mathcal{F}L^{s,p})$ intersected with the $X^{s, b}$ space adapted to $\mathcal{F}L^{s,p}$.
[^4]: By a multilinear operator, we mean an operator such that it is linear or conjugate linear with respect to each argument.
[^5]: In this formal discussion, we intentionally remain vague about the definition of resonant monomials. See Arnold [@A] for the precise definition.
[^6]: This kind of integration by parts was previously used in Takaoka-Tsutsumi [@TT].
[^7]: In [@GMS], they introduced time resonances, space resonances, and space-time resonances. Resonances in this paper correspond to their time resonances.
[^8]: When we apply differentiation by parts, we keep the minus sign on the second term for emphasis. For example, see .
[^9]: As before, we only keep track of the absolute values of coefficients in the following. We may also drop the minus signs and the complex number $i$.
[^10]: Clearly, the number $5^3$ in does not make any difference at this point. However, we insert it to match with . See also and .
[^11]: The implicit constants are independent of $J$. The same comment applies to Lemmata \[LEM:N\^J+1\_r\] and \[LEM:N\^J+1\_1\].
[^12]: Strictly speaking, there are at most $o((2J+3)^3|{\widetilde}{\mu}_J|^{1-\frac{1}{100}})$ choices. However, we drop $(2J+3)^3$ in view of fast decay of coefficients in $J$. See . The same comment applies in the following.
[^13]: Once again, we are replacing $\pm 1$ and $\pm i$ by 1 for simplicity since they play no role in our analysis.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a constructive proof of Ky Fan’s combinatorial lemma concerning labellings of triangulated spheres. Our construction works for triangulations of $S^n$ that contain a flag of hemispheres. As a consequence, we produce a constructive proof of Tucker’s lemma that holds for a larger class of triangulations than previous constructive proofs.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711'
author:
- 'Timothy Prescott $^*$'
- 'Francis Edward Su $^{**}$'
bibliography:
- 'fixedpoint.bib'
title: 'A Constructive Proof of Ky Fan’s Generalization of Tucker’s Lemma'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Tucker’s lemma is a combinatorial analogue of the Borsuk-Ulam theorem with many useful applications. For instance, it can provide elementary routes to proving the Borsuk-Ulam theorem [@borsuk] and the Lusternik-Schnirelman-Borsuk set covering theorem [@freund-todd], Kneser-type coloring theorems [@ziegler], and “fair division” theorems in game theory [@simmons-su]. Moreover, any [*constructive*]{} proof of Tucker’s lemma provides algorithmic interpretations of these results.
Although Tucker’s lemma was originally stated for triangulations of an $n$-ball (for $n=2$ in [@tucker] and general $n$ in [@lefshetz]), in this paper we shall consider an equivalent version on triangulations of a sphere:
Let $K$ be a barycentric subdivision of the octahedral subdivision of the $n$-sphere $S^n$. Suppose that each vertex of $K$ is assigned a label from $\{\pm 1, \pm 2,... \pm n\}$ in such a way that labels at antipodal vertices sum to zero. Then some pair of adjacent vertices of $K$ have labels that sum to zero.
The original version on the $n$-ball can be obtained from this by restricting the above statement to a hemisphere of $K$. This gives a triangulation of the $n$-ball in which the antipodal condition holds for vertices on the boundary of the ball. It is relatively easy to show that Tucker’s Lemma is equivalent to the Borsuk-Ulam theorem, which says that any continuous function $f:S^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ must map some pair of opposite points to the same point in the range [@borsuk]. In fact, this equivalence shows that the triangulation need not be a refinement of the octahedral subdivision; it need only be symmetric.
However, all known constructive proofs of Tucker’s lemma seem to require some condition on the triangulation. For instance, the first constructive proof, due to Freund and Todd [@freund-todd], requires the triangulation to be a refinement of the octahedral subdivision, and the constructive proof of Yang [@yang] depends on the $AS$-triangulation that is closely related to the octahedral subdivision.
In this paper, we give a constructive proof of Tucker’s lemma for triangulations with a weaker condition: that it only contain a [*flag of hemispheres*]{}. Our proof (see Theorem \[our-tucker\]) arises as a consequence of a constructive proof that we develop for the following theorem of Fan:
Let $K$ be a barycentric subdivision of the octahedral subdivision of the $n$-sphere $S^n$. Suppose that each vertex of $K$ is assigned a label from $\{\pm 1, \pm 2,... \pm m\}$ in such a way that (i) labels at antipodal vertices sum to zero and (ii) labels at adjacent vertices do not sum to zero. Then there are an odd number of $n$-simplices whose labels are of the form $\{ k_0, -k_1, k_2, \ldots, (-1)^n k_n \}$, where $1\le k_0 < k_1 < \dots < k_n \le m$. In particular, $m\geq n+1$.
Our constructive version of Fan’s lemma (see Theorem \[our-fan\]) only requires that the triangulation contain a flag of hemispheres. We use the contrapositive (with $m=n$) to obtain a constructive proof of Tucker’s lemma. This yields an algorithm for Tucker’s lemma that is quite different in nature than that of Freund and Todd [@freund-todd].
Our approach may provide new techniques for developing constructive proofs of certain generalized Tucker lemmas (such as the $Z_p$-Tucker lemma of Ziegler [@ziegler] or the generalized Tucker’s lemma conjectured by Simmons-Su [@simmons-su]) as well as provide new interpretations of algorithms that depend on Tucker’s lemma (see [@simmons-su] for applications to cake-cutting, Alon’s necklace-splitting problem, team-splitting, and other fair division problems).
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
The authors are grateful to Joshua Greene for stimulating conversations related to this work.
Terminology
===========
Let $S^n$ denote the $n$-sphere, which we identify with the unit $n$-sphere $\{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} : \|x\| = 1\}$. If $A$ is a set in $S^n$, let $-A$ denote the [*antipodal*]{} set.
A [*flag of hemispheres*]{} in $S^n$ is a sequence $H_0 \subset \dots \subset H_n$ where each $H_d$ is homeomorphic to a $d$-ball, and for $1\leq d\leq n$, $
\partial H_d = \partial (-H_d)
= H_d \cap -H_d
= H_{d-1} \cup -H_{d-1}
\cong S^{d-1}
$, $H_n\cup-H_n=S^n$, and $\{ H_0,-H_0\}$ are antipodal points. One can think of a flag of hemispheres in the following way: decompose $S^n$ into two balls that intersect along an equatorial $S^{n-1}$. Each ball can be thought of as a hemisphere. By successively decomposing equators in this fashion (since they are spheres) and choosing one such ball in each dimension, we obtain a flag of hemispheres.
A triangulation $K$ of $S^n$ is [*(centrally) symmetric*]{} if when a simplex $\sigma$ is in $K$, then $-\sigma$ is in $K$. A symmetric triangulation of $S^n$ is said to be [*aligned with hemispheres*]{} if we can find a flag of hemispheres such that $H_d$ is contained in the $d$-skeleton of the triangulation. The [*carrier hemisphere*]{} of a simplex $\sigma$ in $K$ is the minimal $H_d$ or $-H_d$ that contains $\sigma$.
A [*labeling*]{} of the triangulation assigns an integer to each vertex of the triangulation. We will say that a symmetric triangulation has an [*anti-symmetric*]{} labeling if each pair of antipodal vertices have labels that sum to zero. We say an edge is a [*complementary edge*]{} if the labels at its endpoints sum to zero.
We call a simplex in a labelled triangulation [*alternating*]{} if its vertex labels are distinct in magnitude and alternate in sign when arranged in order of increasing absolute value, i.e., the labels have the form $$\{k_0, -k_1, k_2, \ldots, (-1)^n k_n\} \quad\mbox{ or }\quad
\{-k_0, k_1, -k_2, \ldots, (-1)^{n+1} k_n\}$$ where $1 \le k_0 < k_1 < \dots < k_n \le m$. The [*sign*]{} of an alternating simplex is the sign of $k_0$, that is, the sign of the smallest label in absolute value. For instance, a simplex with labels $\{3, -5, -2, 9\}$ is a negative alternating simplex, since the labels can be reordered $\{-2, 3, -5, 9\}$. A simplex with labels $\{-2, 2, -5 \}$ is not alternating because the vertex labels are not distinct in magnitude.
We also define a simplex to be [*almost-alternating*]{} if it is not alternating, but by deleting one of the vertices, the resulting simplex (a facet) is alternating. The [*sign*]{} of an almost-alternating simplex is defined to be the sign any of its alternating facets (it is easy to check that this is well-defined). For example, a simplex with labels $\{-2, 3, 4, -5 \}$ is not alternating, but it is almost-alternating because deleting $3$ or $4$ would make the resulting simplex alternating. Also, a simplex with labels $\{-2, 3, 3, -5 \}$ is almost-alternating because deleting either $3$ would make the resulting simplex alternating. Finally, a simplex with labels $\{-2, 2, 3, -5 \}$ is almost-alternating because deleting $2$ would make the resulting simplex alternating. However, this type of simplex will not be allowed by the conditions of Fan’s lemma (since complementary edges are not allowed). See Figure \[alternating\].
![The first simplex is alternating and the other two are almost-alternating simplices. Their shaded facets are the facets that are also alternating simplices. The last simplex has a complementary edge.[]{data-label="alternating"}](alternating){height="1.25in"}
Note that in an almost-alternating simplex with no complementary edge, there are exactly two vertices each of whose removal makes the resulting simplex alternating, and their labels must be adjacent to each other when the labels are ordered by increasing absolute value (e.g., see the second simplex in Figure \[alternating\]). Thus any such almost-alternating simplex must have exactly two facets which are alternating.
Fan’s Combinatorial Lemma
=========================
We now present a constructive proof of Fan’s lemma, stated here for more general triangulations than Fan’s original version.
\[our-fan\] Let $K$ be a symmetric triangulation of $S^n$ aligned with hemispheres. Suppose $K$ has (i) an anti-symmetric labelling by labels $\{\pm 1, \pm 2,... \pm m\}$ and (ii) no complementary edge (an edge whose labels sum to zero).
Then there are an odd number of positive alternating $n$-simplices and an equal number of negative alternating $n$-simplices. In particular, $m\geq n+1$. Moreover, there is a constructive procedure to locate an alternating simplex of each sign.
Fan’s proof in [@fan-52] used a non-constructive parity argument and induction on the dimension $n$. Freund and Todd’s constructive proof of Tucker’s lemma [@freund-todd] does not appear to generalize to a proof of Fan’s lemma, since their construction uses $m=n$ in an inherent way. Cohen [@cohen] implicitly proves a version of Fan’s lemma for $n=2$ and $n=3$ in order to prove Tucker’s lemma; his approach differs from our proof in that the paths of his search procedure can pair up alternating simplices with non-alternating simplices (for instance, $\{1,-2,3\}$ can be paired up with $\{1,-2,-3\})$. Cohen hints, but does not explicitly say, how his method would extend to higher dimensions; moreover, such an approach would only be semi-constructive, since as he points out, finding one asserted edge in dimension $n$ would require knowing the location of “all relevant simplices” in dimension $n-1$.
Our strategy for proving Theorem \[our-fan\] constructively is to identify paths of simplices whose endpoints are alternating $n$-simplices or alternating $0$-simplices (namely, $H_0$ or $-H_0$). Then one can follow such a path from $H_0$ to locate an alternating $n$-simplex.
Suppose that the given triangulation $K$ of $S^n$ is aligned with the flag of hemispheres $H_0 \subset \dots \subset H_n$. Call an alternating or almost-alternating simplex [*agreeable*]{} if the sign of that simplex matches the sign of its carrier hemisphere. For instance, the simplex with labels $\{-2, 3, -5, 9\}$ in Figure \[alternating\] is agreeable if its carrier hemisphere is $-H_d$ for some $d$.
We now define a graph $G$. A simplex $\sigma$ carried by $H_d$ is a node of $G$ if it is one of the following:
(1) an agreeable alternating $(d-1)$-simplex,
(2) an agreeable almost-alternating $d$-simplex, or
(3) an alternating $d$-simplex.
Two nodes $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are adjacent in $G$ if all the following hold:
(a) one is a facet of the other,
(b) $\sigma\cap\tau$ is alternating, and
(c) the sign of the carrier hemisphere of $\sigma\cup\tau$ matches the sign of $\sigma\cap\tau$.
We claim that $G$ is a graph in which every vertex has degree 1 or 2. Furthermore, a vertex has degree 1 if and only if its simplex is carried by $\pm H_0$ or is an $n$-dimensional alternating simplex. To see why, we consider the three kinds of nodes in $G$:
(1) An agreeable alternating $(d-1)$-simplex $\sigma$ with carrier $\pm
H_d$ is the facet of exactly two $d$-simplices, each of which must be an agreeable alternating or an agreeable almost-alternating simplex in the same carrier. These satisfy the adjacency conditions (a)-(c) with $\sigma$, hence $\sigma$ has degree 2 in $G$.
(2) An agreeable almost-alternating $d$-simplex $\sigma$ with carrier $\pm H_d$ is adjacent in $G$ to its two facets that are agreeable alternating $(d-1)$-simplices. (Adjacency condition (c) is satisfied because $\sigma$ is agreeable and an almost-alternating $d$-simplex must have the same sign as its alternating facets.)
(3) An alternating $d$-simplex $\sigma$ carried by $\pm H_d$ has one alternating facet $\tau$ whose sign agrees with the sign of the carrier hemisphere of $\sigma$. That facet is obtained by deleting either the highest or lowest label (by magnitude) of $\sigma$ so that the remaining simplex satisfies condition (c). (For instance, the first simplex in Figure \[alternating\] has two alternating facets, but only one of them can have a sign that agrees with the carrier hemisphere.) Thus $\sigma$ is adjacent to $\tau$ in $G$.
Also, $\sigma$ is the facet of exactly two simplices, one in $H_{d+1}$ and one in $-H_{d+1}$, but it is adjacent in $G$ to exactly one of them; which one is determined by the sign of $\sigma$, since the adjacency condition (c) must be satisfied.
Thus $\sigma$ has degree 2 in $G$, unless $d=0$ or $d=n$: if $d=0$, then $\sigma$ is the point $\pm H_0$ and it has no facets, so $\sigma$ has degree 1; and if $d=n$, then $\sigma$ is not the facet of any other simplex, and is therefore of degree 1.
Every node in the graph therefore has degree two with the exception of the points at $\pm H_0$ and all alternating $n$-simplices. Thus $G$ consists of a collection of disjoint paths with endpoints at $\pm H_0$ or in the top dimension.
Note that the antipode of any path in $G$ is also a path in $G$. No path can have antipodal endpoints (else the center edge or node of the path would be antipodal to itself); thus a path is never identical to its antipodal path. So all the paths in $G$ must come in pairs, implying that the number of endpoints of paths in $G$ must be a multiple of four. Since exactly two such endpoints are the nodes at $H_0$ and $-H_0$, there are twice an odd number of alternating $n$-simplices. And, because every positive alternating $n$-simplex has a negative alternating $n$-simplex as its antipode, exactly half of the alternating $n$-simplices are positive. Thus there are an odd number of positive alternating $n$-simplices (and an equal number of negative alternating $n$-simplices).
To locate an alternating simplex, follow the path that begins at $H_0$; it cannot terminate at $-H_0$ (since a path is never its own antipodal path), so it must terminate in a (negative or positive) alternating simplex. The antipode of this simplex will be an alternating simplex of the opposite sign.
![An example of what sets of labels of simplices along a path in $G$ could look like. Repeated labels are not shown.[]{data-label="path"}](path){height="4in"}
Figure \[path\] shows an example of how a path may wind through the various hemispheres of a triangulated $3$-sphere. Note how the sign of each simplex agrees with the sign of its carrier hemisphere (“agreeability”), unless the path connects a $d$-hemisphere with a $d+1$-hemisphere, in which case the sign of the $d$-simplex specifies which $(d+1)$-hemisphere the path should connect to. These facts follow from adjacency condition (c).
Our approach is related to that of another paper of Fan [@fan-67], which studied labelled triangulations of an $d$-manifold $M$ and derived a set of paths that pair up alternating simplices in the interior of $M$ with positive alternating simplices on the boundary of $M$. When $M=H_d$, the paths of Fan coincide with the restriction of our paths in $G$ to $H_d$. By itself, this is only semi-constructive, since finding one alternating $d$-simplex necessitates locating all positive alternating $(d-1)$-simplices on the boundary of $H_d$. To make Fan’s approach fully constructive for $S^n$, one might attempt to use Fan’s approach in each $d$-hemisphere of $S^n$ and then glue all the hemispheres in each dimension together, thereby gluing all the paths. But this results in paths that branch (where positive alternating simplices in $H_d$ are glued to paths in [*both*]{} $H_{d+1}$ and $-H_{d+1}$) or paths that terminate prematurely (where a path ends in a negative alternating $d$-simplex where $d<n$).
By contrast, the path we follow in $G$ from the point $H_0$ to an alternating $n$-simplex is well-defined, has no branching, and need not pass through all the alternating $(d-1)$-simplices on the boundary of $H_d$ for each $d$. In our proof, the use of the flag of hemispheres controls the branching that would occur in paths of $G$ if one ignored the property of “agreeability” and adjacency condition (c). In that sense, it serves a similar function in controlling branching as the use of the flag of polytope faces in the constructive proof of the polytopal Sperner lemma of DeLeora-Peterson-Su [@deloera-peterson-su].
Note that the contrapositive of Theorem \[our-fan\] implies Tucker’s Lemma, since if $m=n$ and condition (i) holds, then condition (ii) must fail. In fact, if we remove condition (ii) in the statement of Theorem \[our-fan\], the graph $G$ can have additional nodes of degree 1, namely, agreeable almost-alternating simplices with a complementary edge.
This gives a constructive proof for Tucker’s lemma by starting at $H_0$ and following the associated path in $G$. Because $m=n$, there are not enough labels for the existence of any alternating $n$-simplices, so there must be an odd number of agreeable positive almost-alternating simplices with a complementary edge. (Note that this says nothing about the parity of the number of complementary edges, since several such simplices could share one edge.)
It is of some interest that our constructive proof allows for a larger class of triangulations than previous constructive proofs of Tucker’s lemma, so for completeness we state it carefully here:
\[our-tucker\] Let $K$ be a symmetric triangulation of $S^n$ aligned with hemispheres. Suppose $K$ has an anti-symmetric labelling by labels $\{\pm 1, \pm 2, \ldots, \pm n\}$. Then there are an odd number of positive (negative) almost-alternating simplices which contain a complementary edge. Moreover, there is a constructive procedure to locate one such edge.
The hypothesis that $K$ can be aligned with a flag of hemispheres is weaker than, for instance, requiring $K$ to refine the octahedral subdivision (e.g., Freund-Todd’s proof of Tucker’s lemma). If a triangulation refines the octahedral subdivision, then the octahedral orthant hyperplanes contain a natural flag of hemispheres. But the converse is not true: there are triangulations aligned with hemispheres that are not refinements of the octahedral subdivision. For instance, consider the triangulated $2$-sphere $\{(x,y,z):x^2+y^2+z^2=1\}$ whose $1$-skeleton is cut out by intersections with the plane $z=0$ and half-planes $\{x=0, z\geq 0\}$ and $\{y=0, z\leq 0\}$. This triangulation has 4 vertices at $(\pm 1,0,0)$ and $(0,\pm 1,0)$, it is symmetric, and it contains a flag of hemispheres. But it is combinatorially equivalent to the boundary of a $3$-simplex, and hence does not refine the octahedral subdivision of $S^2$.
We remark that the $AS$-triangulation, used by Yang [@yang] to prove Tucker’s lemma, is closely related to an octahedral subdivision and contains a natural flag of hemispheres.
It is an interesting open question as to whether any symmetric triangulation of $S^n$ can be aligned with a flag of hemispheres, and if so, how to find such a flag. Together with our arguments this would yield a constructive proof of Tucker’s lemma for any symmetric triangulation.
[^1]: $^*$Research partially supported by a Beckman Research Grant at Harvey Mudd College.
[^2]: $^{**}$Research partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-0301129.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this article, a Leslie-Gower Holling type III predator-prey model with disease in predator has been developed from both biological and mathematical point of view. The total population is divided into three classes, namely, prey, susceptible predator and infected predator. The local stability, global stability together with sufficient conditions for persistence of the ecosystem near biologically feasible equilibria is thoroughly investigated. Boundedness and existence of the system are established. All the important analytical findings are numerically verified using program software MATLAB and Maple.
**Keywords:** Eco-epidemic model, Intra-specific competition, Local and global stability, Lyapunov function, Persistence.
---
**Study of LG-Holling type III predator-prey model with disease in predator**\
**Absos Ali Shaikh[^1], Harekrishna Das, Nijamuddin Ali**\
^1^ Department of Mathematics, University of Burdwan,\
Burdwan-713104, West Bengal, India\
[email protected], [email protected]\
^2^ Department of Mathematics, Katwa College (B.Ed. Section),\
Burdwan-713130, West Bengal, India.\
[email protected]\
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
The predators and the preys carry a dynamic relationship among themselves. And for its universal existence and importance, this relationship is one of the dominant themes in theoretical ecology. Mathematical modelling is considered to be very useful tool to understand and analyze the dynamic behavior of predator-prey systems. Predator functional response on prey population is the major element in predator-prey interaction. It describes the number of prey consumed per predator per unit time for given quantities of prey and predator. The most important and useful functional responses are Lotka-Volterra functional responses such as Holling type I functional response, Holling type II functional response and three species population models with such functional responses are widely researched in ecological literature [@pielou1974population], [@murray2001mathematical], [@korobeinikov2005non], [@holling1965functional]. There are also many research works on three species systems like two preys one predator [@ali2015stability], [@klebanoff1994chaos], [@gakkhar2003existence], [@el2007chaos], tritrophic food chain [@aziz2002study], [@haque2013study], [@ali2017dynamics] etc.\
The Mathematical modelling of epidemics has become a very important subject of research after the seminal model of Kermack-MacKendrick (1927) on SIRS (susceptible-infected-removed-susceptible) systems. It describes the evolution of a disease which gets transmitted upon contact. Important studies have been carried out with the aim of controlling the effects of diseases and of developing suitable vaccination strategies [@Anderson1991infectious], [@Li199Global], [@Anderson1982population]. Eco-epidemic research describes disease that spread among interacting populations, where the epidemic and demographic aspects are merged within one model. During the last decade, this branch of science is developing and studied by the authors in [@Anderson1991infectious], [@Hadeler1989Predator], [@Venturino1994The]. In the natural world, species do not exist alone. It is of more biological significance to study persistence-extinction threshold of each population in systems of two or more interacting species subjected to parasitism. In mathematical biology the predator prey systems and models for transmissible disease are major field of study in their own right. In the growing ecoepidemic literature and from early papers [@Freedman1990Amodel], disease mainly spreading in the prey are examined in [@Xiao2001Modelling], [@Chattapadhyay1999Apredator], [@Chattapadhyay2003Classical], but in [@Venturino2002Epidemics], [@haque2006increase], [@haque2007anecoepi], the epidemics are assumed to affect the predators. The predator-prey model with modified Lesli-Gower Holling type II Scheme was introduced in [@Aziz2003Boundedness], [@Guo2008Animpulsive], [@Song2008Dynamic]. The LG model with Holling type II response function with disease in predator is discussed in [@Sahabuddin2011Global]. But no one pay the attention for the modified LG model with Holling type III response function for predation with disease in predator.\
Here we make an attempt to study the above said model with Holling type III response for predation and intra-specific competition among predators. The rest of the article is as follows. In Section $2$, we explain the formulation of the model under consideration and its assumptions. Section $3$ contains some preliminary results. In Section $4$, we analyze the system behavior of the trivial equilibria. Also the model with intra specific competition is analyzed for the system behavior around axial and boundary equilibria in Section $4$ . In Section $5$, local and global stability of the interior equilibria is analyzed. Section $6$ contains persistence of the system. Numerical simulation has been carried out in Section $7$ to support our analytical findings. The article comes to an end with a discussion of the results obtained in Section $8$.
[Mathematical model formulation]{}
==================================
We make the following assumptions:
- The disease spreads only among the predators. Let $y$ denotes the susceptible predators and $z$ the infected ones. The total predator population is $n(t) = y(t) + z(t)$.
- The disease spreads with a simple mass action law (with the disease incidence $\theta > 0$). The prey population $x$ grows logistically with intrinsic growth rate $a_1 > 0$ and carrying capacity $a_1/b_1$ in the absence of predator population.
- We introduce intra-specific competition among the predator’s sound and infected sub-populations.
- Holling type-III response mechanism is considered for predation.
According to the above assumptions, we get the following model with non negative parameters
\[model-1\] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{dx}{dt}=a_1x-b_1x^2-\frac{c_1x^2y}{k_1+x^2}-\frac{pc_1x^2z}{k_1+x^2}=f_1(x,y,z), \label{model-4-eq1}\\
&&\frac{dy}{dt}=a_2y-\frac{c_2y(y+z)}{k_2+x}-\theta yz =f_2(x,y,z), \label{model-4-eq2}\\
&&\frac{dz}{dt}=\theta yz+a_3z-\frac{c_3z(y+z)}{k_2+x} =f_3(x,y,z), \label{model-4-eq3}\\
&& x(0)\geq 0,\quad y(0)\geq 0,\quad z(0)\geq 0,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $a_2 ,a_3 (a_2\geq a_3) $ are the per capita growth rates of each predator sub population. Thus from sick parents, the disease can be transmitted to their offspring. The parameter $k_1$ represents the half saturation constant of the prey and $k_2$ is the measure of alternative food. Hence the Jacobian matrix of the system (\[model-1\]) is $J=(m_{ij})\in \mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ with entries\
$m_{11}=a_{1}-2b_{1}x-\frac{2c_{1}xy}{x^2+k1}+\frac{2c_{1}x^3y}{(x^2+k_{1})^2}-\frac{2pc_{1}xz}{x^2+k_{1}}+\frac{2pc_{1}x^3z}{(x^2+k_{1})^2},
\qquad m_{12}=-\frac{c_{1}x^2}{x^2+k_{1}},\qquad m_{13}\\=-\frac{pc_{1}x^2}{x^2+k_{1}},\qquad m_{21}=\frac{c_{2}y(y+z)}{(x+k_{2})^2},\qquad m_{22}=a_{2} -\frac{c_{2}(2y+z)}{x+k_{2}}-\theta z,\qquad m_{23}=-\frac{c_{2}y}{x+k_{2}}-\theta y,\qquad m_{31}=\frac{c_{3}z(y+z)}{(x+k_2)^2},\qquad m_{32}=\theta z-\frac{c_{3}z}{x+k_{2}},\qquad m_{33}=\theta y+a_{3}-\frac{c_{3}(y+2z)}{x+k_{2}}$.
\
Preliminary results {#PR}
===================
Existence
---------
Every solution of the system (\[model-1\]) with initial conditions exists in the interval $(0,+\infty)$ and $x(t)\geq 0$, $y(t)\geq 0$, $z(t)\geq 0$ for all $t\geq 0$.
We have $\frac{dx}{dt}=f_1(x,y,z)$, $\frac{dy}{dt}=f_2(x,y,z)$, $\frac{dz}{dt}=f_3(x,y,z)$. Integrating we get $x(t)=x(0)e^{\int_{0}^{t} f_1(x,y,z) ds}$, $y(t)=y(0)e^{\int_{0}^{t} f_2(x,y,z) ds}$, $z(t)=z(0)e^{\int_{0}^{t} f_3(x,y,z) ds}$, where $x(0)=x_0>0$, $y(0)=y_0>0$, $z(0)=z_0>0$. Since $f_1, \ f_2, \ f_3$ are continuous function and hence locally Lipschitzian on $R^3_+$, the solution with positive initial condition exists and unique on $(0,\xi)$ where $0<\xi<\infty$. Hence the theorem.
Boundedness
-----------
All the solutions of the system which initiate in $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3}$ are uniformly bounded.
Let us define a function $ \omega=x+y+z$. Therefore, we have\
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\omega}{dt}+\mu\omega
&=&\frac{dx}{dt}+\frac{dy}{dt}+\frac{dz}{dt}+\mu(x+y+z)\\
&=&[a_1x(1-\frac{b_1}{a_1}x)+\mu x]-\frac{(c_1y+pc_1z)x^2}{x^2+k_1}-\frac{(c_2y+c_3z)(y+z)}{x+k_2}\\
&+&(a_2+\mu)y+(a_3+\mu)z\\
& \leq & (a_1+\mu-b_1x)x+(a_2+\mu)y+(a_3+\mu)z\\
&\leq&(\frac{(a_1+\mu)^2}{4b_1})+(a_2+\mu)y+(a_3+\mu)z
\text{ for each } \mu>0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we find $l>0$ such that $\frac{dw}{dt}+\mu\omega \leq l $, $\forall t \in (0,t_b)$. Using the theory of differential inequality [@birkhoffordinary], we obtain $0<\omega(x,y,z)\leq\frac{l}{\mu}(1-e^{-ut})+\omega\Big(x(0),y(0),z(0)\Big)e^{-\mu t}$ and for $t_b\rightarrow\infty$ we have $0<\omega\leq \frac{l}{\mu}$.\
Hence all the solutions of the system that initiate in $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3}$ are confined in the region $\gamma=\{{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3}:\omega=\frac{l}{\mu}+\epsilon}\}$ for any $\epsilon>0$ and for $t$ large enough.\
Hence the theorem.
Equilibrium points
------------------
The system of equations (\[model-1\]) has the equilibrium points $E_0(0,0,0)$, $E_1(0,0,\frac{a_{3}k_{2}}{c_{3}})$, $E_2(0,\frac{a_2 k_2}{c_2},0)$, $E_3(0,y_{3},z_3)$, $E_4(\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}},0,0)$, $E_5(x_5,y_5,0)$, $E_6(x_6,0,z_6)$ and $E_*(x_*,y_*,z_*)$. The co-existence equilibrium is $E_*(x_*,y_*,z_*)$ where $y_*=\frac{-a_3\theta x_*-a_3k_2\theta+a_2c_3-a_3c_2}{\theta(\theta x_*+k_2\theta+c_2-c_3)}$ ,\
$z_*=-\frac{-a_2\theta x_*-a_2k_2\theta+a_2c_3-a_3c_2}{\theta(\theta x_*+k_2\theta+c_2-c_3)}$ and $x_*$ is root of the following equation\
$P(x)=A_4x^4+A_3x^3+A_2x^2+A_1x+A_0=0$.\
Here $A_4=b_1\theta^2$,\
$A_3=b_1k_2\theta^2-a_1\theta^2+b_1c_2\theta-b_1c_3\theta$,\
$A_2=-a_1k_2\theta^2+a_2c_1\theta p+b_1k_1\theta^2-a_1c_2\theta+a_1c_3\theta-a_3c_1\theta$,\
$A_1=a_2c_1k_2\theta p+b_1k_1k_2\theta^2-a_1k_1\theta^2-a_2c_1c_3p+a_3c_1c_2p-a_3c_1k_2\theta+b_1c_2k_1\theta-b_1c_3k_1\theta+a_2c_1c_3-a_3c_1c_2$,\
$A_0=-a_1k_1k_2\theta^2-a_1c_2k_1\theta+a_1c_3k_1\theta$.\
We consider $P(x)=(\gamma_1x^2+\delta_1x+\phi_1)(\gamma_2x^2+\delta_2x+\phi_2)$.\
[**Case-1**]{}: $P(x)$ has two real roots if either $\delta_1^2-4\gamma_1\phi_1>0$ or $\delta_2^2-4\gamma_2\phi_2>0$.\
For the set of parameters $ a_1 = 4.5, \ a_2 = 3.8, \ a_3 = 0.005, \ b_1 = 0.075, \ k_1 = 100, \ k_2= 160, \ c_1 = 2.8, \ c_2 = 1.97, \ c_3 = 1.95, \ \theta= 0.0937, \ p= 0.047$, there are two real roots $[x = 56.43479200, \ y = 3.837197569, \ z = 36.62450011]$ and $[x = -161.0505378, \ y = -1006.972848, \ z = 1057.801828] $ in which first one is biologically feasible.\
[**Case-2**]{}: $P(x)$ has four real roots if $\delta_1^2-4\gamma_1\phi_1>0$ and $\delta_2^2-4\gamma_2\phi_2>0$.\
For the set of parameters $a_1 = 5.0, \ a_2 = 7.8, \ a_3 = 1.5, \ b_1 = 0.0005, \ k_1 = 50, \ k_2 = 55, \ c_1 = 1.7, \ c_2 = 1.05, \ c_3 = 1.0, \ \theta = 0.0217, \ p = 0.73 $, there are four real roots $[x = 0.5990751338, \ y = 161.9321592, \ z = 116.8375923]$, $[x = -65.33582457, \ y = -1734.893676, \ z = 2108.504719]$, $[x = 73.69033011, \ y = 33.00904773, \ z = 252.2068593]$, $[x = 9933.742272, \ y = -67.78533292, \ z = 358.0409590]$ in which first and third one are biologically feasible.
For the equilibrium point $E_5(x_5,y_5,0)$, $z_5=0$ gives $y_5=\frac{a_2(x_5+k_2)}{c_2}$. Here $x_5$ is the root of\
$Q(x)=A_3x^3+A_2x^2+A_1x+A_0=0$,\
where $A_3=b_1c_2$, $A_2=-a_1c_2+a_2c_1$, $A_1=a_2c_1k_2+b_1c_2k_1$, $A_0=-a_1c_2k_1$.\
We consider $Q(x)=(\mu_1 x+\alpha_1)(\nu_1 x^2+\xi_1 x+\eta_1)$.\
[**Case-1**]{}: $Q(x)$ has only one real root if $\xi_1^2-4\nu_1\eta_1<0$, which yields $x_5=-\frac{\alpha_1}{\mu_1}$.\
For the set of parameters $ a_1 = 4.5, \ a_2 = 3.8, \ a_3 = 0.005, \ b_1 = 0.075, \ k_1 = 100, \ k_2 = 160, \ c_1 = 2.8, \ c_2 = 1.97, \ c_3 = 1.95, \ \theta = 0.0937, \ p = 0.047$, there is only one real root $[x = 0.5159678886, \ y = 309.6247096, \ z = 0]$ which is biologically feasible.\
[**Case-2**]{}: $Q(x)$ has three real roots if $\xi_1^2-4\nu_1\eta_1>0$.\
For the set of parameters $a_1 = 5.0, \ a_2 = 7.8, \ a_3 = 1.5, \ b_1 = 0.0005, \ k_1 = 50, \ k_2 = 55, \ c_1 = 1.7, \ c_2 = 1.05, \ c_3 = 1.0, \ \theta = 0.0217, \ p = 0.73 $, there are three real roots $[x = 0.3585095936, \ y = 411.2346427, \ z = 0]$, $[x = -91.96262935, \ y = -274.5795323, \ z = 0]$, $[x=-15165.53874, \ y = -1.122497163*10^5, \ z = 0]$ in which first one is biologically feasible.
For the equilibrium point $E_6(x_6,0,z_6)$, $y_6=0$ gives $z_6=\frac{a_3(x_6+k_2)}{c_3}$. Here $x_6$ is the root of\
$R(x)=A_3x^3+A_2x^2+A_1x+A_0=0$,\
where $A_3=b_1c_3$, $A_2=-a_1c_3+a_3c_1p$, $A_1=a_3c_1k_2p+b_1c_3k_1$, $A_0=-a_1c_3k_1$.\
We consider $R(x)=(\mu_2 x+\alpha_2)(\nu_2 x^2+\xi_2 x+\eta_2)$.\
[**Case-1**]{}: $R(x)$ has only one real root if $\xi_2^2-4\nu_2\eta_2<0$, which yields $x_6=-\frac{\alpha_2}{\mu_2}$.\
For the set of parameters $ a_1 = 4.5, \ a_2 = 3.8, \ a_3 = 0.005, \ b_1 = 0.075, \ k_1 = 100, \ k_2 = 160, \ c_1 = 2.8, \ c_2 = 1.97, \ c_3 = 1.95, \ \theta = 0.0937, \ p = 0.047$, there is only one real root $[x = 59.98394610, \ y = 0, \ z = 0.5640614003]$ which is biologically feasible.\
[**Case-2**]{}: $R(x)$ has three real roots if $\xi_2^2-4\nu_2\eta_2>0$.\
For the set of parameters $a_1 = 5.0, \ a_2 = 7.8, \ a_3 = 1.5, \ b_1 = 0.0005, \ k_1 = 50, \ k_2 = 55, \ c_1 = 1.7, \ c_2 = 1.05, \ c_3 = 1.0, \ \theta = 0.0217, \ p = 0.73 $, there are three real roots $[x = 2.657590193, y = 0, z = 86.48638529]$, $[x = 30.13036196, \ y = 0, \ z = 127.6955429]$, $[x = 6244.212048, \ y = 0, \ z = 9448.818072]$ which are biologically feasible.
System behaviour around boundary equilibria
===========================================
Stability for $E_0$
-------------------
The characteristic equation for $E_0$ is given by\
$\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
a_1-\lambda & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_2-\lambda & 0\\
0 & 0 & a_3-\lambda\\
\end{array}
\right|=0.$\
The equilibrium point $E_0$ has the eigenvalues $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$. All the eigenvalues are positive and it is unstable.
Stability for $E_1$
-------------------
The characteristic equation for $E_1$ is given by\
$\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
a_1-\lambda & 0 & 0 \\
0 & (\frac{a_2c_3-a_3(c_2+k_2\theta)}{c_3})-\lambda & 0\\
\frac{a_3^2}{c_3} & a_3(-1+\frac{k_2\theta}{c_3}) & -a_3-\lambda\\
\end{array}
\right|=0.$\
Since one of the eigenvalues of $E_1$ is $a_1$, which is always positive and so, $E_1$ is unstable.
Stability for $E_2$
-------------------
The characteristic equation for $E_2$ is given by\
$\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
a_1-\lambda & 0 & 0 \\
\frac{a_2^2}{c_2} & -a_2-\lambda & -a_2
-\frac{a_2k_2\theta}{c_2}\\
0 & 0 & (a_3-\frac{a_2c_3}{c_2}+\frac{a_2k_2\theta}{c_2})-\lambda\\
\end{array}
\right|=0.$\
Since one of the eigenvalues of $E_2$ is $a_1$, which is always positive and therefore, $E_2$ is unstable.
Stability for $E_3$
-------------------
The characteristic equation of the equilibrium $E_3(0,y_3,z_3)$ is given by\
$\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
a_1-\lambda & 0 & 0 \\
\frac{c_2y_3(y_3+z_3)}{k_2^2} & (a_2-\frac{c_2(2y_3+z_3)}{k_2}-z_3 \theta)-\lambda & -\frac{c_2y_3}{k_2}-y_3 \theta\\
\frac{c_3z_3(y_3+z_3)}{k_2^2} & -\frac{c_3z_3}{k_2}+z_3 \theta & (a_3-\frac{c_3(y_3+2z_3)}{k_2}+y_3 \theta)-\lambda\\
\end{array}
\right|=0,$ where $y_3=\frac{-a_3k_2\theta+a_2c_3-a_3c_2}{\theta(k_2\theta+c_2-c_3)}$ and $z_3=-\frac{-a_2k_2\theta+a_2c_3-a_3c_2}{\theta(k_2\theta+c_2-c_3)}$. As eigenvalue $a_1$ for $E_3$ is always positive, the equilibrium point $E_3$ is unstable.
Stability for $E_4$
-------------------
The characteristic equation for $E_4$ is given by\
$\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
-a_1-\lambda & -\frac{a_1^2c_1}{b_1^2(\frac{a_1^2}{b_1^2}+k_1)} & -\frac{a_1^2c_1p}{b_1^2(\frac{a_1^2}{b_1^2}+k_1)} \\
0 & a_2-\lambda & 0\\
0 & 0 & a_3-\lambda\\
\end{array}
\right|=0.$\
Eigenvalues $a_2$ and $a_3$ are always positive of the equilibrium $E_4$. Hence $E_4$ is unstable.
Stability for $E_5(x_5,y_5,0)$ {#E_5}
------------------------------
At $E_5(x_5,y_5,0)$, the Jacobian matrix for the system is given by $$J_5=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
m_{11} & m_{12} & m_{13}\\
m_{21} & m _{22} & m_{23}\\
m_{31} & m_{32} & m_{33}\\
\end{array}
\right),$$\
where $m_{11}=-b_1x_5-\frac{c_1x_5y_5}{x_5^2+k_1}+\frac{2c_1x_5^3y_5}{(x_5^2+k_1)^2}$,$m_{12}=-\frac{c_1x_5^2}{x_5^2+k_1}$,$m_{13}=-\frac{pc_1x_5^2}{x_5^2+k_1}$,$m_{21}=\frac{c_2y_5^2}{(x_5+k_2)^2}$,$m_{22}=-\frac{c_2y_5}{x_5+k_2}$,$m_{23}=-\frac{c_2y_5}{x_5+k_2}-\theta y_5$,$m_{31}=0$,$m_{32}=0$,$m_{33}=\theta y_5+a_3-\frac{c_3y_5}{x_5+k_2}$.\
The Characteristic equation for $J_5$ is given by\
$(m_{33}-\lambda)\{(m_{11}-\lambda)(m_{22}-\lambda)-m_{21}m_{12}\}= 0$\
$\Rightarrow (m_{33}-\lambda)\{\lambda^2-(m_{11}+m_{22})\lambda+m_{11}m_{22}-m_{21}m_{12}\}=0$\
$\Rightarrow\lambda_{1,2}=\frac{m_{11}+m_{22}\pm\sqrt{(m_{11}+m_{22})^2-4(m_{11}m_{22}-m_{21}m_{12})}}{2}$ and $\lambda_3=m_{33}$.\
We choose $m_{11}<0$ and $m_{33}<0$. Then $E_5$ will be stable if\
(i) $b_1x_5+\frac{c_1x_5y_5}{x_5^2+k_1}>\frac{2c_1x_5^3y_5}{(x_5^2+k_1)^2}$,\
(ii)$\frac{c_3y_5}{x_5+k_2}>\theta y_5+a_3$.
Stability for $E_6(x_6,0,z_6)$ {#E_6}
------------------------------
At $E_6(x_6,0,z_6)$, the Jacobian matrix for the system is given by\
$$J_6=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
m_{11} & m_{12} & m_{13}\\
m_{21} & m _{22} & m_{23}\\
m_{31} & m_{32} & m_{33}\\
\end{array}
\right),$$\
where $m_{11}=-b_1x_6-\frac{pc_1x_6z_6}{x_6^2+k_1}+\frac{2pc_1x_6^3z_6}{(x_6^2+k_1)^2}$,$m_{12}=-\frac{c_1x_6^2}{x_6^2+k_1}$,$m_{13}=-\frac{pc_1x_6^2}{x_6^2+k_1}$,$m_{21}=0$,$m_{22}=a_2-\frac{c_2z_6}{x_6+k_2}-\theta z_6$,$m_{23}=0$,$m_{31}=\frac{c_3z
_6^2}{(x_6+k_2)^2}$,$m_{32}=\theta z_6-\frac{c_3z_6}{x_6+k_2}$,$m_{33}=-\frac{c_3z_6}{x_6+k_2}$.\
The Characteristic equation for $J_6$ is given by\
$(m_{22}-\lambda)\{(m_{11}-\lambda)(m_{33}-\lambda)-m_{31}m_{13}=0$\
$\Rightarrow (m_{22}-\lambda)\{{\lambda^2-(m_{11}+m_{33})\lambda+m_{11}m_{33}-m_{31}m_{13}}\}=0$\
$\Rightarrow\lambda_{1,2}=\frac{m_{11}+m_{33}\pm\sqrt{(m_{11}+m_{33})^2-4(m_{11}m_{33}-m_{31}m_{13})}}{2}$ and $\lambda_3=m_{22}$.\
We choose $m_{22}<0$ and $m_{11}<0$. Then $E_6$ will be stable if\
(i) $b_1x_6+\frac{pc_1x_6z_6}{x_6^2+k_1}>\frac{2pc_1x_6^3z_6}{(x_6^2+k_1)^2}$,\
(ii)$\frac{c_2z_6}{x_6+k_2}+\theta z_6>a_2$.
System behaviour near the coexistence equilibrium $E_*(x_*,y_*,z_*)$ {#E_*}
====================================================================
The entries for the Jacobian at $E_*(x_*,y_*,z_*)$ are\
$m_{11}=a_1-2b_1x_*+\frac{2c_1x_*^3y_*}{(x_*^2+k_1)^2}+\frac{2pc_1x_*^3z_*}{(x_*^2+k_1)^2}$, $m_{12}=-\frac{c_1x_*^2}{x_*^2+k_1}$, $m_{13}=-\frac{pc_1x_*^2}{x_*^2+k_1}$,\
$m_{21}=\frac{c_2y_*(y_*+z_*)}{(x_*+k_2)^2}$, $m_{22}=-\frac{c_2y_*}{x_*+k_2}$, $m_{23}=-\frac{c_2y_*}{x_*+k_2}-\theta y_*$,\
$m_{31}=\frac{c_3z
_*(y_*+z_*)}{(x_*+k_2)^2}$, $m_{32}=\theta z_*-\frac{c_3z_*}{x_*+k_2}$, $m_{33}=-\frac{c_3z_*}{x_*+k_2}$.
Local Stability
---------------
The characteristic equation for $J_*$ is $\theta^3+A_1\theta^2+A_2\theta+A_3=0$, where\
$A_1=-m_{11}-m_{22}-m_{33}$,\
$A_2=m_{11}m_{22}+m_{11}m_{33}+m_{22}m_{33}-m_{13}m_{31}-m_{23}m_{32}-m_{21}m_{12}$,\
$A_3=m_{11}m_{23}m_{32}+m_{12}m_{21}m_{33}+m_{13}m_{22}m_{31}-m_{11}m_{22}m_{33}-m_{12}m_{23}m_{31}-m_{13}m_{21}m_{32}$,\
$A_1A_2-A_3=-m_{11}^2m_{22}-m_{11}^2m_{33}-m_{22}^2m_{33}-m_{11}m_{22}^2-m_{11}m_{33}^2-m_{22}m_{33}^2-2m_{11}m_{22}m_{33}+m_{11}m_{13}m_{31}+m_{11}m_{12}m_{21}+m_{22}m_{12}m_{21}+m_{22}m_{23}m_{32}\\+m_{33}m_{23}m_{32}+m_{33}m_{13}m_{31}+m_{12}m_{23}m_{31}+m_{13}m_{21}m_{32}$.\
Assume $(i)$ $m_{11}<0$, $(ii)$ $m_{32}>0$, $(iii)$ $m_{11}m_{31}+m_{33}m_{31}+m_{21}m_{32}<0$ or $m_{11} m_{12}+m_{22}m_{12}+m_{13}m_{32}>0$ or $m_{22}m_{23}+m_{33}m_{23}+m_{13}m_{21}>0$ and we have\
$A_1>0$, $A_3>0$ and $A_1A_2-A_3>0$. By Routh-Hurwitz criterion, the interior or co-existence equilibrium $E_*(x_*,y_*,z_*)$ is locally asymptotically stable.
Global Stability
----------------
The co-existence equilibrium point $E_*$ is globally asymptotically stable if $P_1>0$, $P_2>0$ and $P_3>0$ where $P_1$ , $P_2$, $P_3$ are defined latter.
Let us define the function $L(x,y,z)=L_1(x,y,z)+L_2(x,y,z)+L_3(x,y,z)$,\
where $L_1=x-x_*-x_*ln\frac{x}{x_*}$, $L_2=y-y_*-y_*ln\frac{y}{y_*}$, $L_3=z-z_*-z_*ln\frac {z}{z_*}$.\
It is to be shown that $L$ is a Lyapunav function and $L$ vanishes at $E_*$ and it is positive for all $x,y,z>0$. Hence $E_*$ represents its global minimum. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dL_1}{dt}&=&(x-x_*)\Big(a_1-b_1x-\frac{c_1xy}{x^2+k_1}-\frac{pc_1xz}{x^2+k_1}\Big)\\
&=&(x-x_*)\Big(b_1x_*+\frac{c_1x_*y_*}{x_*^2+k_1}+\frac{pc_1x_*z_*}{x_*^2+k_1}-b_1x-\frac{c_1xy}{x^2+k_1}-\frac{pc_1xz}{x^2+k_1}\Big)\\
&=&(x-x_*)\Big[\frac{c_1(x-x_*)(xx_*-k_1)(y_*+p z_*)}{(x_*^2+k_1)(x^2+k_1)}-b_1(x-x_*)-\frac{c_1x(y-y_*)}{x^2+k_1}\\
&-&\frac{pc_1x(z-z_*)}{x^2+k_1}\Big],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dL_2}{dt}&=&(y-y_*)\Big(a_2-\frac{c_2(y+z)}{x+k_2}-\theta z\Big)\\
&=&(y-y_*)\Big(\theta z_*+\frac{c_2(y_*+z_*)}{x_*+k_2}-\frac{c_2(y+z)}{x+k_2}-\theta z\Big)\\
&=&(y-y_*)\Big[-\theta(z-z_*)+\frac{c_2(y_*+z_*)(x-x_*)}{(x_*+k_2)(x+k_2)}-\frac{c_2((y-y_*)+(z-z_*))}{x+k_2}\Big],\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dL_3}{dt}&=&(z-z_*)\Big(a_3-\frac{c_3(y+z)}{x+k_2}+\theta y\Big)\\
&=&(z-z_*)\Big(-\theta z_*+\frac{c_3(y_*+z_*)}{x_*+k_2}-\frac{c_3(y+z)}{x+k_2}+\theta y\Big)\\
&=&(z-z_*)\Big[\theta(y-y_*)+\frac{c_3(y_*+z_*)(x-x_*)}{(x_*+k_2)(x+k_2)}-\frac{c_3((y-y_*)+(z-z_*))}{x+k_2}\Big].\end{aligned}$$
We consider $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dL}{dt}&=&-\Big[A(x-x_*)^2+B(y-y_*)^2+C(z-z_*)^2+2H(x-x_*)(y-y_*)\\
&+& 2F(y-y_*)(z-z_*)+2G(z-z_*)(x-x_*)\Big]=-V^T Q V\end{aligned}$$
where $V=\Big((x-x_*),(y-y_*),(z-z_*)\Big)^T$ and $Q$ is symmetric quadratic form given by\
$Q=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
A & H & G\\
H & B & F\\
G & F & C
\end{array}\right)$\
with the entries that are functions only of the variable $x$ and\
$A=b_1-\frac{c_1(y_*+pz_*)(xx_*-k_1)}{(x_*^2+k_1)(x^2+k_1)}$, $ B=\frac{c_2}{x+k_2}$, $C=\frac{c_3}{x+k_2}$, $F=\frac{c_2+c_3}{2(x+k_2)}$,\
$H=\frac{1}{2}[\frac{c_1x}{x^2+k_1}-\frac{c_2(y_*+z_*)}{(x_*+k_2)(x+k_2)}]$, $G=\frac{1}{2}[\frac{pc_1x}{x^2+k_1}-\frac{c_3(y_*+z_*)}{(x_*+k_2)(x+k_2)}]$.
If the matrix $Q$ is positive definite, then $\frac{dL}{dt}<0$. So, all the principal minors of $Q$, namely, $P_1\equiv A$, $P_2 \equiv AB-H^2 $, $P_3\equiv ABC+2FGH-AF^2-BG^2-CH^2=C(AB-H^2)+G(FH-BG)+F(GH-AF)$ to be positive , i.e. , $P_1>0, \ P_2>0, \ P_3>0$.
Persistence
===========
If a compact set $D\subset\Omega=\{(x,y,z): x>0, y>0, z>0\}$ exists such that all solution of the system (\[model-1\]) eventually enter and remain in $D$, the system is called persistent.\
The system (\[model-1\]) is persistent if\
1. $\frac{a_2c_3}{a_3}>(c_2+k_2\theta)$,
2. $a_3c_2>a_2c_3$,
3. $a_3c_2>a_2c_3, \ a_1>b_1x_5+\frac{a_2c_1x_5(k_2+x_5)}{c_2(k_1+x_5^2)}$,
4. $\frac{a_2c_3}{a_3}>\Big(c_2+(k_2+x_6)\theta \Big), \ a_1c_3(k_1+x_6^2)>x_6\Big(a_3c_1p(k_2+x_6)+b_1c_3(k_1+x_6^2)\Big)$.
Let us consider the method of average Lyapunav function, see [@Gard1979persistence] , considering a function of the form $V(x,y,z)=x^{\gamma_1}y^{\gamma_2}z^{\gamma_3}$, where $\gamma_i=1,2,3$ are positive constant to be determined. We define\
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(x,y,z)&=\frac{\dot{V}}{V}\\
&=\gamma_1\Big(a_1-b_1x-\frac{c_1xy}{x^2+k_1}-\frac{pc_1xz}{x^2+k_1}\Big)
&+\gamma_2\Big(a_2-\frac{c_2(y+z)}{x+k_2}-\theta z\Big)\\
&+\gamma_3\Big(a_3-\frac{c_3(y+z)}{x+k_2}+\theta y\Big).\\
\end{aligned}$$ We are to prove that this function is positive at each boundary equilibrium. We have $\Pi(0,0,0)=\gamma_1a_1+\gamma_2a_2+\gamma_3a_3>0$ and $\Pi(\frac{a_1}{b_1},0,0)=\gamma_2a_2+\gamma_3a_3>0$.\
Here $\Pi(0,0,\frac{a_3k_2}{c_3})=a_1\gamma_1+\frac{a_2c_3-a_3(c_2+k_2\theta)}{c_3}\gamma_2>0$ follows by condition 1.\
With the condition 2, we have\
$\Pi(0,\frac{a_2k_2}{c_2},0)=a_1\gamma_1+\frac{(a_3c_2-a_2c_3+a_2k_2\theta)}{c_2}\gamma_3>0$. Also\
$$\begin{aligned}
&\Pi\Big(0,\frac{a_2c_3-a_3c_2-a_3k_2\theta}{\theta(k_2\theta+c_2-c_3)},-\frac{a_2c_3-a_3c_2-a_2k_2\theta}{\theta(k_2\theta+c_2-c_3)}\Big)\\
&=a_1 \gamma_1>0.
\end{aligned}$$ We find $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi\Big(x_5,\frac{a_2(x_5+k_2)}{c_2},0\Big)&=\gamma_1\Big(a_1-\Big(b_1x_5+\frac{a_2c_1x_5(k_2+x_5)}{c_2(k_1+x_5^2)}\Big)\Big)\\
&+\gamma_3\Big(\frac{a_3c_2-a_2c_3+a_2k_2\theta+a_2x_5\theta}{c_2}\Big)>0 \ \text{by the condition } 3,
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi\Big(x_6,0,\frac{a_3(x_6+k_2)}{c_3}\Big)&=\gamma_1\Big(\frac{a_1c_3(k_1+x_6^2)-x_6(a_3c_1p(k_2+x_6)+b_1c_3(k_1+x_6^2))}{c_3(k_1+x_6^2)}\Big)\\
&+\gamma_2\Big(\frac{a_2c_3-a_3(c_2+(k_2+x_6)\theta)}{c_3}\Big)>0 \ \text{ by the condition } 4.
\end{aligned}$$
Hence a suitable choice of $\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3$ is required to ensure $\Pi>0$ at the boundary equilibria. Hence $V$ is an average Lyapunav function and thus the system (\[model-1\]) is persistent.
Numerical simulation
====================
Analytical studies can never be completed without numerical verification of the derived results. In this section, we present computer simulations of some solutions of the system (\[model-1\]). Beside verification of our analytical findings, these numerical simulations are very important from practical point of view. We use four different set of numerical values for support of analytical results mentioned in Table \[LG\_typeIII\_set of parameters\].
------- ------- ------- --------- ---------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------- ------------ ---------
$S_1$ $4.5$ $3.8$ $0.005$ $0.075$ $100$ $160$ $2.8$ $1.97$ $1.95$ $0.0937$ $0.047$
$S_2$ $4.5$ $3.8$ $0.005$ $0.075$ $100$ $20$ $2.8$ $1.97$ $0.005$ $0.0937$ $0.047$
$S_3$ $5.0$ $7.8$ $1.5$ $0.0005$ $50$ $55$ $1.7$ $1.05$ $1.0$ $0.0217$ $0.73$
$S_4$ $4.0$ $6.0$ $0.05$ $0.005$ $100$ $200$ $0.08$ $0.7$ $0.50$ $0.002537$ $0.93$
------- ------- ------- --------- ---------- ------- ------- -------- -------- --------- ------------ ---------
: Set of parameter values for numerical simulations; $S\equiv $Parameter sets[]{data-label="LG_typeIII_set of parameters"}
(a)![[]{data-label="fig50"}](fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig50"}](fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
(a)![[]{data-label="fig55"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig55"}](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
(a)![[]{data-label="fig53"}](fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig53"}](fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
(a)![[]{data-label="fig54"}](fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig54"}](fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
\[fig10\]
(a)![[]{data-label="fig56"}](fig5a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig56"}](fig5b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
(a)![[]{data-label="fig57"}](fig6a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig57"}](fig6b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
(a)![[]{data-label="fig52"}](fig7a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig52"}](fig7b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
(a)![[]{data-label="fig51"}](fig8a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"} (b)![[]{data-label="fig51"}](fig8b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm" height="3.5cm"}
Conclusions and comments
========================
In this paper, we have proposed and analyzed an eco-epidemiological model where only the predator population is infected by an infectious disease. Here we have considered a modified Leslie-Gower and Holling type-III predator-prey model. We have divided the predator population into two sub classes: susceptible and infected. Then we study the behaviour of the system at various equilibrium points and their stability. The conditions for existence and stability of all the equilibria of the system have been given. The system (\[model-1\]) has eight equilibrium points: one trivial equilibrium $E_0$, three axial equilibrium points $E_1$, $E_2$, $E_4$, three planar equilibrium points $E_3$, $E_5$, $E_6$ and one coexistence equilibrium $E_*$. For our model: $E_i$, $i=0,1,2,4$ exist and are unstable for all times. $E_3$ exists if $a_3k_2\theta < a_2c_3-a_3c_2< a_2k_2\theta$ and $c_2>c_3$ but unstable. The equilibrium point $E_5$ is locally asymptotically stable if $b_1x_5+\frac{c_1x_5y_5}{x_5^2+k_1}>\frac{2c_1x_5^3y_5}{(x_5^2+k_1)^2}$, $\frac{c_3y_5}{x_5+k_2}>\theta y_5+a_3$. Also $E_6$ is locally asymptotically stable if $b_1x_6+\frac{pc_1x_6z_6}{x_6^2+k_1}>\frac{2pc_1x_6^3z_6}{(x_6^2+k_1)^2}$, $\frac{c_2z_6}{x_6+k_2}+\theta z_6>a_2$. The coexistence equilibrium point $E_*$ is locally as well as globally asymptotically stable under some conditions. Persistence of the system is also shown.\
At last, we conclude that our eco-epidemic predator–prey model with infected predator exhibits very interesting dynamics. Here we have assumed Holling type III response mechanism for predation. So, we can refine the model considering other type of functional response. We can also consider the disease infection in the prey population, which can give us a very rich dynamics. There must be some time lag, called gestation delay. So, as part of future work to improve the model we can incorporate the gestation delay in our model to make it more realistic.
[99]{} N. Ali, S. Chakravarty , Stability analysis of a food chain model consisting of two competitive preys and one predator, , [**82**]{}(3):1303–1316, 2015. $\,$
N. Ali, M. Haque, E. Venturino, S. Chakravarty, Dynamics of a three species ratio–dependent food chain model with intra–specific competition within the top predator, , [**85**]{}:63–74, 2017. $\,$
R.M. Anderson, R.M. May, , Springer, Berlin, 1982. $\,$
R.M. Anderson, R.M. May, , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991. $\,$
M.A. Aziz-Alaoui, Study of a [L]{}eslie-[G]{}ower-type tritrophic population model, , [**14**]{}(8):1275–1293, 2002. $\,$
M.A. Aziz-Alaoui, M.D. Okiye, Boundedness and global stability for a predator–prey model with modified [L]{}eslie–[G]{}ower and [H]{}olling type [II]{} schemes, , [**16**]{}:1069–1075, 2003. $\,$
G. Birkhoff, G.C. Rota, , Ginn, Boston, 1982. $\,$
J. Chattapadhyay, O. Arino, A predator–prey model with disease in the prey, , [**36**]{}:747–766, 1999. $\,$
J. Chattapadhyay, S. Pal, A. EI. Abdllaoui, Classical predator–prey system with infection of prey population–a mathematical model, , [**26**]{}:1211–1222, 2003. $\,$
A. El-Gohary, A.S. Al-Ruzaiza, Chaos and adaptive control in two prey, one predator system with nonlinear feedback, , [**34**]{}(2):443–453, 2007. $\,$
H.I. Freedman, A model of predator–prey dynamics modified by the action of a parasite, , [**99**]{}:143–155, 1990. $\,$
S. Gakkhar, Existence of chaos in two-prey, one-predator system, , [**17**]{}(4):639–649, 2003. $\,$
T.C. Gard, T.G. Hallam, Persistece in food web-1, [L]{}otka –[V]{}olterra food chains, , [**41**]{}:877–891, 1979. $\,$
H.J. Guo, X.Y. Song, An impulsive predator–prey system with modified [L]{}eslie–[G]{}ower and [H]{}olling type [II]{} schemes, , [**36**]{}:1320–1331, 2008. $\,$
K.P. Hadeler, H.I. Freedman, Predator-prey populations with parasitic infection, , [**27**]{}(6):609–631, 1989. $\,$
M. Haque, N. Ali, S. Chakravarty, Study of a tri–trophic prey–dependent food chain model of interacting populations, , [**246**]{}(1):55–71, 2013. $\,$
M. Haque, E. Venturino, Increase of the prey may decrease the healthy predator population in presence of a disease in the predator, , [**7**]{}(2):39–60, 2006. $\,$
M. Haque, E. Venturino, An ecoepidemiological model with disease in the predators; the ratio–dependent case, , [**30**]{}:1791–1809, 2007. $\,$
C.S. Holling, The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and population regulation, , [**97**]{}(S45):5–60, 1965. $\,$
A. Klebanoff, A. Hastings, Chaos in one-predator, two-prey models: cgeneral results from bifurcation theory, , [**122**]{}(2):221–233, 1994. $\,$
A. Korobeinikov, P.K. Maini, Non-linear incidence and stability of infectious disease models, , [**22**]{}(2):113–128, 2005. $\,$
M.Y. Li, J.R. Graef, L. Wang, J. Karsai, Global [D]{}ynamics of a [SEIR]{} model with varying total population size, , [**160**]{}(2):191–213, 1999. $\,$
J.D. Murray, , Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001. $\,$
E.C. Pielou, , CRC Press, 1974. $\,$
S. Sarwardi, M. Haque, E. Venturino, Global stability and persistence in [LG]{}-[H]{}olling type [II]{} diseased predator ecosystems, , [**37**]{}(6):91–106, 2011. $\,$
X. Song, Y. Li, Dynamic behaviors of the periodic predator–prey model with modified [L]{}eslie-[G]{}ower [H]{}olling-type [II]{} schemes and impulsive effect, , [**9**]{}(1):64–79, 2008. $\,$
E. Venturino, The influence of diseases on [L]{}otka–[V]{}olterra systems, , [**24**]{}:381–402, 1994. $\,$
E. Venturino, Epidemics in predator–prey models: disease in the predators, , [**19**]{}:185–205, 2002. $\,$
Y. Xiao, L. Chen, Modeling and analysis of a predator–prey model with disease in the prey, , [**171**]{}(1):59–82, 2001. $\,$
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The world is so full of a number of things\
I’m sure we shall all be as happy as kings.\
Robert Louis Stevenson, [*A Child’s Garden of Verses*]{}
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218'
author:
- Jack Morava
date: 23 August 2011
title: 'The cosmic Galois group as Koszul dual to Waldhausen’s $A(*)$'
---
[^1]
Basic questions
===============
[**1.1 Existence:**]{} Why is there something, rather than nothing?
This does not seem very accessible by current methods. A more realistic goal may be
[**Classification:**]{} Given that there’s something, what could it be?
This suggests a
[**Program:**]{} If things fall into [**categories**]{} (${{\mathcal A}},{{\mathcal B}}$,…), hopefully [**small**]{} and [**stable**]{} enough to be manageable, techniques from K-theory may be useful.
[**1.2**]{} In fact Blumberg, Gepner, and Tabuada (\[4\], see also \[10\]) have constructed a Cartesian closed category ${{\rm Cat}}_\infty^{{\rm perf}}$ of small stable $\infty$-categories, eg ${{\mathcal A}},{{\mathcal B}}, {{\rm Fun}}^{{\rm ex}}({{\mathcal A}},{{\mathcal B}}),
\dots$ and there is then a (similarly Cartesian closed) big [**spectral**]{} category of [**pre**]{}-motives: with objects as above, and morphism objects $${{\rm Hom}}_{{\sf Mot}}({{\mathcal A}},{{\mathcal B}}) := {{\rm K}}({{\rm Fun}}^{{\rm ex}}({{\mathcal A}},{{\mathcal B}})) \in {{\rm K}}(\$) - {{\rm Mod}}$$ enriched over Waldhausen’s $A$-theory spectrum. \[The superscript ‘ex’ signifies functors which preserve finite limits and colimits, and the objects of the category are taken to be idempotent complete (ie, the category is suitably localized with respect to Morita equivalence).\]
Such a category has a functorial completion to a [**pre**]{} - triangulated category ${{\sf Mot}}$ (\[6 §4.5\]: ie, whose homotopy category is triangulated); this involves enlarging the set of objects by adjoining suitable cofibers, generalizing the classical Karoubification in Grothendieck’s original construction of a category of pure motives.
[**1.3**]{} Such ‘big’ categories allow comparisons between objects from quite different areas of mathematics (eg homotopy theory and algebraic geometry), and they raise a host of questions.
This posting summarizes a talk at the Hamburg 2011 conference on structured ring spectra $${\tt http://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/home/richter/hh2011.html} \;.$$ It is concerned with the motivic (Tannakian? Galois? descent?) groups of such categories as a tool for sorting out their relations. It is a report on work in progress with [**Andrew Blumberg**]{} and [**Kathryn Hess**]{}, without whose support it would not be even a fantasy. I also want to thank Michael Ching, Ralph Cohen, Bjorn Dundas, and Bill Dwyer for their help, and in particular for enduring more than their share of foolish questions. Finally, much of this work is based on ideas of Andrew Baker and Birgit Richter, and I owe them thanks for interesting conversations over many years, and in particular for putting together this remarkable meeting.
Some examples
=============
(of things that live in this big world of motives):
[**2.1**]{} If $X$ is an algebraic variety over a field $k$, and ${{\mathcal A}}_X = D^{{\rm perf}}({{\bf o}}_X)$ is the derived category of quasicoherent sheaves of ${{\bf o}}_X$ - modules, then the class of ${{\mathcal A}}_X$ is a version of the classical motive of $X$. The subcategory generated by such things has Hom-objects naturally enriched over ${{\rm K}}(k-{{\rm Mod}})$; a cycle map associates to a subvariety $Z$ of $X \times Y$, a resolution of its defining sheaf ${\mathcal I}_Z$ of functions, and thus a bimodule morphism from $X$ to $Y$ …
[**2.2**]{} This example fits in the general framework of $\mathbb{A}^1$ - homotopy theory, but over more general rings the subject is in flux. If $X$ is an [**arithmetic**]{} variety, eg over the spectrum of integers of a number field, Deligne and Goncharov \[9\] have constructed a good category of [**mixed Tate**]{} motives over Spec ${{\mathbb Z}}$, with Hom objects enriched over ${{\rm K}}({{\mathbb Z}})
\otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$. The [**periods**]{} of algebraic varieties \[12\] define similar categories of motives.
[**2.3**]{} There is a great deal of interest in [**noncommutative**]{} motives over a field, perhaps also represented by suitable derived categories of perfect objects \[1\] …
but my concern in this talk is to ask how the most classical example of all,
[**2.4 topological spaces**]{}
might fit in this framework. In particular, in this new world of big motives, how does the ‘underlying space’ or ‘Betti’ functor $$X \in {\rm Varieties \; over \; {{\mathbb Z}}\mapsto X({{\mathbb C}}) \in Spaces}$$ behave? This reality check is the principal motivation for this talk.
Fiber functors and their motivic automorphism groups
====================================================
[**3.1**]{} There are dual approaches \[3,5,11\] to the study of spaces in this context, both involving categories of modules over ring-spectra: $$X \; \mapsto \$[\Omega X_+] = FX \in A_\infty - {\rm algebras},$$ and $$X \mapsto [X_+,\$] = DX \; (= {\rm Spanier-Whitehead \; dual}) \in E_\infty - {\rm algebras}.$$ The first leads to Waldhausen’s $A(X) = K(\$[\Omega X_+] - {{\rm Mod}})$, while the second leads to Williams’ \[20\] $\forall (X) = K(DX - {{\rm Mod}})$; together these constructions generalize Grothendieck’s classical covariant and contravariant versions of K-theory.
Both $DX$ and $FX$ are [**supplemented**]{} $\$$-algebras, and in good cases (ie if $X$ is both finite and simply-connected) then $$FX \cong {{\rm Hom}}_\$(DX,DX), \; DX \cong {{\rm Hom}}_\$(FX,FY)$$ expresses a kind of ‘double centralizer’ duality.
[**3.2**]{} Here I’ll work with the second of these alternatives, in the category with finite $CW$-spaces $X,Y$ as objects, and morphisms $${{\rm Hom}}_{{\sf Mot}}(X,Y) \sim {{\rm K}}(DX \wedge DY^{{\rm op}}-{{\rm Mod}})$$ defined by the K-theory spectra of [**right-compact**]{} $DX - DY^{{\rm op}}$ - bimodules \[4 §2.16\]. This category can then be made pre-triangulated, as above.
There are many technical variants of this construction: for example, BGT consider both Karoubi-Villamayor and Bass-Thomason K-theory. Later we will want to modify categories of this sort by completing their morphism objects in various ways, and eventually we will be interested in constructions based on THH and its relatives (TR, TC, …); then I’ll label the resulting categories by the functors defining their morphism objects.
For example, the cyclotomic trace defines a monoidal spectral functor $${{\sf Mot}}_{{\rm K}}\to {{\sf Mot}}_{{\rm TC}}$$ of pre-triangulated categories (and hence a triangulated functor between their homotopy categories).
[**3.3**]{} Tannakian analogs of Galois groups are a central topic in the usual theory of motives: complicated categories can sometimes be identified, via some kind of descent, with categories of representations of groups of automorphisms of interesting forgetful (monoidal, ‘fiber’) functors to simpler categories. Weil cohomologies (Hodge, étale, crystalline) are classical examples, but the following example may be more familiar here:
Ordinary cohomology (with coefficients in ${{\mathbb F}}_2$ and the grading neglected), viewed as a monoidal functor $$H : (\rm Spectra) \ni X \mapsto H^*(X,{{\mathbb F}}_2) \in ({{\mathbb F}}_2 - {{\rm Vect}}) \;,$$ has a group-valued functor $${{\rm Aut}}^H_\otimes : ({{\mathbb F}}_2 - {{\rm Alg}}) \ni A \mapsto {{\rm Aut}}^A_\otimes(H^*(-,A))$$ of natural automorphisms, which is (co)represented by the dual Steenrod algebra: $${{\rm Aut}}^A_\otimes(H^*(-,A)) \; \cong \; {{\rm Hom}}_{{\rm Alg}}({{\mathcal A}}^*,A) \;.$$ The vector-space valued functor $H^*$ thus [**lifts**]{} to a functor taking values in representations of a proalgebraic groupscheme, or (in more familiar language), in the category of ${{\mathcal A}}^*$-comodules.
Here I want to look at (pre-triangulated, spectral, monoidal) categories built by reducing the morphism objects in BGT-style categories modulo the kernel of the Dennis trace $K(\$) \to \$$ (much as we can consider the category obtained from chain complexes over ${{\mathbb Z}}$ by reducing their internal Hom-objects modulo $p$).
[**3.4**]{} Hess’s theory of homotopical descent \[14\] provides us with the needed technology: a cofibrant replacement $$\xymatrix{
K(\$) \ar[dr]^\tau \ar[rr]^{{{\rm tr \;}}} & {} & \$ \\
{} & Q(\$) \ar[ur]^\rho }$$ (of the sphere spectrum $\$$ as $K(\$)$-algebra
[Note that ${{\rm K}}({{\mathbb Z}})$ is [**not**]{} similarly supplemented over ${{\mathbb Z}}$!]{}
, with $\tau$ a cofibration, and $\rho$ a weak equivalence) associates a ‘Hessian’ [**co-ring**]{} spectrum $$Q(\$) \wedge_{{{\rm K}}(\$)} Q(\$) \; (= \; {{\rm THH}}_{{{\rm K}}(\$)}(\$) \; )$$ (analogous to a Hopf-Galois object in the sense of Rognes \[17\]) to the Dennis trace.
Similarly, $$\$ \to H{{\mathbb F}}_2$$ produces the dual Steenrod algebra $$Q(H{{\mathbb F}}_2) \wedge_\$ Q(H{{\mathbb F}}_2) \; \sim \; {{\mathcal A}}^* \;.$$ The resulting theory of descent relates a $K(\$)$-module spectrum $V$ to a ${{\rm THH}}_{K(\$)}(\$) := \$_{\dagger K(\$)}$ - comodule $$V_{\dagger K(\$)} \; := \; Q(\$) \wedge_{K(\$)} V \; = \; {{\rm THH}}_{K(\$)}(\$,V) \;,$$ and $${{\rm K}}(DX \wedge DY^{{\rm op}}) \to {{\rm K}}(DX \wedge DY^{{\rm op}})_{\dagger K(\$)} := {{\rm K}}_\dagger (DX \wedge
DY^{{\rm op}})$$ defines a monoidal functor $$\omega_{{{\rm K}_\dagger}}: {{\sf Mot}}_{{\rm K}}\to {{\sf Mot}}_{{{\rm K}_\dagger}}\;,$$ the latter category being enriched over spectra with an $\$_{\dagger K(\$)}$ - comodule action (the analog of representations of ${{\rm Aut}}(\omega_{{{\rm K}_\dagger}})$).
We expect a more careful version of this construction to provide [**effective**]{} homotopical descent for a version of ${{\sf Mot}}_\$$ with suitably completed morphism objects \[14 §4, §5.5\].
[**3.5**]{} The notation above is unsatisfactory: it reflects similar difficulties with notation for Koszul duality. In the classical case of a morphism $A \to B$ of algebras over a field $k$, the covariant functor $$V \mapsto V \otimes^L_A B := V_{\dagger B} : D(A - {{\rm Mod}}) \to D(A_{\dagger B}-{{\rm Comod}})$$ has a contravariant $k$-vector-space dual $$V \mapsto V^\dagger_B := (V_{\dagger B})^* \cong {\rm RHom_A}(V,B)$$ with values in some derived category of ${\rm RHom}_A(B,B) := A^\dagger_B$-modules \[Cartan-Eilenberg VI §5\], which is in good cases a (Koszul) duality. In the formulation above, $$\$_{\dagger K(\$)} \;:= \; \$ \otimes^L_{K(\$)} \$ \; = \; {{\rm THH}}_{{{\rm K}}(\$)}(\$)$$ is the analog of the algebra of functions on a group object, while $$\$^\dagger_{K\$)} \; := \; {\rm RHom}_{K(\$)}(\$,\$)$$ is the analog of its (convolution, $L^1$) group algebra.
Cyclotomic variants
===================
[**4.1**]{} The constructions above have a straightforward analog $${{\sf Mot}}_{{\rm TC}}\to {{\sf Mot}}_{{{\rm TC}_\dagger}}$$ built from topological cyclic homology; where now $${{{\rm TC}_\dagger}}( - ) := {{\rm THH}}_{{{\rm TC}}(\$)}(\$,{{\rm TC}}( - )) \in {{\rm THH}}_{{{\rm TC}}(\$)}(\$) := \$_{\dagger{{\rm TC}}} - {{\rm Comod}}$$ (with profinite completions implicit but suppressed)
[Another interesting variant can be built from THH, regarded as a ${{\mathbb T}}$-equivariant spectrum.]{}
.
The cyclotomic trace $${{\rm K}}(\$) \to {{\rm TC}}(\$) \sim \$ \vee \Sigma {{\mathbb C}}P^\infty_{-1}$$ (again mod completion) identifies the K-theory spectrum with $\$ \vee \Sigma {{\mathbb H}}P^\infty_+$ at regular odd primes \[15, 18\]. The cofibration $$S^{-1} \to \Sigma {{\mathbb C}}P^\infty_{-1} \to \Sigma {{\mathbb C}}P^\infty_+$$ suggests that the Koszul dual of ${{\rm THH}}_{{{\rm TC}}(\$)} \$$ should be close to the tensor $\$$ - algebra $\$[\Omega \Sigma {{\mathbb C}}P^\infty_+]$ on ${{\mathbb C}}P^\infty_+$ \[2\]. In any case, $\$_{\dagger K(\$)}
\otimes {{\mathbb Q}}$ can be identified with the algebra of quasisymmetric functions over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, ie the algebra of functions on a pro-unipotent group with free Lie algebra. The cyclic structure on THH endows this Lie algebra with a ${{\mathbb T}}$-action and thus with a grading, placing one generator in each odd degree \[7\].
This is very similar to Deligne’s motivic group for the category of mixed Tate motives, itself modeled on Shafarevich’s conjectured description of the absolute Galois group of ${{\mathbb Q}}$ as a profree profinite extension of $\hat{{{\mathbb Z}}}^\times$. It leads to the appearance of odd zeta-values in differential topology, systematically parallel to the appearance of [**even**]{} zeta-values (ie, Bernoulli numbers) in homotopy theory.
[**4.2**]{} One concern with these constructions is that neither K nor TC is [**linear**]{}, in the sense of the calculus of functors.
${{\rm THH}}_\$(DX)$ is the realization of a cyclic object $$n \mapsto (DX)^{\wedge(n+1)} \; \sim \; D(X^{n+1})$$ $S$-dual to the totalization of a (cocyclic) cosimplicial space modelling the free loopspace $LX$ (cf \[13\]; thanks to WD for this reference!). My hope is that the homotopy fixed points ${{\rm THH}}_\$(DX)^{h{{\mathbb T}}}$ can be identified as something like $$[E{{\mathbb T}}_+,[LX_+,\$]]^{h{{\mathbb T}}} = [LX_{h{{\mathbb T}}+},\$] = [LX_+,[E{{\mathbb T}}_+,\$]]^{h{{\mathbb T}}}$$ and that consequently $TC(DX)$ will be accessible as a homotopy limit of things like $[LX_+,{{\rm THH}}_\$(\$)]^{C_n}$.
This suggests that the inclusion $X \to LX$ of fixed points defines a kind of coassembly \[20\] map $${{\rm TC}}(DX) \to [X_+,{{\rm TC}}(\$)]$$ as a ${{\rm TC}}(\rm holim) \to {\rm holim}({{\rm TC}})$ interchange. \[The classical assembly map defines a composition $${{\rm Hom}}_{K(\$)}(K(\$[\Omega X_+],\$) \to {{\rm Hom}}_{K(\S)}(X \wedge K(\$),\$) \sim DX \; \dots]$$
[**4.3**]{} If this is so, then we can add a third step $${{\sf Mot}}_{{\rm TC}}\to {{\sf Mot}}_{{{\rm TC}_\dagger}}\to {{\sf Mot}}^{{\rm lin}}_{{{\rm TC}_\dagger}}$$ to the sequence of pre-triangulated monoidal functors above, with $${{\rm Hom}}^{{\rm lin}}_{{{\rm TC}_\dagger}}(X,Y) = {{\rm THH}}_{{{\rm TC}}(\$)}(\$,[DX \wedge DY^{{\rm op}},{{\rm TC}}(\$)]) \in
\$_{\dagger{{\rm TC}}} - {{\rm Comod}}\;.$$ Note that $${{\rm Hom}}^{{\rm lin}}_{{{\rm TC}_\dagger}}(X,Y) \otimes {{\mathbb Q}}= HH_{{{\rm TC}}_{{\mathbb Q}}(\$)}({{\rm TC}}_{{\mathbb Q}}(\$),H^*(Y \wedge DX))$$ $$= H^*(Y \wedge DX,{{\mathbb Q}}) = [Y,X]_{{\mathbb Q}}\;,$$ so the rationalization of ${{\sf Mot}}^{{\rm lin}}_{{{\rm TC}_\dagger}}$ reduces to the (rationalized) category of finite spectra, (conjecturally!) reconciling the motive of an algebraic variety with the stable homotopy type of its underlying space. More generally, $$[X,K(\$)]_{\dagger K(\$)} \; \sim \; [X,\$] \dots$$
[99]{}
I Dell’Ambrogio, G Tabuada, Tensor triangular geometry of non-commutative motives, [arXiv:1104.2761]{}
A Baker, B Richter, Quasisymmetric functions from a topological point of view, [arXiv:math/0605743]{}
A Blumberg, R Cohen, C Teleman, Open-closed field theories, string topology, and Hochschild homology, [arXiv:0906.5198]{}
——, D Gepner, G Tabuada, A universal characterization of higher algebraic K-theory, [arXiv:1001.2282]{}
——, M Mandell, Derived Koszul duality and involutions in the algebraic K-theory of spaces, [arXiv:0912.1670]{}
——, ——, Localization theorems in topological Hochschild homology and topological cyclic homology, [arXiv:0802.3938]{}
F Brown, Mixed Tate motives over ${{\mathbb Z}}$, [arXiv:1102.1312]{}
G Carlsson, C Douglas, B Dundas, Higher topological cyclic homology and the Segal conjecture for tori, [arXiv:0803.2745]{}
P Deligne, A Goncharov, Groupes fondamentaux motiviques de Tate mixte, [arXiv:math/0302267]{}
B Dundas, P $\O$stv$\ae$r, A bivariant Chern character (unposted)
W Dwyer, J Greenlees, S Iyengar, Duality in algebra and topology, [arXiv:math/0510247]{}
M Kontsevich, D Zagier, Periods, in [**Mathematics unlimited**]{} …771 - 808, Springer 2001
N. Kuhn, The McCord model for the tensor product of a space and a commutative ring spectrum, in [**Categorical decomposition techniques …**]{} 213 - 236, Progr. Math. 215, Birkhäuser (2004)
K Hess, A general framework for homotopic descent and codescent, [arXiv:1001.1556]{}
I Madsen, C Schlichtkrull. The circle transfer and K-theory, in [**Geometry and topology: Aarhus (1998)**]{} 307 - 328, Contemp. Math 258, AMS (2000)
J Morava, A theory of base motives, [arXiv:0908.3124]{}
J Rognes, Galois extensions of structured ring spectra, [arXiv:math/0502183]{}
——, The smooth Whitehead spectrum of a point at odd regular primes, [arXiv:math/0304384]{}
G Tabuada, Homotopy theory of spectral categories, [arXiv:0801.4524]{}
B Williams, Bivariant Riemann - Roch theorems, in [**Geometry and topology: Aarhus (1998)**]{}, 377 - 393, Contemp. Math 258, AMS (2000)
[^1]: This work was supported by the NSF
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present Nematus, a toolkit for Neural Machine Translation. The toolkit prioritizes high translation accuracy, usability, and extensibility. Nematus has been used to build top-performing submissions to shared translation tasks at WMT and IWSLT, and has been used to train systems for production environments.'
author:
- |
Rico Sennrich$^\dag$ Orhan Firat$^\star$ Kyunghyun Cho$^\ddag$ Alexandra Birch$^\dag$\
[**Barry Haddow$^\dag$**]{}\
[**Antonio Valerio Miceli Barone$^\dag$**]{}\
$^\dag$University of Edinburgh $^\star$Middle East Technical University\
$^\ddag$New York University $^\P$Heidelberg University $^\S$University of Zurich\
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Nematus: a Toolkit for Neural Machine Translation'
---
Introduction
============
Neural Machine Translation (NMT) [@DBLP:journals/corr/BahdanauCB14; @DBLP:conf/nips/SutskeverVL14] has recently established itself as a new state-of-the art in machine translation. We present Nematus[^1], a new toolkit for **Ne**ural **Ma**chine **T**ranslation.
Nematus has its roots in the dl4mt-tutorial.[^2] We found the codebase of the tutorial to be compact, simple and easy to extend, while also producing high translation quality. These characteristics make it a good starting point for research in NMT. Nematus has been extended to include new functionality based on recent research, and has been used to build top-performing systems to last year’s shared translation tasks at WMT [@sennrich-haddow-birch:2016:WMT] and IWSLT [@iwslt2016-uedin].
Nematus is implemented in Python, and based on the Theano framework [@2016arXiv160502688short]. It implements an attentional encoder–decoder architecture similar to . Our neural network architecture differs in some aspect from theirs, and we will discuss differences in more detail. We will also describe additional functionality, aimed to enhance usability and performance, which has been implemented in Nematus.
Neural Network Architecture
===========================
Nematus implements an attentional encoder–decoder architecture similar to the one described by , but with several implementation differences. The main differences are as follows:
- We initialize the decoder hidden state with the mean of the source annotation, rather than the annotation at the last position of the encoder backward RNN.
- We implement a novel conditional GRU with attention.
- In the decoder, we use a feedforward hidden layer with $\tanh$ non-linearity rather than a $\text{maxout}$ before the softmax layer.
- In both encoder and decoder word embedding layers, we do not use additional biases.
- Compared to *Look*, *Generate*, *Update* decoder phases in , we implement *Look*, *Update*, *Generate* which drastically simplifies the decoder implementation (see Table \[tb:lug\]).
- Optionally, we perform recurrent Bayesian dropout [@2015arXiv151205287G].
- Instead of a single word embedding at each source position, our input representations allows multiple features (or “factors”) at each time step, with the final embedding being the concatenation of the embeddings of each feature [@sennrich-haddow:2016:WMT].
- We allow tying of embedding matrices [@DBLP:journals/corr/PressW16; @DBLP:journals/corr/InanKS16].
We will here describe some differences in more detail:
Given a source sequence $(x_1, \dots,x_{T_x})$ of length $T_x$ and a target sequence $(y_1,\dots,y_{T_y})$ of length $T_y$, let ${{\mathbf{h}}}_i$ be the annotation of the source symbol at position $i$, obtained by concatenating the forward and backward encoder RNN hidden states, ${{\mathbf{h}}}_i = [ {\overrightarrow}{{{\mathbf{h}}}}_i; {\overleftarrow}{{{\mathbf{h}}}}_i ]$, and ${{\mathbf{s}}}_j$ be the decoder hidden state at position $j$.
#### decoder initialization
initialize the decoder hidden state ${{\mathbf{s}}}$ with the last backward encoder state.
$${{\mathbf{s}}}_0 = \tanh \left( {{\mathbf{W}}}_{init}{\overleftarrow}{{{\mathbf{h}}}}_1 \right)$$
with ${{\mathbf{W}}}_{init}$ as trained parameters.[^3] We use the average annotation instead:
$${{\mathbf{s}}}_0 = \tanh \left( {{\mathbf{W}}}_{init}\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{T_x}{{\mathbf{h}}}_i}{T_x} \right)$$
#### conditional GRU with attention
Nematus implements a novel conditional GRU with attention, cGRU$_{\text{att}}$. A cGRU$_{\text{att}}$ uses its previous hidden state ${{\mathbf{s}}}_{j-1}$, the whole set of source annotations $\text{C}=\lbrace{{\mathbf{h}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathbf{h}}}_{T_x}\rbrace$ and the previously decoded symbol $y_{j-1}$ in order to update its hidden state ${{\mathbf{s}}}_j$, which is further used to decode symbol $y_j$ at position $j$,
$${{\mathbf{s}}}_j = \text{cGRU}_{\text{att}}\left( {{\mathbf{s}}}_{j-1}, y_{j-1}, \text{C} \right)$$
Our conditional GRU layer with attention mechanism, cGRU$_{\text{att}}$, consists of three components: two GRU state transition blocks and an attention mechanism ATT in between. The first transition block, $\text{GRU}_1$, combines the previous decoded symbol $y_{j-1}$ and previous hidden state ${{\mathbf{s}}}_{j-1}$ in order to generate an intermediate representation ${{\mathbf{s}}}^{\prime}_j$ with the following formulations:
where ${{\mathbf{E}}}$ is the target word embedding matrix, $\underline{{{\mathbf{s}}}}_j^{\prime}$ is the proposal intermediate representation, ${{\mathbf{r}}}_j^{\prime}$ and ${{\mathbf{z}}}_j^{\prime}$ being the reset and update gate activations. In this formulation, ${{\mathbf{W}}}^{\prime}$, ${{\mathbf{U}}}^{\prime}$, ${{\mathbf{W}}}_r^{\prime}$, ${{\mathbf{U}}}_r^{\prime}$, ${{\mathbf{W}}}_z^{\prime}$, ${{\mathbf{U}}}_z^{\prime}$ are trained model parameters; $\sigma$ is the logistic sigmoid activation function.
The attention mechanism, ATT, inputs the entire context set C along with intermediate hidden state ${{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime}$ in order to compute the context vector ${{\mathbf{c}}}_j$ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{c}}}_j =& \text{ATT} \left( \text{C}, {{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime} \right) = \sum_i^{T_x} \alpha_{ij} {{\mathbf{h}}}_i , \\
\alpha_{ij} & = \frac{\text{exp}(e_{ij})}{\sum_{k=1}^{Tx} \text{exp}(e_{kj}) } ,\\
e_{ij} =& {{\mathbf{v}}}_a^{\intercal} \tanh \left( {{\mathbf{U}}}_a {{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime} + {{\mathbf{W}}}_a {{\mathbf{h}}}_i \right) , \end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha_{ij}$ is the normalized alignment weight between source symbol at position $i$ and target symbol at position $j$ and ${{\mathbf{v}}}_a, {{\mathbf{U}}}_a, {{\mathbf{W}}}_a$ are the trained model parameters.
Finally, the second transition block, $\text{GRU}_2$, generates ${{\mathbf{s}}}_j$, the hidden state of the $\text{cGRU}_{\text{att}}$, by looking at intermediate representation ${{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime}$ and context vector ${{\mathbf{c}}}_j$ with the following formulations:
[$$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{s}}}_j = \text{GRU}_2 & \left( {{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime}, {{\mathbf{c}}}_j \right) = (1 - {{\mathbf{z}}}_j) \odot \underline{{{\mathbf{s}}}}_j + {{\mathbf{z}}}_j \odot {{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime}, \\
\underline{{{\mathbf{s}}}}_j =& \tanh \left( {{\mathbf{W}}}{{\mathbf{c}}}_j + {{\mathbf{r}}}_j \odot ({{\mathbf{U}}}{{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime} ) \right) ,\\
{{\mathbf{r}}}_j =& \sigma \left( {{\mathbf{W}}}_r {{\mathbf{c}}}_j + {{\mathbf{U}}}_r {{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime} \right), \\
{{\mathbf{z}}}_j =& \sigma \left( {{\mathbf{W}}}_z {{\mathbf{c}}}_j + {{\mathbf{U}}}_z {{\mathbf{s}}}_j^{\prime} \right),\end{aligned}$$ ]{} similarly, $\underline{{{\mathbf{s}}}}_j$ being the proposal hidden state, ${{\mathbf{r}}}_j$ and ${{\mathbf{z}}}_j$ being the reset and update gate activations with the trained model parameters ${{\mathbf{W}}}, {{\mathbf{U}}}, {{\mathbf{W}}}_r, {{\mathbf{U}}}_r,
{{\mathbf{W}}}_z, {{\mathbf{U}}}_z$.
Note that the two GRU blocks are not individually recurrent, recurrence only occurs at the level of the whole cGRU layer. This way of combining RNN blocks is similar to what is referred in the literature as *deep transition* RNNs [@Pascanu+et+al-ICLR2014; @zilly2016recurrent] as opposed to the more common *stacked* RNNs [@schmidhuber1992learning; @el1995hierarchical; @graves2013generating].
#### deep output
Given ${{\mathbf{s}}}_j$, $y_{j-1}$, and ${{\mathbf{c}}}_j$, the output probability $p(y_j|{{\mathbf{s}}}_{j},y_{j-1},{{\mathbf{c}}}_j)$ is computed by a $\text{softmax}$ activation, using an intermediate representation ${{\mathbf{t}}}_j$.
[$$\begin{aligned}
p(y_j|{{\mathbf{s}}}_{j},&y_{j-1},{{\mathbf{c}}}_j) = \text{softmax} \left( {{\mathbf{t}}}_j {{\mathbf{W}}}_o \right)\\
{{\mathbf{t}}}_j = \tanh & \left( {{\mathbf{s}}}_j {{\mathbf{W}}}_{t1} + {{\mathbf{E}}}[y_{j-1}] {{\mathbf{W}}}_{t2} + {{\mathbf{c}}}_j {{\mathbf{W}}}_{t3} \right)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} ${{\mathbf{W}}}_{t1}, {{\mathbf{W}}}_{t2}, {{\mathbf{W}}}_{t3}, {{\mathbf{W}}}_o$ are the trained model parameters.
Training Algorithms
===================
By default, the training objective in Nematus is cross-entropy minimization on a parallel training corpus. Training is performed via stochastic gradient descent, or one of its variants with adaptive learning rate (Adadelta [@zeiler2012adadelta], RmsProp [@Tieleman2012], Adam [@kingma2014adam]).
Additionally, Nematus supports minimum risk training (MRT) [@DBLP:journals/corr/ShenCHHWSL15] to optimize towards an arbitrary, sentence-level loss function. Various MT metrics are supported as loss function, including smoothed sentence-level [Bleu]{} [@chen-cherry:2014:W14-33], METEOR [@denkowski:lavie:meteor-wmt:2011], BEER [@stanojevic-simaan:2014:W14-33], and any interpolation of implemented metrics.
To stabilize training, Nematus supports early stopping based on cross entropy, or an arbitrary loss function defined by the user.
Usability Features
==================
![Search graph visualisation for DE$\to$EN translation of “Hallo Welt!” with beam size 3.[]{data-label="fig-searchgraph"}](beamsearch2.pdf)
In addition to the main algorithms to train and decode with an NMT model, Nematus includes features aimed towards facilitating experimentation with the models, and their visualisation. Various model parameters are configurable via a command-line interface, and we provide extensive documentation of options, and sample set-ups for training systems.
Nematus provides support for applying single models, as well as using multiple models in an ensemble – the latter is possible even if the model architectures differ, as long as the output vocabulary is the same. At each time step, the probability distribution of the ensemble is the geometric average of the individual models’ probability distributions. The toolkit includes scripts for beam search decoding, parallel corpus scoring and n-best-list rescoring.
Nematus includes utilities to visualise the attention weights for a given sentence pair, and to visualise the beam search graph. An example of the latter is shown in Figure \[fig-searchgraph\]. Our demonstration will cover how to train a model using the command-line interface, and showing various functionalities of Nematus, including decoding and visualisation, with pre-trained models.[^4]
Conclusion
==========
We have presented Nematus, a toolkit for Neural Machine Translation. We have described implementation differences to the architecture by ; due to the empirically strong performance of Nematus, we consider these to be of wider interest.
We hope that researchers will find Nematus an accessible and well documented toolkit to support their research. The toolkit is by no means limited to research, and has been used to train MT systems that are currently in production [@wipo2016].
Nematus is available under a permissive BSD license.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreements 645452 (QT21), 644333 (TraMOOC), 644402 (HimL) and 688139 (SUMMA).
[^1]: available at [<https://github.com/rsennrich/nematus>]{}
[^2]: [<https://github.com/nyu-dl/dl4mt-tutorial>]{}
[^3]: All the biases are omitted for simplicity.
[^4]: Pre-trained models for 8 translation directions are available at <http://statmt.org/rsennrich/wmt16_systems/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'Refs.bib'
---
=15.5pt
[**From Wires to Cosmology**]{}
[Mustafa A. Amin$^{\clubsuit,\blacklozenge, \bigstar}$ and Daniel Baumann$^{\bigstar, \spadesuit}$]{}
*$^\clubsuit$ Physics & Astronomy Department, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, U.S.A.*
*$^ \blacklozenge$ Kavli Institute for Cosmology, University of Cambridge, Madingly Road, Cambridge, U.K.*
*$^\bigstar$ DAMTP, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, U.K.*
*$^\spadesuit$ Institute of Physics, University of Amsterdam, 1090 GL Amsterdam, The Netherlands*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**Abstract**]{}\
We provide a statistical framework for characterizing stochastic particle production in the early universe via a precise correspondence to current conduction in wires with impurities. Our approach is particularly useful when the microphysics is uncertain and the dynamics are complex, but only coarse-grained information is of interest. We study scenarios with multiple interacting fields and derive the evolution of the particle occupation numbers from a Fokker-Planck equation. At late times, the typical occupation numbers grow exponentially which is the analog of Anderson localization for disordered wires. Some statistical features of the occupation numbers show hints of universality in the limit of a large number of interactions and/or a large number of fields. For test cases, excellent agreement is found between our analytic results and numerical simulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
============
In cosmology and particle physics we tend to be guided by the belief (or hope) that our theories become simpler at high energies: symmetries are restored and the number of degrees of freedom is reduced. Although this reductionistic point of view [@1992dft..book.....W] has been fantastically successful in the development of the Standard Model, there is no guarantee that it also applies to the physics of the primordial universe. In fact, recent attempts to find ultraviolet completions of models of inflation and reheating often are very complex, involving many fields and complicated interactions [@Baumann:2014nda]. Analyzing such scenarios can be challenging [@Tye:2008ef; @Green:2009ds; @Tye:2009ff; @Braden:2010wd; @Achucarro:2010jv; @Achucarro:2010da; @Chen:2011zf; @Battefeld:2011yj; @McAllister:2012am; @Battefeld:2012wa; @Greenwood:2012aj; @Marsh:2013qca; @Easther:2013rva; @Hertzberg:2014iza; @Watanabe:2015eia; @Dias:2015rca; @Figueroa:2015rqa; @Jain:2015mma; @DeCross:2015uza; @Chluba:2015bqa; @Amin:2014eta], both due to insufficient information regarding the allowed theoretical constructions and due to limited constraints on model parameters from observations. In some cases, the complexity of the microscopic description can lead to significant elements of randomness in the dynamics (e.g. the masses and couplings of fields may fluctuate stochastically, reminiscent of disorder in condensed matter systems [@Bassett:1997gb; @Green:2014xqa]). Whenever the evolution is sufficiently non-adiabatic or tachyonic, it will involve significant amounts of stochastic particle production (see Fig. \[fig:dynamics\]). In this paper, we develop a framework to analyze such systems and study some simple toy models. Applications to more realistic models of inflation and reheating will be presented in future work.
![The goal of this paper is to develop a framework for computing cosmological particle production in systems with a large number of random non-adiabatic events during and after inflation.[]{data-label="fig:dynamics"}](Figures/Dynamics)
Our study will be facilitated by a precise mathematical equivalence between stochastic particle production in cosmology and electron transport in wires. A simplified version of the correspondence is as follows $$\frac{d^2 \psi}{dx^2} +\left[E-V(x)\right]\psi = 0 \quad \longleftrightarrow \quad \frac{d^2 \chi_k}{d \tau^2} +\left[k^2+m^2(\tau)\right] \chi_k = 0\, , \label{equ:1}$$ where, on the left-hand side, $\psi(x)$ is the electron wavefunction and $V(x)$ is a spatially-dependent potential due to the presence of random impurities. On the right-hand side, $\chi_k(\tau)$ is the mode function for a field in a time-dependent background and $m^2(\tau)$ is the effective mass with random non-adiabatic events arising from complicated interactions.[^1] The spatial dimension of the wire becomes time in the cosmological context, and the random impurities play the role of the stochastic time evolution of the effective mass. The correspondence in (\[equ:1\]) then allows us to apply many of the powerful tools developed by the condensed matter community [@muller2010disorder; @Beenakker:1997zz; @janssen2001fluctuations; @mello2004quantum] directly to the analogous cosmological problems.[^2] It also means that known phenomena in the theory of disordered wires should have counterparts in the cosmological context. One of the most dramatic effects of random disorder in wires is the exponential localization of the electron wavefunction, $|\psi(x)|^2 \sim e^{-|x|/\xi}$, where $\xi$ is the localization length. Such [*Anderson localization*]{} [@anderson1958absence] arises due to the interference of waves which are scattered by the impurities. By formulating cosmological particle production as a scattering problem, we will show[^3] that Anderson localization maps to exponential particle production, $|\chi_k(\tau)|^2 \sim e^{+\mu_k \tau}$, where $\mu_k$ is the mean particle production rate.[^4]
Crucially, the conduction properties of wires are determined by the statistics of the random impurities. Analogously, stochastic particle production is characterized by the statistics of the non-adiabatic events. Taking conduction in disordered wires as an inspiration, we will develop a statistical framework for studying stochastic particle production in the early universe. Specifically, we will show that the occupation number of the produced particles, $n_k$, executes a drifting Brownian motion and derive a Fokker-Planck (FP) equation that evolves the probability distribution, $P(n_k;\tau)$. The precise structure of the FP equation is determined by the microscopic details of the scattering events. Pleading maximum ignorance, we will use a [*maximum entropy ansatz*]{} [@mello2004quantum] to parameterize this physics. We will show that the asymptotic solution to the FP equation is approximately a log-normal distribution and compute the evolution of the mean and the variance of the particle occupation number. The advantage of the statistical approach is that it reduces the complexity of the microscopic description to a few effective parameters of the coarse-grained theory (e.g. $\xi$ and $\mu_k$). In the context of inflation and reheating, focusing on coarse-grained characteristics is particularly relevant since both fundamental theory and cosmological observations are unlikely to provide enough details about the relevant microphysics.
Real wires of course aren’t one-dimensional, but have finite cross sections. This allows a finite number of transverse modes of the wavefunction to be excited, which gives rise to coupled, longitudinal ‘conduction channels’ (see e.g. [@Beenakker:1997zz]). We will show that multi-channel conduction maps to stochastic particle production with ‘multiple fields’. The output of the stochastic particle production is the joint probability distribution of the occupation numbers in each channel. We will derive a Fokker-Planck equation for this distribution function. (In the condensed matter context this is known as the DMPK equation [@dorokhov1982transmission; @mello1988macroscopic].) We will use this equation to compute the moments of the distribution and study them as a function of time and the number of fields. In general, the rate of growth of the moments of the distribution depend on the number of fields in a way that we can predict. In the limit of a large number of interactions and/or a large number of fields, we find interesting universality in the statistical distribution of the produced particles. For example, the leading contribution in the variance of the total particle density is independent of the number of fields, a feature that we consider to be similar to the famous effect of ‘universal conductance fluctuations’[^5] [@altshuler1985fluctuations; @lee1985universal] in multi-channel wires.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:Wires2Cosmo\], we develop the precise relationship between Anderson localization in disordered wires and stochastic particle production in cosmology. We give a derivation of the typical transmission probability of electrons in a wire and show that it maps inversely to the number of particles created in the cosmological context. In Section \[sec:Brownian\], we derive a Fokker-Planck equation describing the evolution of the probability density of the produced particles. We use this equation to determine the statistical properties of the particle production in detail. In Section \[sec:MultiField\], we generalize our treatment to scenarios with multiple fields. We show that this situation naturally maps to multi-channel conduction in wires and present a Fokker-Planck description of such systems. In Section \[sec:Conclusions\], we state our conclusions and outline our plans for future work. A few technical details are relegated to the appendices: In Appendix \[sec:FP\], we derive the multi-field Fokker-Planck equation. In Appendix \[sec:MEA\], we provide a maximum entropy analysis of the probability distribution. In Appendix \[sec:QM\], we compute particle production in a few explicit examples where the transmission and reflection coefficients for a single scattering can be obtained analytically [@1965qume.book.....L].
Throughout, we will use natural units, $c=\hbar \equiv 1$. The time variable will be $\tau$, and overdots will denote derivatives with respect to $\tau$. We will use [sans serif]{} font for matrices, e.g. $\M, \T, \t, \r$.
Stochastic Particle Production {#sec:Wires2Cosmo}
==============================
Fields in a time-dependent background may have time-dependent couplings and effective masses. Whenever the evolution is non-adiabatic, this leads to a burst of particle production [@Kofman:1994rk; @Shtanov:1994ce; @Kofman:1997yn]. To illustrate this, consider a scalar field $\chi$ with a time-dependent effective mass $m(\tau)$. Let the linearized equation of motion of a single Fourier mode $\chi_{k}$ be + \_[[k]{}]{}=0 .\[KG\] In general, the equation of motion for $\chi_{{k}}$ may contain additional terms—e.g. from couplings to other fields (see Section \[sec:MultiField\])—but this will not lead to qualitative differences in our treatment. The mass term $m^2(\tau)$ may have an average adiabatic part (e.g. due to the background FRW expansion), as well as a stochastic part with localized non-adiabatic events[^6] (e.g. due to the complex interactions in a higher-dimensional field space). We wish to study the stochastic particle production in this situation. For simplicity, we will set the adiabatic piece of $m^2(\tau)$ to zero. The evolution between the stochastic features will then be determined by plane wave solutions, $e^{\pm i k \tau}$. An adiabatic contribution to $m^2(\tau)$ could be accounted for by replacing the plane wave mode functions by the exact solution (or its WKB approximation).
![Both the conduction of electrons in a wire and stochastic particle production in a cosmological scenario can be formulated as a scattering problem. The transfer matrices $\M_j$ describe the evolution across each scattering site (particle production event). The average total transmission probability $T$ decreases exponentially and the particle occupation number $n$ increases exponentially.[]{data-label="fig:correspondence"}](Figures/RandomPotentialV2)
Correspondence to Wires {#sec:correspondence}
-----------------------
Consider a wire with random impurities. The flow of electrons in the wire will be strongly influenced by the presence of the impurities. For simplicity, we will ignore the spin of the electrons and consider them to be independent, i.e. we don’t take into account the interactions between the electrons. The time-independent Schrödinger equation for non-relativistic electrons of mass $m_e$ then is (x) = E (x) ,\[Schrodinger0\] where the potential $V(x)$ captures the effect of the random impurities (see Fig. \[fig:correspondence\]). It will be convenient to set $2m_e/\hbar^2 \equiv1$ and write $E \equiv k^2$. The Schrödinger equation then becomes + =0 . \[S\] It is easy to see that eqs. (\[KG\]) and (\[S\]) map into each other if we exchange time and space, $\tau \leftrightarrow x$, and make the identifications $\chi_{k}(\tau) \leftrightarrow \psi(x)$ and $m^2(\tau) \leftrightarrow - V(x)$. This shows that there is a precise mathematical correspondence between stochastic particle production and current conduction in wires. We therefore expect to be able to translate many of the well-known results concerning conduction in wires to the cosmological context (see Table \[tab:correspondence\]).
----------------- -------------------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
[*Symbol*]{} [*Meaning*]{} [*Symbol*]{} [*Meaning*]{}
$x$ distance $\tau$ (conformal) time
$V(x)$ potential $- m^2(\tau)$ negative mass-squared
$\psi(x)$ wave function $\chi_{k}(\tau)$ mode function
\[2pt\] $\Ns$ number of scatterers $\Ns$ number of non-adiabatic events
$\Delta x$ distance between scatterers $\Delta \tau$ time between non-adiabatic events
$\rho$ resistance $n_k$ particle occupation number
$\xi$ localization length $\mu_k$ “local" mean particle production rate \
$\Nc$ & number of channels & $\Nf$ & number of fields\
----------------- -------------------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------
Conduction as a Scattering Problem {#sec:scattering}
----------------------------------
The conductance of the wire is related to the transmission probability of electrons across the wire [@landauer1957spatial; @imry1999conductance], which can be obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation (\[S\]) in the presence of the impurities. We begin by reviewing the scattering by a single impurity at $x=x_j$ (which will also help set up relevant notation and definitions). To the left ($L$) and the right ($R$) of the impurity, the wavefunction can be written as a linear combination of right-propagating waves, $e^{ikx}$, and left-propagating waves, $e^{-ikx}$,
\_L(x)&=\_L e\^[i k x]{}+\_L e\^[-i k x]{} ,\
\_R(x)&=\_R e\^[i k x]{}+\_R e\^[-i k x]{} . \[equ:psi\]
The map between the state on the left and that on the right, can then be written as [@1998qume.book.....M] $$\begin{pmatrix} \beta_R \\[2pt] \alpha_R \end{pmatrix}=
\M_{j}
\begin{pmatrix} \beta_{L} \\[2pt] \alpha_{L} \end{pmatrix} , \quad \M_{j} \equiv\begin{pmatrix} 1/t^*_{j} & -r^*_{j}/t^*_{j} \\[2pt] -r_{j}/t_{j} & 1/t_{j} \end{pmatrix} , \label{equ:transfer}$$ where ${\M}_{j}$ is called the [*transfer matrix*]{}, and $t_j$ and $r_j$ are complex transmission and reflection coefficients. The transmission and reflection probabilities, $T_{j} \equiv |t_{j}|^2$ and $R_{j} \equiv |r_{j}|^2$, satisfy $R_j+T_j=1$. The form of the transfer matrix is fixed by unitarity and the reality of the potential.
Ultimately, we want to chain several impurities together (see Fig. \[fig:correspondence\]). This is particularly easy to describe in the transfer matrix approach, since the total transfer matrix across $\Ns$ scatterers is simply given by the matrix multiplication of the individual transfer matrices: () \_ …\_[2]{} \_[1]{} . \[equ:MT\] For notational convenience, we will often drop the argument $\Ns$ in the total transfer matrix $\M(\Ns)$. The total transmission probability, and hence the conductance, can be obtained from $\M$.
In the next section, we will give a short derivation [@muller2010disorder] of Anderson localization. In \[sec:PC\], we will show how this maps to exponential particle production.
Anderson Localization {#sec:Anderson}
---------------------
Let us first consider the case of two adjacent impurities. The total transmission probability is then obtained from the 11-element of the transfer matrix $\M= {\M}_{2} {\M}_{1}$. We find T= , \[trans2\] where $\phi$ is the phase accumulated in the reflection between the two impurities. Note that this phase depends both on the separation between the impurities and their strengths. For simplicity, we will assume fixed strengths in this section, but our arguments do not change qualitatively if we relax this assumption. If the distance between the two impurities is random and uniformly distributed over a region with $k \Delta x\gg 1$, then the phase $\phi$ is also uniformly distributed between $0$ and $2\pi$. Taking the logarithm of the total transmission probability and averaging over the phase yields[^7] T\_= T\_[1]{} +T\_[2]{} + \_[ 0]{} . We see that, after averaging over the phase, the logarithms of the transmission probabilities becomes additive (while the composition law for the transmission probabilities themselves is more complicated). The phase-averaged logarithm of the total transmission probability across $\Ns$ scatterers then simply is T()\_=\_[j=1]{}\^T\_[j]{} - , \[eq:logT\] where $\gamma \equiv - \Ns^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\Ns}\ln T_{j}$ is sometimes referred to as the [*Lyapunov exponent*]{}.[^8] We will also find it convenient to define the ‘typical’ transmission probability as $T_{\rm typ} \equiv \exp[\langle \ln T\rangle_\phi]$. This will correspond to the ‘most probable’ transmission probability in the ensemble of random potentials. Using (\[eq:logT\]), we get T\_[typ]{} = e\^[-L/]{}, \[Tt\] where $L \equiv \Ns \Delta x$ is the total length of the wire and $\xi \equiv \Delta x/\gamma$ is the [*localization length*]{}. In one dimension, the localization length is of the same order as the transport mean free path [@landauer1970electrical; @thouless1973localization]. If the mean distance between scatterers, $\Delta x$, and the average logarithm of the transmission probability per scattering, $\gamma$, are fixed, then the total transmission probability decays exponentially with the length $L$ of the wire (or, equivalently, with the number of scatterers). This is Anderson localization [@anderson1958absence]. Naturally, the resistance of the wire scales inversely with the total transmission probability, $\rho_{\rm typ} \propto T_{\rm typ}^{-1}$, so the result (\[Tt\]) implies that $\rho_{\rm typ}$ grows exponentially with $L$. At zero temperature, all one-dimensional wires are therefore insulators, independent of the strength of the impurities.
Particle Creation as a Scattering Problem {#sec:PC}
-----------------------------------------
The Klein-Gordon equation (\[KG\]) can be solved in the same way as the Schrödinger problem, namely by formulating it as a scattering problem. In fact, the mapping to the treatment in \[sec:scattering\] and \[sec:Anderson\] is almost one-to-one. The Fourier mode of the field after the $j$-th non-adiabatic event is \_[j]{}()=, \[equ:chi\] where the overall normalization is chosen for future convenience. To reduce clutter, we have suppressed the $k$-dependence of the mode functions and the Bogoliubov coefficients. The Wronskian, of the solutions, $W[\chi_j,\chi_j^*]$, is a constant. Consistency with vacuum initial conditions, $\beta_0=0$ and $\alpha_0=e^{i\delta}$, sets $W[\chi_j, \chi_j^*] = i$ and implies $|\alpha_j|^2-|\beta_j|^2=1$ for all $j$.
Now consider a single particle production event at $\tau =\tau_j$. In analogy with the scattering from an impurity, we relate the Bogoliubov coefficients before and after the non-adiabatic event by a transfer matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} \beta_j \\[2pt] \alpha_j \end{pmatrix}\ =\
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} M_{11}& M_{12} \\[2pt] M_{21} & M_{22}\end{pmatrix}}_{\displaystyle \M_j}\,
\begin{pmatrix} \beta_{j-1} \\[2pt] \alpha_{j-1} \end{pmatrix} .
\label{equ:transfer1X}$$ In practice, the elements of the transfer matrix $\M_{j}$ are determined by matching the solutions $\chi_j$ and $\chi_{j-1}$, and their derivatives, at $\tau=\tau_j$ (see Appendix \[sec:QM\] for an example computation). Using that $m^2(\tau)$ is real, the conjugate $\chi_j^*$ is also a solution to the equation of motion, which implies $$\begin{pmatrix} \alpha_j^* \\[2pt] \beta_j^* \end{pmatrix}\, =\, \M_j\,
\begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{j-1}^* \\[2pt] \beta_{j-1}^* \end{pmatrix} .
\label{equ:transfer2X}$$ Comparing (\[equ:transfer1X\]) and (\[equ:transfer2X\]), we then find $M_{11} = M_{22}^*$ and $M_{12} = M_{21}^*$. Moreover, since $|\alpha_j|^2 - |\beta_j|^2 = |\alpha_{j-1}|^2-|\beta_{j-1}|^2 = 1$, we have $|M_{11}|^2 - |M_{12}|^2 = 1$. Defining $t_j\equiv 1/M_{11}^*$ and $r_j\equiv - M_{12}^*/M_{11}^*$, we can write the transfer matrix in the form of : \_j =
M\_[11]{}& M\_[12]{}\
M\_[12]{}\^\* & M\_[11]{}\^\*
=
1/t\_j\^\*&-r\_j\^\*/t\_j\^\*\
-r\_j/t\_j & 1/t\_j
, where $|r_j|^2 + |t_j|^2 = 1$. Note that it wasn’t necessary to define $r_j$ and $t_j$, but it makes the connection to the scattering problem particularly transparent.
As before, the total transfer matrix after $\Ns$ non-adiabatic events is the matrix multiplication of the individual transfer matrices ${\M}(\Ns) \equiv {\M}_{\Ns} \ldots {\M}_{2} {\M}_{1}$. After the $\Ns$-th scattering, we have a negative frequency mode $\beta_{\Ns} e^{ik\tau}$, and a positive frequency mode $\alpha_{\Ns} e^{-ik\tau}$. The occupation number of a mode with frequency $k$ then is n() &(|\_[\^]{}|\^2+k\^2|[\_[\^]{}]{}|\^2)-,\
&=(|\_[N\_[s]{}]{}|\^2+|\_[N\_[s]{}]{}|\^2)-,\
&=|\_[N\_[s]{}]{}|\^2 . For vacuum initial conditions, $(\alpha_0=e^{i\delta},\beta_0=0)$, this becomes n()= |M\_[12]{}(N\_[s]{})|\^2 ==T()\^[-1]{}-1. We see that a large occupation number corresponds to a small transmission probability in the equivalent scattering problem.
In \[sec:Anderson\], we showed that $\ln T_{j}$ is additive after ensemble averaging and defined the typical transmission probability $T_{\rm typ}$ after many scatterings. Repeating these arguments with $x\to \tau$ and $T_j \to(1+n_j)^{-1}$, we arrive at (1+n)\_= \_[j=1]{}\^ (1+n\_j) \_k, where $\mu_k\equiv (\Ns\Delta\tau)^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{\Ns} \ln (1+n_j)$ is the [*mean particle production rate*]{}.[^9]${}^{,}$[^10] Note that the localization length and the particle production rate are inversely related $\xi \leftrightarrow \mu_k^{-1}$, and that both are determined by the dimensionless Lyapunov exponent: $\gamma_k =\mu_k \Delta\tau = \Delta x/\xi$. The typical occupation number after many particle production events, n\_[typ]{} -1,can be related to the typical transmission probability of the equivalent scattering problem: n\_[typ]{} = T\_[typ]{}\^[-1]{}-1 = e\^[+\_k ]{} -1 . \[equ:nt\] The exponential behavior can also be understood as a Bose enhancement effect, i.e. particle production is enhanced by existing particles in the mode.[^11] In the next section, we will arrive at this exponential behavior of the typical occupation number more formally.
![Evolution of the occupation number per mode in the presence of a large number of non-adiabatic interactions. Each grey line shows the evolution for a given realization calculated numerically. The thick orange line is our analytic prediction for the most probable occupation number. The effective mass is modelled as $m^2(\tau)=\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\rm s}} \left({m_j}/{2w_j}\right)\, \textrm{sech}^2[(\tau-\tau_j)/w_j]$, where the widths $w_j$ and strengths $m_j$ are drawn from a Gaussian distribution. The locations $\tau_j$ are drawn from a uniform distribution in the interval of the simulation. The dimensionful variables $\tau$, $w_j$ and $m_j^{-1}$ are expressed in units of the inverse wavenumber $k^{-1}$. For the chosen values of the parameters, particle production mostly occurs due to violation of adiabaticity and only occasionally due to tachyonic instabilities (for details see Appendix \[sec:QM\]).[]{data-label="fig:simulation"}](Figures/MainFigureV4.png)
We end this section by commenting on the striking difference in the solutions $\chi_k(\tau)$ and $\psi(x)$ of the same differential equation , with $x\leftrightarrow \tau$ and $-V(x)\leftrightarrow m^2(\tau)$. As suggested by the growth in the occupation number, the mode function $\chi_k(\tau)$ grows exponentially with time. On the other hand, the wave function $\psi(x)$ decays exponentially with distance as suggested by the transmission probability for electrons in a wire. This apparent discrepancy can be understood as a difference between the initial condition for the Klein-Gordon equation and the boundary condition of the Schrödinger equation. First, note that while it is natural in the cosmological context to evolve forward in time, in the case of the wire, we need to pick a spatial direction to define growth or decay. In practice, the symmetry $x \leftrightarrow -x$ is broken by an applied voltage; we will pick $x>0$ as the direction of the voltage drop. Second, in the time-dependent case it is natural to chose the vacuum solution $\chi_k\sim e^{-ik\tau}$ as the [*initial*]{} condition at $\tau=0$. Similarly, in the time-independent case it is natural to impose an outgoing [*boundary*]{} condition, $\psi\sim e^{+ikx}$, at $x=L$. For $\tau >0$, the mode function $\chi_k$ grows as it encounters scatterers, i.e. there is particle production. Similarly, for $x < L$, the wavefunction $\psi$ also “grows" as one moves toward $x=0$. In the direction defined by the voltage drop this corresponds to a decay of $\psi$.
Brownian Motion {#sec:Brownian}
===============
Equation (\[equ:nt\]) provides rather rudimentary information about the typical rate of particle production. We would like to obtain a more detailed understanding of the statistics of the produced particles as a function of time. Figure \[fig:simulation\] shows a numerical solution for the evolution of the occupation number $n_k(\tau)$ for an ensemble of randomly generated mass functions $m^2(\tau)$. We see that the function $n_k(\tau)$ executes a [*drifting random walk*]{}. The occupation number after a time $\tau$ will be a stochastic quantity. By considering how the system responds to ‘adding’ a differential time interval $\delta \tau$ (and averaging over the randomness it contains), we can derive a Fokker-Planck (FP) equation for the evolution of the probability density, $P(n_k;\tau)$.[^12] Armed with the FP equation, we can study the statistics of the produced particles as a function of time.
Fokker-Planck Equation {#subsec:FPEq}
----------------------
In this section, we derive the FP equation for stochastic particle production of a single field. A similar derivation of an FP equation for transmission probabilities in disordered wires was presented in [@mello2004quantum]. The derivation is a bit lengthy, so the impatient reader may jump directly to the final answer (\[equ:FP\]) without loss of continuity.
![A time interval of length $\tau$ and total transfer matrix $\M_1$ is followed by an infinitesimal interval $\delta \tau$ with transfer matrix $\M_2$. The transfer matrix of the combined system is $\M = \M_2 \M_1$.[]{data-label="fig:FP"}](Figures/FokkerPlanckV3)
We start by adding a small time interval $\delta \tau$ to an existing interval $\tau$ (see Fig. \[fig:FP\]). The transfer matrix for the elongated interval, $\M \equiv \M_{\tau+\delta \tau}$, can be written in terms of $\M_1 \equiv \M_\tau$ and $\M_2 \equiv \M_{\delta \tau}$, via the composition law $\M = \M_2 \M_1$. The probability density of the total transfer matrix $\M$ can formally be written as the [*Smoluchowski equation*]{}[^13] P(;+)=P(\_1;) P(\_2;)\_[2]{} P(\_1;)\_[\_2]{} , \[equ:SmolM\] where $\M_1 = \M_2^{-1} \M$. Writing $\M_1 \equiv \M+\delta \M(\M,\M_2)$, we can Taylor expand both sides of eq. : \_P(;)= \_P(;)+ \_\_P(;)+ . This will become the FP equation for the occupation number $n$ after an appropriate parametrization of the transfer matrices and a marginalization over certain parameters.
It will be convenient to write the transfer matrix in polar form [@1988AnPhy.181..290M] (cf. \[subsec:Matrix\]): & =
e\^[i]{}& e\^[i(2-)]{}\
e\^[-i(2-)]{} & e\^[-i]{}
, \[equ:polar\] where we defined t& = e\^[i]{},\
r&=- e\^[2i(-)]{},\
n&=T\^[-1]{}-1. \[equ:defs\] All quantities in (\[equ:polar\]) and (\[equ:defs\]) depend on the wavenumber $k$. We suppress this dependence in order to reduce clutter. The Smoluchowski equation then becomes P({n,, };+)&=P({n\_1,\_1, \_1};)P({n\_2,\_2,\_2};) n\_2\
&P({n\_1,\_1,\_1};)\_ . \[equ:SmolP\] To be able to Taylor expand the right-hand side, we first write $\{n_1,\theta_1, \phi_1\}$ in terms of $\{n,\theta,\phi\}$ and $\{n_2,\theta_2,\phi_2\}$. This follows directly from the polar form of the transfer matrices and the relation $\M_1 = \M_2^{-1}\M$. For example, we get $$\begin{aligned}
n_1 &=\left[{\M_1}\right]_{11}^*\left[{\M_1}\right]_{11}-1 \quad \ \ \, \equiv\, n+\delta n\, , \label{equ:n1sf} \\[2pt]
\label{equ:theta1sf}
\theta_1&= - \frac{i}{2} \ln([\M_1]_{11}/[\M_1]_{11}^*) \equiv \theta+\delta\theta \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where \[equ:delta n\] n n\_2(1+2 n)-2. We note that $\delta n$ only depends on $\tilde{\phi}_2\equiv \phi_2-\phi$. The explicit expression for $\delta \theta$ will not be important; we will only need to know that it also only depends on $\tilde{\phi}_2$ and is independent of $\theta$.
To make further progress, we need to make some physical assumptions about the form of the probability distribution of the transfer matrix in the small interval $\delta\tau$: $P_2 \equiv P(\{n_2,\theta_2,\phi_2\};\delta \tau)$. We will be conservative and determine $P_2$ by the condition that is maximizes the Shannon entropy, $\mathcal{S}= - \langle \ln P_2\rangle_{\delta\tau}$, subject to certain constraints. The constraints may be based on symmetry arguments, consistency requirements and available information regarding the microphysics. Following [@mello2004quantum], we will refer to this as the [*maximum entropy ansatz*]{}. The minimal set of constraints we chose to include are:
- We assume that the local mean particle production rate is known. This means that we will fix , assuming that this quantity is calculable from the microphysics.
- We require that $\M_{\tau+\delta\tau}\rightarrow\M_{\tau}$ in the limit $\delta \tau \to 0$. This seems eminently reasonable. It just means that the addition of an infinitesimal interval cannot lead to a finite change in the transfer matrix.
In Appendix \[sec:MEA\], we show that these two constraints imply that $P_2 \to P(\{n_2,\theta_2\};\delta \tau)$, i.e. there is no dependence on $\phi_2$. For weak scattering, this corresponds to the scattering events being uniformly distributed. In what follows, the particular functional form of $P_2(\{n_2,\theta_2\};\delta\tau)$ imposed by the maximum entropy ansatz will not be important.[^14] The derivation of the FP equation is more general.
Assuming simply that $P_2$ is independent of $\phi_2$, the Smoluchowski equation undergoes a dramatic simplification. First, we note that the distribution function satisfies the [*persistence property*]{}: if $P_{1,2}$ are independent of $\phi_{1, 2}$, then so is $P$, i.e. $P(\{n,\theta, \phi\};\tau+\delta\tau)=P(\{n,\theta\};\tau+\delta\tau)$. The proof is by induction.[^15] The Smoluchowski equation (\[equ:SmolP\]) then becomes P({n,};+)&= P({n+n,+ };)\_. \[equ:SmolPwoPhi\] Integrating both sides with respect to $\theta$, we get P(n;+) = P(n+n;)\_, where we have used that $\delta\theta$ is independent of $\theta$. We apologize for the somewhat ambiguous notation: the $P$’s without the arguments $\theta$ should be understood as the original $P$’s integrated over $\theta$. Taylor expanding the left-hand side with respect to $\delta\tau$ and the right-hand side with respect to $\delta n$, we find
P(n;)=P(n;)+P(n;)+ ,
where, using , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\delta n\rangle_{\delta\tau}&=(\mu \hskip 1pt\delta\tau) (1+2 n)\,,\\
\langle(\delta n)^2\rangle_{\delta\tau}&=(\mu \hskip 1pt \delta\tau) \hskip 1pt 2n(1+ n)+\mathcal{O}[(\mu\delta\tau)^2]\,. \label{eq:dn}\end{aligned}$$ In order to truncate the expansion in (\[eq:dn\]) at lowest order in $\mu\hskip 1pt \delta \tau=\langle n_2\rangle_{\delta \tau}$, we require that the local particle production rate is small. This is the most limiting assumption of this derivation and should be kept in mind while applying our framework.
Putting everything together, we arrive at the final form of the Fokker-Planck equation , \[equ:FP\] where we have restored the momentum dependence in the mean particle production rate, $\mu=\mu_k$, but left it implicit in the occupation number, $n_k = n$. The FP equation (\[equ:FP2\]) has an exact solution [@muller2010disorder] for all $n$, although the integral form of the solution isn’t very instructive. In Fig. \[fig:Histogram\] we show the evolution of the probability as a function of time. We find very good agreement between the result of our numerical simulations and the solution of the FP equation.[^16]
![Evolution of the probability density of the logarithm of the occupation number per mode, $\ln (1+n_k)$, as a function of time (or the number of scatterings $\Ns$). The agreement between our numerical simulations (solid lines of the histograms) and the exact solution (solid lines) is always excellent. The gaussian approximation (dashed lines) improves as the number of scatterings $\Ns$ becomes large. []{data-label="fig:Histogram"}](Figures/HistFigure)
It is also instructive to consider the asymptotic limit of the FP equation. For this purpose, let us first write (\[equ:FP\]) in the following form P(n;) = (n (n+1) ) . \[equ:FP2\] For $n \gg 1$, we have $n(n+1) \to n^2$ on the right-hand side and it is easy to show that the solution converges to the log-normal distribution P(n;) n = n . \[equ:logP\] This shouldn’t be surprising. In \[sec:PC\], we saw that the phase-average of $\ln n$ is the sum of the logarithms of the particle occupation numbers produced at each scattering. The central limit theorem then suggests that $\ln n$ is Gaussian distributed (and $n$ obeys a log-normal distribution). This is true, except for deviations at small $n$. These deviations arise because the total transmission probability is bounded by 1 (and $n$ is bounded by $0$).
Moments of the Density {#ssec:moments}
----------------------
Although the solution of FP equation contains all the information about the statistics of the process, it is also convenient to instead look at the evolution of the moments of the occupation number directly. The equation for the evolution of $\langle F(n)\rangle \equiv \int \d n \, F(n) P(n;\tau)$ can be easily obtained from the FP equation, and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mu_k} \frac{\partial \langle F\rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, \left\langle (1+ 2 n) \frac{\partial F}{\partial n} + n(1+n) \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial n^2} \right\rangle \, . \label{equ:F1}\end{aligned}$$ By picking the functional $F$ conveniently, we can study arbitrary moments of the occupation number $n$. In general, this leads to a set of coupled differential equations. From (\[equ:F1\]) it is easy to see that $\langle n \rangle$ and $\langle n^2 \rangle$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mu_k} \frac{\partial \langle n \rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, 1 + 2\langle n \rangle\, , \label{equ:n1S} \\
\frac{1}{\mu_k}\frac{\partial \langle n^2 \rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, 4 \langle n \rangle + 6 \langle n^2 \rangle\, . \label{equ:n2S}\end{aligned}$$ Defining $\tau=0$ to be the time at which both $\langle n \rangle$ and $\langle n^2 \rangle$ are vanishingly small, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle n \rangle &= \frac{1}{2}\left(e^{2 \mu_k \tau} - 1 \right) , \label{equ:mean} \\ {\rm Var}[n] \equiv \langle n^2 \rangle- \langle n \rangle^2 &= \frac{1}{12}\left(1- 3 e^{4 \mu_k \tau} +2 e^{6\mu_k \tau} \right) \ \xrightarrow{\ \mu_k \tau \gg 1\ } \ \frac{2}{3} \hskip 1pt e^{2\mu_k \tau} \langle n \rangle^2\, . \label{equ:var}\end{aligned}$$ We see that the variance of the occupation number grows faster than the square of the mean. This illustrates that the probability density $P(n;\tau)$ becomes a very broad function at late times (cf. Fig. \[fig:Histogram\]). The mean $\langle n \rangle$ is therefore not a good measure of the typical number of particles produced.
To derive the evolution of the typical density, $ n_{\rm typ} \equiv \exp[\langle \ln(1+n)\rangle]-1\,$, we consider the expectation value of $\ln(1+n)$ (and its higher-order moments): $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mu_k}\frac{\partial \langle \ln(1+n) \rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, 1 \, , \label{equ:logn1S} \\[2pt]
\frac{1}{\mu_k}\frac{\partial \langle [\ln(1+n)]^2 \rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, 2 \langle \ln(1+n) \rangle + 2 \langle n(1+n)^{-1} \rangle \, . \label{equ:logn2S}\end{aligned}$$ The first equation can be integrated directly to give (1+n)= \_k n\_[typ]{} = e\^[\_k ]{}-1 . \[equ:nt2\] This is consistent with the result of our more heuristic derivation; cf. eq. . In the limit of late times, $\mu_k\tau \gg 1$, the last term in (\[equ:logn2S\]) becomes $2\langle n(1+n)^{-1} \rangle \to 2$ and the system of equations closes. Substituting (\[equ:nt2\]) and integrating, we find \[(1+n)\] = 2 \_k (-\_0) , \[equ:VarS\] where $\Delta f \equiv f-f_0$ and the subscript ‘0’ denotes a quantity evaluated at the time $\tau_0$ (with $\mu_k\tau_0\gtrsim 1)$. We see that the variance of $\ln(1+n)$ grows slower than the square of the mean: = . The mean of $\ln(1+n)$ is therefore a good measure of the number of particles produced (see Fig. \[fig:simulation\]). These results are consistent with the properties of the log-normal distribution (\[equ:logP\]).
Generalization to Multiple Fields {#sec:MultiField}
=================================
Ultimately, one of our motivations is to describe the complex multi-field dynamics that may have occurred in the early universe. This also has a direct analog in the theory of disordered wires. So far, we have ignored the finite thickness of the wire. Taking the thickness into account leads to a finite number of transverse excitations in the electron wavefunction. This then gives rise to coupled, longitudinal ‘conduction channels’. In this section, we will develop the framework of stochastic particle production with multiple fields and its correspondence to multi-channel conduction.
Preliminaries {#sec:Prelim}
-------------
Consider the action of $\Nf$ coupled scalar fields $\phi^a$, S = \^4 x , where $a,b,c = 1, \ldots, \Nf$. The linearized equation of motion for the field fluctuations can be written in the following from (see e.g. [@Amin:2014eta]) \_[(k,)]{} \_[k]{} = 0 , \[equ:EOM\] where $\delta \vec{\phi}$ is a vector made out of the fluctuations of the fields $\phi^a$. The coefficient functions $ {\sf p}(k,\tau)$ and ${\sf m}(k,\tau)$ are matrices, with $$\begin{aligned}
({\sf p})^a{}_b &= 2 {\cal H} \delta^a_b + \cdots \, , \quad
({\sf m})^a{}_b = a^2 G^{ac} V_{,cb} + \cdots\, . \label{equ:PF}
\end{aligned}$$ The ellipses in (\[equ:PF\]) stand for a complicated set of terms arising, for instance, from a nontrivial field space metric $G_{ab} \ne \delta_{ab}$. The precise form of (\[equ:EOM\]) will not be important. All we care about here is that it defines a linear map describing the unitary evolution of $\delta \vec{\phi}_{k}(\tau)$. For simplicity and concreteness, we will assume that[^17] $G_{ab} = \delta_{ab}$, and ignore the Hubble expansion for the remainder of this section, i.e. we set $({\sf p})^a{}_b =0$ and $({\sf m})^a{}_b =\delta^{ac}V_{,cb}$. We will refer to ${\sf m}$ as the [*mass matrix*]{}.
We assume that the evolution of the field fluctuations contains localized non-adiabatic events at random intervals around $\tau = \tau_j$, and that the fields are otherwise free. After the $j$-th event, the evolution of the fields is given by \_j()=, where we have suppressed the dependence of $\delta\vec{\phi}_j$ and $(\vec{\alpha}_j,\vec{\beta}_j)$ on $k$ to reduce clutter. The Bogoliubov coefficients before and after the non-adiabatic event are related by $$\begin{pmatrix} \vec{\beta}_j \\[2pt] \vec{\alpha}_j \end{pmatrix}\, =\
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} (\t_j^\dagger)^{-1} & -(\t_j^\dagger)^{-1}\r_j^{\dagger} \\[2pt] -(\t_j^T)^{-1}\r_j & (\t_j^T)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}}_{\displaystyle \M_j}
\begin{pmatrix} \vec{\beta}_{j-1} \\[2pt] \vec{\alpha}_{j-1} \end{pmatrix} .$$ For a real and symmetric mass matrix $\sf m$, the coefficients before and after the event satisfy |\_j|\^2-|\_j|\^2=|\_[j-1]{}|\^2-|\_[j-1]{}|\^2=N\_[f]{}. \[equ:Wr\] The normalization in (\[equ:Wr\]) is consistent with the assumption that the fields are free between the interactions and has the correct limit for $\Nf \to 1$. The transfer matrix $\M_j$ is now a $2\Nf \times 2\Nf$ matrix, whereas $\r_j$ and $\t_j$ are $\Nf\times\Nf$ matrices satisfying ${\r}_j^\dagger {\r}_j+{\t}_j^\dagger {\t}_j= \mathbb{1}$. In addition, ${\rm Im}[\delta^{ac}V_{,cb}]=0$ implies that $\r = \r^T$. In an explicit example the entries of the transfer matrix would be determined from matching the mode functions across the non-adiabatic scattering event (cf. Appendix \[sec:QM\]). The total transfer matrix $\M(\Ns)$ after $\Ns$ scatterings is the same matrix product as before, cf. eq. (\[equ:MT\]). The coefficients before the first scattering are then linked in a simple way to those after $\Ns$ scatterings $$\begin{pmatrix} \vec{\beta}_{\Ns} \\[2pt] \vec{\alpha}_{\Ns}\end{pmatrix}\, =\
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix} (\t^\dagger)^{-1} & -(\t^\dagger)^{-1}\r^{\dagger} \\[2pt] -(\t^T)^{-1}\r & (\t^T)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}}_{\displaystyle \M(\Ns)}
\begin{pmatrix} \vec{\beta}_{0} \\[2pt] \vec{\alpha}_{0} \end{pmatrix} .$$
Away from the non-adiabatic events, we can unambiguously define an occupation number of the fields. In particular, the total occupation number after $\Ns$ events is n() &(|\_|\^2+k\^2|\_|\^2)- =|\_|\^2=[Tr]{}. Assuming that we start in the vacuum state \[i.e. $\vec{\beta}_0=\vec{0}$ and $\vec{\alpha}_0=(e^{i\delta_1},\hdots,e^{i\delta_{\Nf}})$\], we get ${\rm Tr}[{\vec{\beta}_{\Ns}^{\phantom\dagger}\vec{\beta}^{\hskip 2pt \dagger}_{\Ns}}]
={\rm Tr}[(\t^{\dagger}\t)^{-1}\r^\dagger\vec{\alpha}_0^{\phantom \dagger}\vec{\alpha}_0^\dagger\r]
$, where we have used the cyclic property under the trace operation. Note that $\vec{\alpha}_0^{\phantom \dagger} \vec{\alpha}_0^\dagger=\I+\mathbb{O}$, where $\mathbb{O}$ has vanishing entries on the diagonal. Using $\r^\dagger\r+\t^\dagger\t=\I$, we then find n &=[Tr]{}=[Tr]{}. In the last step, we have again used the cyclic property of the trace and ${\rm Tr}[(\r\t^{-1})^\dagger\mathbb{O}(\r\t^{-1})]={\rm Tr}[\mathbb{O}]=0$. This motivates the following definition for the [*[occupation number matrix]{}*]{}[^18]
(\^ )\^[-1]{}- . \[eq:nmatrixdef\] The eigenvalues $n_a$ of the matrix $\n$ describe the number of particles of each field (possibly in a rotated field basis). The total number of particles is the sum over all eigenvalues n = \_[a=1]{}\^n\_a=[Tr]{}\[\]. In terms of the transfer matrix, this can be written as n=. \[equ:nM\] We are interested in the statistics of the stochastic particle production. As before, the most efficient way to derive this is as a solution to a Fokker-Planck equation.
Fokker-Planck Equation {#ssec:MultiMoments}
----------------------
The multi-field generalization of the FP equation (\[equ:FP\]) is a bit more complex, and is derived in detail in Appendix \[sec:FP\]. After some work, one finds that the evolution equation for the joint probability distribution of the eigenvalues $n_a$ is \[equ:MFP\] P(n\_a;) & = \_[a=1]{}\^[N\_[f]{}]{}\
&+\_[a=1]{}\^[N\_[f]{}]{}n\_a(1+n\_a) , where we have defined the mean particle production rate as \_k . \[equ:muk\] Although our derivation in Appendix \[sec:FP\] uses the [*maximum entropy ansatz*]{} (see Appendix \[sec:MEA\]), the form of eq. (\[equ:MFP\]) also follows under less restrictive assumptions [@1991PhRvL..67..342M]. Without the maximum entropy ansatz (or related simplifications), the FP equation in the multi-field scenario can be significantly more complex (e.g. [@2012PhRvB..86a4205X; @PhysRevB.66.115318; @Douglas2014]).
Moments of the Density {#moments-of-the-density}
----------------------
A formal solution to the FP equation is provided in [@PhysRevLett.74.2776]. However, as before, it is convenient to transform the FP equation into a hierarchy of equations for the moments of the occupation numbers: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{N_{\rm f}+1}{2} \frac{1}{\mu_k} \frac{\partial \langle F\rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, \left\langle \sum_{a=1}^{N_{\rm f}} \left[ n_a(1+n_a) \frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial n_a^2} + (1+ 2 n_a) \frac{\partial F}{\partial n_a}\right]\right. \nonumber \\
&\left. \ \ \ \ +\, \frac{1}{2}\sum_{a \ne b}^{N_{\rm f}} \frac{1}{n_a - n_b} \left[n_a(1+n_a) \frac{\partial F}{\partial n_a} - n_b(1+ n_b) \frac{\partial F}{\partial n_b} \right] \right \rangle\, , \label{equ:F}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle F\rangle \equiv \int \prod_a \d n_a F(n_a) P(n_a;\tau)$. A closed set of equations for the moments of $n = \sum_a n_a$ then is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mu_k}\frac{\partial \langle n \rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, N_{\rm f} + 2\langle n \rangle\, , \label{equ:n1}\\
\frac{(N_{\rm f}+1)}{2} \frac{1}{\mu_k}\frac{\partial \langle n^2\rangle }{\partial \tau} &\,=\, (N_{\rm f}^2+N_{\rm f}+2) \langle n \rangle + 2 (N_{\rm f}+1) \langle n^2\rangle + 2 \langle n_2 \rangle\, , \label{equ:n2} \\
\frac{(N_{\rm f}+1)}{2} \frac{1}{\mu_k} \frac{\partial \langle n_2 \rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, (2N_{\rm f} +2) \langle n \rangle + \langle n^2 \rangle + (2N_{\rm f} +3) \langle n_2 \rangle\, , \label{equ:n_2}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_2 \equiv \sum_{a} n_a^2$ (not to be confused with the $n_2$ used in \[subsec:FPEq\], or with $n_{a=2}$ in this section). Remarkably, these equations can be solved exactly. The evolution of the mean is simply $\Nf$ copies of (\[equ:mean\]), n = (e\^[2 \_k ]{} - 1 ) , \[equ:nX\] and the solution for the second moment is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle n^2\rangle&\,=\, \frac{N_{\rm f}(2N_{\rm f}^2+N_{\rm f}+1)}{4(2N_{\rm f}+1)} -\frac{N_{\rm f}^2}{2}\, e^{2\mu_k \tau} + \frac{N_{\rm f}(N_{\rm f}+1)}{12}\, e^{4\left(\frac{N_{\rm f}+2}{N_{\rm f}+1}\right)\mu_k \tau} \label{equ:Nsquared}
\\[2pt]
&\hspace{0.5cm} +\frac{N_{\rm f}(N_{\rm f}^2-1)}{3(2N_{\rm f}+1)}\,e^{4\left(\frac{N_{\rm f}+1/2}{N_{\rm f}+1}\right) \mu_k \tau} \, , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ which reduces to (\[equ:var\]) for $\Nf=1$.
As in the single-field case, the variance of $n$ grows faster than its mean. The mean is therefore not a good measure of the typical evolution. As before, we obtain the evolution of the typical occupation number by considering the expectation value of $\ln(1+n)$. The first two moments satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mu_k} \frac{\partial \langle \ln(1+n)\rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, \left\langle \frac{\Nf+ 2n}{1+n} - \frac{2}{\Nf+1}\frac{n+n_2}{(1+n)^2} \right\rangle , \\[2pt]
\frac{1}{\mu_k} \frac{\partial \langle [\ln(1+n)]^2\rangle}{\partial \tau} &\,=\, \left\langle 2 \ln(1+n) \frac{\Nf+ 2n}{1+n} - \frac{4}{\Nf+1}(\ln(1+n)-1)\frac{n+n_2}{(1+n)^2} \right\rangle .\label{equ:log}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that these equations reduce to (\[equ:logn1S\]) and (\[equ:logn2S\]) in the limit $\Nf=1$. However, this time it is not easy to find a closed set of equations. To solve eq. (\[equ:log\]) exactly requires the evolution of $n_2$, which depends on the evolution of $n_3 \equiv \sum_a n_a^3$, which depends on the evolution of $n_4 \equiv \sum_a n_a^4$, etc. We can nevertheless make progress by taking the limit of late times in (\[equ:log\]): ,
[r]{}[.4]{}
{width="38.00000%"}
where we have defined $\epsilon \equiv 1-\langle n_2/n^2\rangle$. In the final passage we have assumed that a single eigenvalue dominates the evolution at late times. In that case, the sum of the squares of the eigenvalues $n_a$ equals the square of the sum, and hence $n_2 \approx n^2$ (or $\epsilon \to 0$). In Fig. \[fig:n2\], we demonstrate the accuracy of this approximation in a specific example. Note that the deviation from $n_2\approx n^2$ is to be compared with $\Nf$, so even a 10% error has a small effect on the final answer. We then find $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \langle \ln (1+n) \rangle
&= \frac{2\Nf}{\Nf+1} \mu_k(\tau-\tau_0)\, . \label{equ:lnn}\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[fig:MultiDeltaMean\], we show a comparison between this analytical result and a numerical example. We see that our prediction captures the functional dependence on the number of fields extremely well.
Equation (\[equ:lnn\]) implies that the evolution of the typical occupation number is . \[equ:ANALYTIC\] We see that the rate of growth has a weak dependence on $\Nf$, which disappears in the limit $\Nf \gg 1$. We also note that the late time growth of $n_{\rm typ}$ for $\Nf \gg 1$ is the square of that for $\Nf=1$.
Taking the same limits in the evolution equation (\[equ:log\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mu_k} \frac{\partial \langle [\ln(1+n)]^2 \rangle}{\partial \tau} &\ \xrightarrow{\ n \gg \Nf \ }\ \frac{4\Nf}{\Nf+1} \left\langle \ln(1+n) \left[1+\frac{\epsilon}{\Nf}\right]\right\rangle + \frac{4(1-\epsilon)}{\Nf+1} \nonumber \\[4pt]
&\ \xrightarrow{\ \ \epsilon \to 0 \ \ }\ \frac{4\Nf}{\Nf+1} \langle \ln(1+n) \rangle + \frac{4}{\Nf + 1} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[equ:lnn\]) and integrating, we find \[(1+n)\] = \_k(-\_0) , \[equ:MultiVar\] which reduces to (\[equ:VarS\]) in the special case $\Nf=1$. Notice that while $\langle [\ln(1+n)]^2 \rangle$ contains a term proportional to $(\tau-\tau_0)^2$, this has cancelled in the variance.
Examples of Universality
------------------------
The results of this section depended only on two parameters: the mean particle production rate $\mu_k$ and the number of fields $\Nf$. In certain limits and for certain quantities the dependence on these parameters simplifies. This corresponds to an enhanced universality of the results. Let us give a few examples for this phenomenon:
- Using eqs. (\[equ:nX\]) and (\[equ:Nsquared\]), we can compute the variance of the occupation number. In the limit of a large number of fields, $\Nf \gg 1$, this becomes \[n\] = + [O]{}(N\_[f]{}\^[-1]{}) . We notice that the leading term is [*independent*]{} of the number of fields. (The ${\cal O}(\Nf^2)$ terms in (\[equ:Nsquared\]) have exactly cancelled against the $\Nf$-dependence of (\[equ:nX\]).) This universality is similar to the famous effect of universal conductance fluctuations [@altshuler1985fluctuations; @lee1985universal] in multi-channel wires.[^19]
- The variance and the mean of $\ln(1+n)$ are both proportional to $\mu_k(\tau-\tau_0)$, cf. eqs. (\[equ:MultiVar\]) and (\[equ:lnn\]). Their ratio then is time independent and determined purely by the number of fields = . Of course, it is not clear whether the universality of this specific ratio is physically relevant or just a coincidence.
Random Matrix Theory {#sec:RMT}
--------------------
We conclude this section with a few comments on possibility of using random matrix theory (RMT) techniques to gain further insights into the statistics of stochastic particle production. As we have seen, stochastic particle production with multiple fields can involve two large numbers: the number of fields $\Nf$ and the number of non-adiabatic events (or scatterings) $\Ns$. Both of these large $N$’s can potentially lead to powerful applications of RMT:
- $\Nf$:\
If the number of fields is large, $\Nf \gg 1$, then the random transfer matrices $\M_j$ have high dimensionality. A lot is known about the spectrum of eigenvalues of large random matrices (see [@mehta2004random] for a review). Moreover, from (\[equ:nM\]), we see that the eigenvalues of $\M_j \M_j^\dagger$ determine the “local" change in the occupation number $n_j$ and then via (\[equ:muk\]), the particle production rate $\mu_k$. It would be interesting to use RMT to explore the probability distribution $P(\mu_k)$.
- $\Ns$:\
Throughout, we have assumed that the number of scatterings is large, $\Ns \gg 1$. In that case, the total transfer matrix $\M$ is a product of many random transfer matrices, i.e. $\M = \prod_{j=1}^{\Ns} \M_j$. A lot is known about the asymptotic behavior of products of random matrices (see [@crisanti1993products] for a review). Here, we highlight Oseledec’s “multiplicative ergodic theorem" [@oseledec1968multiplicative]:
> For $\Ns \to \infty$, the $2\Nf$ random eigenvalues $e^{\pm \nu_a}$ of ${\M} {\M}^\dagger$ tend to the non-random values $e^{\pm \gamma_a \Ns}$, with $\gamma_a$ independent of $\Ns$. For finite $\Ns$, the $\nu_a$’s have small Gaussian fluctuations around their asymptotic limit $\gamma_a \Ns$.
The parameters $\gamma_a$ in this theorem are the Lyapunov exponents. The fact that they are independent of $\Ns$ means that asymptotically the growth is purely exponential.[^20] This is consistent with the asymptotical scalings we derived from the Fokker-Planck equation, but this time it does not assume that the scattering is weak.
We note that some aspects of RMT (specifically for $\Ns\gg1$, but $\Nf=1$) have been used in [@Zanchin:1997gf; @Zanchin:1998fj] to understand the effects of noise on parametric resonance. We leave a more detailed exploration of the RMT treatment of stochastic particle production to future work.
Conclusions and Outlook {#sec:Conclusions}
=======================
In this paper, we have developed a theoretical framework for characterizing stochastic particle production in the early universe. Our approach is particularly useful when the dynamics are complex and the interactions are poorly constrained, but only coarse-grained, statistical information is of interest. In our analysis, we exploited a precise mapping between stochastic particle production in cosmology and current conduction in wires with impurities. This allowed us to import many powerful results from the condensed matter literature to the cosmological context. Concretely, we derived Fokker-Planck equations to describe the evolution of the particle occupation numbers and discussed their solutions. We checked that our solutions are consistent with numerical simulations of stochastic particle production in complex scenarios. We have seen hints of universality[^21] emerging in the evolution of the particle occupation numbers in systems with a large number of non-adiabatic events[^22] and/or a large number of fields. We have also sketched how such universal behavior can be understood in terms of random matrix theory.
It remains to be seen if (and how) the emergent universality in the particle production is reflected in cosmological observables. To analyze this, we will study the backreaction of the density of produced particles on the cosmological dynamics. The stress-energy of the particles can influence both the background dynamics [@Berera:1995ie; @Green:2009ds] and the evolution of the long-wavelength curvature perturbations $\zeta$. As explained in [@LopezNacir:2011kk], we expect the evolution of $\zeta$ to be sourced both by a stochastic noise term (which is uncorrelated with $\zeta$) and a linear response (which is correlated with $\zeta$). Both effects need to be taken into account to derive the late-time correlation functions for $\zeta$, and hence the effects on cosmological observables. It will be interesting to follow up on the suggestion of [@Green:2014xqa] that weak disorder during inflation could lead to additional noise in the power spectrum and bispectrum of $\zeta$. Finally, once the effects on the curvature perturbations have been calculated, it will also be useful to compare our analytical predictions with those of existing works involving multi-field inflation with complex potentials (e.g. [@McAllister:2012am; @Dias:2015rca]).
Our statistical approach may also be of interest for studies of the early stages of nonperturbative (p)reheating. Given the complexity of the dynamics, most previous works in the preheating literature only dealt with a few components governed by relatively simple interactions. For example, the treatments in the seminal papers on the subject [@Kofman:1994rk; @Shtanov:1994ce; @Kofman:1997yn] were restricted to daughter fields that coupled to a single inflaton field. Even in these simplified scenarios, additional stochasticity in the effective masses of the daughter fields (beyond that due to expansion) can lead to novel effects such as enhanced particle production [@Bassett:1997gb; @Zanchin:1997gf; @Zanchin:1998fj]. Particle production in the context of [*coupled*]{} multi-field dynamics (which can naturally lead to stochasticity during reheating), remains relatively unexplored. Based on our present work, it is conceivable that the preheating dynamics in such complex scenarios can be parametrized by a few effective parameters (see also [@Ozsoy:2015rna]). On the more practical side, our framework will allow us to determine when a linear treatment becomes a poor approximation to the dynamics, and full nonlinear simulations are needed. Our formalism would be an efficient way to determine the initial conditions for these simulations.
We end with some speculative remarks. Recent observations [@Adam:2015rua] have revealed a remarkably simple universe. Only two numbers ($A_{\rm s}, n_{\rm s}$) are required to describe a nearly scale-free and Gaussian spectrum of adiabatic curvature perturbations [@Ade:2015xua; @Ade:2015lrj]. At the same time, fundamental theories of the early universe can be quite complex. It is therefore natural to wonder how the simplicity of the data emerges from the apparent complexity of the underlying theories. Emergent universal behaviour is common in condensed matter systems and is what allows predictive power in spite of the underlying complexity of materials [@1972Sci...177..393A]. It is intriguing to ask whether the simplicity of the cosmological data is similarly emergent from complexity rather than reflecting the simplicity of the underlying theory. Our framework can be thought of as a first modest step towards exploring this possibility.
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
We thank Thomas Bachlechner, David Berenstein, Ed Copeland, Mafalda Diaz, Daniel Green, Raphael Flauger, Jonathan Frazer, Matt Foster, David Kaiser, Andrei Linde, Enrico Pajer, David Marsh, Liam McAllister, Rafael Porto, Christof Wetterich and Hong-Yi Xie for helpful discussions. We are grateful to the Aspen Center for Physics (NSF Grant 1066293) for its hospitality while part of this work was being carried out. D.B. acknowledges support from a Starting Grant of the European Research Council (ERC STG Grant 279617). M.A. acknowledges support from a Senior Kavli Fellowship at the University of Cambridge.
Fokker-Planck for Multiple Fields {#sec:FP}
=================================
In this appendix, we derive the Fokker-Planck equation for stochastic particle production with multiple fields.
Polar Form of the Transfer Matrix {#subsec:Matrix}
---------------------------------
Consider the transfer matrix =
(\^)\^[-1]{} & -(\^)\^[-1]{}\^\
-(\^T)\^[-1]{}& (\^T)\^[-1]{}
. \[equ:Mdef\] We wish to write this in the so-called ‘polar form’ [@1988AnPhy.181..290M]. First, note that the ‘singular value decomposition’ of the matrix $\t$ is given by = u v, where $\u$ and $\v$ are unitary matrices and $\hat \T$ is a diagonal matrix whose entries are the eigenvalues of $\t \t^\dagger$. The columns of the matrices $\u$ and $\v^T$ are the eigenvectors of $\t \t^\dagger$ and $\t^\dagger \t$, respectively. Note that the choice of $\u$ and $\v$ is not unique. For future convenience, we define another unitary matrix $\z=\v \u$, such that =u u\^ . As discussed in \[sec:PC\] and \[sec:Prelim\], the reflection and transmission matrices $\r$ and $\t$ satisfy $\r^\dagger \r +\t^\dagger \t =\mathbb{1}$ and $\r = \r^T$. These properties allow us to write & = - v\^T =- u\^\*\^T u\^ . In terms of the diagonal number density matrix $\hat{\n} \equiv \hat{\T}^{-1}-\mathbb{1}$, we get &=u u\^,\
&=- u\^\*\^T u\^ . \[equ:A5\] The polar form of the transfer matrix is then obtained by substituting (\[equ:A5\]) into (\[equ:Mdef\]), =
u& [0]{}\
[0]{} & u\^\*
&\
&
v& [0]{}\
[0]{} & v\^\*
=
uu\^& u\^\*u\^T\
u\^\*u\^& u\^\*\^\*u\^T
. In the single-field case, the above definitions reduce to u&= e\^[i]{}, =n, =e\^[i]{}, =t= e\^[i]{}, = r=- e\^[2i(-)]{} , and, hence, we find =
e\^[i]{}& e\^[i(2-)]{}\
e\^[-i(2-)]{} & e\^[-i]{}
. \[eq:PolarSF\] This is the form of the transfer matrix that we used in \[subsec:FPEq\].
Derivation of the Fokker-Planck Equation
----------------------------------------
In terms of the parameterization of the previous section, the Smoluchowski equation reads P({,,};+)&=P({\_[1]{}, \_[1]{},\_[1]{}};)P({\_[2]{}, \_[2]{},\_[2]{}};)\_[2]{}\_[2]{}\_[2]{}\
&=P({\_[1]{},\_1,\_[1]{}};)\_ . To derive the FP equation, we proceed as in the single-field case (cf. \[subsec:FPEq\]), except that the algebra will be a bit more involved. As before, we need to express the elements of the transfer matrix $\M_1$ in terms of the elements of $\M$ and $\M_2$ (see Fig. \[fig:FP\]), using $\M_1=\M_2^{-1}\M $.
First, we consider $\n_1 =(\t_1^\dagger\t_1^{\phantom\dagger})^{-1}- \mathbb{1}$ \[see eq. \], which can be written as \_1 =\_[11]{}\^\_[11]{}- , where \_[11]{}&=\_1 \_1=\_2\^v , with $\tilde{\u}_2 \equiv \u^\dagger \u_2$. The result can be expressed in the following form \_1 &=+v\^v ,\
where &= \_2\_2[u]{}\_2\^-[u]{}\_2[u]{}\_2\^T\
&+\_2\^\*\_2\_2\^T-\_2\^\*\_2\^ . Note that $\hat \n_1, \hat \n$ are diagonal, but $\n,\n_1, \Delta \n$ are not. Thinking of $\n+\v^\dagger\Delta \n\v$ as a perturbed Hamiltonian, we will use perturbation theory to find the eigenvalues of $\n_1$ in terms of the eigenvalues of $\n$ and the matrix elements of $\Delta \n$ in the basis that diagonalizes $\n$. Let the eigenvalues of the matrices $\n_1$, $\n$, $\Delta \n$ be $n_{1a},n_a$, $\delta n_a$, respectively. Perturbation theory then leads to n\_[1a]{} =n\_a+n\_a , where n\_a =()\_[aa]{}+\_[ab]{}+ . \[equ:n\_a\] The single-field analog of this expression does not require perturbation theory and is given exactly by . Similar manipulations allow us to express {$\z_1$, $\u_1$} in terms of {$\hat \n,\z,\u$} and {$\hat \n_2,\z_2,\u_2$}. This step is cumbersome and readers interested in the gory details can find them in [@mello2004quantum].
As in the single-field case, we use the [*maximum entropy ansatz*]{} (see Appendix \[sec:MEA\]) to put physical constraints on the form of $P_2 \equiv P(\{\hat \n_{2},\u_{2}, \z_{2}\};\delta \tau)$. This time one finds that $P_2$ is independent of $\u_2$, i.e. $P_2=P(\{\hat \n_2,\z_2\};\delta\tau)$,[^23] and the [*persistence property*]{} yields $P=P(\{\hat \n,\z\};\tau+\delta\tau)$. Integrating over $\z$ on both sides of the Smoluchowski equation, we get P(;+)=P(\_1;)\_ . \[eq:RedSm\] Taylor expanding the left-hand side of equation with respect to $\delta\tau$ and the right-hand side with respect to $\delta n_a$, we find
\_P(n\_a;)=\_[a=1]{}\^[N\_[f]{}]{} +\_[a,b=1]{}\^[N\_[f]{}]{}+ .
Our final task is to find expressions for $\langle \delta n_a\rangle_{\delta \tau}$ and $\langle \delta n_a\delta n_b\rangle_{\delta \tau}$ using equation . Calculating the expectation values $\langle \delta n_a\rangle_{\delta \tau}$ and $\langle \delta n_a\delta n_b\rangle_{\delta \tau}$ is aided by properties of the unitary matrices and also by expanding in powers of $\mu\hskip 1pt \delta \tau$, where $\mu$ is the local mean particle production rate defined as . The result of a tedious computation is n\_a\_&= ,\
n\_an\_b\_&= \_[ab]{} . All higher-order moments vanish at linear order in $\mu\hskip 1pt \delta \tau$. Note that $\langle \delta n_a\delta n_b\rangle_{\delta \tau} \propto \delta_{ab}$. This [*isotropy*]{} is a consequence of the maximum entropy ansatz. Putting everything together, we obtain the multi-field Fokker-Planck equation P(n\_a;) & = \^[drift]{}\
&+\_[diffusion]{} . We made extensive use of this equation in \[ssec:MultiMoments\].
Maximum Entropy Ansatz {#sec:MEA}
======================
In this appendix, we briefly describe the maximum entropy ansatz for constraining the form of the probability distribution $P(\M_2;\delta \tau)$ used in Appendix \[sec:FP\]. For a more detailed discussion we refer the reader to [@mello2004quantum].
Single-Field Case
-----------------
We first consider the single-field case. Let us define the Shannon entropy of the probability distribution as \[equ:ShannonA\] &-P({n\_2,\_2, \_2};) \_\
& -\_1-\_2+\_3, where $f(\theta_2)$ is an arbitrary function with an extremum at $e^{i\theta_2}=1$. The three constraints in (\[equ:ShannonA\]) serve the following purposes:
- The first constraint simply enforces the normalization of the distribution.
- The second constraint fixes the local mean particle production rate .
- The third constraint is slightly non-trivial. Recall the polar form of the transfer matrix, \_2&=
e\^[i\_2]{}& e\^[i(2\_2-\_2)]{}\
e\^[-i(2\_2-\_2)]{} & e\^[-i\_2]{}
. \[eq:PolarStrip\] In the limit $\delta\tau\rightarrow 0$, we expect $\M_2\rightarrow\I$, or $\{n_2\rightarrow0, e^{i\theta_2}\rightarrow 1\}$. A way of imposing this constraint is to assume that the expectation value of some real, positive-definite function $f(\theta_2)$ is fixed as $\delta\tau$ decreases. In other words, the function $f(\theta_2)$ has to have an extremum at $e^{i\theta_2}=1$. An example of such a function is f(\_2)=|e\^[i\_2]{}-1|\^2=4\^2(\_2). This guarantees that the probability density peaks at $\theta_2\rightarrow 0$ when $\delta\tau\rightarrow 0$. Note that $\phi_2$ is not determined by this constraint.
Extremizing the entropy in yields P({n\_2,\_2,\_2};)= , \[equ:P2\] where $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\gamma_2) &\equiv\int \d n_2\, e^{-\gamma_2 n_2} ={\gamma_2^{-1}}\, , \\
Z(\gamma_3) &\equiv\int \frac{\d\theta_2}{2\pi}\, e^{-\gamma_3f(\theta_2)} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Imposing that $\langle n_2\rangle_{\delta\tau}=\mu \hskip 1pt\delta\tau$ and $\langle f(\theta_2)\rangle_{\delta\tau}=\Theta \hskip 1pt\delta\tau$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
P(\{n_2,\theta_2, \phi_2\};\delta\tau)
&=\frac{1}{\mu\hskip 1pt\delta\tau}\exp\left(-\frac{n_2}{\mu\hskip 1pt\delta\tau}\right)\frac{\exp\left[-\gamma_3(\Theta\hskip 1pt\delta\tau){f(\theta_2)}\right]}{Z(\Theta\hskip 1pt\delta\tau)}\nonumber \\[2pt]
&=P(n_2;\delta\tau)P(\theta_2;\delta\tau)\nonumber\\[2pt]
&=P(\{n_2,\theta_2\};\delta\tau)\,.\end{aligned}$$ We see that, within the maximum entropy ansatz, the probability distribution is [*independent of $\phi_2$*]{}. This is the only fact that we need from this analysis. In particular, although we have provided an explicit form of the distribution above, we do not need these details for the derivation of the FP equation. As an aside, we note that for the particular choice $f(\theta_2)=4\sin^2(\tfrac{1}{2}\theta)$, we have $Z(\gamma_3)=e^{-2\gamma_3}I_0(2\gamma_3)$ and 2=, \[equ:B11\] where $I_n(z)$ are modified Bessel functions of the first kind. The left-hand side of (\[equ:B11\]) is a positive-definite, monotonically decreasing function of $\gamma_3$. Hence, as $\Theta\hskip 1pt\delta\tau\rightarrow 0$, we have $\gamma_3\rightarrow\infty$ and the probability density develops a delta function at $\theta_2\rightarrow 0$.
Multi-Field Case
----------------
Let us comment on the generalization of the maximum entropy ansatz to the case with multiple fields. The Shannon entropy of the probability distribution now is \[equ:ShannonB\] & -P({\_2,\_2, \_2};) \_\
& -\_1-\_2+\_3, where $f(\z_2)$ is an arbitrary function with an extremum at $\z_2=\I$; for instance, we may have $f(\z_2)= {\rm Tr}\left[(\z_2-\I)(\z_2-\I)^\dagger\right]$. All constraints in (\[equ:ShannonB\]) have the same meanings as in the single-field case. As before, the last constraint enforces that $\M_2 \to \I$ in the limit $\delta \tau\to 0$. To see this, we consider the polar form of the transfer matrix \_2 =
\_2\_2\_2\^& \_2\_2\^\*\_2\^T\
\_2\^\*\_2\_2\^& \_2\^\*\_2\^\*\_2\^T
, which becomes the identity for $\{\hat \n_2 \to 0, \z_2 \to \I\}$. Maximizing the entropy, we find that the probability density is [*independent of*]{} $\u_2$. As in the single-field case, the persistency property holds: the convolution of two probability densities which are independent of $\u$, is itself independent of $\u$.
Explicit Scattering Computations {#sec:QM}
================================
In this appendix, we will show how the transfer matrices and the occupation numbers are computed in concrete examples.
Single-Field Case
-----------------
When the wavelength of the incoming mode is much longer than the coherence interval of the non-adiabatic event, then the profile of the mass evolution, $m(\tau)$, cannot be resolved by the wave. In that limit, “delta-function"-scatterers are a good approximation m\^2() = \_[j=1]{}\^ m\_j \_D(-\_j) . \[delta\] We write the mode function before the $j$-th scattering as \_[j-1]{}()=, where $\beta_{j-1}$ and $\alpha_{j-1}$ are the standard Bogoliubov coefficients. A similar expansion applies for the mode function $\chi_j$ after the scattering. The mode functions before and after the scattering satisfy the following junction conditions
\_[j]{}(\_j)&=\_[j-1]{}(\_j) ,\
\_[j]{}\^[ ]{}(\_j) &= \_[j-1]{}\^[ ]{}(\_j) -m\_j\_[j-1]{}(\_j) . \[junction\]
A transfer function $\M_j$ relates the Bogoliubov coefficients before and after the scattering $$\begin{pmatrix} \beta_{j} \\ \alpha_{j} \end{pmatrix}=
{\M}_j
\begin{pmatrix} \beta_{j-1} \\ \alpha_{j-1} \end{pmatrix} . \label{equ:transfer2}$$ Using (\[junction\]), we find \_j = , \_j . Comparison with the general transfer matrix $\M_j$ in yields $t_j=(1-i\lambda_j)^{-1}$ and $T_j \equiv |t_j|^2=(1+\lambda_j^2)^{-1}$. We label by $n_j$ the “local" change in the occupation number due to the $j$-th scattering. It is related to the transmission coefficient (and hence $\lambda_j$) via n\_j=T\_j\^[-1]{}-1 = \_j\^2. Notice that the local change in the occupation number is large only for $k \ll m_j$. Also note that a comparison with the polar form of the transfer matrix implies $\theta_j=\tan^{-1}(\lambda_j)$ and $\phi_j=\tan^{-1}(\lambda_j)-k\tau_j+\pi/4$.
We caution the reader that $n_j$ is [*not*]{} the total occupation number after $j$ scatterings. The latter we denote by $n(j)$. The total occupation numbers before and after the $j$-th scattering are related by n(j)=n(j-1) + &\_j\^2\
+ &2\_j \_[j]{} , where $\Delta_j \equiv -{\rm{arg}}\left[\alpha_{j-1}\right]+{\rm{arg}}\left[\beta_{j-1}\right]-2k\tau_j$. Starting from vacuum initial conditions, $n(0) = 0$, we can use this formula iteratively to describe the occupation number after many scatterings. Alternatively, we can also obtain the occupation number after $\Ns$ scatterings by first chaining together the transfer matrices $\M(\Ns)=\M_{\Ns}\hdots\M_2\M_1$ and then deriving the final occupation number via n()=\[()\]\^\*\_[11]{}\[()\]\_[11]{}\^-1.
{width="3.7in"}
To model a situation in which the finite “width" (i.e. duration) of the scattering event is relevant, we consider “sech"-scatterers: m\^2()=\_[j=1]{}\^N \^2\[(-\_j)/w\_j\] .\[sech\] This reduces to (\[delta\]) in the limit $w_j \to 0$. Using the results for transmission probabilities from [@1965qume.book.....L], we get n\_j . Figure \[fig:TSech\] shows a plot of $n_j(k,m_j,w_j)$. We see that $n_j$ depends on two dimensionless ratios: $kw_j$ and $m_j/k$. The first ratio determines whether the wavelength is large or small compared to the duration of the event. To be in the non-adiabatic regime and get significant local particle production, we require $kw_j < 1$, i.e. the wavelength is large compared to the duration of the non-adiabatic event. For $m_j < 0$, there is a significant amount of particle production even with $kw_j \sim 1$. This is the result of a temporary tachyonic instability. In the limit $w_j \to 0$ the amount of particle production is independent of the sign of $m_j$. To obtain the occupation number after $\Ns$ scatterings, we repeat the procedure described for the $\delta$-function scatterers, i.e. we chain together the transfer matrices and read of the final occupation number from $\M(\Ns)$.
For another method to calculate particle production, see Appendix B.2 and B.3 of [@Chluba:2015bqa]. The authors use a [*heat kernel*]{} method to calculate particle production, and discuss an analytic example similar to the one discussed above.
Multi-Field Case
----------------
The generalization to multiple fields is straightforward. For simplicity, let us restrict ourselves to $\delta$-function scatterers and consider the following form of the coupled equations of motion for the mode functions +=0, \_[j=1]{}\^[N\_[s]{}]{}\_j\_D(-\_j). The solutions between scatterings are \_j()=. Matching these solutions at $\tau=\tau_j$, we get
\_j\
\_j
= \_[\_j]{}
\_[j-1]{}\
\_[j-1]{}
, where $\L_j\equiv \m_j/(2k)$. Comparing this result with the general expression for the transfer matrix \_j=
(\_j\^)\^[-1]{} & -(\_j\^)\^[-1]{}\_j\^\*\
-(\_j\^T)\^[-1]{}\_j & (\_j\^T)\^[-1]{}
, we find that the transmission coefficient matrix for a single scattering event is given by $(\t_j^\dagger)^{-1}=\mathbb{1}+i\L_j$. The matrix representing the local change in the occupation numbers for that single scattering event is then given by \_j = (\_j\^\_j)\^[-1]{}-=Ł\_j\^2 . The trace of this matrix provides the total change in the occupation number for the scattering event. As before, we chain together the transfer matrices to obtain the result for multiple scatterings, $\M(N_{\rm s})=\M_{N_{\rm s}}\hdots \M_2\M_1$. From this we can extract $\t(N_{\rm s})$ and derive the total occupation number matrix $\n(N_{\rm s})$.
[^1]: Equation (\[equ:1\]) is easily generalized to multiple fields (multiple conduction channels) and more complicated couplings. Our framework only relies on there being a unitary map from some initial state to a final state, with random interactions in between.
[^2]: The correspondence between random Schrödinger operators and particle production in the context of reheating was elegantly exploited in [@Bassett:1997gb; @Zanchin:1997gf; @Zanchin:1998fj].
[^3]: The connection between Anderson localization and particle production has been pointed out before, see for example [@Hu:1997iu; @Bassett:1999mt; @Bassett:2005xm; @Brandenberger:2008xc]. However, to the best of our knowledge, a detailed statistical formalism for understanding non-adiabatic particle production with multiple interacting fields and stochastic interactions has never been worked out. The present work was inspired by discussions of Anderson localization in [@Brandenberger:2008xc; @Green:2014xqa], albeit with different motivations and applications. In [@Tye:2007ja; @Podolsky:2008du] an analogy was drawn between Anderson localization and inflation in higher-dimensional field spaces. This is unrelated to our proposal.
[^4]: Since space has been mapped to time, we are always in the one-dimensional situation where Anderson localization is particularly efficient.
[^5]: This refers to the fact that for weakly localized samples the fluctuations in the conductance for different samples are independent of the number of channels.
[^6]: In this context, non-adiabaticity means $|\dot{\omega}/{\omega^2}|\gg 1$, where $\omega^2(\tau) \equiv k^2+m^2(\tau)$.
[^7]: We are imagining an ensemble of pairs of scatterers with varying separations, i.e. an ensemble of different microscopic realizations of the disorder in the wire. In an experiment, we expect to measure a transmission probability which is appropriately averaged over many realizations of the disorder.
[^8]: This terminology highlights the analogy between the random scattering in wires and the stochastic time evolution in chaotic systems.
[^9]: Note that $n_j$ should be interpreted as [*change*]{} in the occupation number due to an [*isolated*]{} non-adiabatic event at $\tau=\tau_j$, whereas $n$ is the occupation number [*after*]{} $\Ns$ scatterings. Moreover, by assuming that the system is ergodic, we can interpret the ensemble average over microscopic realizations of the phase $\phi$ (determined by the strengths and relative separations of the non-adaiabtic events) as being equivalent to an average over long times.
[^10]: The dependence of $\mu_k$ on the wavenumber $k$ is determined by the details of the microphysics. For small $k$, one generically finds $\mu_k\propto k^{-2}$ (see e.g. [@Bassett:1997gb] and Appendix \[sec:QM\]).
[^11]: We note that exponential growth doesnÕt arise if the fields are fermions [@Greene:1998nh; @Peloso:2000hy].
[^12]: FP equations have also been used to describe the evolution of fluctuations in stochastic inflation [@Salopek:1990re; @Starobinsky:1986fx; @Burgess:2014eoa]. In that case, the stochasticity in the equations of motion for long-wavelength fluctuations arises due to short-wavelength quantum fluctuations.
[^13]: Equation (\[equ:SmolM\]) only relies on the assumption that the process is Markovian. In words, the probability of being here at a given time is equal to the probability of being somewhere else a bit earlier multiplied by the probability of making the transition from somewhere else to here (integrated over all places from which one can transition to here). Note that this part is not restricted to the single-field case (see Appendix \[sec:FP\]).
[^14]: Our numerical simulations are not restricted to $P_2$’s which are consistent with the maximum entropy ansatz. The results, however, are consistent with the solutions of the FP equation. The fact that, in the limit of a large number of scatterings, the results become insensitive to $P_2$ is a consequence of the Central Limit Theorem (cf. \[sec:Anderson\] and \[sec:PC\].).
[^15]: Consider eq. (\[equ:SmolP\]) and recall that $n_1$ and $\theta_1$ are only functions of $\tilde \phi_2 = \phi_2-\phi$. By a change of variables the integral over $\phi_2$ then becomes an integral over $\tilde \phi_2$ and the dependence on $\phi$ disappears.
[^16]: We used the transfer matrix approach of to solve numerically with $m^2(\tau)=\sum_{j=1}^{\Ns} m_j\delta_D(\tau-\tau_j)$. For a single scattering, the transfer matrix is known analytically (see Appendix \[sec:QM\]). After drawing the locations $\tau_j$ and amplitudes $m_j$ from a distribution, we calculated the occupation number by chaining together $\Ns$ transfer matrices.
[^17]: The assumption $G_{ab} =\delta_{ab}$ can also be justified from an effective field theory perspective [@Green:2014xqa]: in cases of strong disorder in the mass term, the corrections to $G_{ab}$ are often irrelevant in the technical sense.
[^18]: We have found this definition convenient both for numerical computations and for the derivation of the multi-field Fokker-Planck equation (see Appendix \[sec:FP\]).
[^19]: In fact, the more exact analogy to universal conductance fluctuations is ${\rm Var}[n^{-1}] =const.$ (independent of both $\Ns$ and $\Nf$).
[^20]: It is possible that exponential particle production (localization) can be avoided when the matrices $\M_j$ are drawn from ensembles belonging to certain symmetry classes [@2005cond.mat.11622B].
[^21]: We should caution the reader that the universality of our results partially relies on the assumption that the interacting fields are statistically equivalent and maximally mixed with a random but uniform distribution of non-adiabatic events. Relaxing this assumption forms an interesting avenue for future work.
[^22]: Our asymptotic results apply to the limit of large occupation numbers, $n_k \gg 1$. Associated with the exponential growth of $n_k$ are an increase in the energy density, $\rho_\chi$, and the dispersion, $\langle \chi^2 \rangle$, of the $\chi$-field(s). In a specific model, this might eventually lead to a backreaction on both the evolution of the homogeneous background and on the dynamics of the fluctuations. At what point these effects will be significant is model-dependent: for instance, the smaller the self-interactions of $\chi$ the longer our assumption of linearity of the equations of motion will be a good approximation. In [@Kofman:1997yn], it was argued that large occupation numbers can occur during preheating, $10^{8} \gtrsim n_k \gg 10^2$, without causing a large backreaction and/or a violation of the linearity assumption. We also note that by ignoring Hubble expansion in our treatment we did not capture the dilution in the occupation numbers which competes with the particle production rate.
[^23]: The particular form of $P_2(\{\hat \n_2,\z_2\};\delta\tau)$ is not important. The derived FP equation is more general, and does not rely on the details related to the maximum entropy ansatz. The results of our numerical simulations are also found to be insensitive to the particular choice of $P_2$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Ordering dynamics of self-propelled particles in an inhomogeneous medium in two-dimensions is studied. We write coarse-grained hydrodynamic equations of motion for density and polarisation fields in the presence of an external random disorder field, which is quenched in time. The strength of inhomogeneity is tuned from zero disorder (clean system) to large disorder. In the clean system, the polarisation field grows algebraically as $L_{\rm P} \sim t^{0.5}$. The density field does not show clean power-law growth; however, it follows $L_{\rm \rho} \sim t^{0.8}$ approximately. In the [*inhomogeneous*]{} system, we find a disorder dependent growth. For both the density and the polarisation, growth slow down with increasing strength of disorder. The polarisation shows a disorder dependent power-law growth $L_{\rm P}(t,\Delta) \sim t^{1/\bar z_{\rm P}(\Delta)}$ for intermediate times. At late times, there is a crossover to logarithmic growth $L_{\rm P}(t,\Delta) \sim (\ln t)^{1/\varphi}$, where $\varphi$ is a disorder independent exponent. Two-point correlation functions for the polarisation shows dynamical scaling, but the density does not.\
(Accepted in Europhysics Letters)
author:
- Rakesh Das
- Shradha Mishra
- Sanjay Puri
title: 'Ordering dynamics of self-propelled particles in an inhomogeneous medium'
---
Collective behaviour of self-propelled particles (SPPs) is observed in a wide variety of systems ranging from micron scales (as in a bacterial colony) to scales of the order of a few kilometers, [*e.g.*]{}, animal herds, bird flocks, etc. [@animalgroup; @helbing; @feder; @kuusela31; @hubbard; @rauch; @benjacob; @harada; @nedelec; @schaller]. Since the seminal work by Vicsek [*et al.*]{} [@vicsek], collective behaviours of SPPs on homogeneous substrates are studied extensively [@tonertu; @tonertusr; @srrmp; @vicsekrev; @chatepre; @sppexp]. In these studies, the authors characterise different varieties of orientationally ordered [*steady states*]{} in these systems. Recently, work has begun to study the effect of different kinds of inhomogeneity on the steady states of a collection of SPPs [@disorderst; @bechinger], as inhomogeneity is an inevitable fact of most natural systems.
The study of SPPs is complicated by the fact that the system settles into a non-equilibrium steady state (NESS). There have been very few studies [@chatepre] of the coarsening kinetics from a homogeneous initial state to this asymptotic NESS, though this is of great experimental interest. Previous studies of coarsening or domain growth have primarily focused upon systems approaching an equilibrium state [@ajbray1994; @puribook]. The ordering dynamics of an assembly of SPPs, both in clean and inhomogeneous environments, is important to understand growth processes in many natural and granular systems. This is the problem we address in the present paper.
The SPPs are defined by their position and orientation (direction of velocity). Each particle moves along its orientation with a constant speed $v_0$ and tries to align with its neighbours. In addition to this, we introduce an inhomogeneous random field ${\bf h}$ of fixed strength $\Delta$ and random orientation, but quenched in time. This random field locally aligns the orientation field along a preferred (but random) direction. Such a field may arise from physical inhomogeneities in the substrate, [*e.g.*]{}, pinning sites, impurities, obstacles, channels. The random field we introduce here is analogous to the random field in equilibrium spin systems [@im75; @tn98]. We write the coarse-grained equations of motion for hydrodynamic variables: density and polarisation. We numerically solve these coupled nonlinear equations for different strengths of disorder. Starting from a random isotropic state, we observe coarsening of the density and the polarisation fields. Our primary focus in this study is the scaling behaviour and growth laws [@puribook] which characterise the emergence of the asymptotic NESS from the disordered state.
Before proceeding, we should stress that there does not as yet exist a clear understanding of the nature of the NESS in the case with substrate inhomogeneity. This problem definitely requires further study. Nevertheless, it is both useful and relevant to study the coarsening kinetics, even without a clear knowledge of the asymptotic state [@puribook]. As a matter of fact, a proper understanding of coarsening kinetics in the inhomogeneous system might also provide valuable information about the corresponding NESS.
In the absence of any inhomogeneity, [*i.e.*]{}, in a clean system, the polarisation field grows algebraically with exponent $0.5$, while the density grows with an exponent close to $0.8$. However, the presence of inhomogeneities slows down the growth rate of the hydrodynamic fields in a complicated manner. For intermediate times, domains of the polarisation field follow a power-law growth with a disorder-dependent exponent. At late times, the polarisation field shows a crossover to logarithmic growth, and the logarithmic growth exponent does not depend on the disorder. For large disorder strength, the local polarisation remains pinned in the direction of the quenched random field. However, for the density field, we could not find corresponding unambiguous growth laws.
{width="0.98\linewidth"}
Let us first discuss our model. We consider a collection of SPPs of length $l$, moving on a two-dimensional substrate of friction coefficient $\chi$. Each particle is driven by an internal force $F$ acting along the long axis of the particle. The ratio of the force $F$ to the friction coefficient gives a constant self-propulsion speed $v_0= F/\chi$ to each particle. On time-scales large compared to the interaction time, and length scales much larger than the particle size, the dynamics of the system is governed by two hydrodynamic fields: density (which is conserved), and polarisation vector (which is a broken-symmetry variable in the ordered state). The ordered state is also a moving state with mean velocity $v_0 {\bf P}$. The dynamics of the system is characterised by the coupled equation of motion for the density and polarisation vector. The coarse-grained density equation is $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} = -v_0 \nabla \cdot ({\bf P} \rho) + D_{\rho} \nabla^2 \rho .
\label{eq1}$$ The corresponding polarisation equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\bf P}}{\partial t} & =[\alpha_1(\rho) - \alpha_2{\bf P}\cdot {\bf P}]{\bf P} - \frac{v_0}{2 \rho}\nabla \rho + \lambda_1 ({\bf P} \cdot \nabla) {\bf P}
\notag \\
& + \lambda_2 \nabla(|{\bf P}|^2) + \lambda_3 {\bf P}(\nabla \cdot {\bf P}) + K \nabla^2 {\bf P} + {\bf h}.
\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ The hydrodynamic eqs. (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]) are of the same form as proposed on a phenomenological basis by Toner and Tu [@tonertu] to describe the physics of a collection of SPPs. Next we discuss the details of different terms in the above two equations.
In eq. (\[eq1\]), $D_{\rho}$ represents diffusivity in the density field. Since the number of particles is conserved, we can express the R.H.S. of eq. (\[eq1\]) as $-\nabla \cdot {\bf J}$, where the current ${\bf J}$ consists of terms ${\bf J}_D \propto \nabla \rho$ and an active current ${\bf J}_A \propto v_0 {\bf P}\rho$. The active current arises because of the self-propelled nature of the particles.
The $\alpha$-terms on the R.H.S. of eq. (\[eq2\]) represent mean-field alignment in the system. For metric distance interaction models, [*e.g.*]{}, the Vicsek model, these terms depend on the microscopic model parameters, [*viz.*]{}, mean density, noise strength etc. [@bertinnjop2009]. We choose $\alpha_1(\rho) = \frac{\rho}{\rho_c}-1$ and $\alpha_2=1$. Then the clean system (${\bf h}={\bf 0}$) shows a mean field transition from an isotropic disordered state with ${\rm P}=0$ for mean density $\rho_0 < \rho_c$ to a homogeneous ordered state with ${\rm P}=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_1(\rho_0)}{\alpha_2}}$ for $\rho_0 > \rho_c$. The $\nabla \rho$ term in eq. (\[eq2\]) represents pressure in the system appearing because of density fluctuations. Here, ${\bf P}$ plays a dual role in the SPP system. First, it acts like a polarisation vector order parameter of same symmetry as a two-dimensional $XY$ model. Second, $v_0 {\bf P}$ is the flock velocity with which the density field is convected. Therefore, we choose same $v_0$ for the active current term in the density equation and the pressure term in the polarisation equation, because origin of both is the presence of non-zero self-propelled speed. As soon as we turn off $v_0$, the active current turns zero, and the density shows usual diffusive behaviour. Then we can ignore density fluctuations as well as the pressure term. However, in general they can be treated as two independent parameters. $\lambda$ terms are the convective nonlinearities, present because of the absence of the Galilean invariance in the system. $K$ represents diffusivity in the polarisation equation.
To introduce inhomogeneity, [*i.e.*]{}, disorder in the system, a random-field term $\mathcal{F}_h=-{\bf h} \cdot {\bf P}$ is added in the ‘free energy’. This contributes the term $-\frac{\delta \mathcal{F}_h}{\delta \bf P} = {\bf h}$ in the polarisation equation. We should stress that such a term coupling to the polarisation field would not arise in the free energy of an equilibrium fluid, but may be realised in the context of the XY model where the polarisation vector is a spin variable. The random field is modeled as ${\bf h}({\bf r})=\Delta\left(\cos\psi({\bf r}),\sin\psi({\bf r})\right)$ where $\Delta$ represents the disorder strength, and $\psi({\bf r})$ is a uniform random angle $\in [0, 2 \pi]$. We call the model defined by the hydrodynamic eqs. (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]) as a ‘random field active model’ (RFAM). This terminology originates from the well-known random-field Ising model (RFIM), which has received great attention in the literature on disordered systems [@im75; @tn98]. We are presently studying the phase diagram of the RFAM. However, a clear determination of this is complicated by the presence of long-lived metastable states. Apart from the RFAM, it is also natural to consider a random-bond active model (RBAM), where the average orientation in the microscopic Vicsek model is weighted with ‘random bonds’ for different neighbours. In this letter, we will focus on the RFAM.
For zero self-propelled speed, [*i.e.*]{}, $v_0=0$, eq. (\[eq1\]) decouples from the polarisation field and contains only the diffusion current. Hereafter, we refer to this as a ‘zero-SPP model’ (zero-SPPM). In the zero-SPPM, although it contains convective non-linearities, but coupling to density is only diffusive type. For $\Delta=0$, eqs. (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]) reduce to the continuum equations introduced by Toner and Tu [@tonertu], which represent the clean system. While writing eqs. (\[eq1\])-(\[eq2\]), all lengths are rescaled by the interaction radius in the underlying microscopic model, and time by the microscopic interaction time. In doing that all the coefficients (speed $v_0$, diffusivities $D_{\rho}$, $K$, non-linear coupling $\lambda$’s and field ${\bf h}$) are in dimensionless units. Thus, eqs. (\[eq1\])-(\[eq2\]) are in dimensionless units.
We should stress that the most general forms of eqs. (\[eq1\])-(\[eq2\]) also contain noise or “thermal fluctuations”. For domain growth in non-active systems [@ajbray1994; @puribook], coarsening kinetics is dominated by a zero-noise (or zero-temperature) fixed point. This is because noise only affects the interfaces between domains, which become irrelevant compared to the divergent domain size [@po88]. In the present problem, we again have divergent (though different) domain scales for the density and polarisation fields, as we will see shortly. Therefore, it is reasonable to first study the zero-noise versions in eqs. (\[eq1\])-(\[eq2\]), as we do in the present paper. However, it is also important to undertake a study of the noisy model and confirm the irrelevance of noise.
We numerically solve eqs. (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]) for the hydrodynamic variables. The substrate size is $L \times L$ ($L=256, 512, 1024, 2048$) with periodic boundary conditions in both directions. An isotropic version of Euler’s discretization scheme is used to approximate the partial derivatives appearing in the hydrodynamic equations of motion. In our numerical implementation, the first and second order derivatives for an arbitrary function $f({\bf r},t)$ are discretized as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} &=& \frac{f(t+\Delta t)-f(t)}{\Delta t} ,\nonumber \\
\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} &=& \frac{f(x+\Delta x)-f(x-\Delta x)}{ 2 \Delta x}, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2} &=& \frac{f(x+\Delta x)-2 f(x) + f(x-\Delta x)}{(\Delta x)^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta t$ and $\Delta x$ are mesh sizes. While solving the equations, the field is specified on each grid point. Thus, we have a field of strength $\Delta$ and random orientation (which is quenched in time) at each grid point. The random angle is chosen from a uniform distribution in the range $[0, 2\pi]$. Our numerical scheme is convergent and stable for the chosen grid sizes $\Delta x =1.0$ and $\Delta t =0.1$.
We treat the parameters as phenomenological, and choose $-\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \lambda_3=0.5$, $D_{\rho} = 1$, $K = 1$ and $v_0 = 0.5$. The above values of $\lambda$’s are chosen for simplicity. We checked that the homogeneous ordered steady state in the clean system is stable [@shradhapre] for the above choice of the parameters, and that can become unstable for large $\lambda$’s. We start with a homogeneous isotropic disordered state with mean density $\rho_0 = 0.75$ and random polarisation, and observe ordering dynamics for different strengths of the random field $\Delta \in [0,1]$. We assume the mean field critical density $\rho_c = 0.5$ for the clean system.
![(colour online) The main figures show the two-point correlation functions for (a) the polarisation and (b) the density in the clean system ($\Delta=0$), plotted with scaled distances. $C_{\rm P}$ shows good collapse. The insets show plots of correlation function versus distance for the respective fields at different times.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2_Vrho_corr_h0.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
We first study the ordering dynamics of the clean system, [*i.e.*]{}, $\Delta=0$. In fig. \[fig1\](a), we show snapshots of the orientation (upper panel) $\theta({\bf r},t)=\tan^{-1}\left({\frac{{\rm P}_y({\bf r},t)}{{\rm P}_x({\bf r},t)}}\right)$, and the density (lower panel) fields at different times. Starting from an initial isotropic state, high density domains with ordered orientation emerge in the system, and the size of these domains increases with time. In the studies of domain growth in far-from equilibrium systems [@ajbray1994; @puribook], the standard tool to characterise the evolution of morphologies is the equal-time correlation function $C(r,t)$ of the order-parameter field. We use the same tool for the two fields ${\bf P}({\bf r}, t)$ and $\rho({\bf r},t)$, which are relevant in the present context. We introduce the two-point correlation functions: $$C_{\rm P}(r, t) = \langle {\bf P}({\bf r_0}, t) \cdot {\bf P}({\bf r_0} +{\bf r}, t) \rangle_{\bf r_0},
\label{opcor}$$ and $$C_{\rm \rho}(r, t) = \langle \delta \rho({\bf r_0}, t) \delta \rho({\bf r_0} +{\bf r}, t) \rangle_{\bf r_0}.
\label{dencor}$$ Here $\delta \rho $ represents fluctuation in the density from its instantaneous local mean value. Angular brackets denote spherical averaging (assuming isotropy), plus an average over space (${\bf r_0}$) and over 10 independent runs.
In fig. \[fig2\] (a,b) insets, we show the correlation functions $C_{\rm P}$ and $C_{\rm \rho}$ at different times for $\Delta=0$. The data shows coarsening for both the fields, since the correlations increase with time. Characteristic lengths $L_{\rm P}(t,\Delta)$ and $L_{\rm \rho}(t,\Delta)$ are defined as the distance over which the corresponding correlation functions fall to 0.5. In fig. \[fig2\](a,b) (main), we plot the correlation functions $C_{\rm P}$ and $C_{\rm \rho}$, respectively, as a function of scaled distance $r/L_{\rm P}$ and $r/L_{\rm \rho}$. We find nice scaling collapse for the polarisation, however, not for the density. Similar results are found for other disorder strengths (data not shown). The absence of dynamical scaling for the density correlation is consistent with the absence of the single energy scale associated with the density growth dynamics [@ajbray1994].
![(colour online) (a) Growth law of the hydrodynamic variables in the clean ($\Delta=0$) system. The self-propelled speed $v_0=0.5$ for the random field active model (RFAM), whereas $v_0=0$ for the zero-SPP model (zero-SPPM). The straight lines are drawn for the respectively indicated power-laws. (b) Plot of effective growth exponent of the hydrodynamic fields versus time in the clean system for the RFAM.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3_L_t_h0.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
In fig. \[fig3\](a), we show the time dependence of these length scales $L_{\rm \zeta}(t,0)$ where $\zeta \equiv ({\bf P}, \rho)$. We calculate the growth of the polarisation field for two cases: (i) RFAM with self-propelled speed $v_0=0.5$ and (ii) zero-SPPM with $v_0=0.0$. For the clean system, we find that the characteristic length follows the similar growth law $L_{\rm P}(t,0)\sim t^{0.5}$ for both the RFAM and the zero-SPPM. The density shows usual diffusive growth for the zero-SPPM (data not shown). Although the data does not show clean power-law for the density, fig. \[fig3\](a) shows the growth of the characteristic length as $L_{\rm \rho}(t,0) \sim t^{0.8}$ for the RFAM in the clean system. Faster growth of the density field in our study is consistent with the previous study of self-propelled particles [@chatepre]. We define the algebraic growth law of the hydrodynamic fields in the clean system as $L_{\rm \zeta}(t,0) \sim t^{1/z_{\rm eff (\rm \zeta)}}$, where $z_{\rm eff (\rm \zeta)}$ is the effective growth exponent. In fig. \[fig3\](b), we show the variation of the effective growth exponent $z_{\rm eff (\zeta)}$ with time on log-linear scale for the two fields in the RFAM. We find $z_{\rm eff (P)} \sim 2$ for almost two-decades, and $z_{\rm eff (\rho)} \sim 1.2$, when averaged over intermediate and late times, although it shows large oscillations. These oscillations are not due to poor averaging, but rather an intrinsic feature of the density growth in active systems. These may arise due to the absence of a single energy scale for the density growth.
![(colour online) Two-point correlation function for the polarisation, drawn for different disorder strengths. The inset shows $C_{\rm P}$ versus $r$ plot, and the main figure shows scaling collapse of $C_{\rm P}$ as a function of $r/L_{\rm P}$. Morphology of the polarisation field is approximately independent of disorder.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4_Vrho_corr_h0_diff.pdf){width="0.55\linewidth"}
Now we study the effect of disorder in the RFAM. In studies of domain growth, it has been found that random-field and random-bond disorder slows down the coarsening [@puriepl2017; @huse1985prl; @lai1988prb; @puriparekh1992; @paulpurireiger2004; @purizannetti2011]. This is attributed to the trapping of domain boundaries by sites of quenched disorder [@puriepl2017; @huse1985prl; @lai1988prb]. As most of the experimental systems contain disorder, here we investigate the effect of random-field disorder on coarsening in the SPPs. In fig. \[fig1\](b), we show snapshots of the orientation (upper panel) and the density (lower panel) at time $t=1000$ for different strength of disorder. We find that domain size decreases with increasing $\Delta$. The effect of inhomogeneity in the system is also inferred from the polarisation two-point correlation function shown in fig. \[fig4\](inset). Consequently, the characteristic lengths $L_{\rm P,\rho}$ decrease with $\Delta$ as shown in figs. \[fig5\](a,b). In fig. \[fig4\](main), we plot the two point correlation function $C_{\rm P}$ vs. scaled distance $r/L_{\rm P}$ for fixed time and different strengths of disorder $\Delta =0.0, 0.1, 0.2$ and $0.6$. We find good scaling collapse of the correlation functions. This suggests that the morphology of the polarisation field is approximately unaffected by disorder. However, this ‘super-universality’ [@purichowparekh1991] does not extend to the density field which does not even show simple dynamical scaling.
![(colour online) Growth law of the field variables - (a) the polarisation and (b) the density in the RFAM, drawn for different disorder strengths. In the disordered environments, the growth deviates from the power-law at late times.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5_L_t_diffh0.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
As stated before for the clean system, $z_{\rm eff(P)}$ shows a mean value $\bar z_{\rm P}(\Delta=0) \sim 2$ for an extended range of time. In the RFAM, there is a preasymptotic regime with an effective exponent $\bar z_{\rm P}(\Delta)$. As shown in fig. \[fig6\](a), $\bar z_{\rm P}$ increases with $\Delta$. Also the preasymptotic regime decreases with increasing $\Delta$, and disappears for $\Delta>0.4$. Beyond the mean growth exponent regime, $z_{\rm eff(P)}(t,\Delta)$ increases sharply with time, that signifies pinning of the interfaces because of large disorder strength [@purizannetti2011; @equidis].
For the density field, we find $z_{\rm eff(\rho)}(t, 0) \sim 1.2$ (not clean power-law). As we increase disorder strength, the effective growth exponent increases, but it does not show a clean power-law and fluctuates very much (data not shown). Hereafter, we characterise the growth law in the presence of disorder for the [*polarisation*]{} field only.
In the presence of disorder, we find a deviation from the power-law growth of the polarisation field. To analyse the effect of disorder, we use the method introduced by Corberi [*et al.*]{} [@equidis; @purizannetti2011]. They propose the following scaling form for the growth law: $$L(t, \Delta) \sim t^{1/z_{\rm eff}} = t^{1/{z}}F(\Delta/t^{\phi}).
\label{eqphi}$$ Here $z_{\rm eff}(t,\Delta)$ represents the effective growth exponent, and $\phi$ is the crossover exponent. The scaling function $F(x)$ behaves as $$F(x) \sim
\begin{cases}
\textrm{const.}, & \textrm{for } x \rightarrow 0, \\
x^{1/(z \phi )} \textrm{ } \ell \left( x^{-1/\phi} \right), & \textrm{for } x \rightarrow \infty,
\end{cases}
\label{eqf}$$ where $x=\Delta/t^{\phi}$. For $\phi <0$, scaling form in eq. (\[eqphi\]) shows a crossover from the power-law $L \sim t^{1/z}$ to an asymptotic behaviour $L \sim \ell(t\Delta^{1/\lvert\phi\rvert})$. We evaluate the effective growth exponent for the polarisation field using the relation $t=L^{z}G(L/\lambda)$ where the crossover length scale $\lambda = \Delta^{1/\phi z}$, and $G(y)=[F(x)]^{-z}$ with $y=L/\lambda$. Then the effective growth exponent is represented as a function of $y$ as $$z_{\rm eff}(y) = \frac{\partial \ln t}{\partial \ln L} = z + \frac{\partial \ln G(y)}{\partial \ln y}.
\label{eqz}$$ In fig. \[fig6\](a), we show the time dependence of $z_{\rm eff (P)}(t, \Delta)$ for $\Delta = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2$ and $0.4$. For the clean system, we find that $z_{\rm eff (P)}$ is close to $2$, as shown in fig. \[fig3\](b). For non-zero $\Delta$, the plots show $z_{\rm eff (P)} \simeq \bar{z}_{\rm P}$ for sufficient range of time. $\bar{z}_{\rm P}$ is a disorder-dependent constant. This is followed by late time regime, where $z_{\rm eff (P)}$ is time-dependent. This scenario seems to be a common feature of domain growth in disordered systems as shown in ref. [@equidis]. Hence we can write eqs. (\[eqphi\]), (\[eqf\]) and (\[eqz\]) by replacing $z \rightarrow \bar{z}$.
![(colour online) (a) Time variation of the effective growth exponent of the polarisation field in the RFAM, shown for different disorder strengths. (b) The scaling collapse of $z_{\rm eff (P)} - \bar z_{\rm P}$ versus $L_{\rm P}/\lambda_{\rm P}$. The best fit $z_{\rm eff (P)} - \bar z_{\rm P} \simeq
0.193(L_{\rm P}/\lambda_{\rm P})^{8.86}$ is shown by the solid line. (c) Disorder dependence of $\lambda_{\rm P}$. The solid line shows a power-law fit $\lambda_{\rm P} \sim \Delta^{-0.72}$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6_zeff.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
Now we study the dependence of $z_{\rm eff}$ on $L$. From eq. (\[eqz\]), we can say that $z_{\rm eff}-\bar{z}$ only depends on $y=L/\lambda$. In fig. \[fig6\](b), we plot $z_{\rm eff (P)}-\bar{z}_{\rm P}$ vs. $L_{\rm P}/\lambda_{\rm P}$ for various disorder values. We choose different $\lambda_{\rm P}$-values for different $\Delta$ to ensure the data collapse. The corresponding values of $\lambda_{\rm P}$ and $\bar{z}_{\rm P}$ for different $\Delta$ are listed in table \[table1\]. The solid curve in fig. \[fig6\](b) is the best-fit to the power-law form $$z_{\rm eff}-\bar{z} = b y^{\varphi}
\label{eqfit}$$ with $b=0.193$ and $\varphi = 8.86$. In fig. \[fig6\](c), we show the $\Delta$ dependence of $\lambda_{\rm P}$, which is fitted by $\lambda_{\rm P} \sim \Delta^{-0.72}$. The negative exponent implies that the disorder is indeed a relevant scaling field. From eq. (\[eqfit\]) it is easy to confirm the logarithmic domain growth. The scaling function $G(y)$ can be evaluated by $$\frac{\partial \ln G(y)}{\partial \ln y} = b y^{\varphi} \Rightarrow G(y) \sim \exp\left(\frac{b}{\varphi} y^{\varphi}\right).
\label{eqgy}$$ Substituting for $G(y)$ in eq. (\[eqz\]) gives the asymptotic logarithmic growth form: $$\frac{L}{\lambda} \simeq \left[\frac{\varphi}{b}\ln(t/\lambda^{\bar{z}})\right]^{1/\varphi}.
\label{eql}$$ The exponent $\varphi$ has important physical significance in domain-growth studies as it measures how the trapping barriers scale with domain size. In our RFAM, we find $\varphi=8.86$.
$\Delta$ $0$ $0.05$ $0.10$ $0.20$ $0.40$
-------------------- ---------- -------- --------- -------- --------
$\bar z_{\rm P}$ $2.0$ $2.06$ $2.60$ $3.40$ $6.50$
$\lambda_{\rm P}$ $\infty$ $20.0$ $14.50$ $8.70$ $4.50$
: Parameters $\bar z_{\rm P}$ and $\lambda_{\rm P}$ in the RFAM with different $\Delta$ values.
\[table1\]
In summary, we have studied ordering dynamics in a collection of polar self-propelled particles in an inhomogeneous medium. We use a coarse-grained model, where inhomogeneity is introduced as an external disorder field, which is quenched in time and random in space. The strength of disorder is tuned from $\Delta =0$ to $1.0$ and kept fixed during the evolution of the system.
When the system is quenched from a random isotropic state, both the density and the polarisation fields coarsen with time. In the clean system, [*i.e.*]{}, $\Delta=0$, the polarisation field follows the power-law growth $L_{\rm P}(t) \sim t^{0.5}$, while the density field approximately grows as $L_{\rm \rho}(t) \sim t^{0.8}$. We find that the polarisation shows dynamical scaling, whereas the density does not. This indicates that the approach towards the ordered state for the density field is no longer controlled by a single energy scale associated with the cost of a domain wall.
The presence of disorder slows down the growth rate of the hydrodynamic fields. For intermediate time, domains of the polarisation field follow a power-law growth $L_{\rm P}(t, \Delta) \sim t^{1/\bar{z}_{\rm P}(\Delta)}$ with a disorder-dependent exponent $\bar{z}_{\rm P}(\Delta)$. At late times, the polarisation field shows a crossover to logarithmic growth $L_{\rm P}(t, \Delta) \sim (\ln t)^{1/\varphi}$, where the exponent $\varphi$ does not depend on disorder. We find the logarithmic exponent is $\varphi=8.86$ for our two-dimensional RFAM. For large $\Delta$, the local polarisation remains pinned in the direction of the quenched random field. However, we could not find clean growth law for the density field. The scaling function for $C_{\rm P}(r,t)$ is approximately independent of disorder, showing that the morphology of the polarisation field is relatively unaffected by disorder.
In our present study, we find that the disorder plays an important role in the phase ordering dynamics and scaling in a collection of SPPs. Our study provides novel insights on ordering dynamics in a collection of active polar particles in clean as well as disordered environments. The disorder we introduce in our model is analogous to random fields introduced in usual spin systems. It would be interesting to study the effects of other kinds of disorder on ordering dynamics in active systems [@shradha2014phil; @sdeyprl2012; @amb2014natcomm].
[\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*]{}
R D thanks Manoranjan Kumar for useful discussion regarding the project. S M and S P would like to thank Sriram Ramaswamy for useful discussions at the beginning of the project. S M also thanks S N Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Kolkata for kind hospitality (where part of the work is done), and the DST-INDIA (INSPIRE) Research Award for partial financial support.
[10]{} PARRISH J. K. and HAMNER W. M. (Editors), [*Animal Groups in Three Dimensions*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 1997. HELBING D., FARKAS I. J. and VICSEK T., [*Nature (London)*]{}, [**407**]{} (2000) 487; HELBING D., FARKAS I. J. and VICSEK T., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**84**]{} (2000) 1240. FEDER T., [*Phys. Today*]{}, [**60**]{} (2007) 28; FEARE C., [*The Starlings*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford) 1984. KUUSELA E., LAHTINEN J. M. and ALA-NISSILA T., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**90**]{} (2003) 094502. HUBBARD S., BABAK P., SIGUADSSON S. and MAGNUSSON K., [*Ecol. Modell.*]{}, [**174**]{} (2004) 359. RAUCH E., MILLONAS M. and CHIALVO D., [*Phys. Lett. A*]{}, [**207**]{} (1995) 185. BEN-JACOB E., COHEN I., SHOCHET O., TENENBAUM A., CZIRÓK A. and VICSEK T., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**75**]{} (1995) 2899. HARADA Y., NOGUSHI A., KISHINO A. and YANAGIDA T., [*Nature (London)*]{}, [**326**]{} (1987) 805; BADOUAL M., JÜLICHER F. and PROST J., [*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.*]{}, [**99**]{} (2002) 6696. NÉDÉLEC F. J., SURREY T., MAGGS A. C. and LEIBLER S., [*Nature (London)*]{}, [**389**]{} (1997) 305. SCHALLER V., WEBER C., SEMMRICH C., FREY E. and BAUSCH A. R., [*Nature*]{}, [**467**]{} (2010) 73. VICSEK T., CZIRÓK A., BEN-JACOB E., COHEN I. and SHOCHET O., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**75**]{} (1995) 1226. TONER J. and TU Y., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**75**]{} (1995) 4326; TONER J. and TU Y., [*Phys. Rev. E.*]{}, [**58**]{} (1998) 4858. TONER J., TU Y. and RAMASWAMY S., [*Ann. Phys.*]{}, [**318**]{} (2005) 170. MARCHETTI M. C. [*et al.*]{}, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, [**85**]{} (2013) 1143. VICSEK T. and ZAFEIRIS A., [*Phys. Rep.*]{}, [**517**]{} (2012) 71. CHATÉ H., GINELLI F., GRÉGOIRE G. and RAYNAUD F., [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**77**]{} (2008) 046113. NARAYAN V., RAMASWAMY S. and MENON N., [*Science*]{}, [**317**]{} (2007) 105. CHEPIZHKO O., ALTMANN E. G. and PERUANI F., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**110**]{} (2013) 238101. BECHINGER C., LEONARDO R. D., L[Ö]{}WEN H., REICHHARDT C., VOLPE G. and VOLPE G., [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, [**88**]{} (2016) 045006. BRAY A. J., [*Adv. Phys.*]{}, [**43**]{} (1994) 357. PURI S. and WADHAWAN V. K. (Editors), [*Kinetics of Phase Transitions*]{} (CRC Press, Boca Raton) 2009. IMRY Y. and MA S.K., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, **35** (1975) 1399. NATTERMANN T., [*in Spin Glasses and Random Fields*]{}, edited by YOUNG A. P. (World Scientific, Singapore) 1998. BERTIN E., DROZ M. and GRÉGOIRE G., [*J. Phys. A: Math. and Theor.*]{}, [**42**]{} (2009) 445001. PURI S. and OONO Y., [*J. Phys. A*]{}, [**21**]{} (1988) L755. MISHRA S., BASKARAN A. and MARCHETTI M. C., [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**81**]{} (2010) 061916. HUSE D. A. and HENLEY C. L., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**54**]{} (1985) 2708. LAI Z., MAZENKO G. F. and VALLS O. T., [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**37**]{} (1988) 9481. KUMAR M., BANERJEE V. and PURI S., [*EPL*]{}, [**117**]{} (2017) 10012. PURI S. and PAREKH N., [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**25**]{} (1992) 4127. PAUL R., PURI S. and RIEGER H., [*EPL*]{}, [**68**]{} (2004) 881. CORBERI F., LIPPIELLO E., MUKHERJEE A., PURI S. and ZANNETTI M., [*J. Stat. Mech: Theo. Exp.*]{}, (2011) P03016. PURI S., CHOWDHURY D. and PAREKH N., [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**24**]{} (1991) L1087. CORBERI F., LIPPIELLO E., MUKHERJEE A., PURI S. and ZANNETTI M., [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, [**85**]{} (2012) 021141. MISHRA S., PURI S. and RAMASWAMY S., [*Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A*]{}, [**372**]{} (1988) 20130364. DEY S., DAS D. and RAJESH R., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**108**]{} (2012) 238001. WITTKOWSKI R., TIRIBOCCHI A., STENHAMMAR J., ALLEN R. J., MARENDUZZO D. and CATES M. E., [*Nat. Comm*]{}, [**5**]{} (2014) 4351.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study on the third quantization of a Kaluza-Klein toy model. In this model time ($x$) is defined by the scale factor of universe, and the space coordinate ($y$) is defined by the ratio of the scales of the ordinary space and the internal space. We calculate the number density of the universes created from nothing and examine whether the compactification can be explained statistically by the idea of the third quantization.'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
MMC-M-11\
November 1997\
[Third Quantization of Kaluza-Klein Cosmology and Compactification]{}\
Yoshiaki OHKUWA [^1]\
Department of Mathematics, Miyazaki Medical College, Kiyotake,\
Miyazaki 889-16, Japan\
0.3cm
0.5cm
Introduction
=============
The problem of time is now considered as one of the deepest problems in quantum cosmology$ .^{\sst [1]}$ It has many complicated aspects and is still controversial, though many ideas have been proposed to solve it$.^{\sst [1,2]}$ Usually, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is considered as the fundamental equation in quantum cosmology$.^{\sst [3]}$ However, because the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is a hyperbolic second-order differential equation (the Klein-Gordon type), there is a problem in the naive interpretation that $|\Psi|^2$ is a probability, where $\Psi$ is a solution to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. One of the proposed ideas to solve this problem is the third quantization in analogy with the second quantization of the Klein-Gordon equation $.^{\sst [4-15]}$
The Kaluza-Klein theory is one of unified theories of gravity and matter fields$.^{\sst [16]}$ In this theory it is assumed that the space-time has higher dimensions, the higher-dimensional space is a product of ordinary (external) space and internal space, and the latter is small, which is called compactification. The gravitational field and matter field are contained in the metric tensors of the higher-dimensional space-time. The quantum cosmology of the Kaluza-Klein theory has been studied by many authors$,^{\sst [17-22]}$ and the third quantization of it has also been studied $.^{\sst [23-26]}$ However, as far as the present author knows, the idea of the third quantization has not been utilized directly to explain the compactification.
In this paper we will examine the third quantization of a Kaluza-Klein cosmology, in which time ($x$) is defined by the scale factor of universe, and the space coordinate ($y$) is defined by the ratio of the scale of the ordinary space and that of the internal space. And we will calculate the number density of the universes created from nothing. The compactification could be explained statistically, if many of universes created from nothing had such $y$ that means compactification. We will find that there is a possibility to explain the compactification, when both the external and internal spaces are three-dimensional flat space $R^3$ .
In §2 we will consider the quantum cosmology of a Kaluza-Klein toy model, which will be third quantized in §3. In §4 we will calculate the number density of universes created from nothing, and in §5 we will examine the possibility to explain the compactification statistically through the idea of the third quantization. We summarize in §6.
Quantum Cosmology of Kaluza-Klein Toy Model
===========================================
Let us start from a (1+n+m)-dimensional space-time. We consider the following minisuperspace model in which the (n+m)-dimensional space is a product of a space with n dimensions and a space with m dimensions$.^{\sst [17, 18, 23-26]}$ The metric is assumed to be ds\^2 &= &g\_[M N]{} d x\^[M]{} d x\^[N]{} ,\
&= &-N\^2 (t) d t\^2 + a\^2 (t) [g]{}\_ d x\^d x\^+ b\^2 (t) [g]{}\_[m n]{} d x\^m d x\^n . Here $N(t)$ is the lapse function, $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ are the scale factors of the two spaces, $g_{\sst M N}$ are the (1+n+m)-dimensional metric tensors, and ${\tilde g}_{\mu \nu}$, $ {\hat g}_{m n}$ are metric tensors of $M^n$, $M^m$, respectively, where $M^n$ is $S^n$, $R^n$ or $H^n$. The Einstein action with a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is written as S = d\^[1+n+m]{} x [L]{} , = ( R - 2 ) . Substituting Eqs. (1) into Eqs. (2), we have S &= & d t L ,\
L &= & N a\^n b\^m , where $v_{n m} = \int \! d^{n+m} x \sqrt{{\tilde g}{\hat g}}$, ${\tilde g} = det {\tilde g}_{\mu \nu}$, ${\hat g} = det {\hat g}_{m n}$, ${\dot a}= \frac{d a}{d t}$ and $k_n = 1, 0, -1$ when $M^n$ is $S^n, R^n, H^n$, respectively.
Since the action (3) is not diagonal with respect to $a, b$, we change variables as a = r \^m , b = r \^[-n]{} , where $r$ is a scale factor and $\gamma$ determines the ratio of $a / b$. With these variables the Lagrangian (3) becomes L &= &-\^2 + - N U ,\
c\_r &= &(n+m)(n+m-1) , c\_= nm(n+m) ,\
U &= &-{ r\^[n+m-2]{} - 2r\^[n+m]{} } . 0.3cm Then the Hamiltonian reads H &= &N [H]{} ,\
[H]{} &= &- + + U , where $
\ p_r =\frac{\partial L}{\partial {\dot r}}
= -c_r N^{-1} r^{n+m-2} {\dot r}\ , \ \,
p_\gamma =\frac{\partial L}{\partial {\dot \gamma}}
= c_\gamma N^{-1} r^{n+m} \gamma^{-2} {\dot \gamma}\ .
$
From the Hamiltonian constraint ${\cal H} \approx 0$ , we obtain the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, &(r, ) = 0 ,\
&V = - { r\^[2(n+m-2)]{} - 2r\^[2(n+m-1)]{} } , where $\Psi (r, \gamma)$ is a wave function of universe, $\oop, \ooq$ are parameters of operator ordering. Changing variables by r = e\^x , = e\^y , where $x$ and $y$ determine the scale of universe and the ratio of two spaces, respectively, we obtain { + (-1) - + e\^[2x]{} V } (x , y) = 0 . 0.2cm If we choose $\oop = 1 , \ \ooq = 1$ , Eq. (8) becomes (x , y) = 0 . The Wheeler-DeWitt equation (9) is the Klein-Gordon type, and $|\Psi|^2$ is not conserved. Therefore, there is a difficulty in the naive interpretation that $|\Psi|^2$ is a probability. We will investigate the third quantization of this model in the next section.
Third Quantization
==================
Let us regard $x$ as time and $y$ as the space coordinate. The third quantized action to yield the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (9) is S\_[3Q]{} &= & dx dy [L]{}\_[3Q]{} ,\
[L]{}\_[3Q]{} &= & . The canonical momentum is given by $$\Pi_\Psi = \frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\sst 3Q}}{\partial \dpdx}
= \dpdx \ ,$$ and the Hamiltonian reads $${\cal H}_{\sst 3Q} = \frac{1}{2} \biggl[
\Pi_\Psi^2 + \frac{c_r}{c_\gamma}\biggl( \dpdy \biggr)^2 + e^{2x} V \Psi^2
\biggr] \ .$$
To quantize this model, we impose the canonical commutation relations &= &i (y-y\^) ,\
\[(x , y) , (x , y\^)\] &= &\[\_(x , y) , \_(x , y\^)\] = 0 . Let us write a complete set of normalized positive frequency solutions of Eq. (9) as $\{ u_p (x , y) \}$ , where $p$ labels the mode function and $u_p$ satisfies the normalization condition, i d y (u\_p\^\* u\_q - u\_q u\_p\^\* ) = (p-q) . Using these normal modes, we expand $\Psi (x , y)$ as (x , y) = d p \[ a\_p u\_p(x , y) + a\_p\^u\_p\^\* (x , y) \] , where $a_p$ and $a_p^\dagger$ satisfy = (p-q) , \[a\_p, a\_q\] = \[a\_p\^, a\_q\^\] = 0 . Therefore, $a_p$ and $a_p^\dagger$ are annihilation and creation operators of a universe with $p$, respectively. The vacuum state $|0 \rangle$ is defined by a\_p |0 = 0 p , and the Fock space is spanned by $
a_{p_1}^\dagger a_{p_2}^\dagger \cdots |0 \rangle \ .
$
Universe Creation from Nothing
==============================
Since the potential $V$ in Eqs. (6) is time ($x$) and space ($y$) dependent, universes are created from nothing$.^{\sst [7, 10, 27]}$ In order to see this and for simplicity, let us consider the case that both the ordinary space and the internal space are flat ($k_n = 0, k_m = 0$) $.^{\sst [24-26]}$ We assume that $v_{n m}$ is some properly fixed finite constant. In this case Eq. (9) is (x, y) = 0 with $c_{\sst \Lambda}
= \frac{c_r v_{n m}}{4 \pi G} \Lambda$ . The normal mode function $u_p (x , y)$ of Eq. (16) can be calculated as u\_p (x , y) = [N]{}\_p Z\_ (z) e\^[ipy]{} , where we have assumed $\Lambda > 0$ , $z = \frac{\sqrt{c_{\sst \Lambda}}}{n+m} e^{(n+m)x}$ , $\nu = \frac{-i }{n+m} \sqrtcrcg |p|$ , ${\cal N}_p$ is a normalization factor that satisfies Eq. (12), $Z_\nu$ is a Bessel function, and $p$ can be regarded as a canonical momentum of $y$ .
We define in-mode function $u_p^{in}(x , y)$ as u\_p\^[in]{}(x , y) &= &[N]{}\_p\^[in]{} J\_(z) e\^[i p y]{} ,\
[N]{}\_p\^[in]{} &= & ( [sinh]{} | p | )\^[-]{} , which satisfies $$u_p^{in}(x , y) \propto
exp \Biggl[-i \Biggl( \sqrtcrcg \, |p| x - py \Biggr) \Biggr]\ ,$$ when $x \rightarrow - \infty$ . The expansion of $\Psi$ is $$\Psi(x , y) = \int \! d p \, [ a_p^{in} u_p^{in}(x , y)
+ {a_p^{in}}^\dagger {u_p^{in}}^* (x , y) ] \ ,$$ and the in vacuum $|0 , in \rangle$ , which we regard as “nothing”, is defined by a\_p\^[in]{} |0 , in = 0 p . In the same way we define out-mode function $u_p^{out}(x , y)$ as u\_p\^[out]{}(x , y) &= &[N]{}\_p\^[out]{} H\_[-]{}\^[(2)]{} (z) e\^[i p y]{} ,\
[N]{}\_p\^[out]{} &= & [exp]{} ( | p | ) , which satisfies $$u_p^{out}(x , y) \propto {\rm exp} \biggl[ -\frac{n+m}{2} x -i \biggl(
\znm -py \biggr) \biggr] \, ,$$ when $x \rightarrow \infty \,
.\footnote{If we choose $H_\nu^{(2)} (z)$ instead of $H_{-\nu}^{(2)} (z)$
in Eqs. (20), Eqs. (21)-(33) will not change, but the adiabatic vacuum
$\vaca$ in Eqs. (36) corresponds to $H_{-\nu}^{(2)} (z)$. } $ The expansion of $\Psi$ is $$\Psi(x , y) = \int \! d p \, [ a_p^{out} u_p^{out}(x , y)
+ {a_p^{out}}^\dagger {u_p^{out}}^* (x , y) ] \ ,$$ and the out vacuum $|0 , out \rangle$ is defined by a\_p\^[out]{} |0 , out = 0 p .
The Bogoliubov coefficients $c_i (p , q) \ ( i = 1,2 )$ are defined by u\_p\^[out]{} (x , y) = d q \[ c\_1 (p , q) u\_q\^[in]{}(x , y) + c\_2 (p , q ) [u\_q\^[in]{}]{}\^\* (x , y) \] . Using the relation $
H_{-\nu}^{(2)} (z) = \frac{i}{{\rm sin} \pi \nu}
[ e^{-i \pi \nu} J_{-\nu} (z) - J_{\nu} (z) ]
$ and Eqs. (18), (20), (22), we can calculate $c_i (p , q)$ as c\_1 (p,q) &= & (p-q) ,\
c\_2 (p,q) &= & (p+q) .
The number density of the universe with $p$ created from nothing is defined as = 0 , in | [a\_p\^[out]{}]{}\^ a\_p\^[out]{} | 0 , in . From Eqs. (19), (23), (24) we obtain = d q | c\_2 (p , q) |\^2 , where we have omitted an irrelevant constant$.^{\sst [24-26]}$ Note that this is a Planck distribution with respect to $|p|$ .
Compactification of Internal Space
==================================
Now let us examine whether the compactification can be explained directly from the third quantization or not. In order to know the number density of created universe with respect to $y$ , we define the operators $a_y^{out}$ as a\_y\^[out]{} = d p e\^[-i p y]{} a\_p\^[out]{} , which satisfy = (y-y\^) , \[a\_y\^[out]{} , [a\_[y\^]{}\^[out]{}]{} \] = \[[a\_y\^[out]{}]{}\^, [a\_[y\^]{}\^[out]{}]{}\^\] = 0 . We can regard $a_y^{out}$ and ${a_y^{out}}^\dagger $ as the annihilation and creation operators of a universe with $y$, respectively. Then the number density with respect to $y$ can be defined by = 0 , in | [a\_y\^[out]{}]{}\^ a\_y\^[out]{} | 0 , in . Using Eqs. (19),(23),(26),(28), we find &= & d p\^d p e\^[i (p\^- p) y]{} 0 , in | [a\_[p\^]{}\^[out]{}]{}\^a\_p\^[out]{} | 0 , in\
&= & d p\^d p d q e\^[i (p\^- p) y]{} c\_2 (p\^,q) c\_2\^\* (p,q)\
&= & , where $\cN$ is a constant which does not depend on $y$ . If we define a = e\^ , b = e\^ , = | - | , = e\^ , these equations and Eqs. (4), (7) mean - = (n+m) y , = {
[rl]{} &(a b)\
&(a b)
. , that is $\Gamma$ represents the ratio of the scales of the larger space and the smaller space. Then we can calculate the number densities $\ndz , \nGz$ with respect to $\delta, \Gamma$ as &= & + = (y 0) , \
&= & = (1 ) . Hence, for any finite $\Gamma_0$ , we obtain = \_ = \_ , where $Prob$ is a probability. This result means that many of the universes created from nothing have a large ratio of the size of two spaces. Note that in this toy model the two spaces are completely symmetric. Therefore, if we assume n = m = 3 ($M^3 = R^3$) and regard the greater space as the ordinary (external) space and the smaller space as the internal space, there seems to be a possibility that the compactification can be explained statistically.[^2]
However, there remain some problems in the above discussion. First, let us take another model where, for example, n=3 , m=1 , the three-dimensional space is flat ($M^3 = R^3, k_3 = 0$) and the one-dimensional space is a circle ($M^1 = S^1 , k_1 =1$). In this case Eq. (9) becomes (x, y) = 0 with $c_{\sst \Lambda}
= \frac{3}{8} \Bigl( \frac{v_{n m}}{\pi G} \Bigr)^2 \Lambda$ , and the same results as Eqs. (29), (33) hold. In this model we must regard the flat space $R^3$ as the external space and the circle $S^1$ as the internal space. Then Eqs. (29), (33) mean that there are both many universes which are compactified and those which are not compactified. Therefore, our discussion is model dependent. If we will be also able to obtain the same result as Eqs. (33) , in a more realistic model, for example, with n = m = 3 and $M^3 = S^3 , k_3 = 1$ , then there will be a possibility to explain the compactification statistically in this case. It will be also interesting if the compactification can be explained when the space-time has the topology $R \times S^3 \times S^3 \times S^3$ in ten dimensions. In this case, it will be required that one space $S^3$ is large and two other spaces $S^3 \times S^3$ are small. So it seems that further investigation will be necessary on more realistic models.
Second, thus far we have interpreted Eq. (16) as a field equation in a flat metric, $
d s_{\sst 3Q}^2 = - d x^2 + d {\tilde y}^2 \ ,
\quad {\tilde y} = \sqrtcgcr \ y \ ,
$ with a time dependent potential $c_\Lambda e^{2(n+m)x } \ . $ However, Eq. (16) can be also regarded as a field equation with a mass $\sqrt{c_\Lambda}$ in the Milne metric, d s\_[3Q]{}\^2 &= &e\^[2(n+m)x]{} (- d x\^2 + d [y]{}\^2 ) = - d \^2 + \^2 d \^2 = - d X\^2 + d Y\^2 ,\
( -c\_) &= &e\^[-2(n+m) x]{} = 0 , where $
\tau = \frac{1}{n+m} e^{(n+m) x} = \frac{z}{\sqrt{c_\Lambda}} , \
\chi = (n+m) {\tilde y} \ , \
X = \tau {\rm cosh} \chi , \ Y = \tau {\rm sinh} \chi \ ,
$ and $\Box$ is a d’Alembertian in the Milne metric $
.^{\sst [26, 27]}
$
Following Ref. \[27\], let us define two vacua: = |0, in , = |0, out .\^ According to Ref. \[27\], the first vacuum $\vacc$ becomes the conformal vacuum in the limit $\Lambda \to 0$ , the second vacuum $\vaca$ is the adiabatic vacuum and a comoving observer who has proper time $\tau \propto X$ will see no created universe in this vacuum. So, if we choose $\vaca$ as the initial state , no universe will be created and compactification will not be able to be explained even in the case that n = m = 3 and $M^3 = R^3 , k_3 = 0$. It seems that further investigation will be needed on which vacuum should be preferred.
Summary
=======
We have studied on the third quantization of a Kaluza-Klein toy model, in which time ($x$) is defined by the scale factor of universe, and the space coordinate ($y$) is defined by the ratio of the scales of the ordinary space and the internal space. We calculated the number density of the universes created from nothing and found that there is a possibility to explain the compactification using the third quantization, when both the external and internal spaces are three-dimensional flat space $R^3$ . However, our discussion is model dependent, and further study will be necessary.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank Prof. C. Isham, Prof. T.W.B. Kibble, Dr. J.J. Halliwell, Prof. A. Hosoya and Prof. T. Kitazoe for valuable discussions and encouragement. He would also like to thank Imperial College for hospitality where a part of this work was done. This work was supported in part by Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.
[99]{} C.J. Isham, in [*Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories*]{}, eds. L.A. Ibort and M.A. Rodriguez (Kluwer, London, 1993); K.V. Kuchař, in [*Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics*]{}, eds. G. Kunstatter, D.E. Vincent and J.G. Williams (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992). See also, e.g., H. Kodama, ; ; P. Hájiček, ; J.B. Hartle and D. Marolf, ; S. Kauffman and L. Smolin, “A Possible Solution to the Problem of Time in Quantum Cosmology”, gr-qc/9703026; R. Brout and R. Parentani, “Time in Cosmology”, gr-qc/9705072. J.J. Halliwell, in [*Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes*]{}, eds. S. Coleman, J.B. Hartle, T. Piran and S. Weinberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991). T. Banks, . S. Giddings and A. Strominger, . M. McGuigan, ; . A. Hosoya and M. Morikawa, . V.A. Rubakov, . W. Fischler, I. Klebanov, J. Polchinski and L. Susskind, . Y. Xiang and L. Liu, . H. Pohle, . S. Abe, . T. Horiguchi, . M.A. Castagnino, A. Gangui, F.D. Mazzitelli and I.I. Tkachev, . A. Vilenkin, . T. Appelquist, A. Chodos and P.G.O. Freund, [*Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1987). Z.C. Wu, ; X.M. Hu and Z.C. Wu, ; Z.C. Wu, . Y. Okada and M. Yoshimura, . J.J. Halliwell, ; . U. Carow-Watamura, T. Inami and S. Watamura, . Y. Zhong and X. Li, . F. Mellor, . A. Zhuk, . E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, . A.I. Zhuk, . A.I. Zhuk, . N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies, [*Quantum Fields in Curved Space*]{} (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1982) . Following papers also examined another possibility to explain the compactification statistically: R.C. Myers, ; Y. Ohkuwa and W. Ogura, . See also, K. Yamamoto, T. Tanaka and M. Sasaki, .
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: Many ideas have been proposed to explain the compactification$,^{\sst [16]}$ but this possibility is a new one to explain it statistically$.^{\sst [28]}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A doped Mott insulator exhibits peculiar properties associated with its singular sign structure. As a case study, we investigate the ground state and excitations of finite-size Heisenberg loops doped with one hole by exact diagonalization. We find that there appear a series of quantum critical points (QCPs), which separate regimes by distinct total momenta along the axis of the ratio $J/t$ ($J$ and $t$ denote the superexchange coupling and hopping integral, respectively). Each QCP involves a crystal momentum jump with level crossing or merging of lowest energy levels. In contrast to the conserved total momentum, however, a broad momentum distribution of *individual* electrons is also found, indicating charge incoherence/translational symmetry breaking in violation of the one-to-one correspondence. Such a charge incoherence is further related to quantum fluctuations or the transverse part of ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ with $S^z=\pm 1/2$ in the one-hole ground state. Turning off the phase-string sign structure, by contrast, we show that the total momentum of the ground state reduces to null in the whole regime of $J/t$ with no more QCP or incoherence. We introduce the so-called charge-spin mutual entanglement to characterize these novel properties, with the entanglement spectrum providing additional information on the charge incoherence, which capture the nature of strong correlation due to the many-body quantum interference.'
author:
- Wayne Zheng
- 'Zheng-Yu Weng'
bibliography:
- 'tjchain-phasestring-mutual-entanglement.bib'
title: 'Charge-spin mutual entanglement: A case study by exact diagonalization of the one hole doped $t$-$J$ loop'
---
introduction
============
The physics of doped Mott insulators is believed to be closely related to the mechanism of high temperature superconductivity in the cuprate [@anderson1987the][@RevModPhys.78.17]. The $t$-$J$ model is one of the simplest models describing the doped Mott insulator with the double-occupancy of electrons being projected out in the hole-doped case. Earlier on, this projection, or the presence of the so-called *upper* Hubbard band due to interaction, has been argued by Anderson[@PhysRevLett.64.1839] as responsible for producing an *unrenormalizable quantum phase shift* each time a hole is doped into the lower Hubbard band, leading to a generic non-Fermi liquid behavior. Such an unrenormalizable phase shift effect has been later quantitatively identified as the *phase-string* sign structure upon doping, based on the $t$-$J$ [@PhysRevLett.77.5102][@PhysRevB.77.155102] or Hubbard model[@PhysRevB.90.165120].
A many-body quantum mechanics involving the nonlocal phase-string sign structure is conceivably non-perturbative[@zaanen2009mottness]. Its consequences can be manifested in various limiting cases as well. Although the two-dimensional (2D) case is more realistic, a one-dimensional (1D) closed path in which a hole is going through may represent a sub-unit that the nontrivial sign structure plays an indispensable role. In particular, a true 1D finite-loop, with all the hopping and superexchange processes away from the loop being cut-off, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:illustration\], is probably the simplest nontrivial limit that can be precisely studied by exact diagonalization (ED) [@arpackpp].
![A closed one-hole loop may be regarded as a subsystem of the 2D $t$-$J$ model in which the hopping and superexchange processes connecting to the rest of the 2D lattice are cut-off. The effect of the hidden sign structure in this specific case (cf. Appendix A) can be precisely studied by exact diagonalization, which sheds light on a general situation like 2D involving more complicate closed paths. []{data-label="fig:illustration"}](illustration.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
In this paper, we study the essential role of the quantum interference of the nonlocal phase shift experienced by the hole that circles around a finite-size 1D loop in Fig. \[fig:illustration\]. By using numerical ED technique, the total momentum of the many-body ground state is found to take a series of values, as a function of $J/t$, to result in a series of quantum critical points (QCPs) where lowest energy levels merge/cross and the total momentum jumps. Here, the total momentum remains *conserved* due to the translation symmetry, but the momentum distribution of the *individual* electrons is shown to exhibit a broad feature involving all the crystal momenta allowed in the finite-size loop. In particular, we show that the phase-string sign structure is associated with the quantum fluctuation or the transverse part of ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ in the one-hole case with $S^z=\pm 1/2$. It is such quantum fluctuation, in addition to the longitudinal $S^z=\pm 1/2$ component, that carries away a spread of momenta to render the doped hole “incoherent” or the translation symmetry breaking for the doped charge. By contrast, such unconventional QCPs immediately disappear if the quantum interference is turned off, with the total momentum reducing to null throughout the whole $J/t$. The results will be presented in Sec. II.
The Landau’s one-to-one correspondence between the total momentum and the momenta carried by quasiparticles breaks down here. To characterize such a strongly correlated many-body system, we introduce a new kind of entanglement to describe the mutual interplay between the doped charge and the spin degrees of freedom in Sec. III. The spin-charge mutual entanglement entropy (MEE) and the corresponding entanglement spectrum (MES) are investigated, which can reproduce the QCPs, measure the strength of spin-charge entanglement/separation, and reveal the incoherence of the charge degree of freedom. In other words, such a mutual entanglement description may provide the most relevant quantum information on the strong correlation of Mott physics, which may be applied to a more general case like the 2D case.
Since the above numerical results and analytic analysis will be based on the sign structure of the $t$-$J$ model, in Appendix A, we briefly outline some basic rigorous results which are valid for the $t$-$J$ Hamiltonian on a bipartite lattice of any size and dimensions including the present 1D loop. In particular, the so-called $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model is presented in Eq. (\[stj\]), in which the phase-string sign structure is turned off. The distinction between the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models may be most clearly seen in the following exact expressions for their partition functions[@PhysRevB.77.155102] $$Z_{t\text{-}J}=\sum_{c}(-1)^{N^{\downarrow}_h[c]}\mathcal{W}[c],
\label{Ztj}$$ and $$Z_{\sigma\cdot t\text{-}J}=\sum_{c}\mathcal{W}[c],
\label{Zstj}$$ in which the positive weight $\mathcal{W}[c]\geq{0}$ is the same for both models as a function of $t$,$J$ and the temperature, and $c$ denotes all the closed paths of the hole and spins. Apparently the two models differ only by the phase-string sign structure $(-1)^{N^{\downarrow}_h[c]}=\pm 1$ in Eq. (\[Ztj\]), which is dependent on the parity of $N^{\downarrow}_h[c]$ that counts the total number of exchanges between the hole and $\downarrow$-spins for a given loop $c$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:phasestring\] in Appendix A). By a comparative ED study of the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ loops with one hole, the critical role played by such a peculiar sign structure in a doped Mott insulator can be then explicitly revealed.
![The phase diagram of the one-hole loop with $N$ sites, characterized by a pair of total momenta $\pm K_0$ indicated in the boxes for the $t$-$J$ model (a) and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model (b). Note that for each nontrivial regime in (a), which is characterized by a momentum $K_0$ other than $0$ and $\pi$, there is always another degenerate ground state with momentum $-K_0$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:energy\_len-10\]). Define $J_c$ to separate the trivial and nontrivial phases in the $t$-$J$ loop, and one has $J_c/t=18.2$, $28.5$, and $40.0$, corresponding to $N=8$, $10$, and $12$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:crystal_momenta"}](momenta.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Basic results of one hole in the finite-size loop
=================================================
Phase Diagram
-------------
Although a finite-size system is considered here, in order to distinguish distinct many-body ground states which cannot be analytically connected by tuning a parameter such as $J/t$, we shall still use the terminology “phase diagram” in a loose way. Namely, each “phase” will refer to a smooth regime of $J/t$ where no level crossing happens. In this sense, Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (a) illustrates the “phase diagram” of one-hole loops with sizes $N=8$, $10$ and $12$ versus $J/t$ for the $t$-$J$ model under periodic boundary condition (PBC).
As determined by ED, Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (a) shows that the ground state exhibits a series of non-trivial total momenta $\pm K_0$’s with the presence of double degeneracy. Here the total crystal momentum is determined by diagonalizing the matrix $\langle\psi_{i}|T|\psi_{j}\rangle$ where $i, j=1, 2$ denotes the two degenerate ground states and $T$ the translational operator. A crystal momentum depends on the lattice size $N$ as $2n\pi/N, n=\pm 1, \pm 2\cdots$, and the jumps specify a series of QCPs in Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (a). By contrast, the total momentum reduces to a trivial one at $0$ or $\pi$ beyond the largest critical $J_c/t$ (cf. the caption of Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\]) where the ground state becomes non-degenerate.
Corresponding to the QCPs at the momentum jumps in Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (a), the lowest two/three energy levels merge or cross as shown in Fig. \[fig:energy\_len-10\] (a) for the $t$-$J$ model. Consistent with the momentum characterization in Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (a), the ground states are generically double-degenerate between QCPs except for the regime beyond the largest critical $J_c/t$ where the ground state reduces to a non-degenerate one.
By comparison, Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (b) indicates the corresponding phase diagram for the $\sigma \cdot t$-$J$ model, where the total momentum remains zero throughout the whole range of $J/t$. At the same time, the ground state always remains non-degenerate as shown in Fig. \[fig:energy\_len-10\] (b). Hence, the low-lying eigenstates of the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma \cdot t$-$J$ models look drastically different, except for the regime beyond the largest critical $J_c/t$ in the $t$-$J$ model. As pointed out in Introduction, the sole distinction between the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma \cdot t$-$J$ models lies in the sign structure. It thus confirms that the nontrivial QCPs and total momenta found in the $t$-$J$ model can all be attributed to the underlying phase-string sign structure. Note that in the regime of the trivial phase at $J>J_c$ in Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (a), the ground state can be smoothly connected to the $t=0$ limit, where the hole becomes static and the phase-string sign structure of the $t$-$J$ model no longer functions, and only in this regime the two models predict the similar behavior or, in other words, they are adiabatically connected (see more discussion below).
![The low-lying eigen-energies of the $t$-$J$ model (a) and the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model (b) (at $N=10$), respectively. The indices $0, 1, 2, \cdots$ label the energy levels. (a) The vertical dashed blue lines indicate two QCPs where the total momentum jumps; there is always a ground-state double degeneracy except for the trivial phase at $J>J_c$. (b) The ground state is always non-degenerate in the whole $J/t$ range. []{data-label="fig:energy_len-10"}](energy_len-10.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
The momentum distribution of the electrons
------------------------------------------
While the total momentum is conserved as marked in the phase diagram of Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\], the momentum distribution defined by $$n_{k}=\sum_{\sigma}\langle\psi|c_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{k\sigma}|\psi\rangle ~,
\label{}$$ will provide further information on *individual* electrons. In fact, at half-filling, each electron is localized at one lattice site such that $n_{k}=1$ \[the horizontal dot-dash lines in Fig. \[fig:nk\_len-10\] where the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models are the same\]. This is the most extreme case of strong correlation, i.e., the Mott insulator. Then, $1-n_{k}$ in the one-hole state effectively measures the change of the momentum distribution involving a doped hole in a loop of size $N$, which is essentially a many-body system involves $N-1$ electrons.
Upon one hole doping, the change of the momentum distribution is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:nk\_len-10\]. First, we note that $n_{k}$ is essentially the same in Fig. \[fig:nk\_len-10\] (a) for both $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models at $J/t=35>J_c/t$ ($N=10$), where the total momentum is zero in the trivial phase according to Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\]. Here $n_{k}$ peaks not only at $0$, but also at $\pi$, which may be explained by that a low-lying spin excitation carries away an antiferromagnetic wavevector $\pi$ as has been previously discussed [@zhu201651] in the large-$N$ limit.
By contrast, $n_{k}$ of the $t$-$J$ model becomes qualitatively different from that of the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model at $J/t=1$ in Fig. \[fig:nk\_len-10\] (b), corresponding to a total momentum $K_0=2\pi/5$ in Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] (a). Here, besides a peak at $K_0=2\pi/5$, another peak (though smaller) also emerges at $-K_{0}$, and in addition, $n_{k}$ exhibits a “continuum” at all the allowed crystal momenta (i.e., $n2\pi/N$ with $n=0$, $\pm 1$, ...). Namely, given a conserved total momentum $K_0$, $n_{k}$ indicates that the momentum distribution of a single hole, $1-n_{k}$, is spread all over, which implies that the one-hole state is in a strongly correlated many-body ground state without a clear trace of the one-to-one correspondence as in a conventional quasiparticle picture. It is noted that even in the large-$N$ limit a similar “continuum” is still present as the hallmark of the Luttinger liquid behavior [@zhu201651][@PhysRevB.41.2326].
![Momentum distribution $n_{k}$ of the electrons at $N=10$ for the models of the $t$-$J$ (red circles) and the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ (blue triangles) in the one-hole ground state ($n_{k}=1$ at half-filling, the horizontal dot-dash line). (a) $J/t=35.0>J_{c}/t$, $n_{k}$ peaks at $0$ and $\pi$ and is the same for both cases with the total momentum $K_0=0$; (b) $J/t=1.0$, a novel broad feature shows up in $n_{k}$ for the $t$-$J$ model at a given total momentum $K_0=2\pi/5$ while $n_{k}$ remains essentially unchanged for the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model. []{data-label="fig:nk_len-10"}](nk_len-10.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
The hole-spin correlations
--------------------------
Next one may further investigate the many-body structure of the ground state in terms of hole-spin correlation functions defined below. Here the total spin quantum numbers of the one-hole ground state are $S^z=1/2$ and ${\bf S}^2=3/4$, with the longitudinal hole-spin correlator given by $$\begin{split}
C^{z}(h, j)&=\langle{n_{h}}S^{z}_{j}\rangle,
% \Delta{C}^{z}(h, j)&=C^{z}_{t\text{-}J}(h, j)-C^{z}_{\sigma\cdot{t}\text{-}J}(h, j),
\end{split}
\label{}$$ where $h$ and $j$ denote the sites of the hole and spin-$z$ component operators, respectively.
![Illustration of the region of size $l$ with the hole embedded at the center. (As a convention, if $l$ is an odd integer, the number of sites on the right side of the hole $h$ is larger than the left one by one.) The longitudinal and transverse parts of the total ${\bf S}^2$ measured within the regine $l$ are defined in Eqs. (\[quantum\]). []{data-label="fig:fixedhole"}](fixedhole.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
![There is no visible difference between the $t$-$J$ model and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model with regard to the spin-$S_j^z$ distributions in the one-hole state with total $S^z=1/2$ ($N=10$). Here (a) and (b): the hole and spin-$S^z$ correlation $C^{z}(h, j)$ at $J/t=1.0$ and $J/t=35.0$, respectively. The vertical dashed lines mark the hole position; (c) and (d) : the computed $R^{z}(h, l)$.[]{data-label="fig:spinz_len-10"}](spinz_len-10.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
![The transverse component spin distribution $R^{t}(h, l)$ for the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models and the net difference $\Delta R^{t}(h, l)$ between them, which indicate strong distinction \[(a) and (b)\] in the nontrivial phase $J/t=1.0$; but the distinction disappears \[(c) and (d)\] in the trivial phase $J/t=35.0>J_c/t$ ($N=10$).[]{data-label="fig:spint_len-10"}](spint_len-10.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In order to measure the distribution of the quantum fluctuation of ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ around the hole, we further introduce the following correlators $$\begin{split}
R^{z}(h, l)&=\sum_{(i, j)\in{l}}\langle{S}^{z}_{i}S^{z}_{j}\rangle \\
R^{t}(h, l)&=\sum_{(i, j)\in{l}}\frac{1}{2}\langle({S}^{+}_{i}S^{-}_{j}+h.c.)\rangle \\
\Delta{R}^{z, t}(h, l)&={R}^{z, t}_{t\text{-}J}(h, l)-R^{z, t}_{\sigma\cdot{t}\text{-}J}(h, l)
\end{split}
\label{quantum}$$ where $R^{z,t}(h, l)$ describe the longitudinal and transverse fractions of the total ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ within the region $l$ with the hole embedded at the center $h$ as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fixedhole\].
The longitudinal spin distributions around the hole $h$ fixed at the center of the sample are shown in Fig. \[fig:spinz\_len-10\] for $C^{z}(h, j)$ and $R^{z}(h, l)$, respectively. Even though these correlators differ at different $J/t$’s, a prominent feature is that there is no obvious difference between the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models for the longitudinal spins correlated with the hole.
However, a sharp difference between the two models shows up in the transverse component $R^{t}(h, l)$ in Fig. \[fig:spint\_len-10\] (a) or $\Delta{R}^{t}(h, l)$ in Fig. \[fig:spint\_len-10\] (b) at $J/t=1$. By contrast, the distinction disappears at a larger $J/t$, say, $35>J_c/t$ in Figs. \[fig:spint\_len-10\] (c) and (d), which is in the trivial non-degenerate regime of Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\].
Since the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models only differ by a phase-string sign structure, the above hole-spin correlators suggest that such a distinction is intrinsically and solely related to the *transverse component* of the quantum fluctuation ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ around the hole. In other words, the nontrivial QCPs, the double degeneracy of the ground state, the total momenta, as well as the anomalous momentum distribution of the hole in the $t$-$J$ model can all be traced back to the transverse quantum fluctuation in ${\bf S}^2=3/4$, which distributes differently from the $S^z=1/2$ component. Here, the phase-string sign structure is a precise mathematical description of such a novel quantum fluctuation effect induced by doping. By contrast, at a sufficiently large $J/t>J_c/t$, we have seen that $R^{z, t}(h, l)$ behave similarly, implying that the phase string effect gets “screened”, where the longitudinal $S^z=1/2$ and ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ can be combined to be described by an integral $S=1/2$, which is loosely detached from the hole in the 1D chain due to a long-range spin-spin correlation.
Spin-charge mutual entanglement
===============================
In the previous section, the one-hole state of the $t$-$J$ loop has been precisely studied by ED, which has revealed a series of novel many-body properties manifested in the phase diagram, described by nontrivial total (many-body) momentum, QCPs, ground state degeneracy, the momentum distribution continuum of the single hole, and the distinct spin-spin correlation induced by the hole. However, the above characterizations of these properties look quite detailed, involving all different kinds of conventional correlation functions. It is natural to ask if one may design a unified description to capture the essential physics in such a strongly correlated system.
It is seen above that a doped hole does not simply dissociate into a holon and a spin-1/2 spinon in the $t$-$J$ loop. Namely, the total spin $S^z=1/2$ and the transverse quantum fluctuation in ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ may be distributed quite differently in space, indicating that the many-body spins in the background must be also “mingled” in. The *additional* transverse spin-spin correlation induced by the motion of the hole results in a novel phase-string sign structure in the $t$-$J$ model, and it is the quantum interference of the latter in the closed loop leads to the aforementioned strongly correlated properties. Therefore, how to capture such a nonlocal “entanglement” between the doped charge and the rest of spin degrees of freedom is the key here.
As a first step, we may expand the ground state in a *direct product representation* of the two components which we are interested in. As discussed in detail in Appendix \[sec:appendix\_entanglement\], these two components must be ordered and disentangled in such a way that they cannot retrieve each others’ quantum information from the basis state alone. The natural choice of the basis state can be then a direct product $|h\rangle\otimes|\{s\}\rangle$, where the spinless hole (holon) state $|h\rangle$ is at any site $h$ of the original $t$-$J$ loop, while $|\{s\}\rangle$ an arbitrary spin configuration of $N-1$ sites as a subsystem with the hole site excluded. It is important to note that in $|\{s\}\rangle$ the hole site $h$ is excluded like in the so-called “squeezed spin chain” [@PhysRevB.41.2326][@PhysRevB.70.075109].
Then the ground state wave function can be written as $$|\psi\rangle=\sum_{h, \{s\}}c_{hs}|h\rangle\otimes|\{s\}\rangle ,
\label{direct product}$$ where the nontrivial mutual correlation between the hole and its surrounding spins or the hole-spin mutual entanglement, will be uniquely encoded in the expansion coefficient $c$ in Eq. \[direct product\].
By tracing out the spin configurations, one gets an $N\times{N}$ reduced density matrix $\rho_{h}$ for the holon (charge): $$(\rho_{h})_{ab}=\sum_{\{s\}}c_{as}c_{bs}^{*}.
\label{}$$ Correspondingly the charge-spin MEE can be defined as a von Neumann entropy as follows $$S_h = -\text{tr}(\rho_{h}\ln\rho_{h})=\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}|\lambda_{k}|^{2}\ln|\lambda_{k}|^{2},
\label{eq:entanglement_entropy}$$ where $r$ is the rank of the reduced density matrix and $\lambda_{k}$ represents the complex amplitude of the wave function in the transformed basis. For more details, please refer to Appendix \[sec:appendix\_entanglement\].
![Spin-charge mutual entanglement entropy (MEE) for both the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ loops at $N=10$. Inset: the finite-size scaling of the MEE for the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ loop well follows a $\log(N)$ behavior in the small $J/t$ limit. But the MEE of the $t$-$J$ loop shows an opposite trend in the same limit, which vanishes in consistency with the spin-charge separation.[]{data-label="fig:entanglement_entropy_len-10"}](ee_len-10.pdf)
The numerical results of the spin-charge MEE are shown in Fig. \[fig:entanglement\_entropy\_len-10\]. Note that for the degenerate ground states of the $t$-$J$ model, we have chosen the positive total momentum $K_0$ without loss of generality. As Fig. \[fig:entanglement\_entropy\_len-10\] shows, the QCPs in the phase diagram of Fig. \[fig:crystal\_momenta\] are clearly exhibited by distinct jumps in the MEE of the $t$-$J$ model. With the increase of $J/t$, eventually the difference between the $t$-$J$ model and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models disappears in the non-degenerate regime (with $J/t>(J/t)c= 28.5$ at $N=10$).
In the opposite limit of small $J/t$, the distinction between the $t$-$J$ and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models gets progressively enlarged. Actually the spin-charge MEE approaches opposite limits for the two cases. In the $t$-$J$ loop case, it vanishes as $J/t\rightarrow 0$, in consistency with the true spin-charge separation. It has been well established [@PhysRevB.55.3894][@PhysRevB.70.075109] that when the hopping is much faster than the superexchange process, the holon is effectively decoupled from the background “squeezed spin chain” described by a Heisenberg model of $N-1$ sites.
By contrast, the spin-charge MEE for the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model increases and reaches a maximum at $J/t\rightarrow 0$. At a given small $J/t$, the finite-size scaling of the MEE is illustrated in the insert of Fig. \[fig:entanglement\_entropy\_len-10\]. It shows a nice $\log(N)$ scaling behavior similar to that of the conventional EE predicted by conformal field theory[@fradkin2013QFT] for a pure 1D Heisenberg spin chain.
Therefore, the opposite trends of the MEE at small $J/t $ demonstrate that the presence/absence of the phase-string sign structure fundamentally influence the underlying hole-spin correlation from the spin-charge separation in the $t$-$J$ model to the most strong hole-spin entanglement in $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model. In the latter case, the hole behaves as if it is still a spin in the original undoped Heisenberg model, maintaining similar long-range RVB correlations with the rest of spins.
![The spin-charge mutual entanglement spectrum (MES) at $N=10$: (a) the $t$-$J$ model and (b) the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model. []{data-label="fig:entanglement_spectrum_len-10"}](es_len-10.pdf)
In Fig. \[fig:entanglement\_spectrum\_len-10\], the entanglement spectrum MES defined as $\{|\lambda_{k}|^{2}\}$ in Eq. \[eq:entanglement\_entropy\] is shown for the $t$-$J$ (a) and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ (b) models, respectively. Like the MEE, the MES also shows distinct signatures at QCPs in Fig. \[fig:entanglement\_spectrum\_len-10\] (a). Note that the lowest eigenvalue remains at zero in both the $t$-$J$ model and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ models in the large $J/t$ trivial region. However, once in the nontrivial regimes at smaller $J/t$ (below the largest QCP $(J/t)_c$), the lowest entanglement eigenvalue becomes always gapped as shown in the insert of Fig. \[fig:entanglement\_spectrum\_len-10\] (a) in the $t$-$J$ model. In particular, the gap seems randomly fluctuates versus $J/t$. As discussed in the previous section, in the same regime, the hole becomes incoherent as a “continuum” of momentum is involved.
Conclusion and discussion
=========================
In this work, we have used an exact numerical method to study one of the simplest systems of doped Mott insulators, i.e., a single hole in a finite-size spin loop described by the $t$-$J$ Hamiltonian. One may imagine that the ground state would be intrinsically complicated with the single hole strongly entangled with the background spins. To effectively characterize such a strongly correlated problem, we have introduced a mutual entanglement description, i.e., the charge-spin mutual entanglement entropy. Based on this new quantity calculated by ED, a series of QCPs of the ground state along the axis of $J/t$ have been revealed. In particular, the trivial case is at $t=0$ where the hole is static and the mutual entanglement reduces to that of the half-filling spin chain partitioned between a spin at the hole site and the rest of spins. Then, with increasing $t/J$, the mutual entanglement is monotonically reduced, with the sharp jumps at the QCPs, and eventually vanishes at $J/t\rightarrow 0$. The latter is nothing but the limit of spin-charge separation. Further information is provided by the mutual entanglement spectrum, which in the trivial phase at large $J/t$ can be smoothly connected to the $t=0$ limit, but the lowest eigenvalue becomes finite and seems randomly fluctuating with $J/t$ in the so-called nontrivial regimes bounded by the QCPs at smaller $J/t$.
However, once the so-called phase-string sign structure is turned off in the model, the above anomalous behaviors all disappear. Namely, all the QCPs no longer exist, with the mutual entanglement entropy becomes a smooth function, which increases with reducing $J/t$ and eventually reaches a *maximum*, as opposing to *vanishing* in the presence of the phase-string sign structure, at $J/t\rightarrow 0$. Thus, in contrast to the spin-charge separation, without the phase string, the hole-spin entanglement is maximized as if there is still a spin at the hole site (that hops quickly from site to site), which well retains the same correlations with the rest of spins as at half-filling where all spins form resonating-valence-bond type of singlet pairing.
Indeed, the phase string counts how the motion of the hole scrambles the Marshall signs[@PhysRevLett.77.5102][@marshall1955antiferromagnetism] that ensures the transverse part of the singlet pairing of spins at half-filling. The ED results have explicitly shown that the phase-string sign structure is directly associated with the transverse component of ${\bf S}^2=3/4$. Namely, in the one-hole ground state of a bipartite lattice, the total spin is $S=1/2$. However, it does not mean that one can construct the ground state in terms of a spinless holon and a spinon in a naive spin-charge separation picture. Rather, the background spins will mingle with the spinon, in the form of phase string or many-body phase shift, such that the longitudinal $S^z=1/2$ and the transverse part of ${\bf S}^2=3/4$ can no longer be described by a single S=1/2 spinon in general. As the consequence, the conserved many-body total momentum is shared by the hole and the spins as well. In particular, the transverse spin component strongly smears the momentum distribution to render the charge incoherent or translation symmetry breaking since it is not a rigid part of the charge. As a function of $J/t$, a sequence of the total momenta can be thus generated in the ground state with level crossing at QCPs. Again, once the phase string is turned off, the ground state always remains trivial with the doped hole properly described in terms of a composite pair of holon and spinon of $S=1/2$.
It is important to note that the above spin-charge mutual entanglement description is not restricted in a 1D loop. The algorithm can be generalized to the 2D case shown in Fig. \[fig:illustration\], in which the 1D loop only constitutes just some special closed path in the whole summation of, say, the partition function defined in Eq. (\[Ztj\]). But even in the present extremely simplified case, the lesson is clear. That is, in the doped Mott insulator, the many-body quantum mechanism may have no classical limit and the quantum interference of the singular sign (phase) effect from *all* paths has to be fully considered. As such, the mutual entanglement between the charge and spin degrees of freedom may become an essential characterization of the underlying physics.
Finally, we point out that the present results may have some profound relation with the idea of quantum disentangled liquids (QDL) [@Grover:P10010][@1611.02075]. A QDL is conjectured to be a new kind of quantum fluid composed of two components of light and heavy particles. The essence of QDL is that the light particles may not be able to thermalize because their highly excited states are in the many-body localization (MBL)[@annurevMBL] states in the presence of the heavy particles which are thermalized [@Grover:P10010][@1611.02075]. Due to the disentanglement between the two components, eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) may be violated there. Even though the present work deals with small size systems with one hole near the ground state, the mutual entanglement entropy clearly indicates a vanishing trend in small $J/t$ limit, where the charge is like a light particle while the spins are heavy particles. An area law (constant) behavior is also found in the finite-size scaling of $N$ in this regime. In other words, our results may have shown the precursor of a prototypical QDL composed of incoherent light charges and heavy spins in the $t$-$J$ model, where the ETH may fail at finite doping and finite energy density states. Recently, the signature of a possible MBL has been also found in the study of an extremely large $U$ model of two-leg ladder by the density matrix renormalization group method. Interestingly, when the phase-string sign structure is turned off, all the signatures of the MBL disappear completely[@ScientificReports.6.35208].
We acknowledge stimulating discussions with X. Chen, M.P.A. Fisher, Y.-M. Lu, X.-L. Qi, Y. Qi, Q.-R. Wang, P. Ye, Y.-Z. You, J. Zaanen, and Z. Zhu. This work is supported by NSFC and MOST of China.
The precise sign structure of the 1D $t$-$J$ loop with one hole {#sec:intro}
================================================================
The 1D $t$-$J$ Hamiltonian is defined in the Hilbert space with projecting out double-occupancy, which reads $H = H_{t}+H_{J}$ where $$\label{tj}
\begin{split}
H_{t} &= -t\sum_{\langle{ij}\rangle, \sigma}(c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j\sigma}+h.c.), \\
H_{J} &= J\sum_{\langle{ij}\rangle}\left(\mathbf{S}_{i}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{j}-\frac{1}{4}n_{i}n_{j}\right).
\end{split}$$ A finite-size loop of $N$ sites with $N-1$ spin-$1/2$ electrons created by the operator $c^{\dagger}_{\sigma}$ will be considered. The summations in Eq. (\[tj\]) run over all the nearest-neighbors $\langle{i, j}\rangle$. In the undoped case (half-filling), the model reduces to a Heisenberg spin chain, with the ground state satisfying the Marshall sign rule[@marshall1955antiferromagnetism]. Define the Marshall-sign basis $|\{s\}\rangle = (-)^{N_{A}^{\downarrow}}c_{0\sigma_{0}}^{\dagger}\cdots{c}_{N-1\sigma_{N-1}}^{\dagger}|0\rangle$ in which $N_{A}^{\downarrow}$ denotes the total number of down spins at sub-lattice $A$ in an even-$N$ loop. In this basis $\langle\{s{'}\}|H_{J}|\{s\}\rangle\leq{0}$ and Perron-Frobenius theorem implies that the ground state at half-filling can be written as $|\psi_{0}\rangle=\sum_{\{s\}}a_{s}|\{s\}\rangle, a_{s}\geq{0}$. Generalized to doped case, $|\{s\}, h\rangle=(-)^{h}c_{h\sigma}|\{s\}\rangle$, the dilemma arises immediately because of $\langle\{s\}, h|H_{t}|\{s{'}\}, h{'}\rangle=-t\sigma_{h}$. That is, the hopping process will violate the Marshall sign rule to cause an irreparable many-body phase shift known as the phase string [@PhysRevB.55.3894].
In order to remove the sign frustration caused by the hopping, the so-called $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model may be introduced in which without changing $H_J$, the hopping term $H_t$ is modified to $$\label{stj}
H_{\sigma\cdot{t}} = -t\sum_{\langle{i, j}\rangle, \sigma}\sigma(c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j\sigma}+h.c.),$$ where an extra sign $\sigma=\pm$ is introduced which can precisely erase the non-local phase string effect. Then one can obtain a sign-free basis for the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model as[@zhu201651]: $$|\psi\rangle_{\sigma\cdot{t}\text{-}J}=\sum_{h, \{s\}}a_{h, \{s\}}(-\sigma)^{h}c_{h\sigma}|\{s\}\rangle,$$ where $\sigma$ denotes the spin of the electron removed from the system and $a_{h,\{s\}}$ is always *positive* such that the sign structure of the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model is trivial. According to the Perron-Frobenius theorem, there is no ground state degeneracy in this case.
![(a) Phase string $(+)\times(-)\times(-)\cdots$ picked up by the hole in the $t$-$J$ model along a specific path plays the crucial role in strongly correlated doped Mott physics. (b) In the $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model, the phase string frustration is precisely removed.[]{data-label="fig:phasestring"}](phasestring.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Generically it has been proved[@PhysRevB.77.155102][@PhysRevLett.77.5102] rigorously that in a single hole doped $t$-$J$ model, the propagating hole along any specific path $c$ will pick up the spin-dependent signs as $(+)\times(-)\times(-)\cdots$. The signs $\pm$ denote the quantum memory of the microscopic hopping process by the hole, which records whether it exchanges with an $\uparrow$ or $\downarrow$-spin. Phase string effect is illustrated as in Fig. \[fig:phasestring\](a). The exact sign structure for a single hole is $\tau_{c}=(-1)^{N_{h}^{\downarrow}[c]}$, where $N_{h}^{\downarrow}[c]$ counts the total number of exchanges between the hole and down spins along the closed path $c$, $$Z_{t\text{-}J}=\sum_{c}\tau_{c}\mathcal{W}[c],
\label{}$$ in which $\mathcal{W}[c]\geq{0}$. By comparison, the partition function of the corresponding $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model is given by $Z_{\sigma\cdot{t}\text{-}J}=\sum_{c}\mathcal{W}[c]$, where $\tau_{c}$ is precisely removed with the same positive weight $\mathcal{W}[c]$. In other words, the $t$-$J$ model and $\sigma\cdot{t}$-$J$ model solely differ by the phase-string sign structure.\
Some details
============
Hilbert space construction
--------------------------
To construct the Hilbert space of $t$-$J$ model means that we should construct the basis of this space. Naively we refer to all kinds of possible configurations. In the first place, you should take care that this is a fermionic problem while in practice we use bosonic representation of a configuration in the computer which means that an order of the fermionic operators should be assumed. For instance, $$|s_{0}^{z}, ..., s_{h-1}^{z}, o, s_{h+1}^{z}, ..., s_{N-1}^{z}\rangle\equiv{c}_{0}^{\dagger}...{c}_{h-1}^{\dagger}{c}_{h+1}^{\dagger}...{c}_{N-1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle,$$ where a single hole is left on the site $h$ and the spin indices of the creation operators are ignored. In this sense you can check straightforwardly that the hopping term in the Hamiltonian acting on these kind of states has two distinct cases:
- Hopping within the chain, there is *no* sign arised.
- Hopping on the boundary for periodic boundary condition may give rise to another fermionic sign.
$$(c_{N-1}^{\dagger}c_{0}+h.c.)c_{0}^{\dagger}...c_{N-2}^{\dagger}|0\rangle=c_{N-1}^{\dagger}c_{0}c_{0}^{\dagger}...c_{N-2}^{\dagger}|0\rangle=(-)^{N-2}c_{1}^{\dagger}...c_{N-1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle.$$
Furthermore,
$$|\varphi(h, s)\rangle\equiv(-\sigma)^{h}c_{h\sigma}|s\rangle=(-)^{n_{A}^{\downarrow}}\cdot(\sigma)^{h}c_{0\sigma_{0}}^{\dagger}\cdots{c}_{h\sigma}c_{h\sigma}^{\dagger}\cdots{c}_{N-1\sigma_{N-1}}^{\dagger}|0\rangle,$$
in which $c_{0\sigma_{0}}^{\dagger}\cdots{c}_{h\sigma}c_{h\sigma}^{\dagger}\cdots{c}_{N-1\sigma_{N-1}}^{\dagger}|0\rangle$ is nothing but the convention of the basis in our practical computational program. Then we can compute the elements of correlation matrix which is useful for deriving the momentum distribution of the hole $n_{k\alpha} = \langle\psi|c_{k\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{k\alpha}|\psi\rangle_{\sigma\cdot{t}\text{-}J}$. $$\langle\psi|c_{i\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{j\alpha}|\psi\rangle_{\sigma\cdot{t}\text{-}J} = \sum_{h, s; h', s'}a_{h,s}^{*}a_{h', s'}, \quad \alpha = \sigma, \bar{\sigma}.$$ Here $\sigma$ denotes the spin of the electron removed from the half-filled background. It is
Translational operation {#sec:translation_operator}
-----------------------
Essentially we define $Tc_{i}^{\dagger}T^{-1}\equiv{c}_{i+1}^{\dagger}$ and it commutes with the Hamiltonian in periodic boundary condition. It is obvious $T$ commutes with $H_{J}$ because $H_{J}$ denotes purely bosonic operations and they only acts on spins of electrons along the cyclic chain while $T$ only moves electrons to other sites. $T$ also commutes with $H_{t}$. To see this, $$\begin{split}
TH_{t}T^{-1} &= -t\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}(Tc_{i}^{\dagger}T^{-1}Tc_{i+1}T^{-1}+Th.c.T^{-1}) \\
&= -t\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}(c_{i+1}^{\dagger}c_{i+2}+h.c.) \\
&= -t\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}(c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{i+1}+h.c.)
\end{split}$$ because of $i$’s modular definition along the cyclic chain. In this sense, $T$ may also give rise to some sign when it operates on a state. For example,
$$Tc_{1}^{\dagger}...c_{N-1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle = Tc_{1}^{\dagger}T^{-1}Tc_{2}^{\dagger}...Tc_{N-1}^{\dagger}T^{-1}T|0\rangle = (-)^{N-2}c_{0}^{\dagger}...c_{N-1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle,$$
where we have assumed that the vacuum is invariant under the translation. You can also find that the only case in which there is no sign derived is that the hole is located on the site $N-1$.
Reduced density matrix and entanglement entropy {#sec:appendix_entanglement}
===============================================
Composite system and reduced density matrix
-------------------------------------------
Consider a composite quantum system $\Sigma=A\cup{B}$ and suppose there are sets of complete basis $\{|i\rangle_{A}\}$ and $\{|j\rangle_{B}\}$ to span Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{B}$ with dimension $d_{A}$ and $d_{B}$, respectively. For the composite system $\Sigma$ the *direct product* (Cartesian product) states $|i\rangle_{A}\times|j\rangle_{B}\equiv|i\rangle_{A}|j\rangle_{B}$ form a complete basis for the tensor product space $\mathcal{H}_\Sigma=\mathcal{H}_{A}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{B}$. This is called *direct product representation* while a pure state in $\mathcal{H}_{\Sigma}$ generally cannot be written as a single product state but the superposition of them since there may exist quantum entanglement: $$|\psi\rangle_{\Sigma}=\sum\limits_{i,j}c_{ij}|i\rangle_{A}|j\rangle_{B}.
\label{}$$ Note that each Cartesian term $|i\rangle_{A}|j\rangle_{B}$ sometimes is written as $|i\rangle_{A}\otimes|j\rangle_{B}$[^1] to emphasize the tensor product structure of $\mathcal{H}_{\Sigma}$[@1508.02595]. Then density matrix is $$\rho_{\Sigma} = |\psi\rangle_{\Sigma}\langle\psi|_{\Sigma}=\sum\limits_{ijkl}c_{ij}c^{*}_{kl}|i\rangle_{A}|j\rangle_{B}\langle{k}|_{A}\langle{l}|_{B}.
\label{}$$ Now suppose $\mathcal{O}_{A}$ is an observable for the sub-system $A$ and for the composite system $\Sigma$ the observable can be regarded as a *matrix tensor product* (Kcroneker product) $\mathcal{O}=\mathcal{O}_{A}\otimes\mathbbm{1}_{B}$ and $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle=\text{tr}_{\Sigma}(\rho_{\Sigma}\mathcal{O})$. In the disentangled representation, $$\begin{split}
\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle &= \langle\psi|\mathcal{O}_{A}\otimes\mathbbm{1}_{B}|\psi\rangle \\
&= \sum\limits_{ijkl}c^{*}_{kl}c_{ij}\langle{k}|_{A}\langle{l}|_{B}\mathcal{O}_{A}\otimes\mathbbm{1}_{B}|i\rangle_{A}|j\rangle_{B}\\
&= \sum\limits_{ijkl}c^{*}_{kl}c_{ij}\delta_{lj}\langle{k}|_{A}\mathcal{O}_{A}|i\rangle_{A} \\
&= \sum\limits_{ijk}c_{ij}c^{*}_{kj}\langle{k}|_{A}\mathcal{O}_{A}|i\rangle_{A}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:01}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{split}
\text{tr}_{B}\rho_{\Sigma} &= \sum\limits_{l'}\langle{l'}|_{B}\sum\limits_{ijkl}c_{ij}c^{*}_{kl}|i\rangle_{A}|j\rangle_{B}\langle{k}|_{A}\langle{l}|_{B}|l'\rangle_{B} \\
&= \sum\limits_{ijk}c_{ij}c^{*}_{kj}|i\rangle_{A}\langle{k}|_{A},
\label{}
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
\text{tr}_{A}(\rho_{A}\mathcal{O}_{A}) &= \sum\limits_{k'}\langle{k'}|_{A}\sum\limits_{ijk}c_{ij}c^{*}_{kj}|i\rangle_{A}\langle{k}|_{A}\mathcal{O}_{A}|k'\rangle_{A} \\
&= \sum\limits_{ijk}c_{ij}c^{*}_{kj}\langle{k}|_{A}\mathcal{O}_{A}|i\rangle_{A}.
\label{eq:02}
\end{split}$$ According to Eq. \[eq:01\] and \[eq:02\], $\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle = \text{tr}_{A}(\rho_{A}\mathcal{O}_{A})$ and $\rho_{A} = \sum_{ijk}c_{ij}c^{*}_{kj}|i\rangle_{A}\langle{k}|_{A}\equiv\sum_{j}|j\rangle\langle{j}|$, where $|j\rangle\equiv\sum_{i}c_{ij}|i\rangle_{A}$ is defined in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{A}$ but not normalized. Note that
- If the state $|\psi\rangle$ for the whole system is a pure state, the sub-system $A$ is not expected to be in a pure state. $\rho_{A}^{2}\neq\rho_{A}$ if sub-system $A$ is in a mixed state. $\rho_{A}$ also can be viewed as the reduced state from $|\psi\rangle$ and the rest sub-system $B$ is regarded as a coupled auxiliary system.
Schmidt decomposition and entanglement entropy
----------------------------------------------
Singular value decomposition (SVD) theorem manifests that for a rectangular matrix $\mathbf{C}\in\mathbbm{C}^{m\times{n}}$, it can be decomposed into the form $$\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{U}\mathbf{\Lambda}\mathbf{V}^{\dagger},
\label{}$$ where $\mathbf{U}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ are complex unitary matrices and $\mathbf{\Lambda}\in\mathbbm{R}^{m\times{n}}$ is diagonal with non-zero diagonal singular values $\{\lambda_{0},\cdots,\lambda_{r-1}\}$, $\text{rank}(\mathbf{C}) = r$. In the direct product representation $\{(|i\rangle_{A}, |j\rangle_{B})\}$, the state $|\psi\rangle$ is represented by the matrix $(c_{ij})$
$$|\psi\rangle_{\Sigma} = (|0\rangle_{A}, |1\rangle_{A}, \cdots, |d_{A}-1\rangle_{A})
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{00} & c_{01} & \cdots & c_{0, d_{B}-1} \\
c_{10} & c_{11} & \cdots & c_{1, d_{B}-1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
c_{d_{A}-1, 0} & c_{d_{A}-1, 1} & \cdots & c_{d_{A}-1, d_{B}-1}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
|0\rangle_{B} \\
|1\rangle_{B} \\
\vdots \\
|d_{B}-1\rangle_{B}
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{}$$
Note that the Cartesian direct product means *ordered pair* and a disentangled directly product Cartesian term means there is absolutely no information of one we can retrieve from the other and the combination of them precisely describes a basis state vector in $\mathcal{H}_{\Sigma}$. If we carry out the unitary rotations $(|0\rangle_{A}, |1\rangle_{A}, \cdots, |d_{A}-1\rangle_{A})\mathbf{U}^{\dagger}$ and $\mathbf{V}(|0\rangle_{B}, |1\rangle_{B}, \cdots, |d_{B}-1\rangle_{B})^{T}$, $$|\psi\rangle_{\Sigma} = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{r-1}\lambda_{k}|k\rangle_{A}|k\rangle_{B}.
\label{}$$ If $|\psi\rangle$ is normalized, $\sum_{k = 0}^{r-1}|\lambda_{k}|^{2} = 1$. In this sense, the von Neumann entropy is defined as the EE for sub-system $A$ $$S_{A} = -\text{tr}(\rho_{A}\ln\rho_{A}) = -\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{r-1}|\lambda_{k}|^{2}\ln|\lambda_{k}|^{2} = -\text{tr}(\rho_{B}\ln\rho_{B}).
\label{}$$ The EE is symmetric if the total system $\Sigma$ is in a pure state. Also note the rank of the representation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is intrinsic and important. It is independent of specific representations thus the entanglement entropy have nothing to do with representations. Specially, if there is just one none zero singular value $\lambda_{0} = 1$ we find that $S_{A} = S_{B} = 0$. It is indeed a measure of the entanglement between two sub-systems. In this sense, we can also define what is a entangled state precisely.
*If the rank of the representation matrix in the direct product representation is larger than 1, the pure state represented by this very matrix is said to be entangled. Otherwise, it is a disentangled, direct product state.*
In this sense, seemingly entanglement is more intrinsic than the superposition principle in quantum mechanics as it concerns about the *rank* of the representation matrix rather than specific representations. Rank of a matrix is invariant under similarity transformations in different representations.
In a word, the above discussion implies that if we would like to investigate the entanglement between two sub-systems of a whole composite system $\Sigma$, the practical procedure is
- The first and most pivotal step is to expand the state $|\psi\rangle_{\Sigma}$ in terms of a basis written in a direct product of the sub-systems $A$ and $B$.
- Then trace out one of the sub-systems to obtain the reduced density matrix.
[^1]: Strictly speaking, this very symbol $\otimes$ for using between two vectors represents the *outer product* in linear algebra which gives rise to a matrix.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[On the Monodromy at Infinity ]{}\
[of a Polynomial Map, II]{}\
$\ $\
[R. García López[^1] and A. Némethi[^2]]{}
Universidad de Barcelona, Dept. de Algebra y Geometría. Gran Via, 585, 08007 Barcelona, Spain.
The Ohio State University, 231 West 18th Avenue, Columbus OH 43210, USA.
[**§1. Introduction**]{}
In the last years a lot of work has been concentrated on the study of the behaviour at infinity of polynomial maps (see for example [@Lib], [@Par], [@Nem], [@NZ], [@GN], among others). This behaviour can be very complicated, therefore the main idea was to find special classes of polynomial maps which have, in some sense, nice properties at infinity. In this paper, we completely determine the complex algebraic monodromy at infinity for a special class of polynomial maps (which is complicated enough to show the nature of the general problem).
Next, we give the precise definitions: Let $f:{{\bf C}^{n+1}}\to {{\bf C}}$ be a map given by a polynomial with complex coefficients (which will be also denoted by $f$). Then there exists a finite set $\Gamma \subset {{\bf C}}$ such that the map $$f\Bigm|_{ {{\bf C}^{n+1}}- f^{-1}(\Gamma )}:{{\bf C}^{n+1}}- f^{-1}(\Gamma ) \to
{{\bf C}}- \Gamma$$ is a locally trivial ${\cal C}^\infty$-fibration ([@Pham]). We denote by $\Gamma _f$ the smallest subset of the complex plane with this property. $\Gamma _f$ contains the set $\Sigma _f$ of critical values of $f$, but in general it is bigger. Fix $t_0\in{{\bf C}}$ such that $\left| t_0 \right|>
\mbox{max}\{\left|t\right| : t\in\Gamma _f \}$. The complex algebraic monodromy associated with the path $s\mapsto t_0 e^{2\pi i s}$, $s\in[0,1]$, is denoted by $$({T^{\infty}_{f}})^{\ast}: H^{\ast}(f^{-1}(t_0),{{\bf C}})\to H^{\ast}(f^{-1}(t_0),{{\bf C}}).$$ This isomorphism is called the monodromy at infinity of $f$. As we will see later, $({T^{\infty}_{f}})^{\ast}$ is a very delicate invariant of $f$.
On studying topological properties of polynomial maps, one usually imposes some condition which insures the absence of vanishing cycles “at infinity” for a suitable compactification of the map $f$ (tameness, Malgrange condition,... cf. [@Par]). From this point of view, a class of polynomial maps which looks natural to study is the following:
[*Definition:*]{} A polynomial $f\in{{\bf C}[X_1,\ldots,X_{n+1}]}$ will be called a $(\ast )$-polynomial if it verifies the following condition: $$(\ast)
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\mbox{{\it For $t\in {{\bf C}}- \Sigma_f$, the closure in ${{\bf P}^{n+1}}$ of the
affine}}\\
\mbox{{\it hypersurface $\{ f=t \}$ is non-singular.}}
\end{array} \right.$$ The goal of this article is the computation of $({T^{\infty}_{f}})^{\ast}$ for $(\ast)$-polynomials.\
We will assume that $n\geq 2$. The case $n=1$ is completely clarified in [@GN].
If $d=$deg$(f)$ and $f=f_d+f_{d-1}+...$ is the decomposition of $f$ into homogeneous components, condition $(\ast)$ is equivalent to $$\{ x\in {{\bf C}^{n+1}}\mid \mbox{grad} f_d(x)=0, \ f_{d-1}(x)=0 \}=\{ 0 \},$$ where grad denotes the gradient vector. In the first part [@GN] of this sequence of papers, the following results are given (besides others):
1. A $(\ast)$-polynomial $f$ satisfies $\Gamma _f = \Sigma _f$ and any fiber of $f$ has the homotopy type of a bouquet of $n$-dimensional spheres (cf. [@Di.Top]). In particular, the only interesting monodromy transformation is $({T^{\infty}_{f}})^n$, which in the sequel will be denoted simply by ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$.
2. The hypersurface ${X^{\infty}}\subset {{\bf P}^n}$ given by $f_d=0$ has only isolated singularities, and the monodromy at infinity (actually, the whole topology at infinity) depends only on the hypersurface ${X^{\infty}}$.
3. The characteristic polynomial of ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$ is computable in terms of the characteristic polynomials of the local monodromies of the isolated singularities of ${X^{\infty}}$ (cf. Corollary 2).
4. On the other hand, the nilpotent part of ${X^{\infty}}$ cannot be determined only from local data attached to the isolated singularities of ${X^{\infty}}$, it depends essentially on the [*position*]{} of these singular points.
Part of the [*global information*]{} about the position of the singular points of ${X^{\infty}}$ is already encoded in its Betti numbers. More subtle invariants are hidden in the complement ${{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}}$ of ${X^{\infty}}$, or in the cyclic coverings of ${{\bf P}^n}$ branched along ${X^{\infty}}$. For algebraic surfaces, O. Zariski related this kind of invariants with the defect (or superabundance) of some linear systems, respectively with some Betti numbers of cyclic coverings. In the sequel we give the numerical invariants of ${X^{\infty}}$ which will provide our description of ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$.
For $X$ a quasi-projective variety, denote by $b_q(X)$ (respectively, $p_q(X)$) the dimension of $H^q(X,{{\bf C}})$ (respectively, the dimension of the $q$-th primitive cohomology of $X$). The numbers $p_n({X^{\infty}})=b_{n-1}({{\bf P}^n}-{X^{\infty}})$ and $p_{n-1}({X^{\infty}})=b_{n}({{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}})$ are in general global invariants of ${X^{\infty}}$ (Here, if $n=2$, we define $p_2({X^{\infty}})=b_2({X^{\infty}})-1)$). We define a map $h:\pi _1 ({{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}})\to
{{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}}$ as follows: If $n>2$ then $h$ is just the Hurewicz map (in fact, isomorphism): $$\pi _1 ({{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}}) \to H_1({{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}}, {{\bf Z}})={{\bf Z}}/ d{{\bf Z}}.$$ If $n=2$, let $r$ denote the number of irreducible components of ${X^{\infty}}$, of degrees $d_1, \dots, d_r$. Then $h$ is defined as the composition $$\pi _1 ({{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}}) \to H_1({{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}}, {{\bf Z}})=\frac{{{\bf Z}}^r}{(d_1,\dots ,d_r)} \stackrel{\alpha}{\to} {{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}},$$ where $\alpha $ is defined by $\alpha [(a_1,\dots ,a_r)]={\overline{\sum a_i}}$. The composition of $h$ with the characters $\rho _s:{{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}}\to {{\bf C}}^{\ast}$ defined by $\rho_s (1)=e^{2 \pi i s /d}$ (for $1\le s \le d-1$) provide one dimensional flat bundles ${\bf V}_s$ over ${{\bf P}^{n+1}}- {X^{\infty}}$ with monodromy representation $\rho _s \circ h$.
Let $j:{{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}}\hookrightarrow {{\bf P}^n}$ denote the inclusion map. It is not difficult to see that the direct image sheaf ${j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s$ ($=R^0{j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s$) coincides with the extension by zero $j_{!}{\bf V}_s$, $s=0,\dots
d-1$. We define the “equivariant defect” by: $$\beta_s=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
p_n({X^{\infty}})=b_{n-1}({{\bf P}^n}- {X^{\infty}}) \ \ \mbox{if}\ s=0; \\ \ \\
b_{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{if}\ s=1,\dots,d-1.
\end{array} \right.$$ Here, $b_{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)$ is the dimension of the sheaf cohomology $H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)$. This vector space is the $e^{2 \pi i s/d}$- eigenspace of $H^{n+1}(X'_0)$, where $X'_0$ is the $d$-th cyclic covering of ${{\bf P}^{n+1}}$ branched along ${X^{\infty}}$ and the action is induced by the natural Galois action (cf. (2.12), see also §2, VIII).
Set $\mbox{Sing}({X^{\infty}}) = \{p_1,...,p_k
\}$, and let $F_i, \mu _i, T_i$ be respectively the local Milnor fiber, the Milnor number and the local algebraic monodromy $H^{n}(F_i,{{\bf C}})\to H^{n}(F_i,{{\bf C}})$ of the isolated hypersurface singularity $({X^{\infty}}, p_i)$. We will call an invariant [*local*]{} if it can be expressed in terms of the local operators $\{T_i\}_{i=1}^{k}$ and the numbers $n$ and $d$. We define the following local numerical invariants: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi _0 &=& - \Sigma _{i=1}^{k}\mu_{i} + \frac{(-1)^n+(d-1)^{n+1}}{d}+
(-1)^{n+1} \\
\chi _s &=& \chi _0 + (-1)^{n} \ \ \mbox{for} \ \ s=1,\dots , d-1.\end{aligned}$$
Now we are ready to formulate our main result. If $T$ is an operator, let $T_{\alpha}$ denote its restriction to its generalized $\alpha$-eigenspace and let $\# _l T_{\alpha}$ be the number of Jordan blocks of $T_{\alpha}$ of size $l$. Set $\# T_{\alpha}=\Sigma_{l\ge 1}\#
_l T_{\alpha}$. With this notations one has:
[**Main Theorem:**]{}
*I. If $\alpha=e^{2 \pi i s /d}$, $s=0,\dots,d-1$, then:*
1. $\# _1 ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}=\chi _s+ 2\beta_s - \Sigma_{i=1}^{k}\#
(T_i)_{\alpha}$.
2. $\# _2 ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}= -\beta_s + \Sigma_{i=1}^{k}\# _1
(T_i)_{\alpha}$.
3. $\# _{l+1} ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}= \Sigma_{i=1}^{k}\# _l
(T_i)_{\alpha}$ for $l\ge 2$.
II\. [*If $\alpha^d \neq 1$, then $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}=\oplus_{i=1}^{k}\alpha^d \cdot (T_i)_{\alpha^{1-d}}$, i.e. $\# _l ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha }= \Sigma_{i=1}^{k}\#_l(T_i)_{\alpha^{1-d}}$ for all $l\ge 1.$* ]{}
[**Corollary 1:**]{}
**
1. $\# _l ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}=0$ for $l\ge n+2$.
2. $\# _{n+1} ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_1=0$ if $\alpha^d\not=1$ or $\alpha=1$.
[**Corollary 2: **]{}[@GN (3.3)][*The characteristic polynomial of ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$ is given by the following local formula: $$det(\lambda\cdot Id - {T^{\infty}_{f}})=(\lambda - 1)^{(-1)^{n+1}} \cdot (\lambda ^d
-1)^{\frac{(d-1)^{n+1}+(-1)^n}{d}} \cdot \prod ^k_{i=1}
\frac{\mbox{det}(\lambda^{d-1}\cdot Id - T_i)}{(\lambda ^d
-1)^{\mu_{i}}}.$$*]{}
Another byproduct of the main theorem is the following:
[**Corollary 3: **]{}[*If $\alpha=e^{2 \pi i s /d}$, $s=0,\dots,d-1$, then: $$\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{k}\#(T_i)_{\alpha}-\chi _s}{2} \le \beta _s \le
\sum _{i=1}^{k} \# _1 (T_i)_{\alpha}.$$*]{}
If $\sum _{i=1}^{k}\#(T_i)_{\alpha}\le \chi _s$, then the lower bound given by Corollary 3 is useless, but in some cases it gives even the right value of $\beta_0$. For example, if $n=2$ and $l_1,\dots,l_d\in {{\bf C}}[X,Y,Z]$ are linear forms defining an arrangement of lines in ${\bf P}^2$ such that no two of them meet at a point, then $\beta_0=d-1$, and this is exactly the bound given by corollary 3 above. From the discussion in [@Di.book p.161] follows that if $({X^{\infty}},
p_i)$ are all non-degenerate singularities (i.e., $\Sigma
_{i=1}^k\#(T_i)_1=0$), then the defect $\beta_0=0$. Also, in Zariski’s book [@Zar] we can find similar criteria for $n=2$. Notice that our bound gives a sharper criterion: If $\sum
_{i=1}^k\# _1(T_i)_1=0$ then $\beta_0=0$ (cf. also Remark 2.30 below).
For another corollary of the main theorem, see (2.16).
[**§2. Proof of the main theorem**]{}
[**I. The main construction and two exact sequences**]{}
Let $f:{{\bf C}^{n+1}}\to {{\bf C}}$ be a polynomial map which satisfies the condition $(\ast)$. By [@GN (2.6)], we can assume that $f$ is of the form $f_d+x_{n+1}^{d-1}$, where $f_d$ is homogeneous of degree $d$ (and no singularity of ${X^{\infty}}$ is on the hyperplane $x_{n+1}=0$). Set (cf. [@GN §5]): $${\cal X}=\{([x],t)\in {{\bf P}^{n+1}}\times D :
t\Bigl(f_d(x_1,\dots,x_{n+1})+x_0x_{n+1}^{d-1}\Bigr)=x_0^d\},$$ where $D$ denotes a disk of sufficiently small radius in the complex plane with center at the origin. Then the map $\pi:{\cal X}\to D$ given by $\pi([x],t)=t$ induces a locally trivial ${\cal
C}^{\infty}$-fibration over $D-\{ 0\}$ with projective fibers, these are exactly the projective closures of the fibers of $f$. Moreover, if we denote by $T$ the algebraic monodromy $H^{n}({\overline{f^{-1}(t_0)}} ) \to
H^{n}({\overline{f^{-1}(t_0)}} )$ of the projective closure ${\overline{f^{-1}(t_0)}}$ associated with the path $s\mapsto t_0 e^{2 \pi i s}$ ($s\in[0,1]$, $\left|
t_0 \right|$ sufficiently large), then the monodromy of $\pi$ over $\partial
D$ (with its natural orientation) is exactly $T^{-1}$. Theorem (4.6) in [@GN] says basically that the knowledge of $T$ is equivalent to that of ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$.
(2.1) [**Theorem**]{} [@GN (4.6)]
**
1. For any $\alpha\neq 1$, $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha }=T_{\alpha }$.
2. For $\alpha=1 $ one has
1. $\# _1({T^{\infty}_{f}})_1 = b_n({X^{\infty}})+p_{n-1}({X^{\infty}}) - \# T _1$.
2. $\# _2 ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_1 =\# _1 T_1 - b_{n}({X^{\infty}})$.
3. $\# _{l+1}({T^{\infty}_{f}})_1 =\#_l T_1 \ \ \mbox{for} \ l\ge 2$.
The big disadvantage of the map $\pi $ is that its central fiber $\pi
^{-1}(0)$ is non-reduced. For this reason we consider the following construction: Let $D'$ be again a disc of small radius and consider $\delta :D'\to D$ given by $\delta(t)=t^d$. Then the normalization ${\cal X}'$ of ${\cal X
}\times _{\delta}D'$ can be identified with $${\cal X}'=\{([x],t)\in {{\bf P}^{n+1}}\times D' \mid f_d(x_1,\dots ,
x_{n+1})+tx_0x_{n+1}^{d-1}=x_0^{d}\}$$ Now $\pi ':{\cal X}'\to D'$ ($\pi([x],t)=t$) induces a locally trivial ${\cal C}^{\infty}$-fibration over $D'-\{ 0\}$ with algebraic monodromy $T^{-d}:H^{n}((\pi ')^{-1}(t_0))\to H^{n}((\pi ')^{-1}(t_0))$.
Notice that now both ${\cal X}'$ and the central fiber $X'_0=\pi
^{-1}(0)$ have only isolated singularities: $\mbox{Sing}({\cal
X}')=\mbox{Sing}({X^{\infty}})\times \{ 0\}$. In fact, the central fiber is the $d$-fold cyclic covering of ${{\bf P}^n}$ branched along ${X^{\infty}}$, in particular if we set $\mbox{Sing}(X'_0)=\{ p'_1,\dots ,p'_k\}$, then the isolated singularities $(X'_0, p'_i)$ are the $d$-th suspensions of the singularities $({X^{\infty}}, p_i)_{i=1}^k$ and the map $\pi '$ provides their smoothings. Let $F'_i$ (respectively, $T'_i$) be the Milnor fiber of $(X'_0, p'_i)$ (respectively, the monodromy $H^n(F'_i)\to
H^n(F'_i)$ corresponding to the smoothing given by $\pi '$), $1\le i\le k$. Then the exact sequence of vanishing cycles is: $$(2.2) \hspace{1cm}0 \to H^n(X'_0)\to H^n(X'_t) \to \oplus_{i=1}^k
H^n(F'_i) \to P^{n+1}(X'_0) \to 0$$ where $X'_t=(\pi ')^{-1}(t)$ (for some fixed $t\neq 0$) and $P^{n+1}(X'_0)$ is the primitive cohomology $\mbox{Ker}[H^{n+1}(X'_0)
\to H^{n+1}(X'_t)]$ (for details see [@GN (10), (5.3)]).
Our second exact sequence is given by the generalized invariant cycle theorem proved in the Appendix of [@GN]: $$(2.3) \hspace{1cm}0\to H^n(X'_0) \to \mbox{Ker}((T^{-d})_1 - Id) \to
\oplus_{i=1}^k H^{n+1}_{\{ p'_i \}} ({\cal X}') \to 0. \label{2.3}$$ Both sequences are exact sequences of mixed Hodge structures and there is a natural monodromy action on them, which at the level of $H^{n}(X'_t)$ is $T^{-d}$. The main point of the paper is the construction of an action on these exact sequences which at the level of $H^n(X'_t)$ is $T^{-1}$. More precisely: we would like to understand the monodromy of $\pi $, but this map has a non-reduced central fiber, which makes the study difficult. Then we go to the normalization of the $d$-fold covering $\pi $, which is $\pi '$, and we lift the monodromy of $\pi $ to the level of $\pi '$.
First, notice that $\pi ':{\cal X}'\to D'$ has a natural Galois action of the cyclic group ${{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}}$ over $\pi:{\cal X} \to D$, that is, we have a commutative diagram:
(130,110)(-100,30) (0,70)[$D'$]{} (0,130)[${\cal X}'$]{} (60,40)[$D$]{} (120,70)[$D'$]{} (120,130)[${\cal X}'$]{} (60,100)[${\cal X}$]{} (16,135)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} (16,75)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} (5,123)[(0,-1)[40]{}]{} (65,93)[(0,-1)[40]{}]{} (125,123)[(0,-1)[40]{}]{} (15,126)[(2,-1)[37]{}]{} (115,66)[(-2,-1)[37]{}]{} (115,126)[(-2,-1)[37]{}]{} (15,66)[(2,-1)[37]{}]{} (60,140)[$G$]{} (10,100)[$\pi '$]{} (130,100)[$\pi '$]{} (70,80)[$\pi$]{} (-90,90)[$(2.4)$]{}
where if we set $\xi = e^{2 \pi i /d}$, the horizontal map $D'\to D'$ is given by $t\mapsto t\xi^{-1}$ and $G$ is given by $G([x_0:\dots:x_{n+1}],t)=([\xi x_0:\dots : x_{n+1}], t \xi ^{-1})$.
Now we lift the geometric monodromy of $\pi $ (over $D-\{ 0\}$) to the level of $\pi ':{\cal X}'\to D'$. Fix a point $t_0\in D'-\{ 0\}$, consider the circle $S^1_{t_0}=\{z\in D': \left| z \right| =t_0 \}$, and take ${\cal E}'=
(\pi ')^{-1}(S^1_{t_0})$. The fibration ${\cal E}'\to S^1_{t_0}$ is still denoted by $\pi '$, its monodromy transformation is $T^{-d}$. Take a local trivialization over the positive arc $[t_0,t_0\xi ]$ i.e., a diffeomorphism $h$ such that
(185,90)(-40,10) (25,90)[$[0,\frac{1}{d}] \times X'_{t_0}$]{} (125,100)[$h$]{} (125,85)[$\simeq$]{} (10,50)[$(s,x)\mapsto t_0 e^{2 \pi i s}$]{} (165,50)[$\pi'$]{} (120,20)[$S^1_{t_0}$]{} (185,90)[$(\pi')^{-1}(\mbox{arc}[t_0,t_0\xi])$]{} (85,95)[(1,0)[90]{}]{} (67,80)[(1,-1)[45]{}]{} (185,80)[(-1,-1)[45]{}]{} (-50,50)[(2.5)]{}
Then the geometric monodromy of $\pi$ can be identified at the level of $\pi'$ with the composition $$(2.6) \hspace{3cm}X'_{t_0}\stackrel{h(\frac{1}{d},\cdot
)}{\to}X'_{t_0\xi}\stackrel{G}{\to}X'_{t_0}.\hspace{4cm}$$ This lifting construction can be extended over $D'$ as follows: Since $X'_0=(\pi ')^{-1}(0)$ has only isolated singularities, it is possible to construct a flow
(165,80)(-80,0) (0,0)[$[0,1]\times D'$]{} (0,70)[$[0,1]\times {\cal X}'$]{} (140,0)[$D'$]{} (140,70)[${\cal X}'$]{} (55,5)[$\vector(1,0){80}$]{} (55,75)[$\vector(1,0){80}$]{} (30,60)[$\vector(0,-1){45}$]{} (145,60)[$\vector(0,-1){45}$]{} (35,35)[$id \times \pi '$]{} (150,35)[$\pi '$]{} (90,10)[$\varphi$]{} (90,80)[$\phi$]{}
such that the above diagram is commutative, $\varphi(s,t)=te^{2 \pi i
s}$, and $\phi(s,x)=x$ for any $x\in X'_0$ (see, for example, [@Clemens]). Now consider the composition $G\circ \phi(\frac{1}{d},\cdot )$ over $D'$
(200,80)(-70,0) (0,80)[${\cal X}'$]{} (100,80)[${\cal X}'$]{} (200,80)[${\cal X}'$]{} (20,85)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (120,85)[(1,0)[75]{}]{} (45,95)[$\phi(\frac{1}{d}, \cdot)$]{} (150,90)[$G$]{} (32,45)[$\pi '$]{} (165,45)[$\pi'$]{} (100,10)[$D'$]{} (15,75)[(3,-2)[80]{}]{} (195,75)[(-3,-2)[80]{}]{} (-70,45)[(2.7)]{}
This will be called the “lifted geometric monodromy". In the next subsections we will determine the isomorphisms induced by it on the vector spaces which appear in the exact sequences (2.2) and (2.3). Obviously, on $H^n(X'_t)$ the induced “lifted geometric monodromy" is exactly $T^{-1}$.
The action on the spaces $H^q(X'_0)$ can be determined as follows. Since $\phi(s,x)=x$ for any $x\in X'_0$, the isomorphism $\phi(\frac{1}{d},\cdot )$ restricted to $X'_0$ is the identity. Therefore, the action on $H^q(X'_0)$ is induced by the Galois action $G:X'_0 \to X'_0$, $G([x_0:\dots:x_{n+1}])=[\xi x_0, \dots , x_{n+1}]$. This action will be denoted by $G^q$.
[**II. The action on $\oplus _{i=1}^k H^n(F'_{i})$.**]{}
If $\varphi:H\to H$ is a linear map, we will denote by $c_l(\varphi
):H^{\oplus l}\to H^{\oplus l}$ the linear map defined by $c_l(\varphi
)(x_1,\dots,x_l)=(\varphi(x_l),x_1,\dots,x_{l-1})$. Then we have:
(2.8) [**Theorem:**]{}
**
1. If $S(F_i)$ denotes the suspension of $F_i$ then we have a homotopy equivalence $F'_i \sim \bigvee_{d-1} S(F_i)$, therefore an isomorphism $H^n(F'_i)\simeq H^{n-1}(F_i)^{\oplus(d-1)}$
2. Under the isomorphism above, the “lifted monodromy action" on $H^{n}(F'_i)$ is $c_{d-1}(T_i)$.
[*Proof:*]{} Part a) was proved already in [@GN (5.3)], but it follows also from our discussion here. For b) we use a similar construction as in \[loc. cit.\]. The map-germ $({\cal X}', p'_i) \stackrel{\pi '}{\to}
(D',0)$ can be identified with $${\cal Y}_i := \{ (y_0,y,t) : g_i(y)+ ty_0 =y_0^d \}
\stackrel{\pi'_i}{\to} (D',0)$$ where $y_0$ and $y=(y_1,\dots,y_n)$ are local affine coordinates ($y_i=\frac{x_i}{x_{n+1}}$, $i=0,\dots,n$), $g_i$ is the local equation of $({X^{\infty}}, p_i)\subset({{\bf P}^n}, p_i)$ and $\pi '_i$ is given by $\pi
'_i(y_0,y,t)=t$. The Galois action on ${\cal Y}_i$ is $G(y_0,y,t)=(y_0\xi ,y, t\xi^{-1})$. As in the global situation (2.5), consider the (local) locally trivial fibrations induced by $\pi '$, ${\cal E}'_i=(\pi ')^{-1}(S^1_{t_0})\cap {\cal Y}_i \stackrel{\pi
'_i}{\to} S^1_{t_0}$, with fiber $F'_i$. Consider the local trivializations over the positive arc $[t_0,t_0\xi]$
(185,100)(-40,0) (25,90)[$[0,\frac{1}{d}] \times F'_i$]{} (125,100)[$h_i$]{} (125,85)[$\simeq$]{} (10,50)[$(s,x)\mapsto t_0 e^{2 \pi i s}$]{} (165,50)[$\pi'_i$]{} (120,20)[$S^1_{t_0}$]{} (185,90)[$(\pi'_i)^{-1}(\mbox{arc}[t_0,t_0\xi])$]{} (85,95)[(1,0)[90]{}]{} (67,80)[(1,-1)[45]{}]{} (185,80)[(-1,-1)[45]{}]{}
Then the “lifted geometric action" on $F'_i:= (\pi
'_i)^{-1}(t_0)$ is the composition $$(2.9) \hspace{2cm}(\pi '_i)^{-1}(t_0) \stackrel{h_i(\frac{1}{d},
\cdot)}{\to}
(\pi '_i)^{-1}(t_0\xi) \stackrel{G}{\to} (\pi '_i)^{-1}(t_0) \hspace{2cm}$$ which will be denoted $h'_i$. We will prove that this geometric action induces $c_{d-1}(T_i)$ at the cohomology level.\
[*Remark:*]{} It is not difficult to see that $(h_i')^d$ is the monodromy of $\pi_i'$. In [@GN] this is identified with $c_{d-1}(T_i^d)\approx
[c_{d-1}(T_i)]^d$.
As in [@GN (5.3)], consider the isolated complete intersection singularity given by ${\cal Y}'_i\stackrel{\varphi}{\to}D'\times D'$, $\varphi(y_0,y,t)=(t,y_0)$. The discriminant of $\varphi $ is $\Delta
=\{ty_0=y_0^d \}$ and $\varphi $ is a locally trivial fibration over $D'\times D' - \Delta$ with fiber $F_i$.
For $t_0e^{2 \pi i \beta}\in S^1_{t_0}$, the intersection points of the line $\{t=t_0e^{2 \pi i \beta}\}$ with the discriminant $\{ty_0=y_0^d\}$ of $\varphi$ are $$\begin{aligned}
q_0(\beta)=(t_0e^{2 \pi i \beta},0) \ \mbox{ and }\ q_j(\beta ) & = &
(t_0e^{2 \pi i \beta}, e^{2\pi i \frac{j+\beta}{d-1}}\cdot
\sqrt[d-1]{t_0})\end{aligned}$$ for $ j=1,\dots , d-1$. We will use the following notations: $$\begin{aligned}
I_j(\beta) & = & \mbox{segment }[q_0(\beta), q_j(\beta)] \ \ (\mbox{in}\
\{t_0e^{2 \pi i \beta} \}\times D'), \\
I(\beta) &= & \bigcup_{j=1}^{d-1}I_j(\beta ), \\
B& =& \bigcup _{\beta \in[0,1]}I(\beta )\subset D'\times D',\\
r_j(\beta ) & = & \mbox{middlepoint of } I_j(\beta )=
(t_0e^{2 \pi i \beta }, {1\over 2} \sqrt[d-1]{t_0}\,
e^{2 \pi i \frac{j+\beta }{d-1}}).\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that, for all $1\le j \le d-1$, $\varphi ^{-1}(q_j(\beta
))$ is contractible and $\varphi ^{-1}(r_j(\beta ))$ is exactly $F_i$. Therefore $\varphi^{-1}(I_j(\beta))$ can be identified with the suspension $S(F_i)$ and $\varphi^{-1}(I(\beta)) \sim
\bigvee_{d-1}S(F_i)$.
The inclusion $B\subset S^1_{t_0} \times D'$ admits a strong deformation retract which can be lifted. Consider the torus ${\bf T}=S^1_{t_0}\times
S^1 _{\frac{1}{2} \sqrt[d-1]{t_0}}$ which contains the points $r_j(\beta )$. By the identification of $F'_i=(\pi
'_i)^{-1}(t_0)=\varphi^{-1}(\{ t_0 \}\times D')$ with $\varphi
^{-1}(I(0))\sim \bigvee _{d-1}S(F_i)$, the homology of $F'_i$ is generated by a wedge of suspensions of cycles which lie above the points $r_j(0)$, $1\le j \le d-1$. When we move $t$ on the positive arc $[t_0,t_0\xi]$, then these points move on the path $[0,\frac{1}{d}]\to
{\bf T}$ given by $\beta \mapsto r_j (\beta )$. We denote these paths by $\gamma_j$, with endpoints $r_j(0)$ and $r_j(\frac{1}{d})$, i.e. $$\gamma_j (s) = ( t_0 e^{2 \pi i s}, {1\over 2} \sqrt[d-1]{t_0}\ e^{2
\pi i \frac{j+s}{d-1}}) \ , \ s\in[0,\frac{1}{d}].$$ The local trivialization over $\cup_j\gamma_j$ corresponds to $h_i(\frac{1}{d}, \cdot )$ in (2.9) (we will explain this identification more precisely later). Next, we identify the Galois action with some local trivialization over some paths.
Consider the paths $\tau_j : [0, \frac{1}{d}] \to {\bf T}$ defined by $$\tau_j (s)=(t_0e^{2\pi i (\frac{1}{d}-s)}, {1\over 2} \sqrt[d-1]{t_0}\
e^{2 \pi i (\frac{j-1}{d-1}+\frac{1}{d(d-1)}+s)}),$$ which connects $r_{j-1}(\frac{1}{d})$ and $r_{j}(0)$.
(270,270)(-40,0) (20,20)[(0,1)[250]{}]{} (20,20)[(1,0)[230]{}]{}
(20,20)[(4,1)[40]{}]{} (60,30)[(-1,1)[40]{}]{} (20,70)[(4,1)[40]{}]{} (60,80)[(-1,1)[40]{}]{} (20,120)[(4,1)[40]{}]{} (20,190)[(4,1)[40]{}]{} (60,200)[(-1,1)[40]{}]{} (20,20)[(4,1)[200]{}]{} (20,70)[(4,1)[200]{}]{} (20,190)[(4,1)[200]{}]{}
(20,20)[(200,50)]{} (20,20)[(200,100)]{} (20,20)[(200,170)]{} (20,20)[(200,220)]{} (20,20)[(40,220)]{}
(57,5)[$\frac{1}{d}$]{} (218,5) (-5,67)[$\frac{1}{d-1}$]{} (-5,117)[$\frac{2}{d-1}$]{} (-5,187)[$\frac{d-2}{d-1}$]{} (0,237)
(250,28) (25,275) (270,120)
(32,30) (32,78) (32,128) (32,200)
(42,52) (42,102) (42,222)
(260,125)(150,90)(140,50) (260,125)(180,150)(140,100) (260,125)(150,160)(140,220)
Notice that the Galois action $(y_0,y,t) \mapsto (y_0
\xi, y, t \xi^{-1})$ induces $$G:\varphi^{-1}(r_{j-1}(\frac{1}{d})) \stackrel{\sim}{\to}
\varphi^{-1}(r_{j-1}(0)).$$ Consider the isomorphism (up to isotopy) given by the local trivialization of $\varphi $ above the oriented path $\tau _{j}$: $$Tr_j:
\varphi^{-1}(r_{j-1}(\frac{1}{d})) \stackrel{\sim}{\to}
\varphi^{-1}(r_{j-1}(0)).$$
[*Fact:*]{} The composition $$(2.10) \hspace{1cm}\varphi^{-1}(r_{j-1}(0)) \stackrel{G^{-1}}{\to}
\varphi^{-1}(r_{j-1}(\frac{1}{d})) \stackrel{Tr_j}{\to}
\varphi^{-1}(r_{j-1}(0))$$ is isotopic to the identity.
[*Proof of the fact:*]{} Consider the map $\delta : D'\times
D'\to D'$ given by $\delta(t,y_0)=y_0^d-ty_0$ (one has $\delta ^{-1}(0)=$the discriminant of $\varphi$). First notice that $\delta(r_{j-1}(\frac{1}{d}))=\delta(r_j(0))$. Therefore, the composition (2.10) can be identified with $$g_i^{-1}(\delta(r_j(0)))\stackrel{Id}{\to}
g_i^{-1}(\delta(r_{j-1}(\frac{1}{d})))\stackrel{{\widetilde{Tr_j}}}{\to}
g_i^{-1}(\delta(r_j(0)))$$ where the first map is the identity $y\mapsto y$ (the second component of $G$) and ${\widetilde{Tr_j}}$ is the trivialization of $g_i$ above the loop $s\mapsto \delta(\tau_k(s))$, ($s\in[0,\frac{1}{d}]$). Now, it is easy to verify that $\delta(\tau_k(s))$ can be written in the form $B \cdot
e^{2 \pi i (a+ds)} + A$, where $\left| A \right| > \left| B \right|$. Therefore the loop $s\mapsto \delta(\tau_k(s))$ is isotopic to zero in $D'- \{0\}$. So, ${\widetilde{Tr}}_j$ (and hence $Tr_j \circ G^{-1}$ too) is isotopic to the identity. $\Box$
The above fact shows that the Galois action $G$ can be replaced by the local trivialization above the paths $\{\tau_j\} _j$.
Since $h(\frac{1}{d}, \cdot )$ in (2.9) corresponds to the local trivialization above $\{ \gamma _j\}_j$ and the Galois action to the local trivialization above $\{\tau_j\} _j$, then the composed map in (2.9) corresponds to the trivialization above $\{\tau_{j+1}\circ \gamma
_j\}_j$. Now we identify the fibers of $\varphi $ above the points $$r_{d-1}(0),r_{d-1}(\frac{1}{d}),r_1(0),r_1(\frac{1}{d}), \dots ,
r_{d-1}(0),r_{d-2}(\frac{1}{d})$$ via the paths: $$(2.11) \hspace{2cm}\gamma _{d-1}, \tau _1 , \gamma _1 , \tau _2 , \gamma
_2 , \tau _3, \dots , \gamma _{d-2} . \hspace{2cm}$$ The fiber $F'_i$ is $$S\varphi^{-1}(r_{d-1}(0)) \vee S\varphi^{-1}(r_{1}(0)) \vee \dots \vee
S\varphi^{-1}(r_{d-2}(0))$$ and the “lifted monodromy action" is induced by $$S(\tau_1\circ\gamma_{d-1})_{\ast}\vee
S(\tau_2\circ\gamma_1)_{\ast}\vee
\dots \vee S(\tau_{d-1}\circ\gamma_{d-2})_{\ast}$$ But this (because of the identification of fibers via the paths in (2.11)) is exactly the isomorphism $c_{d-1}(Q)$, where $Q$ is the monodromy of $\varphi$ above the loop $$l=\gamma _{d-1}\circ\tau_1 \circ \gamma_{1}\circ\tau_2 \circ \dots \circ
\gamma_{d-2}\circ \tau_{d-1}.$$ The loop $l$ in the complement of the discriminant of $\varphi $ is homotopic to $s\mapsto (t_0,e^{2 \pi i s}\frac{\sqrt[d-1]{t_0}}{2})$, $s\in[0,1]$. The linking number of this (second) loop with $\{y_0=0\}$ is one, and with $\{y_0^{d-1}=t_0\}$ is zero. Therefore $Q=T_i$, in particular the map $h'_{i}$ induced by $G\circ h_i(\frac{1}{d},
\cdot)$ is $c_{d-1}(T_i)$. $\Box$
[**III. The action on $H^{n+1}_{\{p'_i\}}({\cal X}')$**]{}.
In this subsection we prove that the “lifted action" on $H^{n+1}_{\{p'_i\}}({\cal X}')$ is trivial. Let ${\cal K}'_i$ be the link of $({\cal X}',p'_i)=\{g_i(y)+ty_0-y_0^{d}=0\}$ (we use the same notations as in II). The map $$\pi':\{ g_i(y)+ ty_0 - y_0^{d}=0 \} \to D', \ \ \
(y_0,y,t)\mapsto t$$ gives an open book decomposition of ${\cal K}'_i$. Let $K_i=\{ t=0 \} \subseteq {\cal K}'_i$ be the link of $t$, then $arg=arg(t): {\cal K}'_i - K_i \to S^1$ is a ${\cal C}^{\infty}$-locally trivial fibration. Consider the flow $\phi :[0,1]\times {\cal K}'_i \to
{\cal K}'_i$ such that
1. If $x\in\{ t=0 \}=K_i$, then $\phi(s,x)=x$ for any $s$.
2. If $x\not\in K_i$, then $arg(\phi(s,x))=e^{2 \pi i s} arg(s)$.
The wanted geometric action is the composed map $${\cal K}'_i \stackrel{\phi(\frac{1}{d}, \cdot )}{\to} {\cal K}'_i
\stackrel{G}{\to} {\cal K}'_i$$ Now $\phi (\frac{1}{d}, \cdot )$ is isotopic to the identity via the flow $\phi(s,\cdot)$, $s\in[0,\frac{1}{d}]$. The Galois action is isotopic to the identity as well. To see this consider the isotopy: $$\begin{aligned}
(s,(y_0,y,t))&\mapsto &(y_0(s),y(s),t(s))= \\
& = & (y_0e^{2 \pi i s /d},y,(t-y_0^{d-1})e^{-2 \pi i s
/d}+y_0^{d-1}e^{2 \pi i s (d-1)/d}).\end{aligned}$$ If $s=0$, then $(y_0(0),y(0),t(0))=(y_0,y,t)$, if $s=1$ then $(y_0(0),y(0),t(0))=(y_0\xi,y,t\xi^{-1})=G(y_0,y,t)$.
[**IV. The exact sequences revisited.**]{}
We summarize the results of the subsections I-III: One has the following two exact sequences, with the “lifted monodromy action":
(370,65)(0,0) (0,60)[$0$]{} (40,60)[$H^n(X'_0)$]{} (115,60)[$H^n(X'_t)$]{} (190,60)[$\oplus_{i=1}^kH^n(F'_i)$]{} (285,60)[$P^{n+1}(X'_0)$]{} (370,60)[$0$]{} (10,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (85,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (160,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (255,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (340,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(0,10)[$0$]{} (40,10)[$H^n(X'_0)$]{} (115,10)[$H^n(X'_t)$]{} (190,10)[$\oplus_{i=1}^kH^n(F'_i)$]{} (285,10)[$P^{n+1}(X'_0)$]{} (370,10)[$0$]{} (10,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (85,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (160,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (255,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (340,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(60,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (135,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (220,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (310,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{}
(225,35) (65,35)[$G^n$]{} (140,35)[$T^{-1}$]{} (315,35)[$G^{n+1}$]{} (-20,35)[(E.1)]{}
and (E.2):
(370,65)(0,0)
(0,60)[$0$]{} (40,60)[$H^n(X'_0)$]{} (115,60)[$\mbox{Ker}\ (T^{-d}-Id)$]{} (230,60)[$\oplus_{i=1}^k H^{n+1}_{\{p'_i\}}({\cal X}')$]{} (340,60)[$0$]{}
(10,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (85,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (200,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (310,65)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(0,10)[$0$]{} (40,10)[$H^n(X'_0)$]{} (115,10)[$\mbox{Ker}\ (T^{-d}-Id)$]{} (230,10)[$\oplus_{i=1}^k H^{n+1}_{\{p'_i\}}({\cal X}')$]{} (340,10)[$0$]{}
(10,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (85,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (200,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{} (310,15)[(1,0)[25]{}]{}
(60,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (155,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (260,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{}
(65,35)[$G^n$]{} (160,35)[$T^{-1}$]{} (265,35)
The main theorem will follow from these exact sequences and from some mixed Hodge-theoretical arguments.
We end this subsection with some facts about the Galois action $G^{\ast}:H^{\ast}(X'_0) \to H^{\ast}(X'_0)$, where $p:X'_0 \to {{\bf P}^n}$ is the $d$-th cyclic covering branched along ${X^{\infty}}$. One has that $H^q(X'_0,{{\bf C}})={\bf H}^q({{\bf P}^n},{\bf R}p_{\ast}{{\bf C}}_{X'_0})=
H^q({{\bf P}^n}, p_{\ast}{{\bf C}}_{X'_0})$ and the restriction of $p_{\ast}{{\bf C}}_{X'_0}$ to the complement of ${X^{\infty}}$ is a flat bundle. Its corresponding monodromy representation is given by the composed map $\pi _1 ({{\bf P}^n}-
{X^{\infty}})\stackrel{h}{\to} {{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}}\stackrel{r}{\to} \mbox{Aut}({{\bf Z}}^d)$ (see §1 for the definition of $h$), where $r(1):= \sigma
:{{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}}\to{{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}}$ is the permutation $\sigma (x_1,\dots
,x_d)=(x_d, x_1, \dots ,x_{d-1})$.
But also the Galois action is induced by $\sigma $. So, we have a direct sum decomposition $p_{\ast }{{\bf C}}_{X'_0} = {{\bf C}}_{{{\bf P}^n}}\oplus
\oplus_{s=1}^{d-1}{j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_{s}$ such that $G\bigm|_{{{\bf C}}_{{{\bf P}^n}}}$ is the identity and $G\bigm|_{{j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s}$ is the multiplication by $\xi^s=e^{2
\pi i s /d}$. Therefore: $$(2.12) \hspace{1cm}(H^q(X'_0); G^q)=(H^q({{\bf P}^n})\oplus
(\oplus_{s=1}^{d-1}H^q({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)); \oplus_{s=0}^{d-1}\xi^s).$$
[**V. The proof of the main Theorem, case $\alpha=1$.**]{}
Consider the exact sequence (E.2) with its actions. Since the (generalized) $1$-eigenspace of $T^{-1}$ on $\mbox{Ker}(T^{-d}-Id)$ is exactly $\mbox{Ker}(T^{-1}-Id)$, the decomposition (2.12) provides the following exact sequence: $$(2.13) \hspace{1cm}0 \to H^n({{\bf P}^n}) \to \mbox{Ker}(T^{-1}-Id) \to
\oplus_{i=1}^{k}H^{n+1}_{\{p'_i\}}({\cal X}') \to 0$$ This is again an exact sequence of mixed Hodge structures. Now, it is on the one hand clear that the weight of $H^n({{\bf P}^n})$ is $n$ and, on the other hand, $$\mbox{dim}\ Gr^W_{n-l+1}H^{n+1}_{\{p'_i\}}({\cal X}')=\#_l(T_i)_1 \ \
(\mbox{for } l\in{{\bf Z}})$$ (see [@GN (5.5)]). Since the weight filtration on $H^n(X'_t)$ is the monodromy weight filtration of $T^{-1}$ centered at $n$, one has $\mbox{dim}\ Gr^W_{n-l+1}\mbox{Ker}(T^{-1}-Id)=\#_l (T^{-1})$. This shows that $$(2.14) \hspace{1cm}(T^{-1})_1 = \oplus_{i=1}^k (T_i)_1 \oplus
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{ if } \ $n$ \ \mbox{is odd} \\
id_{{{\bf C}}} \ \ \ \mbox{ if } \ $n$ \ \mbox{is even}
\end{array} \right.$$ Now notice that $$(2.15) \hspace{2cm}p_{n-1}({X^{\infty}}) - p_{n}({X^{\infty}}) = \chi_0 \hspace{2cm}$$ (see, for example (2.29), or [@Di.book]). Hence the result follows from (2.1), (2.14) and (2.15). $\Box$
(2.16) [*Remark:*]{} Using the exact sequence of vanishing cycles of $X^{\infty}\subset {\bf P}^n$, by standard mixed Hodge theoretical arguments, one can prove that the dimensions $\dim Gr^W_{n-l}P^{n-1}(X^{\infty})$ $(l\geq 1)$ are equal to the numbers on the right hand side of the equalities in the Main Theorem, case $\alpha=1$. Hence , the main theorem gives: $$\#_l(T^{\infty}_f)_1=\dim Gr^W_{n-l}P^{n-1}(X^{\infty})\ \ \mbox{for} \ \
l\in {\bf Z},$$ where $W$ denotes the weight filtration.
[**VI. The proof of the main Theorem, case $\alpha^d=1,
\alpha\neq 1$.**]{}
First notice that the Galois action $G:X'_0\to X'_0$ is an algebraic map, therefore $G^q:H^q(X'_0)\to H^q(X'_0)$ preserves the weight filtration. Since ${H^{n}({{\bf P}^n}, j_{\ast}{\bf V}_s)}$ is the $\xi^{s}$-eigenspace of $G^q$ (cf. 2.12), it has a natural induced weight filtration (actually, it has a natural mixed Hodge structure). Now let $\alpha=e^{2 \pi i s /d}=\xi^s$ for $1\le s\le d-1$. Then by (E.2) one has: $$(2.17) \hspace{1cm}{H^{n}({{\bf P}^n}, j_{\ast}{\bf V}_s)}=\mbox{Ker}(T^{-1}-\alpha).$$ In particular, for $l\ge 1$ one has $$(2.18)
\hspace{1cm}\#_l(T^{-1})_{\alpha}=\mbox{dim}\ Gr^W_{n-l+1}{H^{n}({{\bf P}^n}, j_{\ast}{\bf V}_s)}.$$ Actually, (2.18) together with (2.1) already determine $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}$, but this is not exactly the assertion of the main theorem, we want some more information about the right hand side of (2.18).
Consider the exact sequence (E.1). Using (2.17) one has:
(370,65)(15,0) (0,60)[$0$]{} (35,60)[Ker$(T^{-1}-\alpha)$]{} (135,60)[$H^n(X'_t)_{\alpha}$]{} (205,60)[$[\oplus H^n(F'_i)]_{\alpha}$]{} (290,60)[$H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n},{j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)$]{} (400,60)[$0$]{} (10,65)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (110,65)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (180,65)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (265,65)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (375,65)[(1,0)[20]{}]{}
(0,10)[$0$]{} (35,10)[Ker$(T^{-1}-\alpha)$]{} (135,10)[$H^n(X'_t)_{\alpha}$]{} (205,10)[$[\oplus H^n(F'_i)]_{\alpha}$]{} (290,10)[$H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n},{j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)$]{} (400,10)[$0$]{}
(10,15)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (110,15)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (180,15)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (265,15)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (375,15)[(1,0)[20]{}]{}
(70,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (155,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (230,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (330,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{}
(75,35)[$\cdot \alpha$]{} (160,35)[$(T^{-1})_{\alpha}$]{} (235,35)[$[\oplus c_{d-1}(T_i)]_{\alpha}$]{} (335,35)[$\cdot \alpha$]{}
By [@Sch], the weight filtration of $H^n(X'_t)_{\alpha}$ is the monodromy weight filtration of $(T^{-1})_{\alpha}$ centered at $n$, thus the quotient $H^n(X'_t)/\mbox{Ker}\ (T^{-1}-\alpha )$ has a (polarized) mixed Hodge structure with weight filtration equal to the monodromy weight filtration of the class $[T^{-1}_{\alpha}]$ of $(T^{-1})_{\alpha}$ centered at $n+1$. On the other hand, $H^{n+1}(X'_0)$ is pure of weight $n+1$ ([@Stee.Oslo]) and $G^{n+1}$ preserves the weight filtration, hence ${H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, j_{\ast}{\bf V}_s)}$ is pure of weight $n+1$ (cf. (2.12)). These two facts show that the weight filtration of $[\oplus H^n(F'_i)]_{\alpha}$ is the monodromy weight filtration of $(\oplus c_{d-1}(T_i))_{\alpha }$. Now comparing the dimensions of the primitive cohomologies of $[T^{-1}_{\alpha}]$ and $(c_{d-1}(T_i))_{\alpha}$ one has: $$(2.19) \hspace{1cm}\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\#_2 (T^{-1})_{\alpha} = - \mbox{dim}\ H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s) +
\Sigma_{i=1}^k \#_1(c_{d-1}(T_i))_{\alpha} \\ \ \\
\#_{l+1}(T^{-1})_{\alpha}=\Sigma_{i=1}^k \#_l(c_{d-1}(T_i))_{\alpha} \
\mbox{ for }\ l\ge 2.
\end{array} \right.$$ Since $\alpha^d=1$ and $\alpha\neq 1$, $(c_{d-1}(T_i))_{\alpha}=(T_i)_{\alpha^{-1}}$. Therefore: $$(2.20) \hspace{1cm}\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\#_2(T^{-1})_{\alpha}=-\beta_s + \Sigma _{i=1}^k \#_1
(T_i)_{\alpha^{-1}} \\ \ \\
\#_{l+1}(T^{-1})_{\alpha}=\Sigma_{i=1}^k \#_{l}(T_i)_{\alpha^{-1}} \ \mbox{ for
}\ l\ge 2.
\end{array} \right.$$ Since $\beta _{d-s}=\beta_s$ ($s=1,\dots ,d-1$), parts (Ib,Ic) follow from (2.20) and (2.1.a). In order to prove (Ia) (i.e., to compute $\#_1({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha }=\#_1 T_{\alpha}$) notice that from (2.18) one has: $$(2.21) \hspace{1cm}\#(T^{-1})_{\alpha}=\mbox{dim}\ H^n({{\bf P}^n},{j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s),$$ and from (2.20): $$(2.22) \hspace{1cm}\Sigma_{l\ge 2}\#_l(T^{-1})_{\alpha }=-\beta _s +
\Sigma _{i=1}^k \# (T_i)_{\alpha ^{-1}}.$$ Therefore $$\#_1(T^{-1})_{\alpha}= \mbox{dim}\ H^n({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s) + \mbox{dim}\
H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s) - \Sigma_{i=1}^k \# (T_i)_{\alpha ^{-1}}.$$ Now (Ia) follows from this identity and the following result:
(2.23) [**Proposition:**]{}
*For $s=1,\dots ,d-1$ one has:*
1. dim $H^q({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)=0$ for $q\neq n,n+1$.
2. $\mbox{dim}\ H^n({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)-\mbox{dim}\ H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)=\chi _s$.
(For the definition of $\chi _s$, see the introduction). In particular, the Euler characteristic of $({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)$ is local.
[*Proof:*]{} The first part follows from (2.12), because $P^q(X'_0)=0$ if $q\neq n,n+1$. The second part will be proved (together with some other relations) in subsection VIII, (2.29).
[**VII. The proof of the main theorem, case $\alpha^d\neq
1$.**]{}
Consider the exact sequence (E.1). Since $(G^{\ast})^d=Id$, the generalized $\alpha $-eigenspaces are: $$(2.25) \hspace{1cm}(H^n(X'_t)_{\alpha}, (T^{-1})_{\alpha}) \simeq
((\oplus_{i=1}^k H^n(F'_i))_{\alpha }, (\oplus c_{d-1}(T_i))_{\alpha}).$$ By (2.1), $T_{\alpha}=({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}$. Also, if $\Pi_j(\lambda - \xi_j)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $T_i$, then $\Pi_j(\lambda ^{d-1} -
\xi_j)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $c_{d-1}(T_i)$. Therefore, if $\alpha $ is an eigenvalue of $c_{d-1}(T_i)$, then $\alpha^{d-1}=\xi
_j$ for some $\xi_j $ and the unipotent (or nilpotent) part of $c_{d-1}(T_i)_{\alpha}$ and $(T_i)_{\xi_j}$ can be identified. This ends the proof of the main theorem.
[**VIII. The relation with the Milnor fiber of $f_d:{{\bf C}^{n+1}}\to
{{\bf C}}$.**]{}
Consider the homogeneous singularity $f_d:{{\bf C}^{n+1}}\to {{\bf C}}$ with one-dimensional singular locus, let $F$ be its Milnor fiber. It is well-known that its (reduced) homology is concentrated in $H_n(F)$ and $H_{n-1}(F)$. Let $h_q:H_q(F)\to H_q(F)$ be the algebraic monodromy of $f_d$, where $q=n-1,n$. In this subsection we identify our local and global invariants with numerical invariants given by the transformations $h_{n-1}, h_n$.
Recall that we denoted $p:X'_0\to{{\bf P}^n}$ the $d$-th cyclic covering branched along ${X^{\infty}}$. Then $p^{-1}({X^{\infty}})$ can be identified with ${X^{\infty}}$ and $X'_0 -p^{-1}({X^{\infty}})$ with $F$. This gives a cyclic (unramified) covering $F\to{{\bf P}^n}-{X^{\infty}}$ with fiber ${{\bf Z}}/d{{\bf Z}}$. By duality, $H_q(F)=H^{2n-q}(X'_0,p^{-1}({X^{\infty}}))$, therefore the exact sequence of the pair $(X'_0,p^{-1}({X^{\infty}}))$ reads as follows:
(370,65)(20,0) (0,60)[$0$]{} (30,60)[$P^{n-1}({X^{\infty}})$]{} (110,60)[$H_n(F)$]{} (170,60)[$P^n(X'_0)$]{} (235,60)[$P^n({X^{\infty}})$]{} (305,60)[$H_{n-1}(F)$]{} (370,60)[$P^{n+1}(X'_0)\to 0$]{}
(10,65)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (90,65)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (150,65)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (215,65)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (285,65)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (355,65)[(1,0)[15]{}]{}
(0,10)[$0$]{} (30,10)[$P^{n-1}({X^{\infty}})$]{} (110,10)[$H_n(F)$]{} (170,10)[$P^n(X'_0)$]{} (235,10)[$P^n({X^{\infty}})$]{} (305,10)[$H_{n-1}(F)$]{} (370,10)[$P^{n+1}(X'_0)\to 0$]{}
(10,15)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (90,15)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (150,15)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (215,15)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (285,15)[(1,0)[15]{}]{} (355,15)[(1,0)[15]{}]{}
(60,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (130,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (190,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (260,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (330,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{} (400,50)[(0,-1)[25]{}]{}
(65,35)[$Id$]{} (135,35)[$h_n^{-1}$]{} (195,35)[$G^n$]{} (265,35)[$Id$]{} (335,35)[$h^{-1}_{n-1}$]{} (405,35)[$G^{n+1}$]{} (-20,35)[(2.26)]{}
In the above diagram, we have also inserted the corresponding Galois actions. The Galois action on $X'_0=\{f_d(x_1, \dots ,x_{n+1})=x_0^d \}$ is $[x_0:\dots :x_{n+1}]\mapsto [\xi x_0:\dots :x_{n+1}]$. If on $X'_0 -
p^{-1}({X^{\infty}})$ we take affine coordinates $y_i=x_i/x_0\ , \ 1\le i \le
n+1$, then the induced action is $(y_1,\dots ,y_{n+1})\mapsto
\xi^{-1}(y_1,\dots ,y_{n+1})$. This is the inverse of the geometric monodromy of the Milnor fiber $F$.
Now, if we consider the generalized eigenspaces of the Galois action in (2.26), one has the following identifications: $$(2.27) \hspace{1cm}\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(H_n(F), h_n^{-1})_{\neq 1} = (P^n(X'_0), G^n)_{\neq 1} \\ \ \\
(H_{n-1}(F), h_{n-1}^{-1})_{\neq 1} = (P^{n+1}(X'_0), G^{n+1})_{\neq 1}
\\ \ \\
\mbox{dim}\ H_{n}(F)_1 = p_{n-1}({X^{\infty}}) \ \mbox{and \
dim}\ H_{n-1}(F)_1=p_n({X^{\infty}}).
\end{array} \right.$$ We recall (cf. (2.12)) that $(P^q(X'_0),G^q)_{\neq
1}=(\oplus_{s=1}^{d-1}H^q({{\bf P}^n},{j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s), \oplus_{s=1}^{d-1}\xi^s)$. In particular, all our global invariants are equivalent to the characteristic polynomial of $h_{n-1}$, i.e. $\beta_s=\mbox{rank} H_{n-1}(F)_{\alpha}$ ($0\leq s\leq d-1$). Now let us consider the zeta function of $f_d:{{\bf C}^{n+1}}\to {{\bf C}}$. This is basically given in [@Siersma2]: $$\begin{aligned}
(2.28) \hspace{.4cm}\frac{\mbox{det}(\lambda \cdot Id -
h_n)}{\mbox{det}(\lambda \cdot Id
- h_{n-1})}& = &(\lambda -1)^{(-1)^{n+1}} \cdot (\lambda ^d -
1)^{\frac{(d-1)^{n+1}+(-1)^{n}}{d}}\cdot \prod_{i=1}^k(\lambda^d -
1)^{-\mu_{i}} \\
& = & \prod_{s=0}^{d-1}(\lambda - e^{2 \pi i s/d})^{\chi_s}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, (2.28) and (2.27) give: $$(2.29) \hspace{.3cm}\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
p_{n-1}({X^{\infty}}) - p_n({X^{\infty}})=\chi_0 \\ \ \\
\mbox{dim}\ H^n({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s) - \mbox{dim}\ H^{n+1}({{\bf P}^n}, {j_{\ast}{\bf V}}_s)=\chi_s
\ \ (s=1,\dots ,d-1).
\end{array} \right.$$ This proves (2.15) and (2.23.b).
(2.30)[*Remark:*]{} By (2.27) and corollary 3 one has (for $s=0,\dots ,d-1$) $$\mbox{dim}\ H_{n-1}(F)_{e^{2\pi i s/d}}=\beta _s\le
\Sigma_{i=1}^k\#_1(T_i)_{e^{2 \pi i s/d}}$$ Similar restrictions can be found in [@Siersma (5.4) and §9].
(2.31) [*Remark:*]{}\
Here we present the connection between the present paper and [@L], more precisely, between the defects $\beta_s\ (0\leq s\leq d-1)$ and $\pi_{n-1}({\bf P}^n-X^{\infty})$.
First, assume that $n=2$. Denote $G=\pi_1({\bf P}^n-X^{\infty}),\
G'=[G,G]$, and $G''=[G',G']$. Then $0\to \pi_1(F)\to G\to {\bf Z}/d{\bf Z}\to 0$ is an exact sequence, actually $\pi_1(F)=G'$. Therefore, $H_1(F)=G'/G''$, and it has a natural action of ${\bf Z}/d{\bf Z}$. By (2.27) one has: $$\beta_s=\mbox{rank}((G'/G'')\otimes {\bf Q})_{\alpha};\ \ \alpha=e^{2\pi
is/d};
\ s=0,\ldots, d-1.$$ Now, assume that $n>2$. From the covering $F\to {\bf P}^n-X^{\infty}$ and Hurewicz theorem one has: $\pi_1({\bf P}^n-X^{\infty})={\bf Z}/d{\bf Z}$, $\pi_q({\bf P}^n-X^{\infty})=0$ if $1<q<n-1$, and $\pi_{n-1}({\bf
P}^n-X^{\infty})=\pi_{n-1}(F)=H_{n-1}(F)$. Hence by (2.27): $$\beta_s=\mbox{rank} (\pi_{n-1}({\bf P}^n-X^{\infty})
\otimes {\bf Q})_{\alpha};\ \ \alpha=e^{2\pi is/d};
\ s=0,\ldots, d-1,$$ where the action of $\pi_1({\bf P}^n-X^{\infty})$ on $\pi_{n-1}({\bf P}^n-X^{\infty})$ is the natural one.
We thank Professor A. Libgober bringing in our attention the invariant $\pi_{n-1}$, and his helpful comments about it.
[**§3. Examples**]{}
[*I. Zariski’s plane sextics:*]{}
Set $d=6$ and let $f_6\in{{\bf C}}[X;Y;Z]$ be a form defining a plane sextic in ${\bf P}^2$ with six cusps and no other singularities. Then $\chi_0=8$ and $\chi_s=9$ for $s=1,\dots ,5$. Moreover (since the characteristic polynomial of the local monodromy of a cusp singularity is $t^2-t+1$), $\beta_s=0$ if $s=0,2,3,4$. Our main theorem gives:
1. If $\alpha^d\neq 1$, then $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}$ has only one-dimensional Jordan blocks, and $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}=Id_{{{\bf C}}^6}$ if $\alpha=e^{\pi i \varphi}$, $\varphi\in\{\frac{1}{15}, \frac{7}{15},
\frac{11}{15}, \frac{13}{15}, \frac{17}{15}, \frac{19}{15},
\frac{23}{15}, \frac{29}{15}\}$ (i.e., if $\alpha^5=e^{2 \pi i s /6}$ for $s=1$ or $s=5$ and $\alpha^6\neq 1$). Otherwise $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{\alpha}=0$.
2. $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{e^{2\pi i s /6}}$ has only one-dimensional blocks if $s=0,2,3,4$. The number of them is $8$ if $s=0$ and $9$ if $s=2,3,4$.
3. $({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{e^{2 \pi i s/6}}$ has only one and two dimensional blocks if $s=1$ or $s=5$. The number of one-dimensional blocks is $3+2\beta_s$, and the number of two dimensional blocks is $6-\beta_s$.
Now, by the identification (2.27) and [@Di.book Theorem 2.9] one has $\beta_s=1, \ (s=1,5)$ if the cusps are on a conic and $\beta_s=0$ otherwise.
[*II. Nodal hypersurfaces:*]{}
Assume that $f_d$ defines a hypersurface in ${{\bf P}^n}$ with only nodal (i.e. $A_1$) singularities, let $k$ denote the number of nodes. It follows from the main theorem that the maximal size of a Jordan block of ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$ is two. The numbers $\beta_s$ can be computed using [@Di.book VI, Theorem (4.5)] and (2.27).
If $dn$ is even, set $S={{\bf C}[X_1,\ldots,X_{n+1}]}$, $q=\frac{dn}{2}-n-1$, and let $S_q$ denote the homogeneous component of degree $q$ of $S$. If $\Sigma \subset {X^{\infty}}$ denotes the set of nodes of $\{f_d=0\}$, let $S_q(\Sigma)=\{h\in S_q \mid h_{\mid \Sigma}=0 \}$, and $\mbox{defect} (S_q(\Sigma)) := k - \mbox{codim}_{S_q}(S_q(\Sigma)).$
From the main theorem we get the following possibilities for ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$:
1. $n$ is odd, $d$ is odd.
Here $\beta_s=0$ for all $s$. Thus ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$ has no Jordan blocks of size two, i.e. it is of finite order.
2. $n$ is odd, $d$ is even.
In this case $\beta_s=0$ for $s\neq \frac{d}{2}$ and ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$ can have Jordan blocks of size two only for eigenvalue $-1$, the number of them is $\#_2({T^{\infty}_{f}})_{-1}=k-\beta _{d/2}
=k-\mbox{defect}(S_q(\Sigma))=
\mbox{codim}_{S_q}(S_q(\Sigma))$.
3. $n$ is even.
In this case, $\beta_s=0$ for $s\neq
0$ and $\beta_0=p_n({X^{\infty}})$. It follows that ${T^{\infty}_{f}}$ can have Jordan blocks of size two only for eigenvalue $1$, and $\#_2 ({T^{\infty}_{f}})_1=k-p_n({X^{\infty}})
=k-\mbox{defect}(S_q(\Sigma))=
\mbox{codim}_{S_q}(S_q(\Sigma))$. This number, in general, is not zero. For example, the defect$(S_5(\Sigma))
=\beta_0$ of the recently constructed quintic hypersurface in ${\bf P}^4$ with $k=130$ nodes [@Duco] is 29 \[loc.cit., p. 864\]. The quintic constructed by Hirzebruch [@H] has 126 nodes and defect $\beta_0=25$. Actually, there are quintics in ${\bf P}^4$ with 118 nodes and defect $18\leq \beta_0\leq 19$ [@W].
[10]{}
S.A. Broughton. . , 92:217–241, 1988.
C. H. Clemens. , 44: 215–290, 1977.
A. Dimca. . Universitext. Springer Verlag, 1992.
A Dimca. . , 29: 511–514, 1990.
R. García López and A. Némethi.
F. Hirzebruch. 757–770 (No. 75). Heidelberg: Springer 1987.
A. Libgober. 139: 117–144, 1994.
A. Libgober and S. Sperber. 95: 287–307, 1995.
A. Némethi. 80: 1–14, 1991.
A. Némethi and A. Zaharia. 3:323–335, 1992.
A. Parusinski. 97: 369–384, 1995.
F. Pham. Vanishing homologies and the n variable saddlepoint method. In [*Proc. Symp. Pure Math.*]{} vol. 40, 319–333, 1983.
W. Schmid. 22: 211-319, 1973.
D. Siersma. , 30:445–469, 1991.
D. Siersma. 65: 181–197, 1990.
J.H.M. Steenbrink. . In [*Real and Complex Singularities, Oslo 1977*]{}, pages 397–403, Alphen a/d Rhijn, 1977. Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
B. van Geemen and J. Werner. Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Math., 1399, 48–59, 1988.
D. van Straten. Vol. 32, No. 4, 857–864, 1993.
O. Zariski. Ergebnisse 61, Springer Verlag, 1971.
[^1]: Supported by the DGICYT
[^2]: Partially supported by OSU Seed Grant
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The measurement of the flux of beryllium neutrinos with the accuracy of about 10% and CNO neutrinos with the accuracy 30% will enable to find the flux of pp-neutrinos in the source with the accuracy better than 1% using the luminosity constraint. The future experiments on $\nu $e$^{-}$ scattering will enable to measure with very good accuracy the flux of beryllium and pp-neutrinos on the Earth. The ratio of the flux of pp-neutrinos on the Earth and in the source will enable to find with very good accuracy a mixing angle theta solar. Lithium detector has high sensitivity to CNO neutrinos and can find the contribution of CNO cycle to the energy generated in the Sun. This will be a stringent test of the theory of stellar evolution and combined with other experiments will provide a precise determination of the flux of pp-neutrinos in the source and a mixing angle theta solar. The work on the development of the technology of lithium experiment is now in progress.'
---
[**Lithium Experiment on Solar Neutrinos to Weight the CNO Cycle.**]{}
0.2in
I.Orekhov, V.Petukhov, A.Solomatin\
Institute of Nuclear Research of Russian Academy of Sciences\
117312 Moscow, Prospect of 60th Anniversary of October Revolution 7A, RUSSIA\
M.Arnoldov\
Institute of Physics and Power Engineering, Obninsk, Bondarenko sq.1, RUSSIA
The remarkable progress achieved in a number of experiments with solar neutrinos [@1] with a culmination of KamLAND [@2] has shown unambiguously that solar neutrinos do oscillate and the parameters of neutrino oscillations belong to the MSW LMA region [@3], which is now split into two sub-regions so that at 3$\sigma $ we have [^1]
$5.1 \times 10^{-5} eV^2 < \Delta m^{2} < 9.7 \times 10^{-5}
eV^{2}$
$1.2 \times 10^{-4} eV^{2} < \Delta m^{2} < 1.9 \times 10^{-4}
eV^{2}$
for a mixing angle $\theta _{\odot}$
$0.29 < tan^2 \theta _{\odot} < 0.86$
The further progress can be achieved by increasing the accuracy of measurements of neutrino fluxes. Here some new aspect has arisen connected with the possibility to increase drastically the accuracy in the evaluation of the contribution of pp chain to the total luminosity of the Sun. The luminosity constrained was first suggested on a quantitative basis by M.Spiro and D.Vignaud [@4]. As it is known, there are basically two sources of solar energy: the pp-chain of reactions and CNO-cycle, the latter is presented on Fig.1. Each neutrino source contributes to the solar luminosity a definite value, so that the energy balance can be written:
$0.913f_{pp} + 0.002f_{pep} + 0.07f_{Be} + 0.0071f_{N} +
0.0079f_{O} = 1$ 0.5in (1)
for all neutrino sources with the coefficient by the reduced neutrino flux greater 0.0001. Here the neutrino fluxes $f_
x$ are given in a reduced (relative to the predicted ones by standard solar model (SSM) BP2000 [@5]) and the solar luminosity is normalized to 1. The coefficients by $f_{pp}$, $f_{pep}$ and $f_{Be}$ were obtained from numbers of Table 1 presented in [@6], the coefficients by $f_N$ and $f_O$ were calculated by us accounting that the energy produced for each $^{13}$N neutrino in a first half-cycle CNO
$\alpha(^{13}N) = M(^{12}C) + 2M(^1H) - M(^{14}N) - \langle
E_{\nu} \rangle (^{13}N)$ 0.5in (2)\
$\alpha(^{13}N) =
11.00 MeV$
and for each $^{15}$O neutrino for the second half-cycle CNO
$\alpha(^{15}O) = M(^{14}N) + 2M(^1H) - M(^4He) - M(^{12}C) -
\langle E_{\nu} \rangle (^{15}O)$ 0.5in (3)\
$\alpha(^{15}O) = 14.01 MeV$
{width="3in"}
At the present epoch of the evolution of the Sun the CNO cycle is closed, i.e. the concentration of $^{14}$N is close to the equilibrium one as one can see from Fig.2 drawn by the numbers presented in Table 4.4 of [@7]. On the early stage of solar evolution the abundance of $^{14}$N in the interior of the Sun is still low, consequently, the CNO cycle is not yet closed. From the expression (1) it follows that beryllium neutrinos contribute to the solar luminosity 7% while CNO cycle (neutrinos from $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O) – only 1.5% . Thus, according to SSM the contribution of CNO cycle to the total energy generated in the Sun is small but nevertheless, at a certain phase of experiment this will be the principal limitation in evaluating the physical quantities. For example, if the flux of beryllium neutrinos is evaluated with the accuracy better than 10% , the beryllium uncertainty to the solar luminosity will be less than 1% , so that major uncertainty to the luminosity in this case will come from CNO cycle. Then the measurement of the flux of neutrinos from CNO cycle will the accuracy of about 30% will enable to find the flux of pp neutrinos in the source with the accuracy better than 1% [@8]. At the present time a new generation of solar neutrinos is under development. Some of these detectors are oriented to measure precisely the flux of pp-neutrinos on the Earth by means of $\nu $e$^{-}$ scattering [@9]. The cross-section of this reaction is calculated with high accuracy so principally they can do the high precision measurements. The effect in $\nu $e$^{-}$ scattering experiment is determined mainly by electron neutrinos, the contribution of neutrinos of other flavors is small and well calculable. The ratio of these two values: the flux of electron pp-neutrinos on the Earth and the flux of pp-neutrinos in the source, i.e. in the Sun, will give the survival probability and consequently, a mixing angle. This is a very good approach. In some way it is similar to charged current – neutral current strategy in SNO experiment. But here one value – the flux of pp-neutrinos in the source - is found by measuring the flux of beryllium and CNO neutrinos while other value – the flux of electron pp-neutrinos on the Earth is found by measuring the effect in a $\nu $e$^{-}$ scattering detector. This strategy becomes possible only because the contribution to the solar luminosity of beryllium and CNO neutrino generated reactions is relatively small, so that modest accuracy in the evaluation of the flux of these neutrinos produces with high accuracy the flux of pp-neutrinos in the source.
{width="3in"}
The present limit for the contribution of the CNO cycle is 7.3% [@10]. In a next few years even in the optimistic scenario of the progress with the solar neutrino experiments it will be hardly possible to decrease this limit lower than 5% . So, future experiments will not be able to exclude the weight of the CNO cycle in the solar energy as much as 4.5% . But in this case the weight of a pp-chain may be not 98.5% as is estimated now, but only 95.5% . The difference is 3% and this is a principal limitation. The accuracy in the evaluation of the flux of pp-neutrinos generated in the Sun will be limited by this uncertainty. So to go further one should measure the real weight of CNO cycle. This can be done by a lithium detector because it has high sensitivity to neutrinos generated in CNO cycle which contribute 30% to the expected rate. If the accuracy in a lithium experiment is on the level of 10% , then the weight of CNO neutrinos will be determined with the uncertainty of about 0.5% in the absolute value of the contribution to the solar luminosity. This result will be important for two reasons. First – it will provide a direct proof of the theory of stellar evolution. So far we have no experimental evidence that CNO cycle does exist. These data will show how correct is our understanding of the evolution of the stars. For main sequence stars with higher temperature than the Sun the CNO cycle is a major source of energy. In fact, the fate of the Sun is also a CNO cycle star. Figure 2 shows the expected concentrations of $^{12}$C and $^{14}$N in the interior of the Sun.
One can see a peculiar distribution of these isotopes across the radius of the Sun. Carbon is burned in nuclear reactions while nitrogen is accumulated till the equilibrium concentration. To test experimentally whether the real picture corresponds to our understanding is very important. The second reason is that these data combined with the results of other experiments will enable to find with unprecedented accuracy the flux of pp neutrinos in the source and from the ratio of the flux of electron neutrinos on Earth to the one in the source - a mixing angle theta solar.
Table 1. Standard Model Predictions (BP2000): solar neutrino fluxes\
and neutrino capture rates, with 1$\sigma$ uncertainties from all sources\
(combined quadratically).\
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Source& Flux
(10$^{10}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$)& Cl
(SNU)& Ga
(SNU)& Li
(SNU)\
pp& 5.95(1.00$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$)& 0.0& 69.7& 0.0\
pep& 1.40$\times $10$^{-2}$(1.00$^{+0.015}_{-0.015}$)& 0.22& 2.8& 9.2\
hep& 9.3$\times $10$^{-7}$& 0.04& 0.1& 0.1\
$^{7}$Be& 4.77$\times $10$^{-1}$(1.00$^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$)& 1.15& 34.2& 9.1\
$^{8}$B& 5.05$\times $10$^{-4}$(1.00$^{+0.20}_{-0.16}$)& 5.76& 12.1& 19.7\
$^{13}$N& 5.48$\times $10$^{-2}$(1.00$^{+0.21}_{-0.17}$)& 0.09& 3.4& 2.3\
$^{15}$O& 4.80$\times $10$^{-2}$(1.00$^{+0.25}_{-0.19}$)& 0.33& 5.5& 11.8\
$^{17}$F& 5.63$\times $10$^{-4}$(1.00$^{+0.25}_{-0.25}$)& 0.0& 0.1& 0.1\
Total& & 7.6$^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$& 128$^{+9}_{-7}$& 52.3$^{+6.5}_{-6.0}$\
The rates in a lithium detector from different neutrino sources are presented in Table1. If to take the mixing angle $tan^2
\theta$=0.41 the total rate will be 25 SNU, and the contribution of CNO cycle is 30% . To find the flux of CNO neutrinos one should subtract the rates from pep, $^7$Be and $^8$B neutrinos. Even the current accuracies in the evaluation of these fluxes and of mixing angle theta solar enable to do it taking into consideration that the accuracy of 30% in the evaluation of the fluxes from CNO cycle are adequate for the task as it was explained earlier. The flux of pep-neutrinos is found from the flux of pp-neutrinos because the ration of these fluxes is well known. More accurate measurement of the flux of beryllium neutrinos will help in a further correction of data. This will be done in Borexino and KamLAND experiments. Thus for a further progress in the study of solar neutrinos it is vital to measure the capture rate by a lithium target. There is some ambiguity due to the unknown factor: what is contribution of $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O neutrinos? In fact, the situation in this aspect is quite good for a lithium target because due to a relatively high threshold of this detector the rate from $^{13}$N neutrinos is much less than the one from $^{{\rm 1}{\rm 5}}$O neutrinos: the ratio is approximately 1/5, see Table 1 taken from ref.6. This helps in the interpretation of the data because the uncertainty of the rate from CNO neutrinos depends mainly upon the uncertainty of the $^{15}$O neutrino flux.
To find the contribution of beryllium neutrinos one should know not only the flux of beryllium neutrinos but also the shape of the energy spectrum of these neutrinos due to thermal broadening. The details of this were discussed in [@11]. The point is that in the laboratory conditions the $^7$Be line will not produce $^{{\rm
7}}$Be on lithium since the reaction of $^7$Be production is reverse to electron capture by $^7$Be. If to consider electron screening in terrestrial atoms, the energy of beryllium line is even lower than a threshold for $^7$Be production. But in the Sun high temperature produces the thermal broadening of the $^{{\rm
7}}$Be line, as it was discussed in [@12] and later was computed with high accuracy by Bahcall [@13]. Because of this some fraction of the line with the energy higher than the threshold will produce $^7$Be. The effect is model dependent. The fact that the measured flux of boron neutrinos is in a good agreement with the one predicted by BP2000 shows that the model gives the correct temperature map of the interior of the Sun, hence there is good reasoning to believe that the thermal broadening of the beryllium line is described by the model correctly.
The substantial issue is that while the contribution of CNO cycle to the solar energy is only 1.5% , the weight of neutrinos from CNO cycle in the production rate of $^7$Be on $^7$Li is about 30% , so that for the total capture rate expected for a lithium target 25 SNU, neutrinos from CNO cycle contribute 8 SNU. If we take the parameters of neutrino oscillations from the allowed region, make the estimates for a detector with 10 tons of lithium and take pure statistical uncertainties, then the capture rate on a lithium target can be measured with the accuracy of approximately 1 SNU for 16 Runs total performed during 4 years of measurements. Here the efficiency of counting of $^7$Be was taken about 90% what is principally possible to do by means of the cryogenic detectors [@14]. After subtracting the rate from these three sources of a pp-chain one gets the rate from neutrinos of CNO cycle. Now we have two possibilities: first, we can take the ratio of $^{13}$N to $^{15}$O neutrinos as a given one by a SSM, or we can find separately the contribution of these two neutrino sources to the total capture rate solving the system of two equations:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
L_H+L_{CN}+L_{NO}&=&L_{\odot}\\ R_H+R_{CN}+R_{NO}&=&R_{Li}\\
\end{array}
\right. \hskip 0.5in (4)$$
Here $L_H$, $L_{CN}$ and $L_{NO}$ are the contributions to the solar luminosity of pp-chain and two half-cycles of CNO cycle, $R_{Li}$ , $R_H$ - the measured and estimated for the hydrogen sequence rates in a lithium detector, $R_{CN}$ and $R_{NO}$ means the rates from neutrinos born in $^{13}$N- and $^{15}$O-decays, R = yL/4$\pi $r$_{SUN}^2 \varepsilon $, where r$_{SUN}$ – the distance from Sun to Earth, $\varepsilon $ is the energy contributed to the Sun per one neutrino emitted in each half-cycle of CNO-cycle and y – the capture rate per one neutrino of $^{13}$N- or $^{15}$O-spectra. One can see from these equations that principally it is possible to find separately the fluxes of $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O neutrinos. The contributions of the energies associated with $^{13}$N and $^{15}$O neutrinos are close as one can see from the expressions (2) and (3). What concerns the rate of a lithium detector, the situation here is very different. The contribution of the $^{15}$O-neutrino is 5 times bigger than the one of $^{13}$N-neutrinos. In other words, the straight lines corresponding to equations of the system (4) are not parallel and the system of equations has a solution.
The idea to use a lithium target for the detection of solar neutrinos was expressed on the eve of a solar neutrino research [@15] and this subject was investigated in a number of papers [@16]. Lithium experiment is a radiochemical experiment and as a target metallic lithium is planned to be used. The solar neutrinos are captured by $^7$Li (the abundance is 93% ) and $^7$Be is produced in a reaction:
$^7Li + \nu \to Be + e^{-}$
The isotope $^7$Be has a half life 53 days and is decayed to $^7$Li by means of electron capture. The aim is to extract $^{{\rm
7}}$Be from lithium and to count the number of extracted atoms. The measured capture rate is converted in a neutrino flux. The main advantage of a lithium detector is that transition $^{{\rm
7}}$Be-$^7$Li is super allowed hence the cross-section can be calculated with a very good accuracy what was done in [@13]. How to extract beryllium from metallic lithium? The basic principle is the following. The chemical compounds of beryllium with nitrogen (Be$_3$N$_2$) and oxygen (BeO) have extremely low solubility in lithium, on the level of 10$^{-13}$ mole percents. At the beginning of the exposure some beryllium sample (about 10 mg) is introduced in the target (10 tons of lithium). This concentration of beryllium is by far exceeding the equilibrium quantity. Beryllium is capturing nitrogen or oxygen atoms which are always present in lithium as impurities and is converted in a beryllium nitride or beryllium oxide. The same happens with the beryllium atom produced by solar neutrinos. These compounds of beryllium are ready to precipitate on any surface provided they have the contact with it. This condition is rarely realized in a bulk of lithium because the ratio of the surface to the volume is negligible. But if the stream of lithium is passed through a fine mesh filter with a very large surface, this contact is guaranteed. So the extraction procedure consists in pumping lithium through a filter and then by collecting the beryllium atoms by means of extraction from an aqueous phase where all beryllium present on a lithium film from the filter gets dissolved. The optimization of the technology consists in finding the conditions by which the extraction process is efficient. Initially the work was done with the samples of $^7$Be produced in lithium by protons with the energy of about 10-100 MeV. This is not very good technology because $^{7}$Be is produced mainly on the surface of the sample, not inside of a lithium samples and the extraction of $^7$Be produced by this method was far from the real experimental conditions. Now we use 14 MeV neutrons of D-T neutron source as a $^7$Be generator. By this method one can guarantee that $^7$Be was really produced inside of a lithium sample. Another problem is how to count the extracted atoms of $^7$Be? By the decay of $^7$Be the Auger electron is released with the energy 55 eV. This energy is too small for counting by the traditional counting technique. Principally it is possible to use a cryogenic detector as it was demonstrated in [@14]. This method is the only possibility to get the high precision measurements because of high efficiency of counting $^7$Be atoms. But as it was shown earlier, it is not absolutely necessary to have the accuracy of measurements on the level of 1 SNU. The good physical result will be obtained even with the modest accuracy of about 2.5 SNU (10% ). In this case one can use the counting by a low background gamma spectrometer with the efficiency of counting of only 8%. Here the accuracy of 10% will be achieved with 10 tons of lithium and 4 years of running the experiment. In 10% $^7$Be decays to the excited level of $^7$Li which emits the gamma with the energy 478 keV. This energy is very convenient for counting. In the background spectrum there is a very populated line 511 keV, so to discriminate the background from this line one should use a gamma spectrometer with a very good energy resolution. This can be realized by means of a low background gamma spectrometer using high purity germanium detectors [@17]. The assembly of the detectors which can be used in this case is similar to one module planned to be used in a Majorana project [@18]. The work on the development of the technique of a lithium detector is now in progress at the Institute of Nuclear Research RAS in Moscow, and in the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering in Obninsk.
To summarize we should note that a lithium experiment is the only way to find with unprecedented accuracy the flux of pp-neutrinos generated in the interior of the Sun (in the source) by means of measuring the fluxes of neutrinos generated in a CNO cycle. This information is vital for further study of the thermonuclear processes in the interior of the Sun and can be effectively used for precise measurement of the mixing angle $\theta _{\odot}$. The study of CNO is very important also as a precise test of the theory of stellar evolution. This work was supported in part by the Russian Fund of Basic Research, contract N 01-02-16167-A and by the grant of Russia “Leading Scientific Schools” LSS-1782.2003.2. The authors deeply appreciate the very stimulating discussions with G.Zatsepin, L.Bezrukov, V.Kuzmin, V.Rubakov, S.Mikheev.
[99]{}
B.T.Cleveland et al., 1998, [*Astrophys. J. **496***]{}, 505\
J.N.Abdurashitov et al., 2002, [*J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **95***]{}, 181\
W.Hampel et al. (GALLEX collaboration), 1999, [*Phys. Lett. **B447***]{}, 127\
T.Kirsten, 2002, [*talk at the XXth Int. Conf. On Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (NU2002)*]{}, Munich, May 25-30\
M.Altmann et al., 2000, [*Phys. Lett. **B490***]{}, 16\
E.Bellotti et al. (GNO collaboration), 2000, in [*Neutrino 2000, Proc. of the XIXth Int. Conf. On Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics*]{},\
16-21 June, [*eds. J.Law*]{}\
R.W.Ollerhead, J.J.Simpson, 2001, [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) **91***]{}, 44\
Y.Fukuda et. al., 1996, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. **77***]{}, 1638\
S. Fukuda et al., 2001, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. **86***]{}, 5651\
Q.R.Ahmad et al., 2001, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. **87***]{}, 71301\
Q.R.Ahmad et al., 2002, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. **89***]{}, 11301
K.Eguchi et al. (KamLAND collaboration), [*hep-ex/0212021*]{}
V.Barger, D.Marfatia, [*hep-ph/0212126*]{}\
G.L.Fogli, E.Lisi, A.Marrone, D.Montanino, [*hep-ph/0212127*]{}\
M.Maltoni, T.Schwetz, J.W.F.Valle, [*hep-ph/0212129*]{}\
A.Bandyopadhyay, S.Choubey, R.Gandi, S.Goswami, [*hep-ph/0212146*]{}\
J.N.Bahcall, M.C.Gonzalez-Garchia, C.Peña-Garay, [*hep-ph/0212147*]{}\
P.C.de Hollanda and A.Yu.Smirnov, [*hep-ph/0212270*]{}
M.Spiro and D.Vignaud, 1990, [*Physics Letters B, **242***]{} 279-284
J.N.Bahcall, M.N.Pinsonneault, S.Basu, [*astro-ph/0010346*]{}
J.N.Bahcall [*astro-ph/0108148*]{}
J.N.Bahcall, 1989, [*Neutrino Astrophysics*]{} Cambridge University Press, [*Cambridge*]{}
A.Kopylov, 2003, [*Lithium Project, Report at LowNU2003 Conference*]{} Paris, France\
A.Kopylov and V.Petukhov, [*hep-ph/0301016, hep-ph/0306148*]{}
M.Nakahata, 2003, [*XMASS Project, Report at LowNU2003 Conference*]{} Paris, France
J.N.Bahcall, M.C.Gonzalez-Garcia, and C.Peña-Garay, [*hep-ph/0212331*]{}
J.N.Bahcall, 1994, The $^7$Be Solar Neutrino Line: A Reflection of the Central Temperature Distribution of the Sun, [*Preprint IASSNS-AST 93/40*]{}
G.V.Domogatsky, 1969, [*Preprint of Lebedev Phys. Inst., Moscow, no.153*]{}
J.N.Bahcall, Rev.Mod.Phys. 50 (1978) 881
M.Galeazzi, G.Gallinaro, F.Gatti et al., 1997,\
[*Physics Letters **B 398***]{}, 187
J.N.Bahcall,1964, [*Physics Letters **3***]{}, 332\
G.T.Zatsepin, V.A.Kuzmin, 1965, [*On the neutrino spectroscopy of the Sun, in Proceedings of the 9th International Cosmic Ray Conference, London*]{}, 1024
J.K.Rowly, 1978, [*Proc.Conf.on Status and Future of Solar Neutrino Research, BNL*]{}, Jan., 5-7, p.265\
E.Veretenkin, V.Gavrin, E.Yanovich, 1985, [*Russian Journal “Atomic Energy” **88***]{}, N1, 65\
A.V.Kopylov, A.N.Likhovid, E.A.Yanovich, G.T.Zatsepin, 1993, [*Proc. Intern. School “Particles and Cosmology”, Baksan Valley, Russia, 22-27 April 1993. Editors: E.N.Alekseev, V.A.Matveev, Kh.S.Nirov, V.A.Rubakov, World Scientific, Singapore-New Jersey-London-Hong Kong*]{}, p.63\
S.Danshin, G.Zatsepin, A.Kopylov et al., 1997, [*Part. Nucl., **28***]{}, 5\
M.Galeazzi, G.Gallinaro, F.Gatti et al., 1997, [*Physics Letters **B 398***]{}, 187\
A.V.Kopylov, 2000, [*in Proc.Intern.Conf. on Nonaccelerator New Physics, Dubna, Russia, June 28 – July 3, 1999, Russian Journal “Nuclear Physics”, 2000, **63, N7***]{}, p.p.1345-1348
R.L.Brodzinski et al., 1990, [*NIM **A292***]{}, p.337
F.Avignone, 2003, [*MAJORANA Project, Report at NANP2003 Conference*]{}, Dubna, Russia
[^1]: The new results in SNO experiment (SNO collaboration nucl-ex/0309004) have shown (at 1$\sigma$) that $\Delta m^2 = 7.1^{+1.2}_{-0.6} eV^2$ and $\theta =
32.5^{+2.1}_{-2.3} degrees$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'marco.bib'
- 'additional.bib'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Magneto conductance oscillations periodic in flux with periodicity $\Phi_{0}$ and $\Phi_{0}/2$ are seen in asymmetric Aharonov-Bohm rings as a function of density of electrons or Fermi wave vector. Dephasing of these oscillations is incorporated using a simple approach of wave attenuation. In this work we study how the excitation of the $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations and the accompanying phase change of $\pi$ are affected by dephasing. Our results show that the $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations survive incoherence, i.e., dephasing, albeit with reduced visibility while incoherence is also unable to obliterate the phase change of $\pi$.'
author:
- Colin Benjamin
- Swarnali Bandopadhyay
- 'A. M. Jayannavar'
title: 'Survival of $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodicity in presence of incoherence in asymmetric Aharonov-Bohm rings'
---
The $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodicity was a puzzle in mesoscopic physics in its early days. Among the first experiments[@sharvin] which were purported to measure the magneto resistance oscillations in normal metal cylinders, observed a $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodicity. However, theoretical calculations[@th; @butipra; @gefenprl] on strictly one-dimensional normal metal ballistic rings argued that only $\Phi_{0}$ periodicity should be observed. The experiment which observed these $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations were backed by theoretical work which predicted these based on weak localization[@AAS; @wash]. In the recent works of Pedersen, et.al.,[@peders] and Hansen, et.al.,[@hansen], the AB effect in a one dimensional $GaAs/Ga_{0.7}Al_{0.3}As$ ring at low magnetic fields has been investigated. In their work they observe the fundamental $\Phi_0$ periodicity in the magneto-conductance as expected. Moreover, as the density (in effect the Fermi energy) is varied they observe phase shifts of $\pi$ in the magneto conductance oscillations and $\Phi_0/2$ periodicity at particular values of the Fermi energy. They have found good agreement of their results with the completely phase coherent transport theory[@squid] of electrons in an asymmetric Aharonov-Bohm ring in the single channel regime. Asymmetry of the AB ring was crucial in understanding these observations. Such behavior has also been observed in an earlier experiment[@yacoby], and has generated a lot of interest in relation to the problem of phase measurement.
The endeavor of this work is not on the origin of the $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodicity but on the effect of inelastic or phase breaking scattering on these. Our results indicate that the phase shift of $\pi$ in AB oscillations and halving of the fundamental $h/e$ periodicity survives in-spite of dephasing albeit with reduced visibility in AB oscillations. There are many ways to phenomenologically model inelastic scattering in mesoscopic devices. Among the first was by Büttiker [@butinelas]who considered an electron reservoir coupled by a lead to a mesoscopic system as a phase breaker or inelastic scatterer (voltage probe). This approach has been widely used to investigate the effect of dephasing on the conductance. This method which uses voltage probes as dephaser’s is interesting because of it’s conceptual clarity and it’s close relation to experiments. It provides a useful trick to simulate lack of full coherence in transport properties. This method of addressing the problem of dephasing has the advantage that inelastic phase randomizing processes can be incorporated by solving an elastic time independent scattering problem. Beyond Büttiker’s model, optical potential,[@ferry; @jayan] and wave attenuation (stochastic absorption) models [@colin; @joshi] have also been used to simulate dephasing. However in the aforesaid models energy relaxation and thermal effects[@mortensen] are ignored. Thermal effects can be incorporated by taking into account thermal distribution (Fermi-Dirac function) of electrons. In mesoscopic systems, transmission functions are more often than not constant over the energy range wherein transport occurs (at low temperatures) and one can ignore energy relaxation or “vertical flow”[@datta] of electron carrier’s in these systems. Brouwer and Beenakker have corrected some of the problems associated with voltage probe and optical potential models, (see Refs.\[\] for details), and given a general formalism for calculating the conductance(G) in the presence of inelastic scattering. Furthermore, methods based on optical potentials and wave attenuation can make use of this above formalism. In this work we use the method of wave attenuation.
=5.6in
This method of wave attenuation has been used earlier to study dephasing of AB oscillations[@colin] and calculating sojourn times in quantum mechanics[@colinssc]. The wave attenuation model has been shown to be better than the optical potential model (which has in built spurious scattering)[@colin]. We use the well known S-Matrix method to calculate the conductance and therein we see the $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodicity as also the phase change of $\pi$ across such an excitation of the $h/2e$ oscillations. The system we consider, is shown in FIG. 1, is an asymmetric Aharonov-Bohm loop with upper and lower arm lengths $l_1$ and $l_2$ and circumference $L=l_{1}+l_{2}$, coupled to two leads which in turn are connected to two reservoirs at chemical potentials $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$. Inelastic scattering is assumed to be absent in the leads while it is present in the reservoirs, and in the loop we introduce incoherence via wave attenuation to simulate inelastic scattering. The S matrix for the left coupler yields the amplitudes $O_{1}=(\alpha_{1}^\prime,\beta_{1}^\prime,\gamma_{1}^\prime)$ emanating from the coupler in terms of the incident waves $I_1=(\alpha_{1},\beta_{1},\gamma_{1})$, and for the right coupler yields the amplitudes $O_{2}=(\delta_{2}^\prime,\beta_{2}^\prime,\gamma_{2}^\prime)$ emanating from the coupler in terms of the incident waves $I_2=(\delta_{2},\beta_{2},\gamma_{2})$. The S-matrix for either of the couplers[@butipra] is given by-
$$S=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-(a+b) & \sqrt\epsilon&\sqrt\epsilon\\
\sqrt\epsilon& a &b \\
\sqrt\epsilon& b &a
\end{array} \right)$$
with $a=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{(1-2\epsilon)} -1)$ and $b=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{(1-2\epsilon)} +1)$. Herein, $\epsilon$ plays the role of a coupling parameter. The maximum coupling between reservoir and loop is $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$, and for $\epsilon=0$, the coupler completely disconnects the loop from the reservoir. Inelastic scattering in the arms of the AB interferometer is taken into account by introducing an attenuation constant per unit length in the two arms of the ring, i.e., the factors $e^{-\alpha l_1}$ (or $e^{-\alpha
l_2}$) in the free propagator amplitudes, every time the electron[@colin; @datta] traverses the upper (or lower) arms of the loop (see Fig. 1).
The waves incident into the branches of the loop are related by the S Matrices [@cahay]for upper branch by-
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\beta_1\\
\beta_2\\
\end{array} \right) \ =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & e^{ikl_1} e^{-\alpha l_1} e^\frac{-i \theta l_1}{L}\\
e^{ikl_1} e^{-\alpha l_1} e^\frac{i \theta l_1}{L} & 0 \\
\end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c}
\beta_1^\prime\\
\beta_2^\prime
\end{array} \right)$$ and for lower branch-
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}
\gamma_1\\
\gamma_2\\
\end{array} \right) \ =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & e^{ikl_2} e^{-\alpha l_2} e^\frac{i \theta l_2}{L}\\
e^{ikl_2} e^{-\alpha l_2} e^\frac{-i \theta l_2}{L} & 0 \\
\end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c}
\gamma_1^\prime\\
\gamma_2^\prime
\end{array} \right)$$
These S matrices of course are not unitary $
S(\alpha)S(\alpha)^\dagger\neq 1$ but they obey the duality relation $
S(\alpha)S(-\alpha)^\dagger= 1$. Here $kl_1$ and $kl_2$ are the phase increments of the wave function in absence of flux. $\frac{\theta
l_1}{L}$ and $\frac{\theta l_2}{L}$ are the phase shifts due to flux in the upper and lower branches. Clearly, $\frac{\theta
l_1}{L}+\frac{\theta l_2}{L}=\frac{2\pi\Phi}{\Phi_0} $, where $\Phi$ is the flux piercing the loop and $\Phi_0$ is the flux quantum$\frac{hc}{e}$. The transmission and reflection coefficients are given as follows- $T_{21}=|\frac{\delta_{2}^\prime}{\alpha_{1}}|^2$, $R_{11}=|\frac{\alpha_{1}^\prime}{\alpha_{1}}|^2$, $R_{22}=|\frac{\delta_{2}^\prime}{\delta_{2}}|^2$, $T_{12}=|\frac{\alpha_{1}^\prime}{\delta_{2}}|^2$ wherein wave amplitudes $\delta_{2}^\prime,\delta_{2},\alpha_{1}^\prime,\alpha_{1}$ are as depicted in FIG. 1.
The transmission coefficient $T_{21}$ from reservoir 1 to 2 is not symmetric under flux reversal which is in contradiction with Onsager’s symmetry condition, and is due to the fact that current conservation as also unitarity have been violated (due to wave attenuation). As, is well known there can be real absorption of photons but there cannot be any real absorption of electrons. The absorption is interpreted as electron scattering into different energy channels and the way these electrons are re-injected back into the system becomes important[@butiprama; @pareek]. Following the earlier treatments (see the details in Refs. \[\]), the conductance in dimensionless form after proper re-injection of carriers is given by - $$\begin{aligned}
G=T_{21}+\frac{(1-R_{11}-T_{21})(1-R_{22}-T_{21})}{1-R_{11}-T_{21}+1-R_{22}-T_{12}}.\end{aligned}$$
The first term in Eq. 1, i.e., $T_{21}$ represents the phase coherent contribution, while the second term accounts for electrons that are re-injected after inelastic scattering. This represents the phase incoherent contribution to the conductance. $G$ respects Onsager’s symmetry $G(\Phi)=G(-\Phi)$, and thus the phase of AB oscillations can only change[@yacoby] by $\pm\pi$.
=7.5in
=7.5in
As previously mentioned our interest in this work is to observe the effect of incoherence on the $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations in single channel ballistic rings. We choose an asymmetric AB ring with degree of asymmetry denoted by the difference in arm lengths $\Delta=l_1-l_2=0.15$, and circumference $L=1.0$ in accordance with the experimental realization as in Ref. \[\]. The change in Fermi energy of injected electrons implies varying the density of electrons in the system. So, when we scan the whole range of the dimensionless wave vector $k_fL$ from $0.0$ to $200.0 $ we come across $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodicities at particular values of the Fermi wave vector $k_fL$, notably at $10.83, 114.8302$ and $136.5$. We now restrict ourselves to the particular range(Fermi energy) and parameters (length’s and coupling) corresponding to the experimental situation studied earlier as in Refs. \[\]. In our treatment $\alpha$ represents the incoherence parameter (degree of dephasing). The plot of the dimensionless conductance $G$ as a function of flux in the range $104.0 \le k_{f}L \le 124.0$, with degree of incoherence $\alpha=0$ is shown in FIG. 2(a). Similarly in FIG. 2(b) and 2(c) we plot $G$ for $\alpha=0.3$ and $\alpha=0.5.$, for the same system parameters and range of $k_{f}L$. The plots for $k_{f}L > 104.0$ are each shifted by a factor of 1 for clarity. The $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodicities are clearly marked at $k_{f}L=114.8302$, and also across this range of $k_{f}L$ and excitation of the $h/2e$ harmonic, phase changes by $\pi$. Thus phase shift of $\pi$ along with halving of the fundamental $h/e$ period is clearly seen as a function of Fermi-wavevector (density) consistent with the experimental observations. Importantly, this observed behavior survives dephasing with reduced visibility, therefore the observed results need not be attributed to complete phase coherence in the system. One conclusion which can be drawn from the afore drawn figures is that incoherence reduces the visibility of AB oscillations as expected. However, this dephasing is unable to shift the position of the $\Phi_0/2$ oscillations noticeably, for the chosen coupling parameter.
The reason why we observe $\Phi_{0}/2$ periodic oscillations at these particular values of $k_{f}L$ is because at these values both $h/e$ as well as $h/3e$ harmonics are extremely weak as also the higher harmonics and therefore exclusive $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations are seen. The $k_{f}L$ values wherein exclusive $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations are seen are at $k_{f}L=10.8335, 114.8302$ and $136.5$, in the range $0.0<
k_{f}L< 200.0$ for the same physical parameters. In FIG.3(a),(b) and (c), we plot the harmonics as a function of the dimensionless Fermi wave-vector $k_{f}L$ for $\alpha=0.0,0.3$ and $0.5$. The harmonics are calculated as follows-
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{n}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi} G cos(n\theta) d\theta\end{aligned}$$
At the ’$k_{f}L$’ value, wherein $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations dominate, the first and third harmonic’s do not contribute at all to the conductance as can be seen from the FIG’s.3(a)-(c). We observe that increasing dephasing ($\alpha$) does not noticeably shift the ’$k_{f}L$’ value, wherein $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations dominate. We also see that the higher harmonic $a_{3}=h/3e$ goes faster to zero and therefore these contributions are washed out and $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations survive dephasing albeit with reduced strengths. The fact that the Fermi-wavevector $k_{f}L$ (at which $\Phi_0/2$ oscillations occur) does not noticeably shift is peculiar to the coupling parameter chosen, which for the above cases is $0.5$(maximal coupling). However, for some other physical parameters there may be a small shift in Fermi-wavevector $k_{f}L$ with increasing incoherence. For example, for the case $\epsilon=0.44$ (waveguide coupling) the $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations are observed at $k_{f}L=52.0$ at $\alpha=0.0$, for the same length parameters as in FIG. 2, but when this incoherence parameter is increased we see these oscillations are shifted to different values of $k_{f}L$, e.g., for $\alpha=0.5$ these are seen at $k_{f}L=51.95$. For this coupling too we indeed observe phase change of $\pi$ in AB oscillations along with period halving, consistent with our previous observations. Shifts in Fermi-wavevector are small for maximal coupling but when coupling strength is decreased these shifts become more noticeable.
0.0in
In conclusion, we have observed $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations as we vary the density of electrons which is similar to varying the Fermi wave vector consistent with experimental observations. The $\Phi_{0}/2$ oscillations are shifted by dephasing (noticeably small for maximal coupling), apart from the reduction of their strengths. The phase change of $\pi$ which occurs across the excitation of $h/2e$ oscillations is seen to be independent of dephasing. Thus complete phase coherence of electron over the entire sample is not necessary to observe these effects.
One of us SB thanks the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar for hospitality.
[99]{}
D. Yu. Sharvin and Yu. V. Sharvin, JETP Lett. [ **34**]{}, 272 (1981).
M. Büttiker, Y. Imry, R. Landauer, , 365 (1983).
M. Büttiker, Y. Imry and M. Ya. Azbel, , 1982 (1984).
Y. Gefen, Y. Imry and M. Ya. Azbel, , 129 (1984).
B. L. Altshuler, A. G. Aronov and B. Z. Spivak, JETP Lett. [ **33**]{}, 94 (1981).
S. Washburn and R. A. Webb, Adv. Phys. [**35** ]{}, 375(1986); S. Washburn and R. A. Webb, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**55**]{}, 1311 (1992).
S. Pedersen, A. E. Hansen, A. Kristensen, C. B. Sorensen, and P. E. Lindelof, , 5457 (2000).
A. E. Hansen, S. Pedersen, A. Kristensen, C. B. Sorensen, and P. E. Lindelof, cond-mat/9909246.
M. Büttiker, [*SQUID’85- Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices and their Applications*]{}, ed. H. D. Hahlbohm and H. Lübbig (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin), p. 529 (1985).
A. Yacoby, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu and H. Shtrikman, , 4047 (1995).
M. Büttiker, , 3020 (1986);, 63 (1988).
D. K. Ferry and J. R. Barker, , 582 (1999).
A. M. Jayannavar, , 14718 (1994); A. K. Gupta and A. M. Jayannavar, , 4156 (1995).
Colin Benjamin and A. M. Jayannavar, , 153309 (2002).
Sandeep K. Joshi, D. Sahoo and A. M. Jayannavar, , 880 (2000);
N. A. Mortensen, A. P. Jauho and K. Flensberg, Superlattices and Microstructures [**28**]{}, 67 (2000).
S. Datta, [*Electron Transport in mesoscopic systems*]{} (Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 1995).
P. W. Brouwer and C. W. J. Beenakker, , 4695 (1997); P. W. Brouwer, Ph.D. thesis, Insttuut-Lorentz, University of Leiden, The Netherlands,1997.
Colin Benjamin and A. M. Jayannavar, Solid State Commun. [**121**]{}, 591 (2002).
M. Cahay, H. Grubin and S. Bandopadhyay, , 12989 (1989).
M. Büttiker, , 241 (2002).
T. P. Pareek, S. K. Joshi and A. M. Jayannavar, , 8809 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Understanding properties of the first sources in the Universe using the redshifted [H [i ]{}]{} 21-cm signal is one of the major aims of present and upcoming low-frequency experiments. We investigate the possibility of imaging the redshifted 21-cm pattern around the first sources during the cosmic dawn using the SKA1-low. We model the [H [i ]{}]{} 21-cm image maps, appropriate for the SKA1-low, around the first sources consisting of stars and X-ray sources within galaxies. In addition to the system noise, we account also for the astrophysical foregrounds by adding them to the signal maps. We find that after subtracting the foregrounds using a polynomial fit and suppressing the noise by smoothing the maps over $10\arcmin - 30\arcmin$ angular scale, the isolated sources at $z \sim 15$ are detectable with $\sim 4 - 9 \, \sigma$ confidence level in 2000 h of observation with the SKA1-low. Although the 21-cm profiles around the sources get altered because of the Gaussian smoothing, the images can still be used to extract some of the source properties. We account for overlaps in the patterns of the individual sources by generating realistic [H [i ]{}]{} 21-cm maps of the cosmic dawn that are based on $N$-body simulations and a one-dimensional radiative transfer code. We find that these sources should be detectable in the SKA1-low images at $z = 15$ with an SNR of $\sim 14 (4)$ in 2000 (200) h of observations. One possible observational strategy thus could be to observe multiple fields for shorter observation times, identify fields with SNR $\gtrsim 3$ and observe these fields for much longer duration. Such observations are expected to be useful in constraining the parameters related to the first sources.'
author:
- |
Raghunath Ghara$^1$[^1], T. Roy Choudhury$^1$, Kanan K. Datta$^{2}$ and Samir Choudhuri$^{3}$\
$^1$ National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, TIFR, Post Bag 3, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007, India\
$^2$ Department of Physics, Presidency University, 86/1 College Street, Kolkata - 700073, India\
$^3$ Department of Physics, & Centre for Theoretical Studies, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721 302, India
bibliography:
- 'source\_image\_v4\_resubmit.bib'
date: 'Accepted ?; Received ??; in original form ???'
title: 'Imaging the redshifted 21-cm pattern around the first sources during the cosmic dawn using the SKA'
---
\[firstpage\]
radiative transfer - galaxies: formation - intergalactic medium - cosmology: theory - dark ages, reionization, first stars - X-rays: galaxies
Introduction {#intro}
============
Detection of the first sources of radiation in the universe which appeared during the “cosmic dawn” is at the forefront of modern observational astronomy. It is believed that these sources formed within the dark matter haloes sometime around redshifts $z \sim 15 - 20$ [@2007ApJ...665..899W; @2010ApJ...716..510G; @2011ApJ...731...54P; @wise2012]. Observing these first sources will not only reveal their unknown properties but also help us in understanding their influence on the formation and evolution of astrophysical objects during later epochs. In recent times a large number of galaxies have been detected at redshift $z \gtrsim 6$ using the broad-band colour [@Ellis13; @Bouwens15] and the narrow-band ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ emission [e.g., @Ouchi10; @Hu10; @Kashikawa11]. In addition, a significant number of bright quasars have been detected at high redshifts through various surveys [@Fan06b; @Venemans15]. New space missions in the near future, e.g., the James Webb Space Telescope ($JWST$)[^2], are expected to detect the most faint sources at even higher redshifts.
In addition to the above, 21-cm radiation from the neutral hydrogen ([H [i ]{}]{}) in the intergalactic medium (IGM) can also be used as a probe to detect the very early sources. Motivated by this fact, many of the present low-frequency radio telescopes like the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR)[^3] [@van13], the Precision Array for Probing the Epoch of Reionization (PAPER)[^4] [@parsons13], the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA)[^5] [@bowman13; @tingay13], the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT)[^6][@ghosh12; @paciga13] etc have dedicated a large amount of their observing resources to detect the signal from the epoch of reionization (EoR). While most of these telescopes are still not able to probe the very early stages of the EoR as they lack the very low-frequency detectors, the future radio telescope like the Square Kilometre Array (SKA)[^7] is expected to detect the signal even from the cosmic dawn. While the first generation telescopes are expected to detect the signal from the EoR statistically (e.g., in terms of the rms, power spectrum, skewness etc), the highly sensitive SKA1-low should be able to image the signal from cosmic [H [i ]{}]{} [@2015aska.confE..10M; @2015aska.confE..15W].
Recently, many studies have been done using analytical calculations [e.g., @furlanetto04; @2014MNRAS.442.1470P], semi-numerical simulations [@zahn2007; @mesinger07; @santos08; @Thom09; @choudhury09; @ghara15a; @ghara15b], and full numerical simulations involving radiative transfer [@Iliev2006; @mellema06; @McQuinn2007; @shin2008; @baek09] to understand the behaviour of the redshifted 21-cm signal from the cosmic dawn and EoR for different source models. Though most of these studies have concentrated in detecting the signal using statistical quantities, it will be interesting to study the detectability using imaging techniques. Some recent attempts have been made to understand the detection possibility of large ionized bubbles with LOFAR, MWA, GMRT [@kanan2007MNRAS.382..809D; @2008MNRAS.386.1683G; @2008MNRAS.391.1900D; @2009MNRAS.399L.132D; @2011MNRAS.413.1409M; @datta2012a; @Datta2012b]. In addition, @2012MNRAS.425.2964Z show that the redshifted 21-cm signal from the EoR can be detected in low-resolution images with LOFAR. Studies have also been done in the same context to detect the signal in post-reionization epochs with SKA1 [@2014JCAP...09..050V]. Our earlier work @ghara15c [hereafter paper I] investigated the detectability of very early sources like metal-free Population III (PopIII) stars, galaxies containing Population II (PopII) stars, mini-QSOs and high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) in the presence of system noise and astrophysical foregrounds using a visibility based techniques. The study showed that the SKA1-low should be able to detect the signal from the sources like the PopII stars, mini-QSOs and HMXBs with $\sim 9-\sigma$ confidence by integrating the visibilities signal over all baselines and frequency channels within $\sim 1000$ hours of observation time.
Once the signal from the cosmic dawn is detected, the challenge would be to interpret it and understand the properties of the first sources and the surrounding IGM. One probably needs to use some sophisticated parameter estimation method like the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to extract the relevant information. However, before getting involved in the complexities of the parameter estimation methods, one needs to set up appropriate observational strategies to detect the signal. Detection of the signal from the cosmic dawn is itself very challenging as it is very weak compared to the system noise and the astrophysical foregrounds. In general, one has to integrate the signal over a large observing time to reduce the noise and also use some efficient foreground subtraction method to recover the signal given that the foregrounds are 4-5 orders of magnitude stronger. In this paper, we explore, in detail, the detection of the early sources during the cosmic dawn in [H [i ]{}]{} 21-cm images in the presence of system noise and the foregrounds. Our analysis is based on realistic simulations of the signal, system noise, and the relevant astrophysical foregrounds, followed by predictions related to the detectability of the early sources using the SKA1-low. These predictions would be quite useful to plan for observational strategies for detecting the sources in 21-cm observations.
The paper is organized in the following way. In section \[simu\], we describe the simulations used in this work. In particular, we describe the model for the sources used in this study in section \[source\_rt\], while simulating the baseline distribution of the SKA1-low is described in section \[ska\_base\_dist\]. The methods to simulate the signal maps, system noise maps and foregrounds maps are described in section \[sig\_map\], \[noi\_map\] and \[FG\_map\] respectively. The main results of the paper are given in section \[res\] before we conclude in section \[conc\]. We choose the Cosmological parameters ${\Omega_{\rm m}}=0.32$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.68$, ${\Omega_{\rm B}}=0.049$, $h=0.67$, $n_{\rm s}=0.96$, and $\sigma_8=0.83$, which are consistent with the recent $Planck$ mission results [@Planck2013].
SIMULATION {#simu}
==========
The study of detectability of the first sources would require careful modelling of these sources, as well as that of the system noise and the astrophysical foregrounds. We discuss the methods for simulating each of these components in this section.
Radiating sources {#source_rt}
-----------------
The physical conditions of the universe when the first sources formed are relatively poorly understood, and hence the properties of these sources are difficult to model. In this study, we consider different types of sources that could have existed in the early universe, i.e., the PopII stars in the primordial galaxies [@2014MNRAS.442.2560W; @2015ApJ...807L..12O; @2016arXiv160407842X], the mini-QSOs [@2003ApJ...596...34B; @2006ApJ...648L...1C; @2007MNRAS.375.1269Z; @thomas08; @2009ApJ...701L.133A; @2012MNRAS.425.2974T] and the HMXBs . Besides these, the metal free PopIII stars are believed to be the another common source during the cosmic dawn. It is however expected that the individual PopIII stars may not be detected in the observations of the redshifted 21-cm signal even with advanced telescopes like the SKA1-low because of the very small region of influence (see Paper I). Thus we have not considered them in this study. While we consider the PopII stars combined with the mini-QSOs in galaxies as our fiducial model source, we will briefly discuss the detectability of other sources too. In the following, we summarize the main properties of the sources used in this paper and refer the reader to Paper I for the details of their spectral energy distribution (SED).
We assume that the first galaxies form in a low-metal region with metallicity $10^{-3} ~ Z_\odot$ [@Lai07; @Finkelstein09b; @2010MNRAS.407.1003M] and consist of PopII stars. We assume that the stars follow a Salpeter IMF with masses between 1 to 100 ${{\rm M}_{\odot}}$. The SED of the stellar component of the model galaxy is generated using the stellar synthesis code [pegase2]{}[^8] [@Fioc97]. We assume that a fraction $f_{\rm esc}$ of the UV photons in the intrinsic spectrum of the galaxies escape from the source into the IGM. The SED of the stellar component does not have any significant X-ray photons that are required for heating the neutral / partially ionized IGM. We call this model, consisting of only stars, the [**Galaxy model**]{}.
In the [**mini-QSO model**]{}, we assume the model source SED has, in addition to the stellar component, a component powered by intermediate mass black holes of mass $10^3-10^6\, {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$. We assume that the X-rays emitted from these mini-QSOs follow a power law with a spectral index $\alpha$ [@vanden01; @vignali03]. We also introduce a parameter $f_X$ which is the ratio of the X-ray to UV luminosity, where we assume that the UV and X-ray bands span from 10.2 to 100 eV and 100 eV to 10 KeV respectively. We assume that our fiducial source model has stellar mass $M_{\star} = 10^7~ {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$, age $t_{\rm age} = 20$ Myr. We choose $f_{\rm esc}=0.1$, $\alpha=1.5$ [@laor97; @vanden01; @vignali03] and $f_X=0.05$ as the fiducial values.[^9] We set the fiducial value of the parameter as $f_X = 0.05$. This corresponds to an accreting BH to galaxy mass ratio of $\sim 10^{-3}$ which is consistent with observations e.g., @Rix04. The lifetime of the early sources is very uncertain, though the sources are expected to be short-lived [@Meyn05]. Here we set the fiducial age to be $t_{\rm age}=20$ Myr.
The high-mass X-ray binaries could have been another potential source of X-rays in the galaxies. The shape of the SED of the HMXBs depends on the interstellar absorption of the soft X-ray photons and is very uncertain for the high redshift HMXBs. The SED of the HMXBs used throughout the paper is taken from @frag1 [@frag2]. Due to the significant amount of absorption of the soft X-rays in the interstellar medium of the galaxy, the soft X-ray part of the SED is almost absent from the intrinsic SED of the source. We call this model consisting of stars and HMXBs within galaxies as the [**HMXB model**]{}.
Baseline distribution of the SKA1-low {#ska_base_dist}
-------------------------------------
An important component for simulating radio maps similar to those ones would obtain in observations is the baseline distribution of the telescope. The only telescope considered in this work is the SKA1-low which holds the promise of imaging the high redshift cosmological signal. As per the presently available design, the SKA1-low has a compact core of radius 350 m with closely packed 40 super-stations distributed in four concentric rings, while six closely packed antenna form a super-station. Rest of the 54 super-stations are distributed in a three-arm spiral from 350 m to 35 km radius, where the super-station density distribution follow a logarithmic relation[^10]. The total number of antenna for the SKA1-low is $N_{\rm ant}$ = 564. Table \[tab1\] shows the parameters related to the model-observation used in this study. The left-hand panel of Figure \[image\_ska\_base\_alter\] shows the baseline $uv$ coverage for 4 h of observation towards a region with declination $\delta_{\rm dec}=-30^{\circ}$ with the SKA1-low . The right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_ska\_base\_alter\] shows the circularly averaged baseline distribution of the SKA1-low at frequency 90 MHz. The quantity plotted $n_{\rm B}(U,\nu)$ denotes the number density of antenna pairs having baseline $U$ at frequency $\nu$, and is normalized such that $\int n_{\rm B}(U,\nu) ~d^2U = N_{\rm ant}\times (N_{\rm ant}-1)/2$ is the total number of baselines for the SKA1-low. One can easily notice that the baseline distribution is more concentrated at low baseline regions. Note that we have not actually used this circularly averaged baseline distribution in this study, rather we use the true baseline distribution as obtained from the antenna positions. The minimum and maximum baseline for the SKA1-low at redshift 15 turn out to be $\sim 8.5$ and $\sim 19500$ respectively.
The primary field of view (FOV), which depends on the diameter of the individual antenna and observing frequency, is $\sim 5.5^{\circ}$ for the SKA1-low at redshift $z=15$. The maximum angular size ($\theta_{\rm max}$) that can be sampled in the image depends on the minimum baseline considered for the analysis, although the image can be made over the full primary beam. For example, if the minimum baseline $U_{\rm min} \sim 8.5$, then the maximum angular scale $\theta_{\rm max}$ that can be sampled is $6.7^{\circ}$ (which corresponds to a length scale of $1230$ comoving Mpc at redshift $15$). On the other hand, the angular resolution ($\Delta \theta$) of the image depends on the longest baseline considered for the analysis. For example, the SKA1-low should be able to produce images with highest resolution $0.175$as its longest baseline is around $U_{\rm max} \sim 19500$ at redshift 15. However, the system noise will be much stronger compared to [H [i ]{}]{} 21-cm signal if the image is made at this resolution. We, therefore, make images at coarser $2^{'}$ resolution in order to keep the noise contribution under control. In order to achieve the default images with $2^{'}$ resolution, we consider baselines only up to $U\sim1720$ and discard larger baselines. We note that only a negligible fraction of the total baselines would be discarded in this process as most of the antennae for the SKA1-low are packed at the central region (see right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_ska\_base\_alter\]). Depending on the values of $\theta_{\rm max}$ and $\Delta \theta$, we generate the signal, noise and foreground maps in a $N_{\rm pixel}\times N_{\rm pixel}$ grid, where $N_{\rm pixel} = \theta_{\rm max} / \Delta \theta$. For example, for $\theta_{\rm max}=$ $6.7^{\circ}$ and $\Delta \theta = $ 2 we obtain $N_{\rm pixel}=200$.
Parameters Values
------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Redshift ($z$) 15
Central frequency ($\nu_c$) $88.75$ MHz
Band width ($B_{\nu}$) 16 MHz
Frequency resolution ($\Delta \nu_c$) 100 kHz
Observational time ($t_{\rm obs}$) 2000 h
System temperature ($T_{\rm sys}$) $60 \times (300 ~\rm MHz / \nu_c)^{2.55} ~\rm K$
Number of antennae ($N_{\rm ant}$) 564
Effective collecting area ($A_{\rm eff}$) 962 $\rm m^2$
: The parameters used in this study for a model-observation at redshift $z$ with the SKA1-low.[]{data-label="tab1"}
Signal maps {#sig_map}
-----------
Let us assume that there is an isolated source radiating photons in the neutral and cold IGM. Our first aim is to study the detectability of the 21-cm pattern around such a source. We later study a more complex and realistic model where multiple sources form within a cosmological volume. The main steps to simulate the [H [i ]{}]{} signal maps around an isolated source are as follows:
- For a given source model, we generate one-dimensional ionization profiles of the hydrogen and helium species and the kinetic temperature around each source by solving the radiative transfer equations [@1994MNRAS.269..563F; @thomas08]. The main features of the method are described in details in our earlier works @ghara15a [@ghara15c], which is based on @thomas08. We assume that the IGM consists of hydrogen and helium of uniform density contrast $\delta$. We assume that the IGM is completely neutral when the source starts to radiate.
- We calculate the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ photon flux by considering the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ contribution from the continuum spectrum, recombination in the interstellar medium and the secondary ionization due to the X-rays. The ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile, as well as the detectability of the source, critically depends on the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ flux profile as a function of distance from the source. The full ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ radiative transfer simulations are computationally challenging. Hence we have simply assumed that the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ photon flux reduces as $1/R^2$ with the radial distance $R$. This assumption is consistent with the detailed radiative transfer simulations of, e.g., at the large scales.
- It is then straightforward to calculate the coupling coefficients (collisional, ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupling and coupling with the CMBR) which are used to generate the spin temperature (${T_{\rm S}}$) profile.
- The differential brightness temperature ${\delta T_{\rm b}}(\vec{\theta}, \nu)$ can be expressed as, $$\begin{aligned}
{\delta T_{\rm b}}(\vec{\theta}, \nu) \!\!\!\! & = & \!\!\!\! 27 ~ x_{\rm HI} (\mathbf{x}, z) [1+\delta_{\rm B}(\mathbf{x}, z)] \left(\frac{{\Omega_{\rm B}}h^2}{0.023}\right) \nonumber\\
&\times& \!\!\!\!\left(\frac{0.15}{{\Omega_{\rm m}}h^2}\frac{1+z}{10}\right)^{1/2}\left[1-\frac{{T_{\gamma}}(z)}{T_{\rm S}(\mathbf{x}, z)}\right]\,\rm{mK},
\nonumber \\
\label{brightnessT}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{\theta}$ is the sky direction and $\nu$ is the frequency corresponding to the observed region. The quantities $\delta_{\rm B}(\mathbf{x}, z)$, $x_{\rm HI}(\mathbf{x}, z)$ and ${T_{\gamma}}(z)$ = 2.73 $\times (1+z)$ K denote the baryonic density contrast, the neutral hydrogen fraction and the CMBR brightness temperature respectively at the comoving coordinate $\mathbf{x}$ at a redshift $z=1420~{\rm MHz}/\nu -1$. Here $\mathbf{x}$ is related to the sky position $\vec{\theta}$ by the relation $\mathbf{x} = \left\{r(z) \vec{\theta},~ r(z)\right\}$, where $r(z)$ is the comoving distance to $z$. Note that the above expression does not include the effect of the peculiar velocities of the gas in the IGM.
- We use the one-dimensional ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile to generate the spherically symmetric ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ map in the simulation box. The comoving length and grid resolution of the simulation box in the angular directions are determined by $\theta_{\rm max}$ and $\Delta \theta$ respectively. The same two quantities along the line of sight are determined by the frequency band width ($B_\nu$) and frequency resolution ($\Delta \nu_c$) of the observation.
- We generate the two-dimensional baseline distribution (or $uv$ coverage) $n^{i,j}_{\rm B}$ in a $N_{\rm pixel}\times N_{\rm pixel}$ grid for $t_{\rm obs}^{uv}=4$ h of observation at a region with declination $\delta_{\rm dec}=-30^{\circ}$, while the integration time is taken as $\Delta t_{c}=$10 sec. To incorporate the effect of the empty pixels in the two-dimensional baseline distribution, we first obtain the visibilities of the signal at each $uv$ grid point and then multiply the signal with the baseline ($uv$) sampling function, i.e., zero at $uv$ grids which are empty and unity otherwise. We then obtain the final image (which is usually known as “dirty” image) of the signal by performing a two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform of the visibilities. We note that the [H [i ]{}]{} signal in the “dirty” image is hardly distinguishable from the input [H [i ]{}]{} signal. This is due to the fact that $uv$ space is nearly filled and there are not many empty $uv$ grids at small baselines where the [H [i ]{}]{} signal is strong.
The left-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4spectrum\] shows the ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ distribution around the three types of sources considered in this work. One can easily identify that there exist four separate regions radially outward from the centre of the source (see the right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4spectrum\]). These are (1) [H [ii ]{}]{} [*region*]{}: the signal is zero at the medium just adjacent the source as ${x_{\rm HI}}\sim 0$. (2) [*emission region*]{}: the [H [ii ]{}]{} region is followed by an emission region where ${T_{\rm S}}>{T_{\gamma}}$. (3) [*absorption region*]{}: the emission region is followed by a strong absorption region where ${T_{\rm S}}<{T_{\gamma}}$ and (4) ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ [*deficient region*]{}: the signal vanishes at far away region as ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupling is not strong enough and thus ${T_{\rm S}}= {T_{\gamma}}$. These results are consistent with earlier works like @2000ApJ...528..597T [@2006ApJ...648...47C; @2006ApJ...648L...1C; @2008ApJ...684...18C; @thomas08; @Alvarez10; @2014MNRAS.445.3674Y]. The lengths of different regions depend on the source properties. The strength, as well as the volume of the absorption signal, is much larger than the emission signal for the sources we consider. For example, the minimum ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ for the fiducial mini-QSO model is $\sim -160 $ mK, which is much larger compared to the maximum ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ $\sim$ 30 mK. Thus, one can expect that this region will be the easiest to be detected in radio images, while it may be difficult to identify the [H [ii ]{}]{} and emission regions because of the contamination of the weak signal by the system noise and foregrounds. One can also notice that the strength of the absorption signal is larger in the case of the models Galaxy and HMXB compared to the mini-QSO. In other words, one may expect higher detectability for the Galaxy and HMXB source models than the mini-QSO, assuming the sources to be isolated. This will be discussed in more detail in the later part of the paper.
The one-dimensional ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile around the fiducial mini-QSO source model is shown in the left-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\]. The sky specific intensity can be related to ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ as $$I_{\nu}(\vec{\theta}) = \frac{2 k_B \nu^2 }{c^2} {\delta T_{\rm b}}(\vec{\theta}, \nu),
\label{inten}$$ where $k_B$ is Boltzmann constant and $c$ is the speed of light. The flux per synthesized beam can be obtained by, $$S_{\nu} =I_{\nu}(\vec{\theta}) \times \Delta \Omega,
\label{flux_beam}$$ where $\Delta \Omega = (\Delta \theta)^2$ is the beam solid angle. The quantity $S_{\nu}$ thus gives the total flux within a single beam. The middle panel of Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\] shows $S_{\nu}$ distribution along the angular directions for our fiducial source for an angular resolution (or beam) 2 at the central frequency channel (which contains the centre of the source in this case). Although the angular extents of our original image are $6.7^{\circ}\times6.7^{\circ}$, we show only a smaller $3.4^{\circ}\times3.4^{\circ}$ image. The maximum amplitude of the signal $S_{\nu}$ in the map is $\sim -13 ~\mu$Jy, with the negative sign signifying that the signal is in absorption.
Noise maps {#noi_map}
----------
The system noise $N(\vec{U}, \nu)$ at different baselines and frequency channels are uncorrelated and expected to be Gaussian random variables with zero mean. The rms noise for each baseline and frequency channel of width $\Delta \nu_c$ and correlator integration time $\Delta t_{c}$ is given by (for single polarization), $$\sqrt{\left< N^2 \right>} = \frac{\sqrt{2} k_B T_{\rm sys}}{A_{\rm eff} \sqrt{\Delta \nu_{c} ~ \Delta t_{c}}},
\label{rms_noise}$$ where $A_{\rm eff}$ is the effective collecting area of each antenna and $T_{\rm sys}$ is the system temperature. Here we have chosen $\Delta t_{c}=10$ sec. The steps to generate the noise maps are given below:
- First, we generate Gaussian random noise (both the real and imaginary parts) with zero mean and rms $\sqrt{\left< N^2 \right>}$ in the $N_{\rm pixel}\times N_{\rm pixel}$ grid in the Fourier space.
- The presence of multiple baselines in a $uv$ grid point can be used to decrease the noise in that pixel. We account for this by simply scaling the noise in $(i,j)$th pixel by a factor $1/\sqrt{n^{i,j}_{\rm B}}$.[^11]
- By averaging over long observation time $t_{\rm obs}$, one can decrease the noise further by a factor of $\sqrt{t_{\rm obs}/t_{\rm obs}^{uv}}$, which is done in this work as well.
- As mentioned earlier, the presence of empty pixels in the two-dimensional baseline distribution is accounted for by including a mask which is zero at the empty pixels and unity otherwise.
- We obtain the real space noise map by doing two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform of the reduced noise in Fourier space at each frequency channel.
The right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\] shows the simulated noise map at the central frequency channel for an angular resolution 2 for 2000 h of observation time and the parameters listed in Table \[tab1\]. The rms noise per beam of the corresponding map is $\sim$ 19 $\mu$Jy. The amplitude of the signal as shown in the middle panel of Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\] is significantly smaller the rms noise for 2000 h of observation, thus the signal is not detectable without further reducing the noise using some other techniques like “smoothing”, which we will discuss later part of the paper (in section \[RES\_SI\_NS\_FG\]).
Foreground maps {#FG_map}
---------------
The cosmological signal will be contaminated by other astrophysical foregrounds which have significantly larger amplitude [@2008MNRAS.385.2166A; @ghosh12]. In this study, we consider the Galactic synchrotron radiation and emission from unresolved extragalactic point sources as the major contributors to these foregrounds. Among these two, the Galactic synchrotron radiation contributes $\sim 70\%$ of the total foregrounds [@2006ApJ...650..529W; @jelic08]. In addition to these, the Galactic free-free emission, supernova remnants, and extragalactic radio clusters may also provide a small contribution to the total foreground, which has been neglected in this study. The method of simulating the foregrounds is given below:
- [*Galactic synchrotron radiation:*]{} We have mainly followed @Choudhuri2014MNRAS.445.4351C for simulating the Galactic synchrotron radiation. The fluctuations in the foregrounds are assumed to be Gaussian random fields with an angular power spectrum $C^{\rm syn}_{2\pi U}(\nu)$ that can be expressed as [see, e.g., @ghosh12], $$C^{\rm syn}_l(\nu)=A_{150}~ \left( \frac{1000}{l}\right)^{\bar{\beta}} ~\left( \frac{\nu}{\nu_\star} \right)^{-2{\bar{\alpha}_{\rm syn}}-2{\bar{\Delta {\alpha}_{\rm syn}}\log(\frac{\nu}{{\nu}_{\star}})}},
\label{cl_FG}$$ where $\nu_\star = 150$ MHz, $A_{150} = 513 ~\rm mK^2$, ${\bar{\beta}}=2.34$, ${\bar{\alpha}_{\rm syn}}=2.8$ and ${\bar{\Delta{\alpha}_{\rm syn}}}=0.1$. The parameters for the Galactic synchrotron emission have been taken from @1998ApJ...505..473P [@2006ApJ...650..529W].
Given the angular power spectrum, we first generate the maps of the temperature fluctuations for the foregrounds in the Fourier space using the relation $$\Delta T_{\rm syn}(U, \nu)=\sqrt{\frac{\Omega C^{\rm syn}_{l}(\nu)}{2}} \left[x(U) + iy(U) \right],
\label{FG_t_uv}$$ where $l=2\pi U$ and $\Omega$ is the total solid angle of the simulated area. The quantities $x(U)$ and $y(U)$ are two independent Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance. We then carry out a two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform on the $\Delta T_{\rm syn}(U, \nu)$ distribution to obtain the real space distribution $\delta T_{\rm syn}(\vec{\theta}, \nu)$ at each frequency channel. The specific intensity fluctuation can be simply obtained as $\delta I_{\rm syn}(\vec{\theta}, \nu)= (2 k_B/{\lambda}^2) \delta T_{\rm syn}(\vec{\theta}, \nu)$. We multiply this with the beam solid angle to obtain the flux per synthesized beam for the Galactic synchrotron radiation maps.
- [*Extragalactic point sources:*]{} The method used to simulate the foregrounds from the extragalactic point sources is based on the observations of @ghosh12 with GMRT at frequency $\nu_\star = 150$ MHz.[^12] The differential source count is given by $$\frac{dN}{dS}=\frac{10^{3.75}}{\rm Jy.Sr} \left( \frac{S}{\rm Jy}\right)^{-1.6}.
\label{equ_dnds}$$ We assume that the point sources with flux larger than $5\sigma$ can be identified and removed from the pixel. In this work, we generate the map for the unresolved extragalactic point sources within a flux range $10^{-4}$ to 0.1 mJy, while we assume that all source above $5\sigma \sim 0.1$ mJy will be resolved and removed. First, we divide the flux range into multiple flux bins and calculate the number of sources associated with each flux bins. We randomly distribute the sources in the two-dimensional map along the angular directions at the central frequency channel. The maps at other frequency channels are generated assuming the flux of the sources changes with frequency as,
$$S_{\nu}=S_{{\nu}_{\star}} \left( \frac{\nu}{{\nu}_{\star}} \right)^{-{\alpha}_{\rm ps}},
\label{eq_pt_flux}$$
where ${\alpha}_{\rm ps}$ is the spectral index of the foregrounds contribution from the point sources. We generate the index ${\alpha}_{\rm ps}$ for each point source from a uniform random distribution with values in the range of 0.7 to 0.8.
![The foreground map at the central frequency channel $\nu_c=88.75$ MHz. The angular resolution of the map is 2. The map includes the contributions from the Galactic synchrotron radiation and extragalactic radio emission from the unresolved point sources.[]{data-label="image_p4FG"}](p4FG.eps)
Figure \[image\_p4FG\] shows the 2 resolution map for the total foreground signal at the central frequency channel with the two-dimensional mean is subtracted out. The strength of the foreground signal is $\sim 3-4$ order of magnitude stronger than the expected signal at this resolution as can be seen by comparing with Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\]. Thus, it is obvious that the recovery of the signal in the presence of such a strong foregrounds is indeed a challenging task. We will discuss various techniques to subtract the foregrounds below the signal level at the later part of the paper.
Results {#res}
========
In order to estimate the detectability of the first sources through imaging the high redshift 21-cm signal, we choose our fiducial source model to be the mini-QSO. We first study in great detail the simplistic situation where there is a single isolated source in the FOV, and then consider a more realistic situation where there are multiple sources in the field.
Isolated source {#res_isolated}
---------------
We assume that the isolated source is completely isolated and situated at the centre of the FOV. The fiducial parameters of the mini-QSO model, as mentioned earlier, are taken to be $M_\star = 10^7 ~ {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$, $f_{\rm esc}=0.1$, $f_X=0.05$, $\alpha=$1.5 and age $t_{\rm age}=20$ Myr. We assume the IGM density contrast $\delta=0$. We choose the fiducial angular resolution for imaging as 2. The spatial length scale corresponding to this resolution is $\sim 6$ cMpc, which is similar to the radial distance to the strongest absorption signal around the fiducial source.
### Signal and the system noise {#RES_SI_NS}
First, let us consider a scenario where we can ignore the complexities arising from the foregrounds. Even in this simple case where we deal only with the signal and the system noise, we find that the noise is much larger than the cosmological signal as shown earlier in Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\].
One method of increasing the SNR is by smoothing the maps using some filter. We have seen in Paper I that the signal exceeds the system noise only for baselines $U \lesssim 100$, which corresponds to angular scales $\gtrsim 10 \arcmin$. In order to see similar effects in the image, we have used two-dimensional Gaussian filters of different widths (i.e., standard deviations) for smoothing the images at all the frequency channels. These Gaussian filters are applied along the two angular directions at each frequency channel. We have used a fixed frequency width of 100 kHz throughout the paper. In principle, the signal to noise ratio can be increased by an additional smoothing along the frequency direction. However, this will introduce an additional complexity in measuring the brightness temperature profile from a source. The signal evolves along the frequency direction and the evolution is particularly strong around sources that bright in UV and X-ray bands [@2012MNRAS.426.3178M]. Using higher frequency width will smooth out this evolution to some extent. Additionally, observational parameters such as the sky temperature and effective antenna area have strong frequency dependencies. In order to properly calculate the system noise one should consider these effects and we defer this for future work. To avoid all these complexities, we restrict our analysis within a very small frequency interval.
The effect of smoothing on the image maps is shown in Figure \[image\_p4diff\_kernal\]. The three panels from the left-hand side show the effect of using a Gaussian smoothing kernel of width $10 \arcmin$, $20 \arcmin$ and $30 \arcmin$ respectively. One can clearly see that the 21-cm pattern of the source becomes more prominent as we increase the width of the kernel. This is related to the fact that the noise amplitude decreases because of smoothing. For example, the rms noise of the map without smoothing (right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\]) is $\sim$19 $\mu$Jy for 2000 h of observation and 100 kHz of frequency resolution, while the rms noise reduces to $\sim 0.4 ~\mu$Jy for smoothing with the fiducial Gaussian filter of size 30 (right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4tbsins\_nosmt\]).[^13]
We define the SNR of the maps as the ratio of the largest absolute amplitude of the observed pixel (signal + noise in this case) in the image plane and the rms noise. We average over 10 independent realizations of the noise while calculating the SNR. The SNRs in the left-hand to right-hand panels of Figure \[image\_p4diff\_kernal\] are 4, 7.5 and 11 respectively, while the corresponding rms noise are 4.4, 1.1 and 0.4 $\mu$Jy respectively. It is clear that the SNR increases with the width of the Gaussian filter. Thus, it is possible to detect the signal by smoothing the maps with sufficiently wide filters like 30 within 400 (150) hours of observation with an SNR $\sim 5$ ($\sim 3$).
We use the Pearson-cross-correlation to quantify the similarity between two maps. For two maps having amplitudes $x_{i}$ and $y_{i}$ at the $i$th pixel, the Pearson-cross-correlation coefficient is defined as $$\chi=\frac{\sum_{i}{(x_i-\bar{x})(y_i-\bar{y})}}{\sqrt{\sum_{i}(x_i-\bar{x})^2}\sqrt{\sum_{i}(y_i-\bar{y})^2}},$$ where $\bar{x}$ and $\bar{y}$ are the mean of the maps $x_i$ and $y_i$ respectively. The value of $\chi$ for the 21-cm map around the isolated fiducial source smoothed by a Gaussian kernel of width $30 \arcmin$ and a similar smoothed map which included the system noise is 0.56. The value of $\chi$ is relatively smaller in these case as the signal from the source is localized in the central part of the map, while most part of the image in the second case is dominated by the noise.
We have seen that the detectability of the signal from the fiducial source improves significantly when we smooth the image over some scale. However, this same smoothing can change the original profile of the ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ distribution around the fiducial source. This may create additional difficulties in extracting the properties of the source from these maps. Thus, we must check whether these smoothed profiles can even be used for parameter estimation. The panels (a) - (h) in Figure \[image\_p4tbprof\_smt\_allpara\] show the true ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profiles (solid lines) and the smoothed ones with a Gaussian filter of size 30(dashed lines) for different source parameters. In each of these panels, we keep all the parameters except one fixed to their fiducial values. One can easily notice that the smoothed profiles are quite sensitive to parameters like the stellar mass $M_{\star}$, over-density ($1+\delta$) and the UV escape fraction $f_{\rm esc}$, while the profiles are almost unaffected while changing the X-ray parameters $f_X$, $\alpha$ and the age of the source $t_{\rm age}$. We can thus infer that it should be possible to infer the values of the $M_{\star}, \delta$ and $f_{\rm esc}$ from the smoothed images, while other parameters may remain undetermined. The panel (g) in Figure \[image\_p4tbprof\_smt\_allpara\] shows the smoothed ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profiles for different source models. It is interesting to note that the profiles look almost the same, thus implying that it would not be straightforward to infer the precise source model from the smoothed image maps. The panel (h) of Figure \[image\_p4tbprof\_smt\_allpara\] shows the smoothed ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile of the fiducial source for the Gaussian filters of width 10, 20 and 30. The error bars in the panel show the $1-\sigma$ error due to the system noise for 2000 h of observation and 100 kHz of frequency resolution when the filter width is taken to be 30. The errors have been obtained by averaging over pixels lying in circular annulus around the centre of the source. The system noise, when averaged circularly in a single slice, should drop like $R^{1/2}$ in a scenario when the noise in adjacent pixels in the image are uncorrelated. However, smoothing makes the noise at different pixels correlated and therefore a simple drop of the error like $R^{1/2}$ is not applicable in this case. We calculate the true error bars by making independent realizations of the noise map and smoothing it using the Gaussian filter. We then bin the image in the radial direction around the centre of the source and calculate the circularly averaged noise at each bin for each realization. The variation of this quantity across realizations gives the required rms. The error bars in panel (h) of Figure \[image\_p4tbprof\_smt\_allpara\] represent the rms calculated using this method. By comparing with the panels (a) - (g), we find that the change in the profiles when we change the values of $M_{\star}, \delta$ and $f_{\rm esc}$ is larger than the sizes of the error bars. Thus one expects that a reasonably advanced parameter estimation method (e.g., MCMC) using the smoothed ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile can put strong constraints on the three parameters $M_{\star}$, ($1+\delta$) and $f_{\rm esc}$, whereas the X-ray parameters and $t_{\rm age}$ may not be strongly constrained.
Now let us discuss the detectability of other source models in this foreground-free scenario. The SNRs for the Galaxy and HMXB source models for the fiducial parameter values are 11.3 and 11.2 respectively for the smoothed maps. Although the absorption signal in the expected ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profiles in Figure \[image\_p4spectrum\] is stronger for the Galaxy and HMXB source models compared to the mini-QSO, all the profiles look almost similar after smoothing which leads to similar SNRs (see panel (g) of Figure \[image\_p4tbprof\_smt\_allpara\]). The SNR is also quite sensitive to the redshift of observation. For example, if the source formation starts at a lower redshift, say, $z=10$, the SNR of the fiducial mini-QSO model increases from $\sim$11 to $\sim 46$ because of the decrease in the system noise. The SNRs for different values of the parameters are listed in Table \[table\_snr\].
Till now we have been considering the scenario where there is only one source in the FOV and the ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile is calculated using the method given in section \[sig\_map\]. Since a small amount of ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ radiation is sufficient to couple ${T_{\rm S}}$ to ${T_{\rm K}}$, it is possible that the IGM may rapidly attain a state where the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupling is very strong in every part of the IGM. This can arise, e.g., from the significant overlap between the individual ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ bubbles of the very early sources. In such a scenario, we will have ${T_{\rm S}}={T_{\rm K}}$ at all points in the IGM which we call the “${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupled scenario” (same as model $B$ in Paper I). In this case, a large fraction of the IGM show strong absorption signal, however, the mean subtracted signal is expected to be very little in the emission and absorption regions. In order to achieve an SNR of $\sim 5$ for the fiducial source in this scenario, we require an observing time as large as 10,000 h when the smoothing is done with a Gaussian filter of size 30. Hence the detectability of the signal will be significantly more challenging when the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupling complete.
Source $M_{\star}$ $1+\delta$ $f_{\rm esc}$ $1+z$ Filter SNR1 SNR2
---------- -------------------------- ------------ --------------- ------- ---------- ------ ------ -- -- -- --
Mini-QSO $10^7 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.1 16 $30^{'}$ 11.1 9.1
Mini-QSO $10^6 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.1 16 $30^{'}$ 3.6 3.4
Mini-QSO $10^8 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.1 16 $30^{'}$ 25.9 20.2
Mini-QSO $10^7 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 2 0.1 16 $30^{'}$ 20.4 17.5
Mini-QSO $10^7 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.5 16 $30^{'}$ 5.2 4
Mini-QSO $10^7 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.1 11 $30^{'}$ 46 38
Mini-QSO $10^7 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.1 16 $10^{'}$ 4.2 4.0
Galaxy $10^7 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.1 16 $30^{'}$ 11.3 9.4
HMXBs $10^7 {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ 1 0.1 16 $30^{'}$ 11.2 9.2
### Signal + Noise + Foregrounds {#RES_SI_NS_FG}
Let us now investigate the detectability of the first sources in the presence of astrophysical foregrounds. As we have seen that the foregrounds are several orders larger than the signal as well as the system noise, it is in principle a very challenging task to recover the signal. However, the frequency dependence of the foregrounds is relatively smooth, while other components namely the signal and the noise behave differently. This property of the foregrounds can be used to subtract the foregrounds and recover the signal.
There are many approaches considered for removing the foregrounds, such as the polynomial fitting based method , Wp smoothing [@2010MNRAS.405.2492H], independent component analysis [@2013MNRAS.429..165C], continuous wavelet transform [@2013ApJ...773...38G] and so on. In this work, we consider the polynomial fitting method which is relatively straightforward to implement among the existing ones. The steps we follow to generate the foregrounds subtracted smoothed images are:
- First, we calculate the total visibility $V(\vec{U}, \nu)$ which can be written as, $$V(\vec{U}, \nu)=S(\vec{U}, \nu) + N(\vec{U}, \nu) + F(\vec{U}, \nu),
\label{equ_visi}$$ where $S(\vec{U}, \nu)$, $N(\vec{U}, \nu)$ and $F(\vec{U}, \nu)$ are the contributions from the cosmological signal, system noise and foregrounds respectively.
- We choose the components of $V(\vec{U}, \nu)$ along the frequency direction for each $\vec{U}$ and separately fit the real and imaginary part using a third order polynomial in logarithmic space. The form of the polynomial is given by $$\log V(\vec{U}, \nu)=\sum_{m=0}^{n} a_m \left( \log \nu \right)^m ,
\label{equ_polfit}$$ where we choose $n=3$ in this case. One thing to remember is that certain amount of signal and system noise is also removed during the foreground removal process. Thus fitting with a polynomial of a very high order may not be helpful.
- After the polynomial fitting, we subtract the fitted visibilities from the total visibilities to obtain the residual visibilities $V_{\rm res}(\vec{U}, \nu)$. These residual visibilities contain the residual foregrounds, signal and noise.
- Finally we carry out the two-dimensional inverse Fourier transform of the $V_{\rm res}(\vec{U}, \nu)$ at each frequency channel to get the real space maps that have the foregrounds subtracted.
- We smooth the image with a two-dimensional Gaussian filter to reduce the rms noise.
The left-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4si\_ns\_fg\] shows the real space 21-cm signal and system noise of the SKA1-low for 2000 h of observation as a function of the frequency channels along the line of sight which contains the centre of the source. One can see that the signal is contaminated by the system noise. The foregrounds along the same line of sight are several orders larger than the signal or the noise and hence is not shown in the figure. The right-hand panel shows the residual signal + noise after subtracting the foreground using the third order polynomial. Also shown is the difference between the original and the residual signal + noise. Clearly, the subtraction method is accurate enough to recover almost the original signal and noise. Figure \[image\_p4res\_sisnsfg\] shows the foreground subtracted image without (left-hand panel) and with (right-hand panel) smoothing with the Gaussian filter of size 30. One can see that some amount of signal and noise also subtracted during the foregrounds removal process by comparing the images at the right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4res\_sisnsfg\] and the right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4diff\_kernal\]. The loss of signal during the foregrounds removal is consistent with previous works like @jelic08 [@2009MNRAS.398..401L; @2010MNRAS.405.2492H; @2011MNRAS.413.2103P; @2012MNRAS.425.2964Z]. The value of $\chi$ for these two maps is 0.96. The SNR turns out to be $\sim 9$ for the same parameters for the foreground subtracted smoothed image, which is slightly smaller than the foreground-free image (the SNR turned out to be $\sim 11$ in that case).
An alternate method of subtracting the foregrounds would be to use a filter in the visibility space such that any frequency-independent component is subtracted out. We have discussed such a filter in Paper I and found that it is quite effective in removing the foregrounds. We implement the same filter in this paper as well and find the results to be similar. The resulting SNR for the fiducial model parameters turns out to be $\sim 10$, which is similar to the other method. We discuss the details of this filtering method in Appendix \[filter\_fg\].
Realistic maps of the first sources {#res_realistic}
-----------------------------------
Till now we have been working under the assumption that there is only one source in the FOV. In reality, however, one expects to have multiple sources in the field, and depending on the separation between them there could be significant overlap in the 21-cm patterns. We study these effects using a full cosmological simulation. The steps to generate the realistic maps are briefly described below and one can find the details of the method in @ghara15a [@ghara15b].
- We first generate the dark matter density and velocity fields at different redshift slices between redshift 20-6 from a $N-$body simulation using the code [cubep]{}$^3$[m]{}[^14] [@Harnois12] with $2592^3$ particles in a simulation box of size $300 ~h^{-1}$ cMpc. The minimum halo identified using spherical overdensity method is $\sim 4\times 10^9 ~{{\rm M}_{\odot}}$.
- We assume that each dark matter halo contains radiating sources. The relation between the stellar mass of the source ($M_{\star}$) and the mass of the hosting halo ($M_{\rm halo}$) is assumed to be, $$M_{\star}=f_{\star} \left(\frac{{\Omega}_B}{{\Omega}_m} \right) M_{\rm halo},
\label{eq_stell_halo}$$ where $f_{\star}$ is the stellar fraction of the baryon in the source. We choose $f_\star = 0.07$ so that the reionization optical depth $\tau=0.0584$ is consistent with the measurement of @2015arXiv150201589P. In this model, the reionization ends around $z \sim 6.3$.
- We generate the ionization and temperature maps in the simulation box using a one-dimensional radiative transfer around the sources. We use the pre-generated one-dimensional brightness profiles and a correlation between the temperature and ionization fraction to generate the ionization and temperature maps in the simulation box. The details of the method can be found in @ghara15a.
- We assume that the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ flux falls as $1/R^2$ with distance $R$. We calculate the coupling coefficients (${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupling, collisional coupling and coupling with the CMBR photons) which are used to generate ${T_{\rm S}}$ and ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ maps.
- We incorporate the effect of the peculiar velocities of the gas in the IGM using cell moving technique [@ghara15b]. Finally, we incorporate the light-cone effect, which is described in @ghara15b in details.
- Finally, we re-grid the simulation box to get the desired angular resolution, frequency resolution and observational band width.
The left-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4lcslice\] shows the $2.4^{\circ}\times 2.4^{\circ}$ image of the brightness temperature at the central frequency channel which corresponds to redshift $z=15$. We show the angular positions of the sources by the ‘$\times$’ marks within a band $\nu_c-0.1$ to $\nu_c+0.1$ MHz around the central frequency channel. One can clearly identify the absorption regions around the sources, however, there is substantial overlap between the individual patterns. The middle panel of Figure \[image\_p4lcslice\] shows the ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ map at redshift 16. The number of sources drops quite drastically in this frequency channel as we are probing the initial stages of the cosmic dawn. The overlap between the individual patterns too is not that substantial. The decrease in the number of sources towards the lower frequency channels can be seen from the right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4lcslice\], where we show the light-cone from our simulation box. The signal at the higher frequency end of the box is essentially the strong absorption signal arising from the significant overlap between the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ photons from the sources. Note that we have subtracted the mean from each frequency channel while making the image and thus, the signal is a combination of emission and absorption regions. As the signal from the channels corresponding to redshifts 15 and 16 are dominated by the absorption regions, the mean of the expected signal is negative. The regions with positive values of the signal in the left-hand and middle panels of Figure \[image\_p4lcslice\] arise because of subtracting the mean signal from the maps. In reality, these are the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ deficient regions with almost no 21-cm signal.
The top left-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4contoursim\] shows the smoothed image of the residual signal and noise at the central frequency channel after subtracting the foregrounds using the polynomial method. The noise in the panel corresponds to 200 h of observation and the smoothing is done using the Gaussian filter of size 30. One can easily identify that even in the smoothed map, the signal is localized around the sources. The top right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4contoursim\] shows the same but for 2000 h of observation. The signal to noise ratios of these top left-hand and right-hand panels are 4.8 and 14.2 respectively. The bottom left-hand and right-hand panels are same as the top panels but at a different frequency channel corresponding to $\nu=84$ MHz ($z = 16$). The corresponding SNRs in the bottom panels are 3.3 and 10.1 respectively. The Pearson cross-correlation coefficients $\chi$, in this case, are given in Table \[table\_chi\]. We find that the foreground subtraction method works effectively in this case as well leading to reasonably high values of $\chi$.
We have also shown the $3-\sigma$ and $5-\sigma$ contours of the signal in Figure \[image\_p4contoursim\]. One can see that it is possible to detect the signal at the $3-\sigma$ level within a modest 200 h of observations. The detection can be made more definite in an integration time of 2000 h where the signal is well above the $5-\sigma$ level. This can, in principle, help us in devising strategies for detecting the first sources. For definiteness, let us concentrate on the 84 MHz maps (bottom panels). One can see that, in the given field, one can identify a $3-\sigma$ region near the top-left corner of the map with a 200 h of observations (bottom left-hand panel). Once such a tentative detection of the signal happens in some field, one can attempt longer observation like 2000 h to identify the absorption regions with a larger SNR, as is shown in the bottom right-hand panel. As most of the absorption regions detected in the maps are situated around some sources, one can identify some isolated absorption region on the map to measure the smoothed ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile around the corresponding isolated source. Once this smoothed ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile is measured with error bars, it can be used to estimate the source parameters using some sophisticated methods like MCMC.
It is possible that the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupling can be quite efficient in the very early stages of galaxy formation, thus reducing the fraction of points that remain ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ deficient at redshifts of observation. In such a “${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupled” scenario, the 21-cm profile around the sources will be different than what has been considered here [@ghara15c]. In addition, the inhomogeneities in the cosmic density field too can have a significant impact on the signal maps [see e.g., @2000ApJ...528..597T]. In the “${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ coupled scenario”, a central overdense region followed by an underdense region can provide a ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profile (after smoothing with a Gaussian filter) similar to that shown in Figure \[image\_p4tbprof\_smt\_allpara\]. This could lead to an incorrect interpretation of the observations if this degeneracy between the fluctuations in the density field and the ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ radiation is not properly accounted for. A possible way out could be to use targetted follow-up observations using infrared telescopes and determine if there exists a radiation source at a location that is consistent with the 21-cm profile.
Redshift $t_{\rm obs}$ (h) $\chi$
---------- ------------------- --------
15 200 0.85
15 2000 0.8
16 200 0.89
16 2000 0.74
: The table shows the Pearson cross-correlation coefficients for different maps from the full cosmological simulation at different redshifts and for different observation time. The coefficient is calculated for the smoothed maps for the signal + noise and the residual signal + noise after foreground subtraction. []{data-label="table_chi"}
Summary and discussion {#conc}
======================
We have investigated the detectability of the first sources during the cosmic dawn using imaging techniques through future radio observations with the SKA1-low. Detecting the 21-cm signature of these sources is expected to reveal, at least to some extent, their properties and also the physical state of the surrounding IGM. However, their detection would be significantly challenging because the signal is much too weak compared to the system noise and the astrophysical foregrounds.
Our fiducial source model consists of stars within a galaxy along with a mini-QSO type X-ray source. The model for the sources can be parametrized by several unknown parameters, e.g., the stellar mass ($M_{\star}$), the escape fraction of the UV photons ($f_{\rm esc}$), the ratio of X-ray and UV luminosities ($f_X$), the X-ray spectral index ($\alpha$), the age of the source ($t_{\rm age}$), and the redshift of observation ($z$). In addition, we also need to specify the overdensity of the surrounding IGM ($1+\delta$), assuming it to be uniform. The fiducial values of these parameters are taken to be $M_{\star}=10^7 ~{{\rm M}_{\odot}}, f_{\rm esc}=0.1, f_X=0.05, \alpha =1.5, t_{\rm age}=20$ Myr, $z=15$ and $1 + \delta = 1$.
We have considered a fiducial observation using the present antenna configuration of the SKA1-low. Assuming that we observe a region at declination $\delta = -30^{\circ}$, we have used the baseline distribution to obtain the “dirty” map. We have added the system noise as well as the astrophysical foregrounds (Galactic synchrotron and extragalactic point sources) to the images. Our main aim is to explore whether the images can be used for detecting the signal from the first sources and if one can extract the properties of these sources from the maps.
Our main findings are listed below.
- If we assume the target source to be isolated, then in the situation where foregrounds can be perfectly subtracted out, it is possible to achieve a signal to noise ratio (SNR) $\sim 11$ for the fiducial source at a redshift of 15 for 2000 h of observation and a frequency resolution of 100 kHz. This SNR is achieved by smoothing the images with a Gaussian filter of size 30which helps in reducing the rms of the noise considerably. In general, the SNR increases with increasing width of the Gaussian filter.
- It is not possible to detect the signal in any reasonable observational time without smoothing the maps. Unfortunately, this smoothing alters the intrinsic brightness temperature profile around the sources which in turn makes it difficult to reliably extract their properties from the maps. We find that it is still possible to constrain the parameters $M_\star$, $f_{\rm esc}$ and $1+\delta$, while it will be difficult to extract any information on $f_X$, $\alpha$ and $t_{\rm age}$ from the smoothed ${\delta T_{\rm b}}$ profiles.
- Although the expected brightness temperature profiles around different types of sources are different, smoothing the maps makes it difficult to distinguish between these sources. In particular, we find that the smoothed profiles of the different X-ray sources, e.g., mini-QSOs and HMXBs, are similar to the case where there are no X-rays from the galaxy.
- The cosmological 21-cm signal is largely contaminated by the astrophysical foregrounds. In order to account for these, we model the Galactic synchrotron emission and extragalactic point sources [@Choudhuri2014MNRAS.445.4351C] and add them to our maps. We then use a third order polynomial fitting method to subtract the foregrounds. We are able to achieve an SNR $\sim 9$ for the fiducial source model which is only $\sim 20\%$ worse than the foreground-free scenario.
- Since the first galaxies are not expected to form in complete isolation, we generate more realistic signal maps from the output of a $N$-body simulation and using a one-dimensional radiative transfer code [@ghara15a]. The reionization history is calibrated to recent Planck measurements of the electron scattering optical depth [@2015arXiv150201589P]. We apply the same smoothing and foreground removal technique on these maps as discussed above. The SNR of the map at the redshift 15, after the foregrounds subtraction and smoothing with the fiducial filter, is $\sim$ 14 (4) for 2000 (200) h of observations. The corresponding SNR value is 10 (3) at redshift 16. This suggests that a possible observation strategy for the SKA1-low could be to observe multiple fields for small observation time like 200 h. If one is able to detect a $3-\sigma$ signal in any of these fields (after smoothing with filters of widths $\sim 30\arcmin$), then one can perform a deeper observation of $\sim 2000$ h and possibly constrain properties of the first sources along with the surrounding IGM.
Finally, we discuss some of the aspects of the study which need to be addressed in more details. Although we have modelled the foregrounds in a fairly detailed manner, they can be more complex in the actual case. One probably needs to devise more sophisticated methods to disentangle the signal in that case. Our analysis ignores various other complications, e.g., those arising from instabilities in the ionosphere, calibration of the signal, man-made interference, and instrumental systematics. One possible extension of the present work could be to consider all these complexities and develop a complete pipeline to prepare mock data sets for analysis.
On the modelling aspect, one needs to work out the signal in different reionization scenarios accounting for the uncertainties in the galaxy formation processes at high redshifts. This could include studying the effects of, e.g., the small mass sources of ionization and heating leading to a relatively early overlap of ${\rm {Ly{\alpha}}}$ regions [@ghara15a], alternate reionization scenarios driven by quasars [@2015ApJ...813L...8M; @2016MNRAS.457.4051K; @2016arXiv160602719M].
It is also possible to improve the methods used for detecting the signal. In this paper, we have mainly concentrated on the possibility of imaging the 21-cm pattern of the first sources which can be useful, particularly for visual identification, in a situation when the patterns around different sources overlap with each other. However, it is possible that a more efficient search can be performed in the visibility space where the noise is uncorrelated [@ghara15c]. In addition, the smoothing filters used in this work have been constructed assuming that we do not have any prior idea of the signal. One could also explore devising more sophisticated filters (e.g., matched filters) which account for the nature of the signal to make a more efficient detection.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Somnath Bharadwaj, Abhik Ghosh, Abhirup Datta, Subhashis Roy, Prasun Dutta and Rohit Sharma for useful discussions and constructive comments on the work. KKD would like to thank DST for support through the project SR/FTP/PS-119/2012 and the University Grant Commission (UGC), India for support through UGC-faculty recharge scheme (UGC-FRP) vide ref. no. F.4-5(137-FRP)/2014(BSR). RG and TRC acknowledge support from the Munich Institute for Astro- and Particle Physics (MIAPP) of the DFG cluster of excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe”.
Removing the foregrounds using a filter {#filter_fg}
=======================================
In this section, we present a different approach to remove the foregrounds using a suitable filter rather than subtracting the foregrounds using some subtraction method as explained earlier. We showed in Paper I that it is possible to detect the signal by summing up all the visibility contributions from different baselines and frequency channels in the foreground-free scenario. Even in the presence of the foregrounds, the signal is detectable using suitable filters which can decrease the foregrounds contributions below the signal. While the previous work was done using the analytical form of the signal from the source and for a somewhat idealized baseline distribution, here we repeat the calculation using the simulated signal and recently published baseline distribution of the SKA1-low.
The filter used introduced in Paper I does not depend on any prior information on the signal and it only uses the fact that the foregrounds have smooth frequency dependence. The details of the method of subtracting foregrounds using filters can be found in previous works like @kanan2007MNRAS.382..809D [@ghara15c]. Here we briefly describe the method.
We define the estimator $\hat{E}$ as $$\hat{E}= A_{\rm NS} (\Delta U)^2 \Delta {\nu}_c \sum_{a, b} ~V(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b) ~S^{\star}_f(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b) ~{n}_{\rm B}(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b),
\label{equ_est}$$ where $\Delta U$ is the grid resolution in the baseline distribution and the quantity $S_f(\vec{U}, \nu)$ represents the filter. The sum is over all possible baselines $a$ and frequency channels $b$. The normalization constant $A_{\rm NS}$ is given by $$A_{\rm NS}^{-1} = (\Delta U)^2 \Delta {\nu}_c \sum_{a, b} {n}_{\rm B}(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b) = N_{\rm B} B_{\nu},
\label{equ_ANS}$$ where $N_{\rm B}$ is the total number of baselines used in the study.
The system noise and the foregrounds are expected to be random numbers with zero mean. Thus, the expectation value of the estimator is expected to be, $$\left< \hat{E}\right>=A_{\rm NS} (\Delta U)^2 \Delta {\nu}_c \sum_{a, b} ~S(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b) ~S^{\star}_f(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b) ~{n}_{\rm B}(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b).
\label{equ_exp_est}$$ The associated errors from the system noise can be written as [@kanan2007MNRAS.382..809D], $$\begin{aligned}
\left< (\Delta\hat{E})^2\right>_{\rm NS} \!\!\!\! & = & \!\!\!\! {{\sigma}^2_N} A_{\rm NS} (\Delta U)^2 \Delta {\nu}_c \nonumber\\
&\times& \!\!\!\! \sum_{a, b} ~|S_f(\vec{U_a}, \nu_b)|^2 ~{n}_{\rm B}(\vec{U_a}, \nu_b),
\label{equ_exp_est_NS}\end{aligned}$$ where the quantity $\sigma_N$ is given by, $$\sigma_N = \frac{\sqrt{2}~ k_B T_{\rm sys}} {A_{\rm eff}~\sqrt{t_{\rm obs}~B_{\nu}~N_{\rm base}}}.
\label{equ_sigN}$$ The error contribution from the foregrounds is $$\begin{aligned}
\left< (\Delta\hat{E})^2\right>_{\rm FG} \!\!\!\! & = & \!\!\!\! A^2_{\rm NS} (\Delta U \Delta {\nu}_c)^2 \sum_{a, b, q} \left( \frac{2 k_B}{c^2} \right)^2 \left({\nu}_b {\nu}_q \right)^2 \nonumber\\
&\times& \!\!\!\! {n}_{\rm B}(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b) ~{n}_{\rm B}(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_q) ~C_{2\pi U_a}({\nu}_b, {\nu}_q) \nonumber\\
&\times& \!\!\!\! S^{\star}_f(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_b)S_f(\vec{U_a}, {\nu}_q),
\label{equ_fore_NS}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_l(\vec{U}, \nu_1, \nu_2)$ represent the multi-frequency angular power spectrum of the total foregrounds. The signal to noise ratio in this method is $${\rm SNR} = \frac{\left< \hat{E}\right>}{\sqrt{\left< (\Delta\hat{E})^2\right>_{\rm NS} + \left< (\Delta\hat{E})^2\right>_{\rm FG}}}.
\label{snr_est}$$
The form of the filter $S_f$, as defined in Paper I, is taken to be $$\begin{aligned}
S_f(\vec{U}, \nu) \!\!\!\! & = & \!\!\!\! \left(\frac{\nu}{{\nu}_c} \right)^2 \left[ S_{T}(\vec{U}, \nu, B_{f}) - \frac{\Theta(1-\vert\nu - {\nu}_c\vert/B^{'})}{B^{'}}\right. \nonumber\\
&\times & \!\!\!\!\left. {\int}_{{\nu}_c-B^{'}/2}^{{\nu}_c+B^{'}/2}S_{T}(\vec{U}, {\nu}^{'}, B_{f}) ~{\rm d}{\nu}^{'} \right],
\label{equ_filter}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{T}(\vec{U}, \nu, B_f) \!\!\!\! & = & \!\!\!\! 0 \mbox{ if } |\nu - {\nu}_c|>\frac{B_f}{2} \nonumber\\
&=& \!\!\!\! -1 \mbox{ if } |\nu - {\nu}_c|\leq \frac{B_f}{2}.
\label{equ_filter1}\end{aligned}$$ We choose $B^{'}=2 B_f$ if $B^{'} \leq B_{\nu}$, else $B^{'}= B_{\nu}$. The form of the filter $S_f$ depends on the bandpass filter $S_T(\vec{U}, \nu, B_f)$ of width $B_f$. One can use other more sophisticated filters like the match filter [see, e.g., @kanan2007MNRAS.382..809D] to obtain higher SNR. However, for those filters, one usually requires some prior information about the expected signal.
The main result of the filtering method is shown in Figure \[image\_p4filter\]. The left-hand panel shows the signal estimator and the corresponding errors from the system noise and the foregrounds as a function of the bandpass width $B_f$. We find that it is possible to reduce the foregrounds contribution below the signal level using suitable bandpass width. The maximum SNR, as shown in the right-hand panel of Figure \[image\_p4filter\], is achieved for $B_f \sim 1 $ MHz, and the peak SNR turns out to be $\sim 10$. The width of the filter that provides the maximum SNR, in fact, corresponds to the size of the absorption region around the source.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: http://jwst.nasa.gov
[^3]: http://www.lofar.org/
[^4]: http://eor.berkeley.edu/
[^5]: http://www.mwatelescope.org/
[^6]: http://www.gmrt.tifr.res.in
[^7]: http://www.skatelescope.org/
[^8]: http://www2.iap.fr/pegase/
[^9]: The fiducial stellar mass of the source corresponds to stellar content in a dark matter halo of mass $ \sim 6 \times 10^8\, {{\rm M}_{\odot}}$ assuming $f_{\star} = 0.1$ where $f_{\star}$ is the fraction of baryons converted into stars. In presence of molecular cooling, star formation is possible even in haloes with mass as small as $10^6 ~{{\rm M}_{\odot}}$. However, the efficiency of the formation of molecular hydrogen is very uncertain at high redshift. Detecting the sources formed in such low-mass haloes will be quite challenging [see e.g., @ghara15c]. In case the star formation occurs only in haloes where the gas cools by atomic transitions, the sources will be hosted in haloes with mass $\gtrsim 10^8 ~{{\rm M}_{\odot}}$, similar to our fiducial value.
[^10]: The antennae positions for the SKA1-low is taken from http://astronomers.skatelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SKA1-Low-ConfigurationV4a.pdf
[^11]: In principle, the baseline distribution is dependent on the frequency of interest and thus, should be different for different frequency channels. In this study, we have ignored this fact and worked with only one baseline distribution which corresponds to the central frequency of the observation.
[^12]: The foreground contribution from the unresolved extragalactic point sources can be divided into two parts, ($i$) the Poisson contribution and ($ii$) the clustering contribution. The point source clustering part dominates over the Poisson part at large angular scales [@2002ApJ...564..576D]. However, the diffuse synchrotron emission from our galaxy is expected to be much stronger than the point source clustering contribution at these large scales [@2002ApJ...564..576D; @2005ApJ...625..575S; @kanan2007MNRAS.382..809D]. We, therefore, do not consider the foreground contribution from the clustering part in this study.
[^13]: $30^{'}$ corresponds to a spatial scale of $\sim 90$ cMpc, which is typical size of the 21-cm region around the source after 20 Myr.
[^14]: http://wiki.cita.utoronto.ca/mediawiki/index.php/CubePM
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'If $E \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a compact set of Hausdorff dimension greater than $5/4$, we prove that there is a point $x \in E$ so that the set of distances $\{ |x-y| \}_{y \in E}$ has positive Lebesgue measure.'
author:
- 'Larry Guth, Alex Iosevich, Yumeng Ou, and Hong Wang'
title: 'On Falconer’s distance set problem in the plane'
---
introduction
============
.125in
For a set $E \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$, define the distance set
$$\Delta(E)=\{|p-p'|: p,p' \in E\}.$$
Falconer’s distance problem ([@Falc86]) is about the connection between the Hausdorff dimension of a set $E$ and the size of $\Delta(E)$. Given a compact set $E$ in ${\Bbb R}^d$, $d \ge 2$, Falconer asked how large the Hausdorff dimension of $E$ needs to be to ensure that the Lebesgue measure of $\Delta(E)$ is positive. He proved that if $dim_{{\mathcal H}}(E)>\frac{d+1}{2}$, then ${\mathcal L}(\Delta(E))>0$. Using an example based on the integer lattice, he showed for every $s \leq \frac{d}{2}$ there exist sets of Hausdorff dimension $s$ for which ${\mathcal L}(\Delta(E))=0$. This led him to conjecture that if $dim_{{\mathcal H}}(E)>\frac{d}{2}$, then the Lebesgue measure of the distance set is positive. This is known as the Falconer Distance Conjecture.
In [@W99], Wolff proved that if $E \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a compact set with Hausdorff dimension greater than $4/3$, then $\Delta(E)$ has positive Lebesgue measure. In this paper, we improve the bound.
\[main1\] If $E \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a compact set with Hausdorff dimension greater than $5/4$, then $\Delta(E)$ has positive Lebesgue measure.
In higher dimensions, Erdoğan proved in [@Erd05] that if $dim_{{\mathcal H}}(E)>\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{3}$, then ${\mathcal L}(\Delta(E))>0$. Recently, these estimates were improved for all $d \ge 3$ by Du, Guth, Ou, Wang, Wilson, and Zhang [@DGOWWZ18]. In dimension 3, they showed that the Falconer conjecture holds when $dim_{{\mathcal{H}}}(E) > 9/5$. The estimates for $d \ge 4$ were further improved by Du and Zhang in [@DZ18]. For large $d$, they prove that Falconer’s conjecture holds when $dim_{{\mathcal{H}}}(E) > \frac{d}{2} + \frac{1}{4} + o(1)$. These works brought into play the decoupling theorem of Bourgain and Demeter [@BD15]. This approach will also play a key role in our proof.
Returning to the planar case, there have been a number of important recent results. Orponen [@O17] proved that if $E$ is a compact Ahlfors-David regular set of dimension $s \ge 1$, then $\Delta(E)$ has packing dimension 1. Note that packing dimension 1 is only slightly weaker than positive measure. This result was striking because in previous work on the problem, there was no evidence that the Ahlfors-David case would be any easier than the general case. This approach was further developed by Keleti and Shmerkin [@KS18]. They proved very strong estimates for sets that are even roughly like Ahlfors-David regular sets. They also proved results about the Hausdorff dimension of $\Delta (E)$. For instance, if $E$ is a compact set with Hausdorff dimension strictly greater than $1$, then they proved that the Hausdorff dimension of $\Delta(E)$ is at least $.685...$. Bourgain ([@B03]) had proven that if $E$ has Hausdorff dimension at least 1, then $\Delta(E)$ has Hausdorff dimension at least $1/2 + \delta$ for some $\delta > 0$. The value of $\delta$ could be made explicit but it would be very small, and so the $.685...$ is quite striking. We will use one of the key ideas of [@O17] and [@KS18] in the proof of Theorem \[main1\].
There is a variant of the Falconer Distance Problem involving pinned distance sets. For any point $x$, the pinned distance set $\Delta_x(E)$ is defined by
$$\Delta_x(E)=\{|x-y|: y \in E\} .$$
Peres and Schlag ([@PS00]) proved that if $E \subset {\Bbb R}^d$, $d \ge 2$ and $dim_{{\mathcal H}}(E)>\frac{d+1}{2}$, then ${\mathcal L}(\Delta_x(E))>0$ for every $x \in E$ except for a set of small Hausdorff dimension. Improvements on the size of the exceptional set were obtained by the second listed author and Liu in [@ILiu17].
Recently, in [@Liu18], Liu showed that if $dim_{{\mathcal H}}(E)>\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{3}$, then ${\mathcal L}(\Delta_x(E)) > 0$ for every $x \in E$ except those in a set of small Hausdorff dimension. Using Liu’s method, we are also able to bound the size of pinned distance sets.
\[main\] If $E\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ is a compact set with Hausdorff dimension larger than $\frac54$, then there is a point $x\in E$ such that its pinned distance set $\Delta_x(E)$ has positive Lebesgue measure.
Other norms
-----------
The Falconer problem has also been studied for other norms. Suppose that $K$ is a symmetric convex body in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and $\| \cdot \|_K$ is the norm with unit ball $K$. We let $\Delta_{K}(E)$ be the set of distances $ \| x-y \|_{K}$ with $x,y \in E$ and we let $\Delta_{K,x}(E)$ be the set of distances $\| x - y \|_K$ with $y \in E$. If $K$ is the cube $[-1,1]^d$, then $\| \cdot \|_K$ is the $l^\infty$ norm, and it is not difficult to construct a compact set $E \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ with Hausdorff dimension $d$ so that $\Delta_{K}(E)$ has measure zero. But there are non-trivial results if $K$ is curved. We focus on the case that $\partial K$ is $C^\infty$ smooth and has positive Gaussian curvature. It is plausible that Falconer’s conjecture remains true for all such norms, and most previous results on the problem extend to this setting. For instance, Erdoğan’s bound extends to this class of norms – cf. Remark 1.6 in [@Erd05]. Our method also extends to this class of norms.
\[main2\] Let $K$ be a symmetric convex body in ${\Bbb R}^2$ whose boundary $\partial K$ is $C^\infty$ smooth and has strictly positive curvature. Let $E\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ be a compact set whose Hausdorff dimension is larger than $\frac54$. Then, there exists a point $x\in E$ so that the pinned distance set $$\Delta_{K,x}(E):=\{{||x-y||}_K:\, y\in E\}$$ has positive Lebesgue measure.
\[ksanalogrmk\] One can adapt the proof of Theorem \[main1\] and Theorem \[main2\] to yield the following result. Suppose that the Hausdorff dimension of a compact set $E \subset {\Bbb R}^2$ is equal to $s>1$ and $K$ is as in Theorem \[main2\]. Then there exists $x \in E$ such that the upper Minkowski dimension of $\Delta_{x, K}(E)$ is $\ge \frac{4s}{3}-\frac{2}{3}$. Keleti and Shmerkin ([@KS18]) obtained the lower bound $\frac{1}{4}(1+s+\sqrt{3s(2-s)})$ in the case of the Euclidean metric. Their estimate is better than ours near $s=1$, but ours is preferable as $s$ nears $\frac{5}{4}$. The sketch of this argument is given in Appendix where we also discuss the complications of replacing the upper Minkowski dimension by the Hausdorff dimension in the claim above.
.125in
Falconer’s distance problem can be thought of as a continuous analogue of a combinatorial problem raised by Erdős in [@Erd45]: given a set $P$ of $N$ points in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, what is the smallest possible cardinality of $\Delta(P)$. A grid is the best known example in all dimensions. In two dimensions, Guth and Katz [@GK15] proved a lower bound for $|\Delta(P)|$ which nearly matches the grid example (up to a factor of $\log^{1/2} N$). In higher dimensions, there is a larger gap, and the best known result is due to Solymosi and Vu [@SV08]. The Erdős distinct distance problem also makes sense for general norms and much less is known about it. In the planar case, if $K$ is smooth and has strictly positive curvature, the best known bound says that if $|P| = N$, then $| \Delta_K(P) | \gtrsim N^{3/4}$, with stronger estimates established by Garibaldi in special cases ([@Gar04]). There is a conversion mechanism to go from Falconer-type results to Erdős-type results that was developed by the second author together with Hoffman ([@HI05]), Laba ([@IL05]), and Rudnev and Uriarte-Tuero ([@IRU14]). It gives estimates for point sets that are fairly spread out. Applying the conversion mechanism to Theorem \[main2\] we get the following corollary:
\[falconertoerdosthm\] Let $K$ be a symmetric convex body in ${\Bbb R}^2$ whose boundary $\partial K$ is $C^\infty$ smooth and has strictly positive curvature. Let $P$ be a set of $N$ points in ${[0,1]}^2$ so that the distance between any two points is $\gtrsim N^{-1/2}$. Then there exists $x \in P$ such that $$\label{erdospinnedours} | \Delta_{K,x}(P)| \gtrapprox N^{\frac{4}{5}}.$$
The main obstacle
-----------------
The work on the Falconer problem by Wolff [@W99] and Erdoğan [@Erd05] is based on a framework developed by Mattila ([@Mat85] and [@Mat87]) which connects the original geometric problem to estimates in Fourier analysis. Suppose that $E$ is a compact set with positive $\alpha$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. Then there is a probability measure $\mu$ supported on $E$ with $\mu(B(x,r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$ for every ball $B(x,r)$. The measure $\mu$ is called a Frostman measure (cf. [@W03], Proposition 8.2.). Let $d(x,y) = |x-y|$. Mattila considered the pushforward measure $d_*(\mu \times \mu)$. Recall that a pushforward measure is defined by
$$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi(t) d_*(\mu \times \mu) := \int_{E \times E} \psi(|x-y|) d \mu(x) d \mu(y).$$
In particular $d_*(\mu \times \mu)$ is a probability measure supported on $\Delta(E)$. Mattila noted that if $ \| d_*(\mu \times \mu) \|_{L^2}^2 = \int d_*(\mu \times \mu)(t)^2 dt$ is finite, then Cauchy-Schwarz forces the Lebesgue measure of $\Delta(E)$ to be positive. Then he described an interesting way to rewrite $\| d_*(\mu \times \mu) \|_{L^2}^2$ in terms of the Fourier transform of $\mu$. The resulting integral is connected to restriction theory, and Wolff used that connection to prove the bound in [@W99], building on earlier work by Bourgain [@B94].
In [@Liu18], Liu used a different framework for the Falconer problem which leads to estimates on pinned distance sets. For any $x$, define $d^x(y) = |x-y|$. He studied the quantity
$$\label{liuquant} \int \| d^x_* (\mu) \|_{L^2}^2 d \mu(x).$$
If this key quantity is finite, then for almost every $x \in E$, $\| d^x_* \mu \|_{L^2}$ is finite, and then a Cauchy-Schwarz argument forces the Lebesgue measure of $\Delta_x(E)$ to be positive. Liu introduced an interesting way to rewrite this quantity in terms of the Fourier transform of $\mu$. It can then be studied using restriction theory, leading to estimates on the pinned distance problem.
In the planar case, there is an obstruction to pushing either one of these methods to dimensions below $4/3$. For every $\alpha < 4/3$, there is a set $E$ of dimension $\alpha$ and a Frostman measure $\mu$ on $E$ so that $\| d_*(\mu \times \mu) \|_{L^2}$ is infinite, and also $\| d^x_* (\mu) \|_{L^2}$ is infinite for every $x \in E$. This set is a variation on an example from [@KT01]. The set $E$ looks roughly like several parallel train tracks. In the following figure, we show an approximation of the set $E$ at a small scale $R^{-1}$. The measure $\mu$ (approximated at scale $R^{-1}$) is just the normalized area measure on this set.
 Figure 1
The set $E$ is divided among several large $R^{-1/2} \times 1$ rectangles. Within each of these large rectangles, the set $E$ consists of evenly spaced parallel rectangles with dimensions $R^{-1/2} \times R^{-1}$. Each of these smaller rectangles is called a slat. The restriction of $E$ to one of the larger rectangles is called a train track. The spacing between two consecutive slats is controlled by the dimension of $E$, and it works out to $R^{-\alpha/2}$. If $x$ and $y$ are in the same train track, on roughly opposite sides, and if $y$ is $M$ slats from $x$, then $|x-y|$ lies in the interval
$$I_M := [ M R^{-\alpha/2} - R^{-1}, M R^{-\alpha/2} + R^{-1}].$$
Therefore, $ d_*(\mu \times \mu)$ assigns a lot of mass to the union of the intervals $I_M$. This union is quite small, and even though the mass involved is significantly less than 1, it is still enough to force $\int |d_*(\mu \times \mu)|^2$ to be very large.
There is a similar issue for $d^x_*(\mu)$. If we fix any $x \in E$, and we let $T_0$ be the large rectangle containing $x$, then $d^x_* ( \mu|_{T_0})$ is mostly concentrated on $\cup I_M$, and this forces $\int |d^x_* \mu|^2$ to be very large. On the other hand, if $T$ is a large rectangle which is far from $x$, then $d^x_* (\mu|_T)$ is rather evenly distributed – in fact $d^x_*( \mu |_{T})$ is close to the pushforward of the uniform measure on $T$ with the same total mass. So if we graph $d^x_* (\mu)$, it has some peaks along $\cup I_M$ coming from the rectangle $T_0$ through $x$, but the bulk of $d^x_*(\mu)$ is spread rather evenly and comes from rectangles $T$ far from $x$. In particular, the support of $d^x_*(\mu)$ indeed has positive Lebesgue measure.
This example is the main obstacle to proving the Falconer conjecture for dimensions less than 4/3. Starting with a general Frostman measure, we separate out a part of it that resembles the train tracks in the example above. Then we estimate the train-track part and the non-train-track part in different ways.
For technical reasons, we consider two subsets $E_1, E_2 \subset E$ separated by distance $\sim 1$, and we let $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ be Frostman measures on $E_1, E_2$. In the example above, we can imagine that $E_1$ is the bottom third and $E_2$ is the top third. We divide $\mu_1$ into two pieces
$$\mu_1 = {\mu_{1, good}}+ \mu_{1, bad},$$
where $\mu_{1,bad}$ is essentially the train-track-like part of $\mu_1$. We always arrange, however, that $\int \mu_{1, bad} = 0$.
For example, if $\mu_1$ is the normalized area measure on the set $E_1$ in Figure 1 above, then ${\mu_{1, good}}$ would be (approximately) the normalized area measure on the union of the large rectangles. The bad part, $\mu_{1, bad}$, is equal to $\mu_1 - {\mu_{1, good}}$, so it would be large on the slats and slightly negative on the parts of the large rectangles outside of the slats. If $T_0$ is the large rectangle containing $x$, then $d^x_* ({\mu_{1, good}}|_{T_0})$ would be much more spread out than $d^x_* (\mu_1 |_{T_0})$. On the other hand, if $T$ is far from $x$, then $d^x_* ({\mu_{1, good}}|_T)$ would be almost the same as $d^x_* (\mu_1 |_T)$. All together, the graph of $d^x_* ({\mu_{1, good}})$ would look like the graph of $d^x_* (\mu_1)$ with the peaks damped out. The pushforward $d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}})$ would be quite evenly spread and its $L^2$ norm would be finite. The graph of $d^x_*(\mu_{1, bad})$ would include the tall thin peaks from $d^x_*(\mu_1)$, and it would be slightly negative between the peaks. Since the thin peaks have small mass, the $L^1$ norm of $d^x_*(\mu_{1, bad})$ would be small.
To prove Theorem \[main\], we will show that the features of ${\mu_{1, good}}$ and $\mu_{1, bad}$ that we just observed in the example from Figure 1 will occur for any set $E$ of dimension greater than $5/4$. There are two main estimates. The first estimate, in Proposition \[mainest1\], says that for most $x \in E_2$, $\| d^x_*(\mu_{1, bad})\|_{L^1}$ is small, and so the $L^1$ distance between $ d^x_* (\mu_1)$ and $ d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}})$ is small. The bad part, $\mu_{1, bad}$, is made from train track configurations, and that helps us analyze it. Analyzing each individual train track is not difficult. However, unlike in our example above, it could happen that each point lies in many different train tracks going in different directions. To control this type of behavior, we use an estimate of Orponen from [@O17b] which also played a key role in Keleti and Shmerkin’s work on the Falconer problem [@KS18].
The second estimate says that $d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}$ is better behaved in $L^2$ than $d^x_* \mu_1$. More precisely, Proposition \[mainest2\] says that if $\alpha > 5/4$, then $\int_{E_2} \| d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{L^2}^2$ is finite. The proof of Proposition \[mainest2\] is based on Liu’s framework and on decoupling. We will prove and then use a refinement of the decoupling theorem (Theorem \[refdec\]) which is related to the refined Strichartz estimates that appear in [@DGL17], [@DGLZ18], and [@DGOWWZ18]. This refinement of decoupling was proven independently by Xiumin Du and Ruixiang Zhang (personal communication). It may be of independent interest.
Here is an outline of the paper. In Section \[sec:outline\], we set up our framework (defining ${\mu_{1, good}}$ precisely) and outline the main estimates. At that point, we will be able to make some further comments about the proofs of the two main propositions. In Section \[sec:mainest1\], we prove Proposition \[mainest1\]. In Section \[sec:RS\], we state and prove a refinement of the decoupling theorem. At that point, we will give some more context about this result. Section 4 does not depend on any previous sections. In Section \[sec:mainest2\], we prove Proposition \[mainest2\] by combining Liu’s framework with our decoupling tools. This will finish the proof of Theorem \[main\]. In Section \[sec:traintracks\], we present in detail the train track example that we introduced above. In Section \[sec:genmetric\], we adapt our arguments to general metrics $\| \cdot \|_K$, proving Theorem \[main2\]. In Section \[sec:erdos\], we prove Corollary \[falconertoerdosthm\].
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The first author is supported by a Simons Investigator grant. The second author is supported in part by the NSA Grant H98230-15-0319. The third author is supported by NSF-DMS \#1764454.
Setup and outline of the main estimates {#sec:outline}
=======================================
Let $E \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a compact set with positive $\alpha$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. Without loss of generality, we can suppose that $E$ is contained in the unit disk. Let $E_1$ and $E_2$ be subsets of $E$ with positive $\alpha$-dimensional Hausdorff measure so that the distance from $E_1$ to $E_2$ is $\gtrsim 1$. Each subset $E_i$ admits a measure $\mu_i$ with the following two properties:
$$\label{muprob} \mu_i \textrm{ is a probability measure supported on } E_i.$$
$$\label{mualphadim} \mu_i (B(x, r)) \lesssim r^\alpha.$$
We will explain how to define ${\mu_{1, good}}$ by removing “train-track like” pieces from $\mu_1$. Before going into the details, let us explain the features of a train track that motivate our definition of ${\mu_{1, good}}$. Let $\mu$ be the example in Figure 1 and let $T$ be one of the $R^{-1/2} \times 1$ rectangles containing a train track of the set $E$. One feature of $T$ is that $\mu(T)$ is large. Because the slats of the train track are perpendicular to the direction of $T$, the Fourier transform of $\mu|_T$ is concentrated on frequencies that are in the same direction as $T$. This is a second feature of $T$. So to build ${\mu_{1, good}}$, we will first identify rectangles $T$ with large $\mu$ measure and call them bad rectangles. Then for each bad rectangle $T$, we will identify the part of $\mu$ with physical support in $T$ and frequency support in the direction of $T$, and remove that part. Here is the precise definition.
We consider a sequence of scales $R_0$, $R_1$, $R_2$, etc. Here $R_0$ is a large number that we will choose later and $R_j = 2^j R_0$. Cover the annulus $R_{j-1} \le |\omega| \le R_j$ by rectangular blocks $\tau$ with dimensions approximately $R_j^{1/2} \times R_j$. The long direction of each block $\tau$ is the radial direction. We choose a partition of unity subordinate to this cover, so that
$$1 = \psi_0 + \sum_{j \ge 1, \tau} \psi_{j, \tau}.$$
Let $\delta > 0$ be a small constant.
For each $(j, \tau)$, cover the unit disk with tubes $T$ of dimensions approximately $R_j^{-1/2 + \delta} \times 1$ with the long axis parallel to the long axis of $\tau$. Let ${\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ be the collection of all these tubes, and let $\eta_T$ be a partition of unity subordinate to this covering, so that for each choice of $j$ and $\tau$, $ \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} \eta_T $ is equal to 1 on the disk of radius 2.
Define an operator $M_T$ associated to a tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ by
$$M_T f := \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat f)^{\vee}.$$
Morally, $M_T f$ is the part of $f$ which has Fourier support in $\tau$ and physical support in $T$. We also let $M_0 f := (\psi_0 \hat f)^{\vee}$. We denote ${\mathbb{T}}_j = \cup_{\tau} {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ and ${\mathbb{T}}= \cup_{j \ge 1} {\mathbb{T}}_j$. If $f$ is a function supported on the unit disk, then $f = M_0 f + \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}} M_T f$, up to a tiny error (see Lemma \[f=MTf\] below for a precise statement).
We call a tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ bad if
$$\mu_2 (T) \ge R_j^{-1/2 + 100 \delta}.$$
To get a sense of what this means, notice that the number of tubes $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ is $\sim R_j^{1/2 - \delta}$. If each tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ contained the same amount of the measure $\mu_2$, then for each tube we would have $\mu_2(T) \sim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$. A tube is bad, if it contains significantly more $\mu_2$ measure than this. A tube is good if it is not bad. Now we define ${\mu_{1, good}}$ to be the sum of contributions from all the good tubes.
$${\mu_{1, good}}:= M_0 \mu_1 + \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}, T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1.$$
We describe a couple of examples to give a sense of how ${\mu_{1, good}}$ behaves. If $\mu_1$ is the normalized area measure on the set $E$ in Figure 1 above, then ${\mu_{1, good}}$ would be (approximately) the normalized area measure on the union of the large rectangles. On the other hand, if we took the set $E$ in Figure 1 above and we changed it by tilting the slats at a 45 degree angle while keeping the large rectangles vertical, then ${\mu_{1, good}}$ would be essentially equal to $\mu_1$. In general, ${\mu_{1, good}}$ may not be real-valued, but it is a distribution.
Our main theorem (Theorem \[main\]) follows from two estimates about the pushforward measures $d^x_* \mu_1$ and $d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}$.
\[mainest1\] If $\alpha > 1$, and if we choose $R_0$ large enough, then there is a subset $E_2' \subset E_2$ so that $\mu_2(E_2') \ge 1 - \frac{1}{1000}$ and for each $x \in E_2'$,
$$\| d^x_*(\mu_1) - d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^1} < \frac{1}{1000}.$$
\[mainest2\] If $\alpha > 5/4$, then
$$\int_{E_2} \| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^2}^2 d \mu_2(x) < + \infty.$$
\[Proof of Theorem \[main\] using Proposition \[mainest1\] and Proposition \[mainest2\]\] The two propositions tell us that there is a point $x \in E_2$ so that
$$\label{L1close} \| d^x_*(\mu_1) - d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^1} < 1/1000, \textrm{ and}$$
$$\label{L2bound} \| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^2} < + \infty.$$
Since $d^x_*(\mu_1)$ is a probability measure, (\[L1close\]) guarantees that
$$\int |d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}})| \ge 1 - \frac{1}{1000}.$$
Note that the support of $d^x_*(\mu_1)$ is contained in $\Delta_x(E)$. Therefore
$$\int_{\Delta_x(E)} | d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}| = \int |d^x_* ({\mu_{1, good}})| - \int_{\Delta_x(E)^c} |d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}})|$$
$$\ge 1 - \frac{1}{1000} - \int |d^x_*(\mu_1) - d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}})| \ge 1 - \frac{2}{1000}.$$
But on the other hand,
$$\label{yes} \int_{\Delta_x(E)} | d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}| \le | \Delta_x(E)|^{1/2} \left( \int |d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}|^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
Since (\[L2bound\]) tells us that $\int |d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}|^2$ is finite, it follows that $|\Delta_x(E)|$ is positive.
To end this section, let us make some comments about the proofs of Proposition \[mainest1\] and Proposition \[mainest2\]. To prove Proposition \[mainest1\], the first observation is that if $x$ is far from $T$, then removing $M_T \mu_1$ from $\mu_1$ has a negligible effect on the pushforward measure $d^x_* (\mu_1)$. So the difference between $d^x_* \mu_1$ and $d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}$ only comes from the bad tubes going through $x$. Recall that a tube $T$ is bad if its $\mu_2$ measure is too large. In general a point $x$ could lie in many bad tubes, and we need to know that the total $\mu_1$ measure of all these bad tubes is small (for most $x \in E_2$). This follows from Orponen’s radial projection theorem from [@O17b]. This theorem plays an important role in Keleti and Shmerkin’s work on the Falconer problem [@KS18], which is where we learned about it.
To discuss Proposition \[mainest2\], we first describe the framework from [@Liu18]. Let $\sigma_t$ denote the normalized arc length measure on the circle of radius $t$ (so the total measure is 1). In [@Liu18], Liu proved the following remarkable identity: for any function $f$,
$$\int_0^\infty | f * \sigma_t (x)|^2 t dt = \int_0^\infty |f * \hat \sigma_r(x)|^2 r dr.$$
It follows from this identity that
$$\int_{E_2} \| d^x_* ({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^2}^2 d \mu_2(x) \lesssim \int_0^\infty \left( \int_{E_2} |{\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r|^2 d\mu_2 (x) \right) r dr.$$
Now the Fourier transform of ${\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r$ is supported on the circle of radius $r$, and studying such functions is the subject of restriction theory. We can decompose ${\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r$ as
$${\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r = \sum_{T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r.$$
The right-hand side is essentially the wave packet decomposition of ${\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r$. This means that $M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r |_{B^2(1)}$ is essentially supported in $T$ and its Fourier transform is essentially supported in an arc of $S^1_r$ in the direction of $T$. Since the tubes $T$ are all good, each tube $T$ has a small $\mu_2$ measure, and we will take advantage of this to bound the inner integral $\int_{E_2} | {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r |^2 d \mu_2(x)$.
Since $T$ has a small $\mu_2$ measure, we can immediately get a good estimate for $\int_{E_2} | M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r|^2 d \mu_2$. But to bound $\int_{E_2}| {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r|^2 d \mu_2$, we need to know how the wave packets $M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r$ interact with each other. Is it possible that these wave packets have a lot of positive interference on the set $E_2$? We will use decoupling theory to control such positive interference. We will discuss this further in Section \[sec:RS\].
Proof of Proposition \[mainest1\] {#sec:mainest1}
=================================
We will study the pushforward measures $d^x_*(\mu_1)$ and $d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}})$. Recall by definition that
$$\int \psi(t) d^x_*(\mu) = \int \psi(|x-y|) d \mu(y).$$
In particular, if $\psi$ is the characteristic function of the interval $t_0 \le t \le t_0 + \Delta t$, then we see that
$$\int_{t_0}^{t_0 + \Delta t} d^x_*(\mu) = \int_{t_0 \le |x-y| \le t_0 + \Delta t} d \mu.$$
To evaluate $d^x_*(\mu)$ at $t$, we can take the limit as $\Delta t \rightarrow 0$. If we think of $\mu$ as $\mu(y) dy$, then we get
$$d^x_*(\mu) (t) = \int_{S^1(x,t)} \mu(y) dl(y),$$
where $dl(y)$ denotes the arc length measure on the circle $S^1(x,t)$.
To control $\| d^x_*(\mu_1) - d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^1}$ we will start by studying $ d^x_*(M_T \mu_1)$ for different $T$. For a tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}$, let $2T$ denote the concentric tube of twice the radius. If $x \notin 2T$, we show that $d^x_*( M_T \mu_1)$ is negligible.
\[xnotinT\] If $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$, and $x \in E_2$, and $x \notin 2T$, then
$$\| d^x_* (M_T \mu_1) \|_{L^1} \lesssim {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j).$$
We will prove the stronger estimate that for every $t$:
$$d^x_* (M_T \mu_1) (t) \lesssim {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j).$$
Recall that
$$\label{dxMT} d^x_* (M_T \mu_1)(t) = \int_{S^1(x,t)} M_T \mu_1(y) dl(y).$$
We also recall that
$$M_T \mu_1 = \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat \mu_1)^\vee = \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee * \mu_1).$$
Now $\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee$ is concentrated on a $R_j^{-1/2} \times R_j^{-1}$ rectangle centered at 0 and it decays rapidly outside that rectangle. Since $x \in E_2$, the distance from $x$ to the support of $\mu_1$ is $\gtrsim 1$. Therefore, $d^x_* M_T \mu_1(t)$ is tiny unless $t \sim 1$.
To study the case when $t \sim 1$, we expand out $M_T \mu_1$:
$$M_T \mu_1 (y) = \eta_T(y) ( \psi_{j, \tau} \hat \mu_1 )^{\vee}(y) = \eta_T(y) \int e^{2 \pi i \omega y} \psi_{j, \tau}(\omega) \hat \mu_1( \omega) d \omega.$$
Since $| \hat \mu_1(\omega) | \le 1$, and $\psi_{j, \tau}(\omega)$ is supported on $\tau$ and bounded by 1, it suffices to check that for each $\omega \in \tau$,
$$\label{statphase} \int_{S^1(x,t)} \eta_T(y) e^{2 \pi i \omega y} dl(y) \le {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j).$$
We will prove this rapid decay by stationary phase. There are two slightly different cases, depending on whether $T$ intersects $S^1(x, t/2)$ or not. Let us start with the case that $T$ intersects $S^1(x, t/2)$, since this case is a little harder. After a coordinate rotation, we can assume that $\omega$ has the form $(0, \omega_2)$ with $\omega_2 \sim R_j$. Recall that a tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ has long axis in the direction of the center of $\tau$. In particular, our tube $T$ must be nearly vertical, up to an angle of $R_j^{-1/2}$. The tube $T$ intersects $S^1(x,t)$ in two arcs, which we deal with one at a time. Each arc is a graph of the form $ y_2 = h(y_1)$, where $y_1$ lies in an interval $I(T)$ of length $\sim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$. Since $T$ intersects $S^1(x,t/2)$, and the tube $T$ is nearly vertical, the function $h$ and all its derivatives are $\lesssim 1$ on $I(T)$.
The following point is crucial for stationary phase. Since $T$ is within an angle $R_j^{-1/2}$ of vertical, and $x \notin 2T$, then the distance from $T$ to the top or bottom points of the circle is $\gtrsim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$, and so we get
$$|h'(y_1)| \gtrsim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta} \textrm{ on the interval } I(T).$$
In these coordinates, our integral becomes
$$\int_{I(T)} \eta_T(y_1, h(y_1)) e^{2 \pi i \omega_2 h(y_1)} J(y_1) dy_1,$$
where $J(y_1)$ is the Jacobian factor that relates the arclength on the circle to $dy_1$. Since $h$ and all its derivatives are $\lesssim 1$ on $I(T)$, the same applies to $J$. The function $\eta_T$ is smooth at scale $R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$, and so if we abbreviate $\eta(y_1) := \eta_T(y_1, h(y_1)) J(y_1)$, then $\eta$ obeys
$$| \eta^{(k)} | \lesssim (R_j^{1/2 - \delta})^k ,$$
and $\eta$ is supported on $I(T)$. We let $\phi(y_1) = 2 \pi \omega_2 h(y_1)$. We now have to bound the following integral:
$$\int_{I(T)} \eta(y_1) e^{ i \phi(y_1)} dy_1.$$
This integral can be bounded using stationary phase. The method is essentially the same as in [@St], Chapter 8, Proposition 1. Here is a sketch. We note that on $I(T)$,
$$| \phi'(y_1)| = |\omega_2| |h'(y_1)| \gtrsim R_j^{1/2 + \delta}, \textrm{ and }$$
$$| \phi^{(k)} (y_1)| = | \omega_2| |h^{(k)}(y_1)| \lesssim R_j.$$
Next we note that
$$\frac{1}{i \phi'} \frac{d}{dy_1} e^{i \phi(y_1)} = e^{ i \phi(y_1)}.$$
We define $D = \frac{1}{i \phi'} \frac{d}{dy_1} $, so our integral becomes $\int_{I(T)} \eta D^N e^{i \phi} dy_1$, where $N$ is an arbitrary integer. Next we expand out $D^N e^{i \phi}$ and we integrate by parts many times so that none of the derivatives actually lands on $e^{i \phi}$. Using our lower bound on $|\phi'|$ and our upper bounds on the higher derivatives of $\phi$ and the derivatives of $\eta$, it follows that our integral is bounded by $C_N R_j^{- 2 \delta N}$. For instance, if all the derivatives land on $\eta$, then we get a bound on $(R_j^{1/2-\delta})^N (R_j^{1/2 + \delta})^{-N} \sim R_j^{- 2 \delta N}$, and this is the worst case. Since $N$ is arbitrary we get the desired bound.
If $T$ does not intersect $S^1(x, t/2)$, then we choose our coordinates differently so that we can still arrange that $|h'|$ is bounded. This time, we rotate so that $\omega = (\omega_1, 0)$, where $\omega_1 \sim R_j$. The tube $T$ intersects $S^1(x,t)$ in one or two arcs, and each arc is a graph of the form $y_2 = h(y_1)$ over an interval $I(T)$, and $h$ and all its derivatives are $\lesssim 1$ on $I(T)$. Our integral now has the form
$$\int_{I(T)} \eta_T(y_1, h(y_1)) J(y_1) e^{2 \pi i \omega_1 y_1} dy_1.$$
Since $\omega_1 \sim R_j$, and $\eta_T$ is smooth on the scale $R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$, this integral can also be bounded by stationary phase (in fact more simply than in the other case).
Next we prove a simple bound to cover the case that $x \in 2T$.
\[MTfL1\] For any $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ and any function $f$ supported in the unit disk,
$$\| M_T f \|_{L^1} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^1 (2T)} + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j) \| f \|_{L^1}.$$
Recall that for a tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$, we defined $M_T$ by
$$M_T f := \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat f)^{\vee} = \eta_T( \psi_{j, \tau}^\vee * f).$$
Now $\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee$ is essentially supported in a rectangle of dimensions $R_j^{-1} \times R_j^{-1/2}$ and $\| \psi_{j, \tau} \|_{L^1} \lesssim 1$. Since the thickness of $T$ is $R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$, we get
$$\int |M_T f| \lesssim \int_{T} |\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee * f| \lesssim \int_{2T} |f| + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j) \| f\|_{L^1}.$$
\[MTmuL1\] For any point $x$, and any tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}$,
$$\| d^x_* (M_T \mu_1) \|_{L^1} \lesssim \mu_1(2T) + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j).$$
Next we check carefully that $\mu_1$ is very close to $M_0 \mu_1 + \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}} M_T \mu_1$.
\[f=MTf\] For any function $L^1$ function $f$ supported in the unit disk $$\| f - M_0 f - \sum_{T\in {\mathbb{T}}} M_T f \|_{L^1} \lesssim {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0) \| f \|_{L^1}.$$
Recall that $\{ \psi_{j, \tau} \}$ is a partition of unity. We define $M_{j, \tau} f = (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat f)^{\vee}$, so that $f = \sum_{j, \tau} M_{j, \tau} f$. It suffices to bound
$$\| M_{j, \tau} f - \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} M_T f \|_{L^1} \lesssim {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j) \| f \|_{L^1}.$$
The left hand side is
$$\| (1 - \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} \eta_T) (\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee * f) \|_{L^1}.$$
Now as we noted in the proof of Lemma \[MTfL1\], $\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee$ is essentially supported on an $R_j^{-1/2} \times R_j^{-1}$ rectangle. Also, $\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} \eta_T$ is equal to one on the disk of radius 2 and then decays outside it. Since $f$ is supported in the unit disk, $\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee * f$ is essentially supported in the disk of radius 2, and we get the desired rapid decay.
Now we can relate $ \| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) - d^x_*(\mu_1) \|_{L^1}$ to the geometry of the bad rectangles. For each point $x$ and each $j$, we define
$${\textrm{Bad}}_j(x) := \bigcup_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j: x \in 2T \textrm{ and $T$ is bad}} 2T.$$
For any point $x$ in $E_2$,
$$\| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) - d^x_*(\mu_1) \|_{L^1} \lesssim \sum_{j \ge 1} \mu_1 ( {\textrm{Bad}}_j(x)) + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0).$$
Recall that ${\mu_{1, good}}$ is defined by
$${\mu_{1, good}}:= M_0 \mu_1 + \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}, T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1.$$
Using Lemma \[f=MTf\], we see that
$$\| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) - d^x_*(\mu_1) \|_{L^1} \lesssim \sum_{j} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j, T \textrm{ bad}} \| d^x_*(M_T \mu_1) \|_{L^1} + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0).$$
If $x \in 2T$, then we apply Corollary \[MTmuL1\], and if $x \notin 2T$, then we apply Lemma \[xnotinT\]. We get
$$\| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) - d^x_*(\mu_1) \|_{L^1} \lesssim \sum_{j} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j, x \in 2T, T \textrm{ bad}} \mu_1(2T) + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0).$$
Since the distance from $E_2$ to $E_1$ is $\gtrsim 1$, each point of $E_1$ is contained in $2T$ for $\lesssim 1$ tube $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j$ with $x \in 2T$. Therefore, the right hand side is
$$\lesssim \sum_j \mu_1 \left(\bigcup_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j, x \in 2T, T \textrm{ bad}} 2T \right)+ {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0) = \sum_j \mu_1( {\textrm{Bad}}_j(x) ) + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0).$$
Next we need to estimate the measure of ${\textrm{Bad}}_j(x)$. We will do this using Orponen’s radial projection theorem. Before introducing the theorem, we need to set up a little more notation.
$${\textrm{Bad}}_j := \{ (x_1, x_2): \textrm{ there is a bad } T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j \textrm{ so that } 2T \textrm{ contains } x_1 \textrm{ and } x_2 \}.$$
Notice that ${\textrm{Bad}}_j(x)$ is just the set of $y$ so that $(y,x) \in {\textrm{Bad}}_j$. Therefore,
$$\mu_1 \times \mu_2 ({\textrm{Bad}}_j) = \int \mu_1({\textrm{Bad}}_j(x)) d\mu_2(x).$$
Our main estimate about the bad rectangles is
\[badrect\] For each $\alpha > 1$, there is a constant $c(\alpha) > 0$ so that for each $j \ge 1$, $$\mu_1 \times \mu_2({\textrm{Bad}}_j) \lesssim R_j^{- c(\alpha) \delta}.$$
Before turning to the proof, let us use this lemma to finish the proof of Proposition \[mainest1\].
\[Proof of Proposition \[mainest1\] using Lemma \[badrect\]\] We want to find a set $E_2' \subset E_2$ with $\mu_2(E_2') \ge 1 - \frac{1}{1000}$ so that for each $x \in E_2'$,
$$\| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) - d^x_*(\mu_1) \|_{L^1} \le \frac{1}{1000}.$$
We recall that
$$\mu_1 \times \mu_2 ({\textrm{Bad}}_j) = \int \mu_1({\textrm{Bad}}_j(x)) d\mu_2(x).$$
Therefore, we can choose $B_j \subset E_2$ so that $ \mu_2(B_j) \le R_j^{- (1/2) c(\alpha) \delta}$ and for all $x \in E_2 \setminus B_j$,
$$\mu_1({\textrm{Bad}}_j(x)) \lesssim R_j^{- (1/2) c(\alpha) \delta}.$$
We define $E_2' = E_2 \setminus \bigcup_{j \ge 1} B_j$. As long as $R_0$ is sufficiently large (compared to $\delta$ and $\alpha$), we have $\mu_2(E_2') \ge 1 - \frac{1}{1000}$ as desired. Now for each $x \in E_2'$, we have
$$\| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) - d^x_*(\mu_1) \|_{L^1} \lesssim \sum_{j \ge 1} \mu_1 ( {\textrm{Bad}}_j(x)) + {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0) \lesssim$$
$$\sum_{j \ge 1} R_j^{-(1/2) c(\alpha) \delta} \lesssim R_0^{- (1/2) c(\alpha) \delta}.$$
By choosing $R_0$ sufficiently large, we get the desired bound.
Now we introduce Orponen’s radial projection theorem. The statement we use appears as Proposition 3.11 in [@KS18], and it appears as Equation (3.5) in Orponen’s paper [@O17b]. Define a radial projection map $P_y: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \setminus \{ y \} \rightarrow S^1$ by
$$P_y(x) = \frac{x-y}{|x-y|}.$$
\[orponenthm\](Orponen, [@O17b]) For every $\alpha > 1$ there exists $p(\alpha)> 1$ so that the following holds. Suppose that $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are measures on the unit disk with disjoint supports and that for every ball $B(x,r)$, $\mu_i (B(x, r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$. Then
$$\int \| P_y \mu_2 \|_{L^p}^p d \mu_1(y) < + \infty.$$
Recall that ${\textrm{Bad}}_j(y)$ is defined to be
$${\textrm{Bad}}_j(y) := \bigcup_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j: y \in 2T \textrm{ and $T$ is bad}} 2T.$$
In other words, ${\textrm{Bad}}_j(y)$ is the set of $x$ so that $(y,x)$ lies in ${\textrm{Bad}}_j$. Therefore,
$$\mu_1 \times \mu_2( {\textrm{Bad}}_j) = \int \mu_2({\textrm{Bad}}_j(y)) d \mu_1(y).$$
Suppose that $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_j$ is a bad rectangle and $y \in 2T$. Let $A(T)$ be the arc of the circle whose center corresponds to the direction of the long axis of $T$ and with length $\sim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$. Since the distance from $E_1$ to $E_2$ is $\gtrsim 1$, it follows that $P_y (2T) \subset A(T)$, and so
$$\label{bigarc} P_y \mu_2 (A(T)) \ge \mu_2(2T) \ge R_j^{-1/2 + 100 \delta}.$$
So we see that $P_y( {\textrm{Bad}}_{j}(y))$ can be covered by arcs $A(T)$ of length $\sim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$ which each enjoy (\[bigarc\]). By the Vitali covering lemma, we can choose a disjoint subset of the arcs $A(T)$ so that $5 A(T)$ covers $P_y( {\textrm{Bad}}_{j}(y))$. This implies that the arc length measure of $P_y( {\textrm{Bad}}_{j}(y))$ is bounded by
$$| P_y({\textrm{Bad}}_{j}(y)) | \lesssim R_j^{-99 \delta}.$$
Now we bound
$$\mu_1 \times \mu_2({\textrm{Bad}}_j) = \int \mu_2 ({\textrm{Bad}}_{j}(y)) d\mu_1(y) \le \int \left( \int_{P_y ({\textrm{Bad}}_{j}(y)) } P_y \mu_2 \right) d \mu_1(y).$$
By Holder’s inequality, this is
$$\le | P_y({\textrm{Bad}}_{j}(y)) |^{1 - \frac{1}{p}} \int \| P_y \mu_2 \|_{L^p} d \mu_1 \lesssim R_j^{- c(\alpha) \delta}.$$
Refined Strichartz estimates {#sec:RS}
============================
The proof of Proposition \[mainest2\] will use a refined Strichartz type estimate, which in turn is based on the decoupling theorem of Bourgain-Demeter [@BD15].
\[dec\] ([@BD15]) Suppose that $S \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ is a strictly convex $C^2$ hypersurface with Gaussian curvature $\sim 1$. Decompose the $R^{-1}$-neighborhood of $S$ into blocks $\theta$ of dimensions $R^{-1/2} \times ... \times R^{-1/2} \times R^{-1}$. Suppose that $\hat f_\theta$ is supported in $\theta$ and $f = \sum_{\theta} f_\theta$. Then for any $p$ in the range $2 \le p \le \frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$,
$$\label{eqdec} \| f \|_{L^p(B_R)} \lessapprox \left(\sum_\theta \| f_\theta \|_{L^p(w_{B_R})}^2 \right)^{1/2},$$
where $w_{B_R}$ is a weight which is $\sim 1$ on $B_R$ and rapidly decaying.
The decoupling theorem is a remarkably strong and sharp theorem in some situations, for instance if $|f_{\theta}(x)|$ is roughly constant on $B_R$ for each $\theta$. On the other hand, if the supports of the different $f_\theta$ are disjoint from each other, then one trivially gets the stronger inequality $\| f \|_{L^p(B_R)} \le ( \sum_\theta \| f_\theta \|_{L^p(B_R)}^p)^{1/p}$. The idea of refined Strichartz estimates is to use the decoupling theorem where it is strong, but also to take advantage of disjointness when it occurs. The first version of the refined Strichartz inequality appeared in [@DGL17], and it was generalized in [@DGLZ18]. We need here a slightly more flexible version of the inequality. The inequality we prove here was discovered independently by Xiumin Du and Ruixiang Zhang (personal communication).
We will state our estimate in terms of wave packets. Here is the setup. Let $S$ and $\theta$ be as above. Let ${\mathbb{T}}_\theta$ be a finitely overlapping covering of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ by tubes $T$ of length $\sim R^{1+\delta}$ and radius $\sim R^{\frac{1+\delta}{2}}$ with long axis normal to the surface $S$ at $\theta$. We write ${\mathbb{T}}= \cup_\theta {\mathbb{T}}_\theta$. Each $T \in {\mathbb{T}}$ belongs to ${\mathbb{T}}_\theta$ for a single $\theta$, and we let $\theta(T)$ denote this $\theta$. We say that $f$ is microlocalized to $(T, \theta(T))$ if $f$ is essentially supported in $2T$ and $\hat f$ is essentially supported in $2 \theta(T)$. A function $f_T$ which is microlocalized to $(T, \theta(T))$ is called a wave packet. If $\omega \in \theta(T)$, then $f_T$ morally has the form $ f_T \approx a \chi_T e^{2 \pi i \omega x}$, where $a \in {\mathbb{C}}$ and $\chi_T$ denotes a smooth bump function on $T$. Our theorem gives an estimate for the constructive interference between wave packets.
\[refdec\] Let $p$ be in the range $2 \le p \le \frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$. Let ${\mathbb{W}}\subset {\mathbb{T}}$ and suppose that each $T \in {\mathbb{W}}$ lies in $B_R$. Let $W = | {\mathbb{W}}|$. Suppose that $f = \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} f_T$, where $f_T$ is microlocalized to $(T, \theta(T))$. Suppose that $\| f_T \|_{L^p}$ is roughly constant among all the $T \in {\mathbb{W}}$. Let $Y$ be a union of $R^{1/2}$-cubes in $B_R$ each of which intersects at most $M$ tubes $T \in {\mathbb{W}}$. Then
$$\label{eqrefdec} \| f \|_{L^p(Y)} \lesssim R^\epsilon \left(\frac{M}{W} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
The fraction $M/ W$ measures to what extent the wave packets of ${\mathbb{W}}$ are disjoint from each other. If $M=1$, then the wave packets are completely disjoint, and the inequality above becomes $\| f \|_{L^p(Y)} \lessapprox ( \sum_T \| f_T \|_{L^p}^p)^{1/p}$.
Before proving Theorem \[refdec\], let us explain how it relates to the decoupling theorem (Theorem \[dec\]). In Theorem \[dec\], consider the special case that $f_\theta$ is non-zero for $N$ caps $\theta$, and that for each of these caps, $f_\theta = \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_\theta} f_T$ is a sum of $P$ non-zero wave packets $f_T$, and that all these wave packets have the same amplitude. In [@BD15], the general theorem was reduced to this special case by pigeonholing, so it is not really so special. In this case, the decoupling inequality (\[eqdec\]) can be written in the form
$$\label{eqdecex} \| f \|_{L^p(B_R)} \lessapprox \left(\frac{1}{P}\right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
Now if $Q$ is any $R^{1/2}$-square, then it can lie in $\lesssim 1$ tube $T$ in each direction. Therefore, we have $M \le N$, and $W = NP$, and so $\frac{M}{W} \le \frac{1}{P}$. So we see that (\[eqrefdec\]) is at least as strong as (\[eqdecex\]), and it is stronger whenever $M$ is much less than $N$. When $M$ is much less than $N$, then it means that each cube $Q$ lies in wave packets from only a small fraction of the different caps $\theta$, which means that the supports of the $f_\theta$ don’t intersect as much as they could. In summary, Theorem \[refdec\] is like Theorem \[dec\], but it gives a stronger estimate when the supports of the $f_\theta$ don’t intersect too much.
\[Proof of Theorem \[refdec\]\] Without loss of generality, we can assume that
$$\label{Qconst} \| f \|_{L^p(Q)} \sim \textrm{ constant for all $R^{1/2}$-cubes $Q \subset Y$}.$$
To set up the argument, we decompose $f$ as follows. We cover $S$ with larger blocks $\tau$ of dimensions $R^{-1/4} \times ... \times R^{-1/4} \times R^{-1/2}$. For each $\tau$ we cover $B^d(R)$ with cylinders $\Box$ with radius $R^{3/4}$ and length $R$, with the long axis perpendicular to $\tau$. Each cylinder $\Box$ is associated to one $\tau$, which denote $\tau(\Box)$. Then we define
$${\mathbb{W}}_\Box := \{ T \in {\mathbb{W}}: \theta(T) \subset \tau(\Box) \textrm{ and } T \subset \Box \}.$$
We define $f_\Box = \sum_{T\in {\mathbb{W}}_\Box} f_T. $ We note that $\hat f_\Box$ is essentially supported in $\tau(\Box)$. An $R^{1/2}$-cube $Q$ lies in one cylinder $\Box$ associated to each cap $\tau$. So by applying decoupling at scale $R^{1/2}$, we get
$$\label{decex} \| f \|_{L^p(Q)} \lessapprox \left( \sum_{\Box} \| f_{\Box} \|_{L^p(Q)}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
(Stricly speaking, we have a weight on the right-hand side. However, if the tail of the weight dominates for some $Q \subset Y$, then we trivially get the conclusion of the theorem. Therefore, we can ignore the tail of the weight.)
The next ingredient is induction on scales. After parabolic rescaling, the decomposition $f_\Box = \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\Box} f_T$ is equivalent to the setup of the theorem at scale $R^{1/2}$ instead of scale $R$. So by induction on the radius, we get a version of our main inequality for each function $f_\Box$. It goes as follows:
Write $\Box$ as a union of $R^{1/2} \times R^{3/4}$ cylinders running parallel to the long axis of $\Box$. Let $Y_{\Box, M'}$ be the union of those cylinders that intersect $\sim M'$ of the tubes $T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\Box$. Then
$$\label{indbox} \| f_\Box \|_{L^p(Y_{\Box, M'})} \lesssim R^{\epsilon/2} \left(\frac{M'}{| {\mathbb{W}}_\Box|} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\Box} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
Now we dyadically pigeonhole $M'$ so that
$$\| f \|_{L^p(Q)} \lessapprox \left\| \sum_{\Box: Q \subset Y_{\Box, M'}} f_\Box \right\|_{L^p(Q)}$$
for a fraction $\approx 1$ of $Q \subset Y$.
We fix this value of $M'$, and from now on we abbreviate $Y_\Box = Y_{\Box, M'}$.
Next we dyadically pigeonhole $| {\mathbb{W}}_\Box|$. Let $\mathbb{B}_{W'}$ be the set of $\Box$ with $| {\mathbb{W}}_\Box | \sim W'$. We dyadically pigeonhole $W'$ so that
$$\label{decentcube} \| f \|_{L^p(Q)} \lessapprox \left\| \sum_{\Box \in \mathbb{B}_{W'}: Q \subset Y_\Box} f_\Box \right\|_{L^p(Q)}.$$
for a fraction $\approx 1$ of $Q \subset Y$.
We fix this value of $W'$ and from now on we abbreviate $\mathbb{B} = \mathbb{B}_{W'}$.
We also note that for each $\Box \in \mathbb{B}$,
$$\label{fboxl2} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\Box} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \sim \frac{W'}{W} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2.$$
Finally, we dyadically pigeonhole the cubes $Q \subset Y$ according to the number of $\Box \in \mathbb{B}$ so that $Q \subset Y_\Box$. We get a subset $Y' \subset Y$ so that for each cube $Q \subset Y'$, $Q \subset Y_\Box$ for $\sim M''$ choices of $\Box \in \mathbb{B}$, and $Q$ obeys (\[decentcube\]). Moreover, by dyadic pigeonholing, we have $|Y'| \approx |Y|$. Since each cube $Q \subset Y$ had approximately equal $L^p$ norm, we also get $\| f \|_{L^p(Y')} \approx \| f \|_{L^p(Y)}$.
We also note that
$$M' M'' \le M.$$
because a cube $Q \subset Y'$ belongs to $Y_\Box$ for $\sim M''$ different $\Box$, and if $Q \subset Y_\Box$, then it belongs to $T$ for $\sim M'$ different $T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\Box$.
Similarly, we note that
$$W' | \mathbb{B}| \le W$$
because for each $\Box \in \mathbb{B}$, $| {\mathbb{W}}_\Box| \sim W'$, and ${\mathbb{W}}_\Box$ are disjoint subsets of ${\mathbb{W}}$.
Now we are ready to begin our estimate. For each $Q \subset Y'$, we have
$$\| f \|_{L^p(Q)} \lessapprox \left\| \sum_{\Box \in \mathbb{B}: Q \subset Y_{\Box}} f_\Box \right\|_{L^p(Q)}.$$
Applying decouping as in (\[decex\]), this is bounded by
$$\lessapprox \left(\sum_{\Box \in \mathbb{B}: Q \subset Y_{\Box}} \| f_\Box \|_{L^p(Q)}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
The number of terms in the sum is $\sim M''$. Applying Hölder, we get
$$\lesssim (M'')^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{\Box \in \mathbb{B}: Q \subset Y_{\Box}} \| f_\Box \|_{L^p(Q)}^p \right)^{1/p}.$$
We raise this inequality to the $p^{th}$ power and sum over $Q \subset Y'$ to get
$$\| f \|_{L^p(Y)}^p \lessapprox \| f \|_{L^p(Y')}^p \lessapprox (M'')^{\frac{p}{2} - 1} \sum_{\Box \in \mathbb{B}} \| f_\Box \|_{L^p(Y_\Box)}^p.$$
Now we can use our induction on scales – equation (\[indbox\]) – which gives
$$\lesssim R^{p\epsilon/2} \left(\frac{M' M''}{W'} \right)^{\frac{p}{2} - 1} \sum_{\Box \in \mathbb{B}} \left(\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\Box} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{p/2}.$$
By (\[fboxl2\]), this is
$$\lesssim R^{p\epsilon/2} \left(\frac{M' M''}{W} \right)^{\frac{p}{2} - 1} \frac{|\mathbb{B}| W'} {W}\left( \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{p/2}.$$
Since $M' M'' \le M$ and $|\mathbb{B}| W' \le W$, we get
$$\lesssim R^{p\epsilon/2} \left(\frac{ M}{W} \right)^{\frac{p}{2} - 1} \left( \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{p/2}.$$
Putting everything together and taking account of $\lessapprox$ throughout, we get
$$\| f \|_{L^p(Y)} \lesssim R^{3 \epsilon/4} \left(\frac{ M}{W} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left( \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
This closes the induction and finishes the proof.
One can also apply a rescaling to this theorem. If we rescale in Fourier space by a factor $\lambda$, then each $R^{-1/2} \times ... \times R^{-1}$ block $\theta$ is replaced by a $\lambda R^{-1/2} \times ... \times \lambda R^{-1}$ block. There is a corresponding rescaling in physical space so that each $R^{1/2} \times ... \times R$ tube $T$ is replaced by a $\lambda^{-1} R^{1/2} \times ... \times \lambda^{-1} R$ tube $T$. The case of interest for us is $\lambda = R$.
\[correfdec\] Suppose that $S \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ is a strictly convex $C^2$ hypersurface with Gaussian curvature $\sim 1$. Suppose that the 1-neighborhood of $R S$ is partitioned into $R^{1/2} \times ... \times R^{1/2} \times 1$ blocks $\theta$. For each $\theta$, let ${\mathbb{T}}_\theta$ be a set of tubes of dimensions $R^{-1/2 + \delta} \times 1$ with long axis perpendicular to $\theta$, and let ${\mathbb{T}}= \cup_\theta {\mathbb{T}}_\theta$.
Let $p$ be in the range $2 \le p \le \frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$. Let ${\mathbb{W}}\subset {\mathbb{T}}$ and suppose that each $T \in {\mathbb{W}}$ lies in the unit ball. Let $W = | {\mathbb{W}}|$. Suppose that $f = \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} f_T$, where $f_T$ is microlocalized to $(T, \theta(T))$. Suppose that for each $T \in {\mathbb{W}}$, $\| f_T \|_{L^p}$ is roughly constant. Let $Y$ be a union of $R^{-1/2}$-cubes in $B_R$ each of which intersects at most $M$ tubes $T \in {\mathbb{W}}$. Then
$$\| f \|_{L^p(Y)} \lesssim R^\epsilon \left(\frac{M}{W} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}} \| f_T \|_{L^p}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
Corollary \[correfdec\] is the result we will actually use in our estimates about the Falconer problem.
Theorem \[refdec\] is closely related to the refined Strichartz estimates from [@DGL17], [@DGLZ18] and [@DGOWWZ18], and we record a corollary in a similar form. To set up the statement, we need to set up a little notation. We find it most convenient to work with the case that $S$ is a graph, so suppose $S$ is defined by $\omega_d = \phi(\omega_1, ..., \omega_{d-1})$ , and $(\omega_1, ..., \omega_{d-1}) \in B^{d-1}(1)$. We assume that $\phi$ is $C^2$ and that the eigenvalues of the Hessian $\nabla^2 \phi$ are $\sim 1$. Then for a function $g: B^{d-1} \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$, we can define the extension operator by
$$\label{defE} E g(x) = \int_{B^{d-1}} e^{2 \pi i (x_1 \omega_1 + ... + x_{d-1} \omega_{d-1}+ x_d \phi)} g(\omega_1, ..., \omega_{d-1})\,d\omega_1\cdots d\omega_{d-1} .$$
We decompose $B^{d-1}$ into finitely overlapping balls $\theta$ of radius $\sim R^{-1/2}$, and then we can decompose $g$ as
$$g = \sum_{\theta, v} g_{\theta,v},$$
where
1. $v \in R^{1/2 + \delta} {\mathbb{Z}}^{d-1}$
2. $g_{\theta,v}$ is supported on $\theta$.
3. $\hat g_{\theta, v}$ is essentially supported on a ball around $v$ of radius $R^{1/2 + \delta}$.
4. Therefore, the functions $g_{\theta,v}$ are approximately orthogonal.
5. $E g_{\theta, v}$ restricted to $B_R$ is essentially supported on a tube $T_{\theta,v}$ of radius $\sim R^{1/2 + \delta}$ and length $\sim R$.
6. If we think of $\theta$ as a cap in $S$, then the long axis of $T_{\theta, v}$ is normal to $S$. Also $T_{\theta, v}$ intersects the plane $x_d = 0$ at the point $(v,0)$.
See Section 3 of [@GuthII] for background on this wave packet decomposition, including proofs of these standard facts.
Now we are ready to state our refined Strichartz estimate.
\[RS\] Let $E$ be the extension operator as in , where $\phi$ is $C^2$ and the eigenvalues of the Hessian $\nabla^2 \phi$ are $\sim 1$. Suppose that $g: B^{d-1} \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$. Suppose that $g = \sum_{(\theta, v) \in {\mathbb{W}}} g_{\theta, v}$, where $\| g_{\theta, v} \|_{L^2}$ are comparable for all $(\theta, v) \in {\mathbb{W}}$. Let $W = | {\mathbb{W}}|$. Suppose $Y$ is a union of $R^{1/2}$-cubes in $B_R^d$ which each intersect $\sim M$ of the tubes $T_{\theta,v} \in {\mathbb{W}}$. Suppose that $p = \frac{2(d+1)}{d-1}$. Then
$$\| Eg \|_{L^p(Y)} \lesssim R^\epsilon \left(\frac{M}{W} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \| g \|_{L^2}.$$
Let $\eta_{B_R}$ be a bump function associated to the ball of radius $R$. We define
$$f_{\theta, v} = \eta_{B_R} Eg_{\theta, v}.$$
The function $f_{\theta, v}$ is essentially supported in $T_{\theta, v}$ and its Fourier transform is essentially supported in the $R^{-1}$-neighborhood of $\theta$ (viewing $\theta$ as a cap in $S \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$). Therefore, the functions $f_{\theta,v}$ have the right microlocalization to apply Theorem \[refdec\]. Before doing so, we need to sort them by $L^p$-norm. We define
$${\mathbb{W}}_{\lambda} := \{ (\theta, v) \in {\mathbb{W}}: \| f_{\theta,v} \|_{L^p} \sim \lambda \}.$$
We define $g_\lambda := \sum_{(\theta, v) \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} g_{\theta, v}$, and $W_\lambda = | {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda|$. Now Theorem \[refdec\] gives
$$\| E g_\lambda \|_{L^p(Y)} \lessapprox \left(\frac{M}{W_\lambda} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{(\theta,v) \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} \| Eg_{\theta,v} \|_{L^p(B_R)}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
Next we note that $\| E g_{\theta,v} \|_{L^p(B_R)} \lesssim \| g_{\theta, v} \|_{L^2}$. This is a consequence of the Strichartz or Tomas-Stein inequality, but because $E g_{\theta, v}$ is a single wave packet, there is an even simpler argument:
$$\| E g_{\theta, v} \|_{L^p(B_R)} \lesssim \| E g_{\theta, v} \|_{L^p(T_{\theta, v})} \le | T_{\theta, v} |^{1/p} \| E g_{\theta,v} \|_{L^\infty} \le$$
$$\le | T_{\theta, v}|^{1/p} \int_{\theta} | g_{\theta, v}| \le | T_{\theta, v}|^{1/p} |\theta|^{1/2} \| g_{\theta, v} \|_{L^2}.$$
Now $T_{\theta, v}$ has volume $R^{\frac{1}{2}(d-1) + 1}$ and $\theta$ has volume $R^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}$ and so $| T_{\theta,v}|^{1/p} |\theta|^{1/2} \lesssim 1$. Plugging in this bound, we get
$$\| E g_\lambda \|_{L^p(Y)} \lessapprox \left(\frac{M}{W_\lambda} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\sum_{(\theta, v) \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} \| g_{\theta, v} \|_{L^2}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
Since all the $\| g_{\theta, v} \|_{L^2}$ are comparable, we get
$$\| E g_\lambda \|_{L^p(Y)} \lessapprox \left(\frac{M}{W_\lambda} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \left(\frac{W_\lambda}{W} \right)^{1/2} \| g \|_{L^2}.$$
We have $W_\lambda \le W$, and the total power of $W_\lambda$ on the right-hand side is positive, and so we get the bound
$$\| E g_\lambda \|_{L^p(Y)} \lessapprox \left(\frac{M}{W} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \| g \|_{L^2}.$$
Since this estimate holds for every $\lambda$, the theorem is proven.
Proof of Proposition \[mainest2\] {#sec:mainest2}
=================================
In this section, we prove Proposition \[mainest2\]. The proof is based on adding a refined Strichartz estimate (Corollary \[correfdec\]) to the framework of [@Liu18]. We want to show that if $\alpha > 5/4$, then
$$\int_{E_2} \| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^2}^2 d \mu_2(x) < + \infty.$$
We follow Liu’s approach from [@Liu18]. Let $\sigma_t$ be the normalized arc length measure on the circle of radius $t$ (normalized so that the total measure is 1). Then
$$\| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^2}^2 = \int_0^\infty | {\mu_{1, good}}* \sigma_t (x)|^2 t^2 dt.$$
Now we would like to make use of Liu’s identity:
\[Liu\] ([@Liu18]) For any function $f: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$, and any $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$,
$$\int_0^\infty | f * \sigma_t (x)|^2 t dt = \int_0^\infty | f * \hat \sigma_r (x)|^2 r dr.$$
Notice that on the left-hand side we have $t dt$ instead of $t^2 dt$. If $x \in E_2$, then $ \mu_1 * \sigma_t(x) = 0$ unless $t \sim 1$ because $E_1$ and $E_2$ are contained in the unit disk and the distance between them is $\gtrsim 1$. Therefore, we can write
$$\int_0^\infty | \mu_1 * \sigma_t(x)|^2 t^2 dt \sim \int_0^\infty | \mu_1 * \sigma_t(x)|^2 t dt.$$
We would like to write the same thing with ${\mu_{1, good}}$ in place of $\mu_1$. To justify this, we need to argue that ${\mu_{1, good}}$ is essentially supported in a small neighborhood of $E_1$, which we now check.
Let $A$ be the complement of the $R_0^{-1/2 + \delta}$-neighborhood of $E_1$. Then
$$\int_{A} |{\mu_{1, good}}| = {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0) \textrm{ and } \max_{x \in A} |{\mu_{1, good}}(x)| = {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_0).$$
By definition,
$${\mu_{1, good}}= M_0 \mu_1 + \sum_{j, \tau} \sum_{\substack{T\in {\mathbb{T}}_{j,\tau}\\T \textrm{ good }}} M_T \mu_1 =$$
$$= \psi_0^\vee * \mu_1 + \sum_{j, \tau} \sum_{T} \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee * \mu_1).$$
Now $\psi_0^{\vee}$ is essentially supported on a ball of radius $R_0^{-1}$ and $\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee$ is essentially supported on a rectangle of dimensions $R_j^{-1/2} \times R_j^{-1}$ centered at the origin. Since $\mu_1$ is supported on $E_1$, the result follows.
Since ${\mu_{1, good}}$ is essentially supported in a thin neighborhood of $E_1$, we can indeed say that for any $x \in E_2$,
$$\int_0^\infty | {\mu_{1, good}}* \sigma_t(x)|^2 t^2 dt \lesssim \int_0^\infty | {\mu_{1, good}}* \sigma_t(x)|^2 t dt.$$
Now we can apply Theorem \[Liu\] to get
$$\int_{E_2} \| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^2}^2 d \mu_2(x) \lesssim \int_{E_2} \int_0^\infty | {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r (x)|^2 r dr d\mu_2(x) =$$
$$\label{liuint} = \int_0^\infty \left(\int_{E_2} | {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r(x)|^2 d \mu_2(x) \right) r dr.$$
We will use Theorem \[refdec\] to estimate the inner integral for each $r$.
\[mug\*sr\] For any $\alpha > 0$, $r>0$:
$$\int_{E_2} | {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r(x)|^2 d \mu_2(x) \le C(R_0) r^{- \frac{\alpha + 1}{3} + \epsilon} r^{-1} \int | \hat \mu_1 |^2 \psi_r d \xi,$$
where $\psi_r$ is a weight function which is $\sim 1$ on the annulus $r-1 \le |\xi| \le r+1$ and decays off of it. To be precise, we could take
$$\psi_r(\xi) = \left( 1 + | r- |\xi|| \right)^{-100}.$$
The conclusion here is very similar to saying
$$\int_{E_2}| {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r(x)|^2 d \mu_2(x) \le C(R_0) r^{-\frac{\alpha +1}{3} + \epsilon} \| \hat \mu_1 \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)}^2.$$
For technical reasons, we have the bound in the form above. Before turning to the proof of Proposition \[mug\*sr\], let us see how it implies Proposition \[mainest2\]. Like most previous work on the Falconer problem, the proof uses the idea of the $\beta$-dimensional energy of a measure. Recall that this energy is given by
$$I_\beta (\mu) := \int |x-y|^{-\beta} \mu(x) \mu(y).$$
If a measure $\mu$ on the unit ball obeys $\mu (B(x,r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$, then $I_\beta(\mu)$ is finite for every $\beta < \alpha$ (cf. Lemma 8.3 of [@W03]). In particular, $I_\beta(\mu_1) < \infty$ for every $\beta < \alpha$. There is also a Fourier representation for $I_\beta(\mu)$ (cf. Proposition 8.5 of [@W03]): if $\mu$ is a measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, then
$$I_{\beta} (\mu) = c_{n, \beta} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |\xi|^{-(n - \beta)} |\hat \mu(\xi) |^2 d \xi.$$
\[ Proof of Proposition \[mainest2\] using Proposition \[mug\*sr\]\] By (\[liuint\]),
$$\label{nirvanaisnear} \int_{E_2} \| d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) \|_{L^2}^2 d \mu_2(x) \lesssim \int_0^\infty \left(\int_{E_2} | {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r(x)|^2 d \mu_2(x) \right) r dr.$$
Plugging in Proposition \[mug\*sr\] to bound the inner integral, we get
$$\lesssim_{R_0} \int_0^\infty \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} r^{- \frac{\alpha + 1}{3} + \epsilon} \psi_r(\xi) | \hat \mu_1(\xi)|^2 d \xi dr \lesssim \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} |\xi|^{- \frac{\alpha + 1}{3} + \epsilon} | \hat \mu_1 (\xi)|^2 d \xi \sim I_{\beta} (\mu_1)$$
with $\beta = 2 - \frac{\alpha + 1}{3} + \epsilon$. We know that $I_\beta(\mu_1) < \infty$ as long as $\beta < \alpha$, so we get the desired bound as long as
$$2 - \frac{\alpha + 1}{3} < \alpha.$$
This is equivalent to $\alpha > 5/4$.
.125in
Recall that
$${\mu_{1, good}}= M_0 \mu_1 + \sum_{j \ge 1, \tau} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}, T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1.$$
When we convolve with $\hat \sigma_r$ the only terms that remain are those with Fourier support intersecting the circle of radius $r$. The interesting case is when $r > 10 R_0$. We will return at the end to the case $R < 10 R_0$. Assuming $r > 10 R_0$, ${\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r$ is essentially equal to
$$\sum_{R_j \sim r} \sum_\tau \sum_{T\in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau} T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r.$$
Let $\eta_1$ be a bump function adapted to the unit ball. We define
$$f_T = \eta_1 \left( M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r \right).$$
We claim that each $f_T$ is microlocalized in the way we would want to apply Corollary \[correfdec\]. If $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$, then we let $\theta(T)$ be the 1-neighborhood of $3 \tau \cap S^1_r$. We claim that $\hat f_T$ is essentially supported in $\theta(T)$. First we recall that $\widehat{M_T \mu_1}$ is essentially supported in $2 \tau$. Therefore, the Fourier transform of $M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r$ is essentially supported in $2 \tau \cap S^1_r$. Finally, the Fourier transform of $f_T$ is essentially supported in the 1-neighborhood of $2 \tau \cap S^1_r$, which is contained in $\theta$. Note that $\theta$ is a rectangular block of dimensions roughly $r^{1/2} \times 1$.
Next we claim that $f_T$ is essentially supported in $2T$. We know that $M_T \mu_1$ is supported in $T$. Let $\tilde \psi_\tau$ be a smooth bump function which is 1 on $2 \tau$ and rapidly decaying. Since the Fourier transform of $M_T \mu_1$ is essentially supported on $2 \tau$, we have $M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r$ is essentially equal to $M_T \mu_1 * (\tilde \psi_\tau \sigma_r)^\wedge$. It is standard to check by stationary phase that $(\tilde \psi_\tau \sigma_r)^\wedge$ is bounded by ${\textrm{RapDec}}(r)$ on $B^2(1)$ outside of a tube of radius $r^{-1/2 + \delta}$ in the direction of $\tau$ passing through the origin. So $M_T \mu_1 * (\tilde \psi_\tau \sigma_r)^\wedge$ is negligible on $B^2(1) \setminus 2T$. So $f_T$ is essentially supported on $2T$.
We have $ {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r$ is essentially equal to $\sum_{T \textrm{ good}} f_T$. Next we sort the $f_T$ according to their $L^p$ norms.
$${\mathbb{W}}_\lambda:= \{ T: \| f_T \|_{L^p} \sim \lambda \}.$$
$$f_\lambda := \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} f_T.$$
Since the number of scales $\lambda$ is $\lesssim \log r$, it suffices to prove the bound
$$\int | f_\lambda (x) |^2 d\mu_2(x) \lesssim r^{- \frac{\alpha + 1}{3} + \epsilon} \| \hat \mu_1 \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)}^2.$$
Next we divide the unit ball into $r^{-1/2}$-squares $q$ and sort them. We let
$${\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M} := \{ r^{-1/2} \textrm{ squares } q: \mu_2(q) \sim \gamma \textrm{ and } q \textrm{ intersects } \sim M \textrm{ tubes } T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda \}.$$
We let $Y_{\gamma, M} = \bigcup_{q \in {\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M}} q$. Since there are only $\sim \log^2 r$ choices of $\gamma, M$, it suffices to bound $\int_{Y_{\gamma,M}} | f_\lambda|^2 d\mu_2$. Next we bound the measure of $Y_{\gamma, M}$.
\[mu2Y\] For any $\gamma, M$,
$$\mu_2 \left( Y_{\gamma, M} \right) \lesssim \frac{ | {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda | r^{-1/2 + 100 \delta} }{M}.$$
This is a double counting argument. We count in two ways the size of the set of incidences,
$$I := \{ (q, T) \in {\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M} \times {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda: q \textrm{ intersects } T \}.$$
Since each tube $T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda$ is good, each tube $T$ has $\mu_2( 2 T) \lesssim r^{-1/2 + 100 \delta}$. Therefore, the number of $q \in {\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M}$ that $T$ intersects is $\lesssim
\gamma^{-1} r^{-1/2 + 100 \delta}$. Therefore,
$$I \lesssim \gamma^{-1} r^{-1/2 + 100 \delta} | {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda |.$$
On the other hand, each cube $q \in {\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M}$ intersects $\gtrsim M$ tubes $T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda$. Therefore,
$$I \gtrsim | {\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M} | M.$$
Comparing these bounds for $I$, we get
$$|{\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M}| \lesssim \frac{ r^{-1/2 + 100 \delta} | {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda |}{\gamma M}.$$
Since each cube $q \in {\mathcal{Q}}_{\gamma, M}$ has $\mu_2 (q) \sim \gamma$, we get
$$\mu_2 (Y_{\gamma, M}) \lesssim \frac{ | {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda | r^{-1/2 + 100 \delta} }{M}.$$
Now we are ready to bound
$$\int_{Y_{\gamma,M}} | f_\lambda|^2 d\mu_2.$$
The Fourier support of $f_\lambda$ is essentially contained in the 1-neighborhood of $S^1_r$, and so $f_\lambda$ is (morally) locally constant at scale $\sim r^{-1}$. Therefore we can replace $d \mu_2$ by $\mu_2 * \eta_{1/r}$, where $\eta_{1/r}$ is a bump function with integral 1 essentially supported on a ball of radius $1/r$. Then we can use Hölder to bound
$$\int_{Y_{\gamma,M}} | f_\lambda|^2 d\mu_2 \lesssim \left(\int_{Y_{\gamma,M}} | f_\lambda|^6 \right)^{1/3} \left(\int_{Y_{\gamma, M}} |\mu_2 * \eta_{1/r}|^{3/2} \right)^{2/3}.$$
To bound the first factor, we use Corollary \[correfdec\] with $W = | {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda|$ wave packets and multiplicity $M$. We get
$$\| f_\lambda \|_{L^6(Y_{\gamma, M})} \lessapprox \left(\frac{M}{| {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda|} \right)^{1/3} \left( \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} \| f_T \|_{L^6}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
By Lemma \[mu2Y\], we can bound $M/ | {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda|$ to get
$$\lessapprox \left(\frac{r^{-1/2 + 100 \delta}}{\mu_2(Y_{\gamma, M})} \right)^{1/3} \left(\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} \| f_T \|_{L^6}^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
To bound the second factor, we note that $\mu_2$ of a ball of radius $r^{-1}$ is at most $r^{-\alpha}$. Therefore,
$$\| \mu_2 * \eta_{1/r} \|_{L^\infty} \lesssim r^{2 - \alpha}.$$
And so
$$\int_{Y_{\gamma, M}} | \mu_2 * \eta_{1/r} |^{3/2} \lesssim \left(r^{2 - \alpha} \right)^{1/2} \int_{Y_{\gamma, M}} d \mu_2 * \eta_{1/r} \sim r^{1 - \frac{\alpha}{2}} \mu_2(Y_{\gamma, M}).$$
Plugging in these two bounds, we get
$$\int_{Y_{\gamma,M}} | f_\lambda|^2 d\mu_2 \lesssim r^{O(\delta)} r^{-1/3} \mu_2(Y_{\gamma, M})^{-2/3} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} \| f_T \|_{L^6}^2 \cdot r^{\frac{2}{3} - \frac{\alpha}{3}} \mu_2(Y_{\gamma, M})^{2/3}.$$
Notice that the powers of $\mu_2(Y_{\gamma, M})$ cancel, leaving
$$\int_{Y_{\gamma,M}} | f_\lambda|^2 d\mu_2 \lesssim r^{O(\delta)} r^{\frac{1 - \alpha}{3}} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} \| f_T \|_{L^6}^2.$$
Next we record an elementary bound for $\| f_T \|_{L^6}$. Since $f_T$ is essentially supported on $T$, $\| f_T \|_{L^6} \lesssim |T|^{1/6} \| f_T \|_{L^\infty} \sim r^{-1/12} \| f_T \|_{L^\infty}$. Recall that
$$f_T = \eta_1 (M_T \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r) = \eta_1 \int_{S^1_r} \widehat{M_T\mu_1} d \sigma_r.$$
Since $\widehat {M_T \mu_1}$ restricted to $S^1_r$ is essentially supported on $\theta(T)$, we get
$$\| f_T \|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \sigma_r (\theta(T))^{1/2} \| \widehat{M_T \mu_1} \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)} \sim r^{-1/4} \| \widehat{M_T \mu_1} \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)}.$$
Therefore
$$\| f_T \|_{L^6} \lesssim r^{-1/3} \| \widehat{M_T \mu_1} \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)}.$$
Plugging into the last bound, we get
$$\int_{Y_{\gamma,M}} | f_\lambda|^2 d\mu_2 \lesssim r^{O(\delta)} r^{\frac{-1 - \alpha}{3}} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{W}}_\lambda} \| \widehat{M_T \mu_1} \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)}^2.$$
To finish the proof of Proposition \[mug\*sr\], it just remains to check that
$$\label{orth} \sum_{R_j \sim r} \sum_{\tau} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j,\tau}} \int |\widehat{M_T \mu_1}|^2 d \sigma_r \lesssim r^{-1} \int | \hat \mu_1|^2 \psi_r d\xi.$$
Morally, we are showing that the $\widehat{M_T \mu_1}$ are approximately orthogonal with respect to $d \sigma_r$ and/or $\psi_r$. The pieces $\widehat{M_T \mu_1}|_{S^1_r}$ correspond to the wave packet decomposition of $\hat \mu_1 * \hat \sigma_r$. It’s a standard fact that the wave packets in a wave packet decomposition are approximately orthogonal. (For instance, see Section 3 of [@GuthII] for related orthogonality arguments.) But because of the direction of , it takes some extra care to be completely rigorous. In particular, it makes matters easier to put $\psi_r$ instead of $d \sigma_r$ on the right-hand side of (\[orth\]), although we’re not sure whether this is necessary. Now we turn to the details.
Recall that $\psi_r$ is a weight function which is $\sim 1$ on the annulus $r-1 \le |\xi| \le r+1$ and then rapidly decaying. Similarly, define $\psi_{j, \tau, r}$ to be a weight function which is roughly 1 on the intersection of $\tau$ with the annulus $r-1 \le |\xi| \le r+1$ and then rapidly decaying. We recall that if $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$, then $\widehat {M_T \mu_1}$ is rapidly decaying outside of $\tau$. Since $M_T \mu_1$ is supported in $T \subset B^2(1)$, its Fourier transform is morally locally constant on scale 1. Therefore, for any $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$, we have
$$\int |\widehat{M_T \mu_1}|^2 d \sigma_r \lesssim r^{-1} \int |\widehat{M_T \mu_1}|^2 \psi_{j, \tau, r} d \xi,$$
where the $r^{-1}$ comes because $\sigma_r$ is the normalized arc-length measure on $S^1_r$, which is equal to approximately $1/r$ times arc length measure. Next we expand out
$$r^{-1} \int |\widehat{M_T \mu_1}|^2 \psi_{j, \tau, r} d \xi = r^{-1} \int | \hat \eta_T * (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat \mu_1) |^2 \psi_{j, \tau, r} d \xi.$$
Since $\hat \eta_T$ is essentially supported in a rectangle of dimensions $R^{1/2} \times 1$, with the long direction parallel to $S^1_r$ at points in $\tau \cap S^1_r$, we can bound
$$r^{-1} \int | \hat \eta_T * (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat \mu_1) |^2 \psi_{j, \tau, r} d \xi \lesssim r^{-1} \int | \hat \eta_T * (\tilde \psi_{j, \tau,r} \hat \mu_1) |^2 d \xi,$$
where $\tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r}$ is again rapidly decaying outside of $\tau \cap \{ r-1 \le |\xi| \le r\}$, but a bit more slowly than $\psi_{j, \tau, r}$. The point of all these adjustments is that we can now apply Plancherel in a clean way:
$$\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} \int | \widehat{M_T \mu_1}|^2 d \sigma_r \lesssim r^{-1} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} \int | \eta_T|^2 | \tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r}^\vee * \mu_1|^2 dx.$$
Since any point $x$ lies in $\lesssim 1$ different $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j,\tau}$, the last expression is bounded by
$$\lesssim r^{-1} \int | \tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r}^\vee * \mu_1|^2 dx = r^{-1} \int | \tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r} \hat \mu_1|^2 d \xi.$$
So now
$$\begin{split}
\sum_{R_j \sim r} \sum_{\tau} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} \int|\widehat{M_T \mu_1}|^2 d \sigma_r
\lesssim &r^{-1} \sum_{R_j \sim r, \tau} \int | \tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r} \hat \mu_1|^2 d \xi \\
=& r^{-1} \int \left(\sum_{R_j \sim r, \tau} \tilde \psi_{j, \tau,r}^2 \right)| \hat \mu_1|^2 d \xi.
\end{split}$$
The regions where $\tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r}$ are $\sim 1$ tile the annulus $r-1 \le |\xi | \le r+1$, with each point lying in $\lesssim 1$ regions. Therefore, $\sum_{R_j \sim r,\tau}\tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r}^2$ is $\sim 1$ on the annulus $r-1 \le \xi \le r+1$ and rapidly decaying elsewhere. So $ \sum_{R_j \sim r,\tau}\tilde \psi_{j, \tau, r}^2 \lesssim \psi_r$, and we get
$$\sum_{T} \int |\widehat{M_T \mu_1}|^2 d \sigma_r \lesssim r^{-1} \int | \hat \mu_1|^2 \psi_r d \xi.$$
This gives (\[orth\]) and finishes the proof for the main case $r > 10 R_0$.
If $r < 10 R_0$, we give a more elementary estimate. It is rather lossy, but the loss can be absorbed into the factor $C(R_0)$. We write
$$\int_{E_2} |{\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r(x)|^2 d \mu_2(x) \le \| {\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r \|_\infty^2 \le \| \widehat{{\mu_{1, good}}} \|_{L^1(d \sigma_r)}^2 \le \| \widehat{{\mu_{1, good}}} \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)}^2.$$
Recall that ${\mu_{1, good}}$ is the sum of the good $M_T \mu_1$ while $\mu_1$ is the sum of all $M_T \mu_1$. As we discussed above, the $M_T \mu_1$ are approximately orthogonal with respect to $\psi_r$, and so a similar argument to the one above shows that
$$\| \widehat{{\mu_{1, good}}} \|_{L^2(d \sigma_r)}^2 \lesssim r^{-1} \int |\hat \mu_1|^2 \psi_r d \xi.$$
Since $r \le 10 R_0$, we get
$$\int_{E_2} |{\mu_{1, good}}* \hat \sigma_r(x)|^2 d \mu_2(x) \lesssim r^{-1} \int |\hat \mu_1|^2 \psi_r d \xi \lesssim C(R_0) r^{- \frac{\alpha + 1}{3} + \epsilon} r^{-1} \int | \hat \mu_1 |^2 \psi_r d \xi.$$
Train track examples {#sec:traintracks}
====================
As we mentioned in the introduction, when $\alpha < 4/3$, there are examples of measures where the Mattila integral is infinite, and the related $L^2$ integral in Liu’s framework is also infinite. The relevant sets look like several trains tracks. These train track examples are based on the train track example in [@KT01] (page 151). In this section, we discuss these measures and their properties.
For every $\alpha < 4/3$ and every $B$, there is a probability measure $\mu$ on $B^2(1)$ with the following properties:
1. For any ball $B(x,r)$, $\mu(B(x,r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$.
2. If $d(x,y) := |x-y|$, then
$$\| d_* (\mu \times \mu) \|_{L^2} > B.$$
3. If $d^x(y) := |x-y|$, then for every $x$ in the support of $\mu$,
$$\| d^x_*(\mu) \|_{L^2} > B.$$
Let $R$ be a large parameter. Let $A_R$ be the set of points $(x_1,x_2) \in [0,1]^2$ where $0 \le x_1 \le R^{-1/2}$ and where, for some integer $M$,
$$M R^{-\alpha/2} \le x_2 \le M R^{-\alpha/2}+ R^{-1} .$$
This set reminds me of a train track. The slats of the train track are rectangles with dimensions $R^{-1/2} \times R^{-1}$, and there are $\sim R^{\alpha/2}$ slats evenly spaced inside a vertical rectangle of dimension $R^{-1/2} \times 1$. We form a set $E_R$ by taking the union of $R^{\frac{\alpha -1}{2}}$ train tracks that are evenly spread. To be definite, let us define $A_{R,l}$ to be the translate of $A_R$ by the vector $ (R^{- \frac{\alpha-1}{2}} l, 0)$. and then define $E_R$ to be the union of $A_{R,l}$ as $l$ goes from $0$ to $R^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}}$. (There is considerable freedom in how to take the union of the train tracks, and we could make similar examples with non-parallel train tracks also.) Let $\mu_R$ be the normalized area measure on $E_R$.
First we check that $\mu_R (B(x,r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$. The number of $R^{-1}$-boxes in $E_R$ is $R^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}} R^{\alpha/2} R^{1/2} = R^\alpha$. So we have to check that if $r = A R^{-1}$, then the number of $R^{-1}$ boxes in $E_R \cap B(x,r)$ is $\lesssim A^\alpha$. If $A \le R^{1/2}$, then $B(x,r) \cap E_R$ is contained inside one train track. The spacing between horizontal slats is $R^{-\alpha/2}$, and so the number of horizontal slats that intersect the ball $B(x,r)$ is at most
$$\frac{r}{R^{-\alpha/2}} = A R^{-1} R^{\alpha/2}.$$
Each horizontal slat intersects $B(x,r)$ in at most $A$ $R^{-1}$-boxes. So the total number of $R^{-1}$-boxes in $B(x,r)$ is at most
$$A^2 R^{\frac{-2 + \alpha}{2}} = A^\alpha A^{2 - \alpha} R^{- \frac{2 - \alpha}{2}} \le A^\alpha,$$
where in the last inequality we used $A \le R^{1/2}$.
Suppose $A \ge R^{1/2}$. Morally, since the train tracks are spaced evenly, the estimates will be even better than for the case $A = R^{1/2}$. Here are the details. Since the spacing between train tracks is $R^{-\frac{\alpha-1}{2}}$, the number of train tracks that $B(x,r)$ intersects is at most
$$r R^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}} + 1= A R^{\frac{\alpha -3}{2}} + 1.$$
Within each train track, the number of slats that $B(x,r)$ intersects is at most
$$r R^{\alpha/2} = A R^{\frac{\alpha-2}{2}}.$$
Each slat contains $R^{1/2}$ $R^{-1}$-boxes. So the total number of $R^{-1}$-boxes in $B(x,r)$ is at most
$$A^2 R^{\alpha - 2} + A R^{\frac{\alpha - 1}{2}}= A^\alpha A^{2 - \alpha} R^{\alpha - 2} + A^\alpha A^{1- \alpha} R^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}}\le A^\alpha,$$
where in the last inequality we used $R^{1/2} \le A \le R$.
Next we estimate $\int |d_* (\mu \times \mu) |^2$. The key point is that $d_*(\mu \times \mu)$ assigns a large measure to each interval $I_M = [M R^{- \alpha/2} - 2 R^{-1}, M R^{-\alpha/2} + 2 R^{-1}]$, where $M$ is an integer with $M \sim R^{\alpha/2}$. Indeed, if $x$ is any point in $E_R$, and if $y$ lies in the same train track as $x$, in a horizontal slat which is $M$ steps from the horizontal slat containing $x$, then $|x-y| \in [M R^{- \alpha/2} - 2 R^{-1}, M R^{-\alpha/2} + 2 R^{-1}]$. The $\mu_R$ measure of a single slat is $R^{-\alpha + 1/2}$, because the slat contains $R^{1/2}$ $R^{-1}$-boxes, which each have $\mu_R$ measure $R^{-\alpha}$. Therefore,
$$d_*(\mu \times \mu) (I_M) \gtrsim R^{-\alpha + \frac{1}{2}}.$$
By Cauchy-Schwarz,
$$\int_{I_M} d_*(\mu \times \mu)^2 dt \gtrsim \frac{R^{-2 \alpha +1}}{|I_M|} \sim R^{- 2 \alpha + 2}.$$
The number of different $I_M$ is $\sim R^{\alpha/2}$, and so
$$\int d_*(\mu \times \mu)^2 dt \gtrsim R^{- \frac{3}{2} \alpha + 2}.$$
If $\alpha < 4/3$, then the power of $R$ is positive, and $\int d_*(\mu \times \mu)^2 dt$ goes to infinity with $R$.
Finally we estimate $\int |d^x_*(\mu)|^2$. The computation is similar: $d^x_*(\mu)$ assigns a large measure to each interval $I_M$ defined above. In fact, just as above,
$$d^x_*(\mu) (I_M) \gtrsim R^{-\alpha + \frac{1}{2}}.$$
because if $y$ lies in the slat of $E_R$ lying in the same train track as $x$ and $M$ horizontal slats from the horizontal slat containing $x$, then $d^x(y) = |x-y| \in I_M$, and the $\mu_R$ measure of this slat is $R^{-\alpha + 1/2}$. Then just as above we get
$$\int_{I_M} d^x_*(\mu)^2 dt \gtrsim \frac{R^{-2 \alpha +1}}{|I_M|} \sim R^{- 2 \alpha + 2} \textrm{ and }$$
$$\int d^x_*(\mu)^2 dt \gtrsim R^{- \frac{3}{2} \alpha + 2}.$$
If $\alpha < 4/3$, then the right-hand side tends to infinity as desired.
We can also take limits of these examples with different scalings. Suppose that $R_j$ is a sequence of scales that goes to infinity rapidly. Define
$$E_j = \bigcap_{i = 1}^j E_{R_i}, \textrm{ and }$$
$$E = E_\infty = \bigcap_{i=1}^\infty E_{R_i}.$$
Define $\mu_i$ to be $\mu_{R_i}$ restricted to $E_i$ and renormalized, and let $\mu = \mu_\infty$ be a weak limit of the measures $\mu_i$. It is not hard to check that the Hausdorff dimension of $E$ is $\alpha$, that $\mu(B(x,r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$, and that $\| d_*(\mu \times \mu) \|_{L^2} = + \infty$ and $\| d^x_*(\mu) \|_{L^2} = + \infty$ for each $x \in E$.
Generalization to other norms: proof of Theorem \[main2\] {#sec:genmetric}
=========================================================
In this section, we consider the generalization of the Falconer problem where the Euclidean norm is replaced by other norms. We will show that our main theorem generalizes to other norms as long as the unit ball of the norm is strictly convex and smooth.
\[mainK\] Let $K$ be a symmetric convex body in $\mathbb{R}^2$ whose boundary $\partial K$ is $C^\infty$ smooth and has everywhere positive curvature bounded from above and below. Let $\|\cdot \|_K$ denote the norm with unit ball $K$. Define the pinned distance set
$$\Delta_{x,K}(E) := \{ \| x-y \|_K \}_{y \in E}.$$
If $E \subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ has Hausdorff dimension $> 5/4$, then there exists $x \in E$ so that the pinned distance set $\Delta_{x,K}(E)$ has positive Lebesgue measure.
Many parts of the proof work in the same way, and we will only discuss the required changes. The most interesting new ingredient is a generalization of Liu’s identity - Theorem \[Liu\].
Let us start by discussing the analogue of the train track examples for a general norm. This will help us motivate the right way to decompose $\mu_1$ into pieces $M_T \mu_1$. A train track consists of many parallel slats of dimensions $\sim R^{-1/2} \times R^{-1}$ contained in a larger rectangle of dimensions $\sim R^{-1/2} \times 1$. In the original Euclidean case, the direction of the slats is perpendicular to the direction of the larger rectangle. But to build an interesting example for the norm $\| \cdot \|_K$, the angle of the slats should be dictated by the geometry of $K$ in the following way. Suppose that the long axis of the large rectange is parallel to a vector $v$. By rescaling, we can assume that $v \in \partial K$. Then build a train track where the slats are rectangles with long axis parallel to the tangent vector of $K$ at $v$. In this case, if $x$ lies in one slat in the train track, and $y_1, y_2$ lie in the same slat at the opposite side of the train track, then $ \| x - y_1 \|_K = \| x - y_2 \|_K + O(R^{-1})$. From here on, train track examples have the same properties as in the Euclidean case.
The angles of the slats have a nice interpretation in terms of the dual norm $K^*$. We recall here some standard facts about dual norms. Let $\| \cdot \|_{K^*}$ be the dual norm to $\| \cdot \|_K$, and let $K^*$ be the unit ball of the dual norm, which will also be smooth and strictly convex. Recall that the dual norm is defined by
$$\| \omega \|_{K^*} = \sup_{v \in K} \omega \cdot v.$$
By strict convexity, there is a unique $v \in K$ which achieves the supremum, which we denote by $v(\omega)$. The plane $\omega \cdot v = \omega \cdot v(\omega)$ is tangent to $K$ at $v(\omega)$, and so we see that $\omega$ is normal to $\partial K$ at $v(\omega)$. Similarly, for each vector $v$, there is a unique $\omega(v) \in \partial K^*$ so that $\omega(v) \cdot v = \| v \|_K$. The plane $\{ \omega:\omega \cdot v = \omega(v) \cdot v \}$ is tangent to $K^*$ at $\omega(v)$ and so $v$ is normal to $\partial K^*$ at $\omega(v)$. If $\omega \in \partial K^*$ and $v \in \partial K$, then $v \cdot \omega = 1$ if and only if $v = v(\omega)$ if and only if $\omega = \omega(v)$. Therefore $\omega(v(\omega)) = \omega$ and $v(\omega(v)) = v$. Since $\omega(v)$ is normal to $\partial K$ at $v$, the map $\omega: \partial K \rightarrow \partial K^*$ is essentially the Gauss map. Because the curvature of $\partial K$ is $\sim 1$, the map $\omega$ is bilipschitz: for $v_1, v_2 \in \partial K, | \omega(v_1) - \omega(v_2)| \sim |v_1 - v_2|$. Therefore the map $v: \partial K^* = \partial K$ is bilipschitz. This shows that the curvature of $K^*$ is $\sim 1$.
We can now generalize the decomposition $\mu_1 = \sum_T M_T \mu_1$ to the case of general norms $\| \cdot \|_K$, where $M_T \mu_1$ is designed to isolate the train track configurations described above. We let $R_j$ and $\tau$ and $\psi_{j, \tau}$ be the same as in the Euclidean case. But we redefine the tubes ${\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$. For each $\tau$, consider $\partial (RK^*)$ where $R$ is chosen so that $\partial (RK^*) \cap \tau$ is non-empty (so $R \sim R_j$). Then we let ${\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ be a set of tubes $T$ with long direction perpendicular to $\partial(RK^*) \cap \tau$. In other words, if $\omega \in \tau$, then the direction of the tubes $T$ is $v(\omega)$. As before, the dimensions of the tubes are $R^{-1/2 + \delta} \times 1$ and the set of $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j,\tau}$ covers $B^2(2)$. We choose $\eta_T$ so that $\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}} \eta_T$ is 1 on $B^2(2)$. Then we define, for each $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$,
$$M_T f := \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat f)^\vee.$$
We define good and bad tubes in the same way as in the Euclidean case, and as before we let
$${\mu_{1, good}}= M_0 \mu_1 + \sum_{j \ge 1} \sum_{\tau} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j,\tau}, T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1.$$
In the Euclidean case, we studied the pushforwards $d^x_* \mu_1$ and $d^x_* {\mu_{1, good}}$ for $x \in E_2$. In the case of general norms, we will use a small variation of the pushforward measure. We need the small variation because of the way that the generalization of Liu’s identity is stated, cf. Lemma \[LiuK\] below.
Recall that $\sigma_t$ denotes the normalized arc length measure on the (Euclidean) circle of radius $t$. Then as we saw above
$$d^x_* (f darea) (t) = t \sigma_t * f(x).$$
Define $\sigma^K_t$ to be the normalized (Euclidean) arc length measure on $S^1_K(t)$ - the circle of radius $t$ in the norm $\| \cdot \|_K$. Then we define
$$T_{K, x} (f darea) (t) = t^{1/2} \sigma_t^K * f(x).$$
We note that the support of $T_{K,x} (f darea)$ is contained in $\Delta_{x,K}( {\textrm{supp}}(f))$. In particular, if $x \in E_2$, then the support of $T_{K,x} \mu_1$ is contained in $\Delta_{x,K}(E_1) \subset \Delta_{x, K}(E)$. For comparison, if we let $d_K^x(y) = \| x - y \|_K$, we would have
$$d^x_{K, *} (f darea) (t) = t (k \sigma_t^K) * f(x),$$
where $k(y)$ is a smooth positive function which only depends on the direction of $y$ – i.e. $k(\lambda y) = k(y)$ for $\lambda \not= 0$. If $x \in E_2$ and $y \in E_1$, then $\| x - y \|_K \sim 1$. Therefore, both $d^x_{K,*} \mu_1$ and $T_{K,x} \mu_1$ are supported in $t \sim 1$, and by comparing the two formulas, we see that $T_{K,x} \mu_1 (t) \sim d^x_{K, *} \mu_1 (t)$. In particular, this implies that $\int T_{K,x} \mu_1(t) dt \sim 1$.
To prove Theorem \[mainK\], we have to prove analogues of Proposition \[mainest1\] and Proposition \[mainest2\]:
\[mainest1K\] Let $K$ be a symmetric convex body in $\mathbb{R}^2$ whose boundary $\partial K$ is $C^\infty$ smooth and has everywhere positive curvature bounded from above and below. If $\alpha > 1$, then there is a subset $E_2' \subset E_2$ so that $\mu_2(E_2') \ge 1 - \frac{1}{1000}$ and for each $x \in E_2'$,
$$\| T_{K,x} \mu_1 - T_{K,x} {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{L^1} < \frac{1}{1000}.$$
\[mainest2K\] Let $K$ be a symmetric convex body in $\mathbb{R}^2$ whose boundary $\partial K$ is $C^\infty$ smooth and has everywhere positive curvature bounded from above and below. If $\alpha > 5/4$, then
$$\int_{E_2} \| T_{K,x} {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{L^2}^2 d \mu_2(x) < + \infty.$$
Proposition \[mainest1\] for general norms
------------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss the proof of Proposition \[mainest1K\] the analogue of Proposition \[mainest1\]. We explain what needs to be modified in the proof of Proposition \[mainest1\]. The most significant part is the proof of the first lemma, Lemma \[xnotinT\]. In the context of general norms, the lemma still holds with the same statement, but when we look at the proof we will need to use the way that $\tau$ and the direction of $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ are related to each other.
\[xnotinTK\] If $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$, and $x \in E_2$, and $x \notin 2T$, then
$$\| T_{K,x} (M_T \mu_1) \|_{L^1} \lesssim {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j).$$
We will prove the stronger estimate that for every $t$:
$$T_{K,x} (M_T \mu_1) (t) \lesssim {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j).$$
Recall that
$$\label{dxMTK} T_{K,x} M_T \mu_1(t) = t^{1/2} \int_{S^1_K(x,t)} M_T \mu_1(y) d\sigma_t(y),$$
where $S^1_K(x,t)$ is the circle around $x$ of radius $t$ in the norm $\| \cdot \|_K$ and $\sigma_t$ is the normalized arc length measure on it.
We also recall that
$$M_T \mu_1 = \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau} \hat \mu_1)^\vee = \eta_T (\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee * \mu_1).$$
Now $\psi_{j, \tau}^\vee$ is concentrated on a $R_j^{-1/2} \times R_j^{-1}$ rectangle centered at 0 and it decays rapidly outside that rectangle. Since $x \in E_2$, the distance from $x$ to the support of $\mu_1$ is $\gtrsim 1$. Therefore, $T_{K,x} (M_T \mu_1) (t)$ is tiny unless $t \sim 1$.
To study the case when $t \sim 1$, we expand out $M_T \mu_1$:
$$M_T \mu_1 (y) = \eta_T(y) ( \psi_{j, \tau} \hat \mu_1 )^{\vee}(y) = \eta_T(y) \int e^{2 \pi i \omega y} \psi_{j, \tau}(\omega) \hat \mu_1( \omega) d \omega.$$
Since $| \hat \mu_1(\omega) | \le 1$, and $\psi_{j, \tau}(\omega)$ is supported on $\tau$ and bounded by 1, it suffices to check that for each $\omega \in \tau$,
$$\label{statphaseK} \int_{S^1_K(x,t)} \eta_T(y) e^{2 \pi i \omega y} d\sigma_t(y) \le {\textrm{RapDec}}(R_j).$$
We will prove this rapid decay by stationary phase. After a coordinate rotation, we can assume that $\omega$ has the form $(0, \omega_2)$ with $\omega_2 \sim R_j$. Let $T_0 \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ be the tube that passes through $x$. The tubes of ${\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ have long axis perpendicular to $\partial (RK^*)$ at a point in $\tau$. In other words, the long axis of a tube in ${\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ is parallel to $v(\omega)$ for $\omega \in \tau$ (up to angle $R^{-1/2}$). The tube $T_0$ intersects $S^1_K(x,t)$ in two arcs, and on these arcs, the normal vector to $S^1_K(x,t)$ points in the direction $\omega(v(\omega)) = \omega$, which is vertical. Now $T$ is not $T_0$ – we know that $x \notin 2T$, and so the distance from $T$ to $T_0$ is $\gtrsim R^{-1/2 + \delta}$. By the strict convexity of $K$, if $y \in S^1_K(x,t) \cap T$, then the normal vector to $S^1_K(x,t)$ at $y$ makes an angle $\gtrsim R^{-1/2 + \delta}$ with the vertical.
The tube $T$ intersects $S^1_K(x,t)$ in one or two arcs. We parametrize each arc as a graph – either $y_2 = h(y_1)$ or $y_1 = h(y_2)$ – over an interval $I(T)$. By choosing one of these two options, we can assume that $h$ and all its derivatives are $\lesssim 1$ on $I(T)$. Let us assume first that $y_2 = h(y_1)$ since this is the more interesting case. Our integral becomes
$$\int_{I(t)} \eta_T(y_1, h(y_1)) e^{2 \pi i \omega_2 h(y_1)} J(y_1) dy_1.$$
This is the same integral that appears in the proof of Lemma \[xnotinT\]. If $y_1 \in I(T)$, then $(y_1, y_2) \in S^1_K(x,t) \cap T$, and so the normal vector to $S^1_K(x,t)$ at $y$ makes an angle $\gtrsim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$ with the vertical. Therefore, for $y_1 \in I(T)$, $| h'(y_1)| \gtrsim R_j^{-1/2 + \delta}$, just like in the proof of Lemma \[xnotinT\]. We can prove the desired estimate by the same stationary phase argument as in the proof of Lemma \[xnotinT\].
If $y_1 = h(y_2)$, then we have a similar but easier integral:
$$\int_{I(T)} \eta_T(h(y_2), y_2) e^{2 \pi i \omega_2 y_2} J(y_2) dy_2.$$
This integral is the same as the one appearing at the end of the proof of Lemma \[xnotinT\].
It is also straightforward to check that if $f$ is supported on the annulus $\{ y: \| x- y\|_K \sim 1\}$, then
$$\| T_{K,x} f \|_{L^1} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^1}.$$
The rest of the proof of Proposition \[mainest1\] is unchanged.
A general curve version of Liu’s identity
-----------------------------------------
In the proof of Proposition \[mainest2\], the only ingredient that needs to be adjusted for general norms $K$ is Liu’s $L^2$ identity – Theorem \[Liu\]. The argument in [@Liu18] seemingly relies heavily on the rotation invariance of the circle. We give a different approach to Theorem \[Liu\], and we show that it extends (modulo a negligible tail term) to more general metrics.
The analogue of Liu’s theorem is the following.
\[LiuK\] There is a smooth (not necessarily positive) measure $\sigma^{K^*}$ on $\partial K^* = S^1_{K^*}(1)$ so that the following holds. Define a measure $\sigma^{K^*}_r$ on $S^1_{K^*}(r)$ by setting
$$\sigma^{K^*}_r (A)= \sigma^{K^*} (A/r).$$
Suppose that $f(y)$ is supported in the annulus $\| x - y \|_{K} \sim 1$. Then
$$\label{eqLiuK} \int | f * \sigma^K_t (x)|^2 t dt \lesssim \int | f* \widehat{\sigma^{K^*}_r} (x)|^2 r dr + O(\|f\|_{\dot H^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}^2 + \|f \|_{\dot H^{-\frac12}}^2 ).$$
We abbreviate
$$F(t) = T_{K,x} f(t) = t^{1/2} \sigma^K_t * f(x).$$
Note that the left-hand side of (\[eqLiuK\]) is $\int F(t)^2 dt$. Also, because of the support condition on $f$, $F(t)$ is supported on $t \sim 1$.
We begin with an estimate for $\widehat{\sigma^K}$ which was derived by Herz in [@Herz]: When $|\xi| \ge 1$, we have
$$\widehat{\sigma^K}(\xi) = |\xi|^{-\frac{1}{2}} \kappa(\xi)^{-\frac{1}{2}} e^{2\pi i (\| \xi \|_{K^*} -\frac{1}{8})} + |\xi|^{-\frac{1}{2}} \kappa(-\xi)^{-\frac{1}{2}} e^{ -2\pi i (\| \xi \|_{K^*} -\frac{1}{8})} + O(|\xi|^{-\frac{3}{2}}),$$
where $\kappa(\xi)$ is the Gaussian curvature of $\partial K$ at $v(\xi)$ – the vector with $\xi \cdot v(\xi) = \max_{v \in K} \xi \cdot v$. Note that $\partial K$ is symmetric and so $\kappa(\xi) = \kappa(-\xi)$. Also $\widehat{\sigma^K_t}( \xi) = \widehat{\sigma^K}(t \xi)$. Therefore,
$$\widehat{\sigma^K_t}(\xi) = |t \xi|^{-1/2}\kappa(\xi)^{-\frac{1}{2}}( e^{2\pi i (t \| \xi \|_{K^*} -\frac{1}{8})} + e^{-2\pi i (t \| \xi \|_{K^*} -\frac{1}{8})} )
+ O(|t\xi|^{-\frac{3}{2}}).$$
This bound holds for $|t \xi| \gtrsim 1$. If $|t \xi| \lesssim 1$, then we have the simpler bound $|\widehat{ \sigma^K_t}(\xi)| \lesssim 1$ which gives the same expression with a remainder term of the form $|t \xi|^{-1/2}$ on the right-hand side.
Now we return to $F(t)$. We have
$$F(t) = t^{1/2} \sigma^K_t * f(x) = t^{1/2} \int e^{2 \pi i x \cdot \xi} \widehat{\sigma^K_t} (\xi) \hat f (\xi) d \xi.$$
Plugging in the formula above for $\widehat{\sigma^K_t}$, we get two main terms and a remainder term – for every $t \sim 1$,
$$F(t) = F_1(t) + F_2(t) + O\left(\int_{|\xi| \ge 1} | \widehat{f}(\xi) | |\xi|^{-\frac{3}{2}} d\xi + \int_{|\xi| \le 1} | \hat f(\xi)| |\xi|^{-1/2} d \xi \right),$$
where
$$F_1 (t) = e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}} \int e^{2\pi i x \cdot\xi } \widehat{f}(\xi) \kappa(\xi)^{-\frac{1}{2}} |\xi|^{-\frac{1}{2}} e^{2\pi i t \| \xi \|_{K^*}} d\xi .$$ $$F_2(t) = e^{i \frac{\pi}{4}} \int e^{2\pi i x \cdot\xi } \widehat{f}(\xi) \kappa(\xi)^{-\frac{1}{2}} |\xi|^{-\frac{1}{2}} e^{-2\pi i t \| \xi \|_{K^*}} d\xi .$$
Notice that the $t^{1/2}$ in the expression $F(t) = t^{1/2} \sigma^K_t * f(x)$ cancelled the $t^{-1/2}$ in front of $\widehat{\sigma^K_t}(\xi)$. This cancellation is the motivation for the expression $t^{1/2} \sigma^K_t * f$. It leads to a simple formula for $\hat F_1$ and $\hat F_2$, which we can use to estimate $\int |F_1(t)|^2$ and $\int |F_2(t)|^2$.
Before turning to Plancherel, let us mention that the formula for $F_i(t)$ makes sense for all real $t$.
To find the formula for $\hat F_1(r)$, we will massage the definition of $F_1(t)$ into the form $F_1(t) = \int_0^\infty e^{2 \pi i r t} G(r) dr$. Then it will follow that $\hat F_1(r) = G(r)$ (and that $\hat F_1$ is supported in $[0, \infty)$.) Now we process the formula for $F_1$. First, we write $\xi = r \theta$ where $r = \| \xi \|_{K^*}$ and $\theta \in S^1_{K^*} = \partial K^*$. We can do a change of variables $d \xi = J(\theta) r dr d \theta, $ where $d \theta$ is arc length measure on $S^1_{K^*}$ and $J(\theta)$ is smooth and bounded. Then we get
$$F_1(t) = e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}} \int_0^\infty \int_{S^1_{K^*}} e^{2\pi i x \cdot\xi } \widehat{f}(\xi) \kappa(\theta)^{-\frac{1}{2}} |\xi|^{-\frac{1}{2}} J(\theta) d \theta e^{2\pi i t r} r dr,$$
where $\xi = r \theta$. We rewrote $\kappa(\xi) = \kappa(\theta)$ since $\kappa(\xi)$ only depends on the direction of $\xi$. Up to another smooth factor $\tilde J(\theta)$, we have $|\xi| = r$, and so, after redefining $J(\theta)$, we have
$$F_1(t) = \int_0^\infty \left( e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}} \int_{S^1_{K^*}} e^{2\pi i x \cdot\xi } \widehat{f}(\xi) \kappa(\theta)^{-\frac{1}{2}} J(\theta) d \theta r^{1/2} \right) e^{2\pi i t r} dr .$$
Therefore,
$$\hat F_1(r) = e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}} \int_{S^1_{K^*}} e^{2\pi i x \cdot\xi } \widehat{f}(\xi) \kappa(\theta)^{-\frac{1}{2}} J(\theta) d \theta r^{1/2}.$$
Now define $\sigma^{K^*} = \kappa(\theta)^{-1/2} J(\theta) d \theta$, a smooth measure on $S^1_{K^*}$, and we have
$$\hat F_1(r) = e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}} f* \widehat{\sigma^{K^*}_r} (x) r^{1/2}.$$
Now by Plancherel, we get
$$\int | F_1(t)|^2 dt = \int | \hat F_1(r)|^2 dr = \int_{0}^\infty | f* \widehat{\sigma^{K^*}_r} (x)|^2 r dr.$$
A similar bound applies to $F_2$.
Finally, we put it all together:
$$\int |F(t)|^2 dt \sim \int_{t \sim 1} |F(t)|^2 dt \lesssim \int |F_1(t)|^2 dt + \int |F_2(t)|^2 dt + \textrm{ Remainder},$$
where
$$| \textrm{Remainder} | \lesssim \int_{|\xi| \ge 1} | \widehat{f}(\xi) | |\xi|^{-\frac{3}{2}} d\xi + \int_{|\xi| \le 1} | \hat f(\xi)| |\xi|^{-\frac12} d \xi.$$
The main two terms are $\lesssim \int_0^\infty |f * \widehat{\sigma^{K^*}_r}(x)|^2 r dr$. The remainder terms are controlled by Cauchy-Schwarz:
$$\left( \int_{|\xi| \ge 1} | \widehat{f}(\xi) | |\xi|^{-\frac{3}{2}} d\xi \right)^2 \lesssim \left( \int | \hat f(\xi)|^2 |\xi|^{-1 + 2 \epsilon} d\xi \right) \left(\int_{|\xi| \ge 1} |\xi|^{-2 - 2 \epsilon} d \xi \right) \lesssim \| f \|_{\dot H^{-\frac12 + \epsilon}}^2.$$
$$\left( \int_{|\xi| \le 1} | \widehat{f}(\xi) | |\xi|^{-\frac{1}{2}} d\xi \right)^2 \lesssim \int_{|\xi| \le 1} |\hat f|^2 |\xi|^{-1} d \xi \le \| f \|_{\dot H^{-\frac12}}^2.$$
We wish to apply this Lemma with $f= {\mu_{1, good}}$. Our ${\mu_{1, good}}$ is rapidly decaying outside of a tiny neighborhood of $E_1$, and so if $x \in E_2$, ${\mu_{1, good}}$ is essentially supported in an annulus of the form $\| x-y \|_K \sim 1$. So we can apply Lemma \[LiuK\], and to make use of it we just need to check that the remainder terms are finite: in other words
$$\| {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{\dot H^{-s}} < \infty,$$
for $s = 1/2$ or $1/2 - \epsilon$.
Let us first check that $ \| {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{\dot H^{-s}} \lesssim \| \mu_1 \|_{\dot H^{-s}}$. Indeed,
$$\| {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{\dot H^{-s}}^2 \lesssim \sum_{j, \tau} R_j^{-2s} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}, T \textrm{ good}} \int | \widehat{M_T \mu_1} |^2.$$
Applying Plancherel,
$$\sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}, T \textrm{ good}} \int | \widehat{M_T \mu_1} |^2 = \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}, T \textrm{ good}} \int | \eta_T |^2 | (\psi_{j,\tau} \hat \mu_1)^\vee |^2 \lesssim$$
$$\lesssim \int | (\psi_{j,\tau} \hat \mu_1)^\vee |^2 = \int | \psi_{j,\tau}|^2 |\hat \mu_1|^2.$$
Plugging into the above, we see that
$$\| {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{\dot H^{-s}}^2 \lesssim \sum_{j, \tau} R_j^{-2s} \int | \psi_{j,\tau}|^2 |\hat \mu_1|^2 \lesssim \int |\xi|^{-2s} |\hat \mu_1|^2 = \| \mu_1 \|_{\dot H^{-s}}^2.$$
The norm $\| \mu_1 \|_{\dot H^{-s}}$ is related to the dimension $\alpha$ as follows. Recall that the $\beta$-dimensional energy of a measure $\mu$ is given by
$$I_\beta (\mu) := \int |x-y|^{-\beta} \mu(x) \mu(y).$$
There is also a Fourier representation for $I_\beta(\mu)$ (cf. Proposition 8.5 of [@W03]): if $\mu$ is a measure on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, then
$$I_{\beta} (\mu) = c_{n, \beta} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} |\xi|^{-(n - \beta)} |\hat \mu(\xi) |^2 d \xi.$$
In particular $\| \mu_1 \|_{\dot H^{-s}}^2 = \int |\xi|^{-2s} | \hat \mu_1 |^2 = I_{2-2s} (\mu_1)$. If a measure $\mu$ on the unit ball obeys $\mu (B(x,r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$, then $I_\beta(\mu)$ is finite for every $\beta < \alpha$ (cf. Lemma 8.3 of [@W03]). In particular, $I_\beta(\mu_1) < \infty$ for every $\beta < \alpha$. Therefore, $\| \mu_1 \|_{\dot H^{-s}} < \infty$ whenever $2-2s < \alpha$ or $s > 1 - \alpha/2$. In particular, if $\alpha > 1$, then the remainder terms are controlled and we get
$$\| T_{K,x} {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{L^2}^2 = \int | {\mu_{1, good}}* \sigma^K_t (x)|^2 t dt \lesssim \int_0^\infty | {\mu_{1, good}}* \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} (x)|^2 r dr + O(1).$$
Integrating with respect to $d \mu_2(x)$, we get
$$\int_{E_2}\| T_{K,x} {\mu_{1, good}}\|_{L^2}^2 \lesssim \int_0^\infty \left(\int_{E_2} | {\mu_{1, good}}* \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} (x) |^2 d \mu_2(x) \right) r dr + O(1).$$
As in the proof in the Euclidean case, we bound the inner integral using Corollary \[correfdec\]. The proof is essentially the same as in the Euclidean case, but when we check that each piece $f_T$ is microlocalized correctly, we have to take into account the angles between the tubes $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$ and the normal vector to $\partial K^*$ in the $\tau$ direction. Here are the details.
$${\mu_{1, good}}= M_0 \mu_1 + \sum_{j \ge 1, \tau} \sum_{T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}, T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1.$$
When we convolve with $ \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} $, the only terms that remain are those with Fourier support intersecting $S^1_{K^*}(r)$. So ${\mu_{1, good}}* \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} $ is essentially equal to
$$\sum_{R_j \sim r} \sum_\tau \sum_{T\in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau} T \textrm{ good}} M_T \mu_1 * \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} .$$
Let $\eta_1$ be a bump function adapted to the unit ball. We define
$$f_T = \eta_1 \left( M_T \mu_1 * \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} \right).$$
We claim that each $f_T$ is microlocalized in the way we would want to apply Corollary \[correfdec\]. If $T \in {\mathbb{T}}_{j, \tau}$, then we let $\theta(T)$ be the 1-neighborhood of $3 \tau \cap S^1_{K^*}(r)$. We claim that $\hat f_T$ is essentially supported in $\theta(T)$. First we recall that $\widehat{M_T \mu_1}$ is essentially supported in $2 \tau$. Therefore, the Fourier transform of $M_T \mu_1 * \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} $ is essentially supported in $2 \tau \cap S^1_{K^*}(r)$. Finally, the Fourier transform of $f_T$ is essentially supported in the 1-neighborhood of $2 \tau \cap S^1_{K^*}(r)$, which is contained in $\theta(T)$. Note that $\theta(T)$ is a rectangular block of dimensions roughly $r^{1/2} \times 1$.
Next we claim that $f_T$ is essentially supported in $2T$. We know that $M_T \mu_1$ is supported in $T$. Let $\tilde \psi_\tau$ be a smooth bump function which is 1 on $2 \tau$ and rapidly decaying. Since the Fourier transform of $M_T \mu_1$ is essentially supported on $2 \tau$, we have $M_T \mu_1 * \widehat{ \sigma^{K^*}_r} $ is essentially equal to $M_T \mu_1 * (\tilde \psi_\tau \sigma^{K^*}_r )^\wedge$. It is standard to check by stationary phase that $(\tilde \psi_\tau \sigma^{K^*}_r )^\wedge$ is bounded by ${\textrm{RapDec}}(r)$ on $B^2(1)$ outside of a tube of radius $r^{-1/2 + \delta}$ in the direction which is normal to $S^1_{K^*}(r)$ in $\tau$. By construction, the tube $T$ also goes in this direction. Therefore, $M_T \mu_1 * (\tilde \psi_\tau \sigma^{K^*}_r)^\wedge$ is negligible on $B^2(1) \setminus 2T$. So $f_T$ is essentially supported on $2T$.
The rest of the proof of Proposition \[mainest2\] is the same as in the Euclidean case. When we apply Theorem \[refdec\], the surface $S$ that we use is $\partial K^*$. Since Theorem \[refdec\] only requires $S$ to be a $C^2$ hypersurface with all extrinsic curvatures $\sim 1$, it applies to $\partial K^*$.
Norms with some points of vanishing curvature
---------------------------------------------
Theorem \[mainK\] applies to norms $\| \cdot \|_K$ where $\partial K$ has strictly positive curvature everywhere. This assumption rules out the $l^p$ norms for all $p \not=2$. If $1 < p < \infty$, and $p \not= 2$, then there are finitely many points on the boundary of the unit ball where the curvature vanishes. Theorem \[mainK\] can be generalized to the case when $\partial K$ is smooth and the curvature vanishes at finitely many points by a small extra trick. We first set up $E_1$, $E_2$, $\mu_1$, and $\mu_2$ as usual, but then we refine them to avoid the directions where the curvature of $K$ vanishes. Let $r_0$ be a small radius that we can choose later. Let $B_1$ be any ball of radius $r_0$ with $\mu_1(B_1) > 0$, and replace $E_1$ by $E_1 \cap B_1$. Then cover $E_2$ with balls of radius $r_0$. We call a ball $B$ from this covering bad if there are points $x_1 \in B_1$ and $x_2 \in B$ so that the vector $x_2 - x_1$ is parallel to a vector $v \in \partial K$ where the curvature of $\partial K$ vanishes. The number of bad balls is $\lesssim r_0^{-1}$. Since $\mu_2(B(x,r)) \lesssim r^\alpha$ with $\alpha > 1$, we can find a good ball $B_2$ with $\mu_2(B_2) > 0$. Now we replace $E_2$ by $E_2 \cap B_2$. We redefine $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ to be supported on our new smaller sets $E_1$ and $E_2$.
If $x_i \in B_i$, then the vector $(x_2 - x_1) / | x_2 - x_1|$ lies in an arc of $\partial K$ of length $\sim r_0$ which avoids all the flat points of $\partial K$. Now we define $\tilde K$ to be a different symmetric convex body so that $\partial \tilde K$ includes this arc of $\partial K$ but $\partial \tilde K$ is smooth with strictly positive curvature everywhere. We can apply our proof to $\| \|_{\tilde K}$. It gives us a point $x \in E_2$ so that $d^x_{\tilde K} (E_1)$ has positive Lebesgue measure. But if $x_1 \in E_1$ and $x \in E_2$, then $\| x - x_1 \|_K = \| x - x_1 \|_{\tilde K}$, and so $d^x_{K} (E_1)$ has positive Lebesgue measure also.
.125in
Applications of the main results to the Erdős distance problem for general norms {#sec:erdos}
================================================================================
.125in
The purpose of this section is to prove Corollary \[falconertoerdosthm\] and extend it to a more general collection of point sets. The following definition is due to the second listed author, Rudnev and Uriarte-Tuero ([@IRU14]).
\[sadaptable\] Let $P$ be a set of $N$ points contained in ${[0,1]}^d$. Define the measure $$\label{pizdatayamera} d \mu^s_P(x)=N^{-1} \cdot N^{\frac{d}{s}} \cdot \sum_{p \in P} \chi_B(N^{\frac{1}{s}}(x-p)) dx,$$ where $\chi_B$ is the indicator function of the ball of radius $1$ centered at the origin. We say that $P$ is *$s$-adaptable* if there exists $C$ independent of $N$ such that $$\label{sadaptenergy} I_s(\mu_P)=\int \int {|x-y|}^{-s} d\mu^s_P(x) d\mu^s_P(y) \leq C.$$
It is not difficult to check that (\[sadaptenergy\]) is equivalent to the condition $$\label{discreteenergy} \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{p \not=p'} {|p-p'|}^{-s} \leq C.$$
It is also easy to check that if the distance between any two points of $P$ is $\gtrsim N^{-1/2}$, then (\[discreteenergy\]) holds for any $s \in [0,d)$, and hence $P$ is $s$-adaptable.
We will prove that if $P$ is $s$-adaptable, then for some $x \in P$, $| \Delta_{K,x}(P)| \gtrapprox N^{4/5}$. As a special case, this implies Corollary \[falconertoerdosthm\].
Fix $s>\frac{5}{4}$ and define $d\mu^s_P$ as above. Note that the support of $d\mu^s_P$ is $P^{N^{-\frac{1}{s}}}$, the $N^{-\frac{1}{s}}$-neighborhood of $P$. Since $I_s(\mu_P^s)$ is uniformly bounded, the proof of Theorem \[main2\] implies that there exists $x_0 \in P^{N^{-1/s}}$ so that $${\mathcal L}(\Delta_{K, x_0}(P^{N^{-\frac{1}{s}}})) \ge c>0,$$
where the constant $c$ only depends on the value of $C$ in (\[discreteenergy\]).
Let $x$ be a point of $P$ with $|x-x_0| \le N^{-1/s}$. It follows that for any $y$, $\| x_0 - y \|_K = \| x-y\|_K + O(N^{-1/s})$. Let $E_{N^{-1/s}} \left(\Delta_{K,x}(P) \right)$ be the smallest number of $N^{-1/s}$-intervals needed to cover $\Delta_{K,x}(P)$. We know that $\Delta_{K, x_0} (P^{N^{-1/s}})$ is contained in the $O(N^{-1/s})$ neighborhood of $\Delta_{K,x}(P)$, and so
$${\mathcal L}(\Delta_{K, x_0}(P^{N^{-\frac{1}{s}}})) \lesssim N^{-\frac{1}{s}} E_{N^{-1/s}} \left(\Delta_{K,x}(P) \right).$$
Then our lower bound on ${\mathcal L}(\Delta_{K, x_0}(P^{N^{-\frac{1}{s}}}))$ gives
$$E_{N^{-1/s}} \left(\Delta_{K,x}(P) \right) \gtrsim N^{1/s}.$$
In other words, $\Delta_{K,x}(P)$ contains $\gtrsim N^{1/s}$ different distances that are pairwise separated by $\gtrsim N^{-1/s}$. In particular, $|\Delta_{K,x}(P)| \gtrsim N^{1/s}$. Since this holds for every $s > 5/4$, we get $| \Delta_{K,x}(P)| \gtrapprox N^{4/5}$ as desired.
Appendix: discussion of the lower bound on the upper Minkowski dimension of $\Delta_{x,K}(E)$ in Remark \[ksanalogrmk\]
=======================================================================================================================
.125in
Let $\rho$ be a smooth cut-off function supported in the ball of radius $2$ and equal to $1$ in the ball of radius $1$ centered at the origin. Let $\rho_{\delta}(x)=\delta^{-d} \rho(\delta^{-1}x)$. Following the argument in (\[yes\]) with $\mu_{1,good}$ replaced by $\mu_{1,good}*\rho_{\delta}$, we see that the Lebesgue measure of the $\delta$-neighborhood of $\Delta_{x,K}(E)$ is bounded from below by $$\frac{\left(1-\frac{2}{1000}\right)^2}{\int {|d_{*}^{x}\mu_{1,good}*\rho_{\delta}|}^2}.$$
Following (\[nirvanaisnear\]) with $\mu_{1,good}$ replaced by $\mu_{1,good}*\rho_{\delta}$, we see that the expression above is bounded from below by $C \delta^{\frac{5}{3}-\frac{4 \alpha}{3}+\epsilon}$, hence there exists $x \in E$ such that the upper Minkowski dimension of $\Delta_{x,K}(E)$ is bounded from below by $$1-\left(\frac{5}{3}-\frac{4 \alpha}{3} \right)=\frac{4}{3}\alpha-\frac{2}{3},$$ as claimed.
.125in
It would be interesting to obtain a lower bound on the Hausdorff dimension of $\Delta_{x,K}(E)$. If $\mu_{1,good}$ were positive, it would be sufficient to show that $$\label{near1key} \int_{E_2} I_{\gamma} d^x_*({\mu_{1, good}}) d\mu_2(x)$$ is bounded with $\gamma<\frac{4}{3}\alpha-\frac{2}{3}$. This estimate follows from the same argument as in (\[nirvanaisnear\]) above. Unfortunately, in view of the fact that $\mu_{1,good}$ is complex valued, the estimate (\[near1key\]) does not appear to be sufficient to draw the desired conclusion.
.25in
[3]{}
J. Barcelo, J. Bennett, A. Carbery, A. Ruiz, C. Vilela, [*Some special solutions of the Schrödinger euqation*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. **56** (2007), no. 4, 1581-1591.
J. Bourgain, [*Hausdorff dimension and distance sets*]{}, Israel J. Math. 87 (1994), no. 1-3, 193-201.
J. Bourgain, [*On the Erdős-Volkmann and Katz-Tao ring conjectures*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal., **13** (2):334-365, (2003).
J. Bourgain and C. Demeter, The proof of the $l^2$ decoupling conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2) 182 (2015), no. 1, 351-389.
X. Du, L. Guth, and X. Li, [*A sharp Schrödinger maximal estimate in $\mathbb{R}^2$*]{}, Ann. of Math. **186** (2017), 607-640.
X. Du, L. Guth, X. Li, and R. Zhang, [*Pointwise convergence of Schrödinger solutions and multilinear refined Strichartz estimate*]{}, (arXiv:1803.01720) (2018).
X. Du, L. Guth, Y. Ou, H. Wang, B. Wilson, and R. Zhang, [*Weighted restriction estimates and application to Falconer distance set problem*]{}, (arXiv:1802.10186) (2018).
X. Du and R. Zhang, [*Sharp $L^2$ estimate of Schrödinger maximal function in higher dimensions*]{}, (arXiv:1805.02775) (2018).
S. Eswarathasan, A. Iosevich and K. Taylor, [*Fourier integral operators, fractal sets and the regular value theorem*]{}, Adv. Math. [**228**]{} (2011), 2385-2402.
B. Erdoğan, [*A bilinear Fourier extension theorem and applications to the distance set problem*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. (2005), no. 23, 1411-1425.
P. Erdös [*On sets of distances of n points,*]{} Amer. Math. Monthly. **53** (1946), 248–250.
K. J. Falconer, [*On the Hausdorff dimensions of distance sets*]{}, Mathematika **32** (1985), no. 2, 206-212 (1986).
J. Garibaldi, [*Erdös distance problem for convex metrics*]{}, Thesis (Ph.D.)?University of California, Los Angeles. (2004).
L. Guth, [*Restriction estimates using polynomial partitioning II*]{}, (arXiv:1603.04250) (2016).
L. Guth, N. H. Katz, [*On the Erdős distinct distance problem in the plane*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**181**]{} (2015), no. 1, 155-190.
C. S. Herz, [*Fourier transforms related to convex sets*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**75**]{} (1962), no. 1, 81-92.
S. Hofmann and A. Iosevich [*Circular averages and Falconer/Erdös distance conjecture in the plane for random metrics*]{} Proc. Amer. Mat. Soc. **133** (2005) 133-144.
A. Iosevich, M. Rudnev and I. Uriarte-Tuero, [*Theory of dimension for large discrete sets and applications*]{}, Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. **9** (2014), no. 5, 148-169.
A. Iosevich, I. [Ł]{}aba, [*K-distance sets, Falconer conjecture, and discrete analogs*]{}, Integers: Electronic Journal of Combinatorial Number Theory, **5** (2005), \#A08 (hardcopy in: Topics in Combinatorial Number Theory: Proceedings of the Integers Conference 2003 in Honor of Tom Brown, DIMATIA, ITI Series, vol. 261).
A. Iosevich and B. Liu, [*Pinned distance problem, slicing measures and local smoothing estimates*]{}, (arXiv:1706.09851) (2017).
A. Iosevich and M. Rudnev, [*Distance measures for well-distributed sets*]{}, Discrete Comput. Geom. **38**, (2007), 61-80.
A. Iosevich and S. Senger, [*Sharpness of Falconer’s $\frac{d+1}{2}$ estimate*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. **41** (2016), no. 2, 713-720.
N. Katz and T. Tao, Some connections between Falconer’s distance set conjecture and sets of Furstenburg type. New York J. Math. 7 (2001), 149-187.
N. Katz and G. Tardos, [*A new entropy inequality for the Erd?s distance problem*]{}, Towards a theory of geometric graphs, 119-126, Contemp. Math., **342**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (2004).
T. Keleti and P. Shmerkin, [*New bounds on the dimensions of planar distance sets*]{}, (arXiv:1801.08745) (2018).
B. Liu, [*An $L^2$-identity and pinned distance problem*]{}, (arXiv:1802.00350), (2018).
P. Mattila, [*On the Hausdorff dimension and capacities of intersections*]{}, Mathematika **32**, (1985), 213-217.
P. Mattila, [*Spherical averages of Fourier transforms of measures with finite energy: dimensions of intersections and distance sets*]{}, Mathematika **34**, (1987), 207-228.
L. Moser. [*On the different distances determined by n points*]{}, The American Mathematical Monthly 59.2 (1952): 85-91.
T. Orponen, [*On the distance sets of Ahlfors-David regular sets*]{}, Adv. Math., **307**, 1029-1045, (2017).
T. Orponen, [*On the dimension and smoothness of radial projections*]{}, Preprint, arXiv:1710.11053v2, 2017.
Y. Peres and W. Schlag, [*Smoothness of projections, Bernoulli convolutions and the dimension of exceptions*]{}, Duke Math J. **102**, 193-251, (2000).
P. Shmerkin. On distance sets, box-counting and Ahlfors regular sets. Discrete Anal. 22 pp, (2017).
P. Shmerkin, [*On the Hausdorff dimension of pinned distance sets*]{}, (arXiv:1706.00131), (2017).
J. Solymosi and V. Vu, [*Near optimal bounds for the Erdős distinct distances problem in high dimensions*]{} Combinatorica **28** (2008), no. 1, 113-125.
E. Stein, [*Harmonic Analysis*]{}, Princeton University Press, 1993.
T. Wolff, [*Decay of circular means of Fourier transforms of measures*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. (1999), no. 10, 547–567.
T. Wolff, [*Lectures on Harmonic Analysis*]{}, University Lecture Series, Volume 29, American Mathematican Society, 2003.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
High Energy Physics experiments are currently entering a new era which requires the operation of gaseous particle detectors at unprecedented high rates and integrated particle fluxes. Full functionality of such detectors over the lifetime of an experiment in a harsh radiation environment is of prime concern to the involved experimenters. New classes of gaseous detectors such as large-scale straw-type detectors, Micro-pattern Gas Detectors and related detector types with their own specific aging effects have evolved since the first workshop on wire chamber aging was held at LBL, Berkeley in 1986. In light of these developments and as detector aging is a notoriously complex field, the goal of the workshop was to provide a forum for interested experimentalists to review the progress in understanding of aging effects and to exchange recent experiences.
A brief summary of the main results and experiences reported at the 2001 workshop is presented, with the goal of providing a systematic review of aging effects in state-of-the-art and future gaseous detectors.
author:
- 'M. Titov$^*$[^1], M. Hohlmann, C. Padilla, N. Tesch'
title: 'Summary and Outlook of the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena in Gaseous Detectors (DESY, Hamburg, October, 2001)'
---
Introduction
==============
Aging effects in proportional wire chambers, a permanent degradation of operating characteristics under sustained irradiation, has been and still remains the main limitation to their use in high-rate experiments [@charpak]. Although the basic phenomenology of the aging process has been described in an impressive variety of experimental data, it is nevertheless difficult to understand any present aging measurement at a microscopic level and/or to extrapolate it to other operating conditions. Many chemical processes are expected to occur simultaneously in the gaseous discharges surrounding the wire, and consequently a quantitative description of aging effects, which would require as a minimum a detailed analysis of all gas-phase and gas-surface reaction products, is currently not available. There is much experimental information, well summarized in [@vavra]-[@cern1], which suggests that wire chamber lifetime may be extremely sensitive to the nature and purity of the gas mixture, different additives and trace contaminants, materials used in contact with the gas, geometry of electrodes and configuration of electric field. The ’classical aging effects’, well known since the advent of wire chambers, lead to the formation of deposits, conductive or insulating, on the electrode surfaces and manifest themselves as a decrease of the gas gain due to the modification of electric field, excessive currents, self-sustained discharges, or sparking. Traditionally, the aging rate has been parameterized as a normalized gas gain loss: $R = - \frac{1}{G} \frac{dG}{dQ} ( \%~per~C/cm )$, where $G$ is the initial gas gain, $dG$ is the loss of gas gain after collected charge $dQ$ per unit length [@kadyk]. However, the assumption that the aging rate is only a function of the total accumulated charge has not been confirmed for gaseous detectors operated in high-rate environments. In reality, the rate of polymer formation depends upon many microscopic variables such as cross-sections of electron and photon processes and their energy distributions in gas avalanches, molecular dissociation energies, as well as densities of electrons, ions and free radicals. Consequently, one may expect that the aging rate could also be affected by macroscopic parameters, such as gas gain, ionization density and radiation intensity, which are directly related to the basic microscopic variables. Several results presented at the 2001 workshop clearly indicate that such dependencies do exist.
Some of the conclusions from the 1986 workshop are still valid in 2001. However, the dramatic increase in charge (up to 1.0 $\frac{C}{cm~wire}$ per year), which is expected to be accumulated on sensing electrodes in the new high rate experiments, poses much more stringent constraints on the radiation hardness of materials and gas mixtures, assembly procedures, and basic rules for construction and operation of gaseous detectors, than previously encountered. Only a limited choice of gases have been demonstrated to tolerate such doses. Moreover, recent experience with straws and honeycomb drift tubes revealed that chemical etching processes leading to a dramatic damage of gold-plating on wires could occur in non-polymerizing $CF_4$ mixtures at exceedingly high current densities. These new developments since the 1986 workshop raise a question about the adequacy of using $CF_4$-based mixtures for long-term, high-rate applications.
The scientific program of the 2001 workshop addressed specific questions which, as reported by many authors, are of a primary interest: classical aging effects, models and insights from plasma chemistry, materials for detectors and gas systems, lessons learned from detector operation at high radiation intensities, new aging effects, experiences with large systems and recommendations for future detectors. About 100 detector experts attended the 4 day workshop, and 10 invited talks, 31 contributed talks and 9 posters were presented in 7 sessions [@workshop_proceedings].
General Characteristics of Aging Processes
==========================================
Classical Aging Effects
-----------------------
The ’classical’ aging effects are the result of chemical reactions occurring in avalanche plasmas near anodes in wire chambers leading to formation of deposits on electrode surfaces. During gas avalanches many molecules break up in collisions with electrons, de-excitation of atoms, and UV-photon absorption processes. Whereas most ionization processes require electron energies greater than 10 eV, the breaking of covalent molecular bonds and formation of free radicals requires only 3-4 eV, and can lead to a higher concentration of free radicals than that of ions in the gaseous discharges. Consequently, free-radical polymerization is regarded as the dominating mechanism of wire chamber aging. Since free radicals are chemically very active they will either recombine to form the original molecules or other volatile species, or may start to form new cross-linked molecular structures of increasing molecular weight. When the polymerized chain becomes large enough for condensation to occur, it will diffuse to an electrode surface.
It is worthwhile to mention that one has to distinguish between formation of polymers in the gas avalanche near the anode wire and their deposition on electrode (anode or cathode) surfaces. The polymer deposition mechanism can be viewed as a phenomenon that occurs whenever the gaseous species fails to bounce back after a collision with an electrode surface, including a surface layer of molecules previously formed in the gas discharges. Initially, the polymer could be attached to the surface very weakly, unless some additional chemical reactions take place between the polymer atoms and atoms of the wire material. Moreover, many free radicals are expected to have permanent or induced dipole moments so that electrostatic attraction to a wire can also play a significant role in the polymer deposition process. For the inert gold-plated anode wires the probability for polymers to stick to the surface is rather small until the creation of the first monolayer of deposits, which may significantly increase further deposition. The influence of surface wire quality on anode aging and a model of polymer film growth is proposed in [@blinov]. The importance of reactions between the electrode material and polymers produced in avalanches for the deposition mechanism can be illustrated by the following examples:
- Non-gold anode wires react with fluorine radicals produced in an avalanche to form resistive metal fluorides. Many studies have demonstrated excellent aging properties, up to 10 $\frac{C}{cm \cdot wire}$, of $CF_4/i C_4 H_{10}$ (80:20) gas avalanches [@opensh1]-[@kadyk2], which also has the ability to etch silicon-based and hydrocarbon deposits on previously aged gold-plated wires [@opensh3; @chemmod]. However, extensive deposition was observed on unplated wires irradiated in $CF_4/iC_4H_{10}$ (80:20) [@chemmod; @dissert].
- Exceedingly large aging rates were observed in pure $CF_4$ and in $Ar/CF_4/O_2$ (50:40:10) [@chemmod]-[@vavra3], which are typical etching gases and reluctant to polymerize. This effect was related to the chemical processes at the cathode, where trace fluorocarbon deposits were found resulting in a loss of gas gain and not in a self-sustained Malter discharge.
The self-sustained discharge (Malter effect) [@malter], which is due to a thin insulating layer deposited on a conducting cathode by a polymerization mechanism, is one of the most devastating phenomena of all aging effects. The resistivity of the insulating layer defines the maximum rate capability of the detector before the onset of field-emission of electrons from the cathode, which starts if the rate of ionic charge neutralization across the dielectric film is smaller than the rate of ion charge build-up [@vavra2; @bohm]. There exists evidence that certain metal oxide coatings on the cathode and/or simply the cathode material itself (eg. carbon-loaded polycarbonate foil) may not be conducting enough and could cause Malter-like breakdowns in the presence of large localized ionization densities [@kadyk; @bohm; @padilla]. Several other factors may facilitate its ignition, such as highly ionizing particles, sparks, sharp points on electrodes causing corona discharges, or thin anode wires [@vavra2]. It is easy to ignite Malter currents in a detector operating with hydrocarbon gases at elevated high voltages [@boyarski] or forcing chambers to breakdown [@foster]-[@sadrozinski], and in a detector, which has been previously exposed to TMAE gas [@vavtmae1]. The CRID RICH detector [@abe] with an excellent 3-dimensional single electron reconstruction capability allowed the first imaging of the onset of the Malter effect, which starts from sporadic bursts of single electrons from a localized cathode spot [@vavtmae1]. Such a positive feedback between electron emission at the cathode and anode amplification will lead to high ionization densities at distinct chamber locations. This, in turn, can initiate the production of new reactive species at much larger rates, thus promoting more deposits to form at the same cathode spot to an extent sufficient to establish a classical self-sustained Malter discharge. The most dangerous consequence of this phenomena is that the Malter effect could easily spread over a large area, if it goes undetected for a long period of operation, thus causing irreparable damages to the chamber.
Many experiments have demonstrated that the addition of $H_2O$ or alcohols – after the insulating layer at the cathode is already formed – tends to stabilize the detector operation, but not to cure the Malter effect [@vavra; @kadyk]. When these additives are removed, usually the chamber suffers from Malter effect again. Recently, it was discovered that the addition of oxygen (0.02-0.05 $\%$) or $CO_2$ (5 $\%$) to the damaged chamber, which showed a self-sustained dark current with $He/iC_4H_{10}$ (80:20), could revert or cure a Malter breakdown in the presence of high current density [@boyarski]. When the oxygen is removed, the chamber can still operate at a high ionization level (although it will start to age again without additive). It is also worthwhile to mention that the possibility of reanimation of anode wires aged in hydrocarbon gases by means of sputtering was demonstrated in $Ar/O_2$ (99:1) and $Ar/CO_2$ (93:7) [@pash; @atlas2]. These effects support results from plasma chemistry, where it is known that oxygen reacts with hydrocarbon molecules and the end products are volatile $CO$, $CO_2$, $H_2O$ and $H_2$.
Wire Chambers vs Plasma Chemistry
----------------------------------
While the specific reactions responsible for wire chamber aging are extremely complex, some qualitative approach to the aging phenomena in different gases could be obtained from similarities between chemical processes in plasmas of gas avalanches [@vavra; @kadyk; @chemmod; @dissert] and those that occur in the better-understood low-pressure ($<$ 1 Torr) rf (13.6 MHz) plasmas [@yasuda; @boenig]. Although many parameters (electric field, gas pressure, electron density, power density) are vastly different between the two regimes, the electron energies are not so different. Also, in both cases the free radicals are most likely the active species involved in polymer formation.
In plasma polymerization, the overall mechanism of ‘Competitive Ablation and Polymerization’ proves to be a basic principle that describes reactions occurring in a plasma polymerization system. Considerable fragmentation of the gas molecules or rearrangement of atoms occurs in the plasma and the extent of the process and the dominating mechanism vary with the types of gases and the discharge conditions. The most important concept here is that both polymer-forming species and species that cause ablation (physical or chemical etching) of materials are created in the plasma of the original gas. The significance of this concept is fully established in perfluorocarbon plasmas, which represent the most extreme case of ablation competing with polymer formation. Actually, $CF_4$-based gases are used for both etching and deposition processes, the distinction being made by the gas and its concentration with which $CF_4$ is mixed. In general, the addition of oxygenated species shifts the chemistry of $CF_4$ plasmas towards etching, while the addition of hydrogenated species shifts the chemistry towards polymerization [@yasuda; @yasuda2]. In the former case, the dissociative products of $CF_4$ and $O_2$ are the most desirable active species for the etching processes in plasmas [@kushner]-[@martz]. For the latter case, in the absence of hydrogen, products of the $CF_4$ discharge could act as an effective etching gas especially for $Si$-based deposits, which react with fluorine to form volatile $SiF_4$. The addition of hydrogen atoms or molecules to $CF_4$ scavenge $F$ atoms by the formation of more stable $HF$ and produces a mixture with carbon-enriched ($CF_3, CF_2, CF$) residues. As the ratio of $F/C$ decreases, perfluorocarbons polymerizes readily, i.e. the balance shifts from ablation to polymerization [@yasuda2; @truesdale1]-[@motlagh]. For instance, very fast polymer formation was observed in $C_6F_6$ and $C_2H_2F_4$ plasmas [@yasuda2]. On the other hand, hydrofluoric acid can chemically attack $HF$-soluble materials existing in the system. Under certain conditions, $Si$-etching can be accompanied by the polymerization of the etching gas $CF_4$ on the $Si$-substrate [@kushner; @arikado; @winters2].
Correspondingly, recent results from wire chamber operation also show that both polymerization and etching phenomena can occur in $CF_4$-based gases (see section V). Particularly, using the same experimental setup, a lack of apparant aging have been observed in $CF_4/iC_4H_{10}$ (80:20) and $CF_4/iC_4H_{10}$ (50:50) mixtures, whereas heavy carbonaceous deposits were observed on the gold-plated wires in $CF_4/iC_4H_{10}$ (95:5), $CF_4/iC_4H_{10}$ (20:80) and $CF_4/C_2H_4$ (95:5) gases [@chemmod].
Two other examples, where conclusions from plasma chemistry are qualitatively applicable to wire chambers are:
- In plasma chemistry, most organic compounds with oxygen-containing groups are generally reluctant to form polymers. For example, water in plasmas could act as an efficient modifier of the polymer chain-growth mechanism by reacting with polymer precursors and forming volatile species (up to 50 $\%$ $H_2O$ was added to the plasma feed gas) [@yasuda]. In wire chambers, the addition of water (a few hundred to a few thousands $ppm$ of $H_2O$) has been found to effectively suppress polymerization effects [@kollef; @wulf], to prevent Malter breakdown [@boyarski; @kadyk3; @sld], or even to restore the original operation in aged counters [@algeri; @danilov]. There is more than one mechanism by which $H_2O$/alcohols can help in wire chambers [@vavra2; @vavrasl]. Because of the large dipole moment, these molecules will tend to concentrate near the electrode surfaces, where polymerization takes place. Water has an additional advantage in wire chambers since it increases the conductivity of the partially damaged electrodes - a property that can have adverse effects in a MSGC [@cern1].
- In plasmas, the characteristic polymerization rate of $Si$ is higher than for $C$ [@yasuda2]. From the viewpoint of wire aging, even minor traces of $Si$-pollutants in the gas have a much higher tendency to create deposits, than similar amounts of hydrocarbon molecules.
It has to be stated, though, that the absence of corresponding systematic studies in plasma chemistry with parameters similar to wire chambers (atmospheric pressure, power densities, gas mixtures) does not allow any quantitative comparisons between the plasma chemistry and wire chamber processes.
Experience from laboratory R $\&$ D experiments.
=================================================
Over the last few decades an impressive variety of experimental data has been accumulated from laboratory tests and detectors installed at high energy physics facilities. However, there are many contradictory experiences obtained in seemingly identical conditions, which means that we do not always control all parameters that influence aging effects. It is now well established that – even if a low aging rate can be obtained in the laboratory with very pure gas and otherwise clean conditions – large-area detectors using the same mixture can fail due to severe aging after a relatively small beam exposure. However, experience from the laboratory, where operating conditions are much better controlled, can be used to understand some general principles and might help to implement these results successfully in large chambers. There are a lot of experiments that clearly indicate premature aging in $Ar/CH_4$ mixtures exposed to intense radiation [@kollef; @smith]-[@silander]. Moreover, the aging rate in $Ar/CH_4$ (90:10) was found to be mainly a function of current density, i.e. the product of irradiation rate and gas gain, independently from electrode material and purity of methane [@bouclier; @capeans]. This observation indicates that $CH_4$ itself polymerizes in the avalanche plasma due to the hydrogen deficiency of radicals and their ability to make bonds with hydrocarbon molecules [@kadyk; @yasuda], and similarly for all hydrocarbon gases. Under certain conditions the aging rate in $Ar/C_2H_6$ with alcohol can be strongly reduced [@atac; @ua1]. However, noble gas/hydrocarbon mixtures are not trustworthy for long-term, high-rate experiments. In order to suppress polymerization of hydrocarbons, oxygen-containing molecules can be added to the mixture. For $Ar/CH_4/CO_2$, measurements have shown that sensitivity to aging decreases with decreasing $CH_4$ and increasing $CO_2$ content [@pash].
Dimethylether (DME) appeared in the 1986 workshop as a good quencher and a reasonably good radiation-hard gas for wire chambers operated at high intensities. The aging rate in DME tends to be lower than the polymerization rate of ordinary hydrocarbons [@vavra] and several groups reported the absence of aging effects in wire chambers up to large values of accumulated charge [@blinov; @bouclier; @capeans; @openshaw]. However, the aging effects in DME appear to be highly sensitive to traces of pollutants at the ppb level, which are difficult to keep under control in large detectors. There is also evidence of high chemical reactivity of DME, which requires a careful material selection for detector assembly and gas system components [@dme].
Attempts were made to replace organic quenchers with aging resistant ones, like $CO_2$. The $Ar(Xe)$/$CO_2$ gases could be in principle absolutely radiation resistant under clean conditions; up to now, there is no well-established mechanism, which could lead to the formation of anode deposits in these mixtures. Stable operation up to $\sim 1 \frac{C}{cm~wire}$ was reported for $Ar/CO_2$ [@vavra; @kadyk; @turala; @conti] and up to $\sim 5 \frac{C}{cm~wire}$ for $Xe/CO_2$ mixtures [@bondarenko]. However, a gradual decomposition of $CO_2$ can also occur and the resulting pure carbon can be deposited specifically at the cathode [@pash; @co2]. Sometimes this carbon layer does not affect the performance of drift tubes [@pash]. Recent systematical aging tests were performed for the ATLAS muon aluminum drift tubes. In order to guarantee reproducibility of the results and to study aging behavior under different operating conditions, 26 tubes with $Ar/CO_2$ (93:7)+600 $ppm$ $H_2O$ mixture have been irradiated with an $Am^{241}$ source up to an accumulated charge of $\sim$ 1.3 $\frac{C}{cm~wire}$ and 47 tubes with $Ar/CO_2$ (90:10) gas were exposed to a $Cs^{137}$ source up to $\sim$ 0.6 $\frac{C}{cm~wire}$ [@atlas2; @kollef2; @atlas]. All tubes were 100 $\%$ efficient at the end of these aging runs, however, these measurements represented an average performance of the wire over a length of 3 m and were not sensitive to local inefficiencies. It should be mentioned, that the aging performance of $Ar/CO_2$ is sensitive to traces of impurities. $Si$-based pollutants are one of the sources of aging in $Ar/CO_2$, probably due to the production of non-volatile $SiO_2$ [@conti; @kollef2; @adam; @gavrilov]. Several other experiments also observed aging effects in $Ar/CO_2$, however, the reasons of the gain reduction were not identified [@blinov; @atlas2; @faruqi; @kowalski].
The identification of radicals and fragments formed in the electron avalanches is a means to understand and eventually overcome the problems related to the aging of gaseous detectors [@kadyk; @hess; @wise2; @vavra5]. A recent investigation of avalanche products has shown that seventeen new compounds were identified in the effluent gas stream from an irradiated proportional counter with $Ar/C_2H_4$ (50:50) mixture [@kurvinen]. Some of the observed species (aliphatic hydrocarbons) contained double or triple bonds which, similar to plasma polymerization, can be easily ’opened’ in the discharges and polymerize very aggressively. The systematic analysis of light emission spectra in proportional counters may also provide useful information about basic physics processes in electron avalanches [@sumner; @lima].
Experience with ‘standard radiation level’ detectors.
======================================================
Classical Wire Chambers.
-------------------------
For a long time, classical wire chambers of various designs with many thousands of wires have been used for large-area tracking detectors in the ‘standard radiation levels’ experiments, i.e.with total collected charges $<$ 50 mC/cm for the whole period or running. Basic rules for the construction and operation of these detectors are known. Moreover, many of the large wire chambers were built and demonstrated to work [@vavra; @kadyk; @zarubin]. Nevertheless, recent experience with large systems still shows the appearance of aging effects associated mainly with hydrocarbon polymerization and with presence of pollutants in the gas system.
A time expansion chamber filled with $CO_2/iC_4H_{10}$ (80:20) mixture successfully operated as a vertex detector of the L3 experiment at LEP. After an accumulated charge of $10^{-4} \frac{C}{cm~wire}$ collected during 11 years of running, there was no sign of aging [@betev]. Classical aging effects (Malter effect or/and sense wire deposits) have been observed in the H1 Central Jet Chamber operated with $Ar/C_2H_6$ (50:50) + 0.1 $\%$ $H_2O$ and in the ZEUS Central Tracking Detector filled with $Ar/CO_2/C_2H_6$ (83:12:5) + 0.5 $\%$ $C_2H_5OH$ at the HERA $ep$-collider. In the former case, the replacement of 0.1 $\%~H_2 O$ with 0.8 $\%$ of ethanol cured the Malter effect and stabilized the detector operation [@niebuhr], while for the latter case the aging problem was alleviated by the addition of $H_2O$ [@bailey]. In both systems there was no clear indication that polymerization is ‘fed’ by the presence of impurities in the gas system, indicating that hydrocarbons are the likely source of chamber aging.
An abundance of literature exists describing the dramatic effect of certain gaseous constituents, which may be either due to the contaminants initially present in the gas system or that result from outgassing of construction materials upon the aging rate of wire chambers. Several examples of large systems, where the presence of pollutants increased the aging rate many times, have been reported in [@binkley; @marshall]. While laboratory tests with prototype chamber indicated negligible aging rates ($R < 10~\% /C/cm$), a much larger aging rate (1000 $\% /C/cm$) was observed in the large Central Tracking Chamber of the CDF experiment operated with $Ar/C_2H_6$ (50:50) + 0.1 $\%$ alcohol. The analysis of the aged sense wires showed the presence of $C$, $O$ and $Si$ elements. After cleaning the gas system components and making changes to reduce aerosols emanating from an alcohol bubbler, the aging rate was greatly reduced allowing the detector to operate without dramatic loss in performance. The presence of $Si$ is to be pointed out here since silicon has been systematically detected in analysis of many wire deposits, although in many cases the source of $Si$-pollutant has not been clearly identified. The $Si$-compounds are found in many lubricants, adhesives and rubber, encapsulation compounds, silicon-based grease, various oils, G-10, RTV, O-rings, fine dust, gas impurities, polluted gas cylinders, diffusion pumps, standard flow regulators, molecular sieves, and their presence may not necessarily be noted in the manufacturer’s documentation [@vavra; @kadyk; @capeans]. Because of a high specific polymerization rate $Si$ molecules should be avoided in the detector system at all cost. Consequently, if there is a question whether or not some device may incorporate silicon compounds it should be subjected to additional aging test. Another example is the D0 WAMUS muon drift chambers, which suffered fast anode aging when operated with an $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ (90:6:4) mixture. Here, the source of the contaminant was outgassing of glass-steel polyester epoxy resin used in the construction. A cold-trap added to the gas recirculating system reduced the aging rate by a factor of ten, while the extreme method of quickly heating the wires just below their melting point (‘zapping’) succeeded in blowing hardened sheaths of outgassing products off of the wires; thus completely cleaning the aged gold wires ‘in-situ’ [@marshall].
The chosen examples underline the importance of having control over all detector parameters, but often it is quite difficult to draw final conclusions since nominally identical detectors connected to the same gas circuit may perform very differently [@niebuhr; @marshall]. In some cases it might be possible to eliminate harmful impurities by installing appropriate filters or cold traps in the gas system [@binkley; @marshall]. Many helpful guidelines for construction and operation of classical wire chambers at ‘low’ rates, which have been compiled over the past 40 years, are summarized in [@schmidt] as follows:
- Create a moderately clean environment during detector construction and clean the gas system components prior to start of operation;
- Avoid the presence of ‘bad’ molecules in contact with active gas ($Si$, halogens, sulphur, plasticizers, outgassing) [@vavra; @kadyk];
- A huge variety of gases can be successfully used (noble gases, hydrocarbons, freons, $CO_2$, $DME$, $H_2O$, alcohols,‘magic gas’,...);
- Hydrocarbons are the most likely source of aging (effect is more pronounced in presence of contamination or under discharges, sparks, Malter effect). Even with addition of water/alcohol the improvements are still limited and it is problematic to consider them for high rate applications;
- If aging effects are observed despite taking all of the above precautions, add suitable additives and/or identify the source of pollution and clean the gas system.
Resistive Plate Chambers.
--------------------------
In the 1990’s, Resistive Plate Chambers (RPC) were proposed as an economical and proven technology ideally suited for large-area detection systems. For example, both the Belle and BaBar experiments have instrumented their flux returns with RPC’s operated in streamer mode. However, high chamber currents started to show up in Belle’s RPC’s almost immediately upon installation. This problem was related to the presence of high levels of water ($\sim 2000 ppm$) in the gas, which permeated through the walls of the polyethylene tubing. Operating the RPC’s with $Ar/C_4H_{10}/C_2H_2F_4$ (30:8:62) plus water in streamer mode led to the formation of hydrofluoric acid that etched the electrodes made from ordinary glass. This resulted in the creation of emission points triggering chamber currents. The problem was finally solved by replacing the plastic tubes with copper ones ($H_2O < 10 ppm$) [@marlow].
In the BaBar RPC’s the electrodes are made of Bakelite coated with linseed oil. After an initial period of successful operation with an $Ar/C_4H_{10}/C_2H_2F_4$ mixture, the RPC’s started to show a permanent reduction in efficiency and an increase in dark current. The main conclusion of the subsequent extensive $R\&D$ studies related the BaBar RPC problem to the lack of polymerization of the linseed oil and formation of oil droplets under the influence of high temperature and high currents [@piccolo]. Further efficiency deterioration mechanisms, that may play an important role in BaBar’s RPC’s have been proposed by J. Va’vra [@vavra2]. He suggested that this problem could be due to an electrochemical change of resistivity of fresh linseed oil, modulated by the presence of water in the RPC’s. A positive example is the L3 RPC at LEP, which operated at a very low particle flux over 8 years without significant loss of efficiency [@carlino]. In contrary to RPC’s used in streamer mode at the Belle, BaBar and L3 experiments, the future LHC experiments will operate RPC’s in proportional mode, which is desirable in terms of total accumulated charge per particle. However, much higher particle fluxes at the LHC require more systematic $R\&D$ studies of the RPC technology, since many processes could degrade their performance under high-rate conditions. Recent results of aging tests for ATLAS, CMS and LHC-B RPC’s indicate that under the right circumstances RPC can withstand large integrated doses [@aielli]-[@passaleva].
It should be stressed though that the problems with Belle and BaBar RPC’s are not ‘classical aging effects’, but rather unpredictable surface effects, related to the specific choices of materials and operating conditions.
Gaseous Photodetectors.
------------------------
Gaseous photon detectors used in high energy physics experiments must ensure an efficient way of converting $UV$ photons to electrons with a subsequent detection of single photoelectrons [@ypsilantis; @photon]. For gaseous converters, systematical aging studies have been carried out with $TMAE$ and $TEA$ vapors [@woody]-[@tea], which are added to the carrier gas to provide photoionization capability [@tmae1]. TMAE is the best material in terms of quantum efficiency, however, the main obstacle of using $TMAE$ at high rates is an exceedingly rapid gas gain loss due to deposits on the anode wires [@photon; @vavtmae3]-[@lau]. Several studies have indicated that anode wire deposits can be removed by heating the wires with elevated currents [@tea; @constr]; unfortunately this recovery is followed by a quick drop in gain [@korpar; @skrk]. In addition, all photosensitive materials, and, most probably, their various aging products are good insulators and may excite self-sustained currents when deposited on the cathode [@photon]. Systematic studies with $TMAE$ and $TEA$ also allowed to establish basic dependencies between the aging behavior and dissociation energy or wire diameter [@vavtmae3]:
- aging rate for $TMAE$ is larger than for $TEA$ ($TMAE$ molecule is more fragile than $TEA$);
- aging rate for $TMAE$ and $TEA$ is inversely proportional to the anode wire diameter;
At low rates, the possibility to use gaseous photon detectors on a very large scale at long-term with hydrocarbon/TMAE gases has been demonstrated for large 4$\pi$ devices (e.g. SLD CRID and DELPHI RICH) [@photon]. It is worthwhile to mention, that the high reactivity of TMAE with oxygen and other substances necessitates a very high degree of cleanliness and leak-tightness for gas systems in these detectors.
In recent years, there has been considerable work in the field of photon imaging detectors by combining solid photocathodes ($CsI$) and wire chambers or gaseous electron multipliers. However, several aging tests also revealed degradation of $CsI$ photocathode quantum efficiency for very high rate environments; a collection of existing aging data for these can be found in [@photon; @vavtmae3; @krizan; @breskin11]-[@dimauro].
Aging Experience with High-Rate detectors of the LHC era.
===========================================================
The most recent developments in high-energy physics require a dramatic increase of the radiation intensity encountered by gaseous detectors: from $mC/cm/wire$ for the ‘standard radiation level’ detectors up to $C/cm/wire$ for the new high-rate experiments of the LHC era (HERA-B, LHC). Among the most critical items that affect the lifetime of gaseous detectors (apart from the gas mixtures) are the materials in contact with gas, assembly procedures, gas mixing and distribution systems, and tubing. In section III.A we discuss the outgassing properties of several materials and general rules for assembly of high-rate gaseous detectors and gas systems, while sections III.B-D contain the summary of the recent experience with aging problems in gaseous detectors operated at extremely large particle fluxes.
Choice of Materials for Detectors and Gas Systems
--------------------------------------------------
The increasingly challenging requirements for building and testing the next generation of large-area gaseous detectors has demanded a concerted effort towards finding adequate materials for detectors and associated gas systems. Many non-metallic ‘good materials’ successfully used in the ‘standard radiation level’ detectors might nevertheless outgas at a small level, thus causing fast aging under high rate conditions. The lifetime studies of Microstrip Gas Chambers (MSGC) in high intensity environments, which also had the greatest impact on the understanding of aging phenomena in all types of gaseous detectors, demonstrate that the amount of pollutants in the gas system play a major role in determining the aging properties of the detector [@cern1]. Consequently, the outgassing from materials, epoxies, joints, tubing, etc. has to be carefully controlled. For obvious reasons, the use of glues, plastics and many organic materials is unavoidable in particle detectors. It is therefore very important to choose materials, which are suitable for the practical mechanical and electrical assembly of a gaseous detectors, in terms of their possible outgassing effects and radiation robustness.
It is suggested to start by searching for low-outgassing materials in a NASA database, which was originally developed for selecting spacecraft materials [@capeans; @nasa]. It contains more than 1600 entries for adhesives, 500 entries for rubbers and elastomers, 800 entries for potting materials. This list can help to pre-select assembly materials before doing tests matching the specific requirements of each detector.
A large amount of outgassing data for epoxy compounds, adhesive tapes, leak sealers, rigid materials, O-rings, and plastic pipes have been accumulated in the framework of the RD-10 project at CERN, which afterwards was merged with the more specific research on MSGC within the RD-28 project. In the RD-10 tests, an outgassing box, placed upstream of the strongly irradiated wire counter, was used to introduce samples of materials into the gas stream, thus allowing a systematic study of outgassing effects on the chamber lifetime. Furthermore, the gas flowing from the chamber was analyzed with a Gas Chromatograph (GC) and Mass Spectrometer (MS) or Electron Capture Device (ECD). While for some materials only outgassing properties were verified and materials releasing detectable pollutants were rejected, for other ‘radiation hard materials’ full evidence of suitability was obtained in long-term aging tests of a validated clean detector. The long list of candidates recommended to be used in the construction of gaseous detectors can be found in [@vavra]-[@cern1],[@bouclier2]-[@guarino] and was summarized at the 2001 workshop [@capeans]. The effect of outgassing from materials on the lifetime of gaseous detector can be illustrated by several examples: Araldit AW103 epoxy mixed with HY991 hardener did not induce any detectable gas pollutants in the GC/MS and was also validated by irradiating the wire chamber. It is presently used as a glue for the construction of ATLAS straws [@guarino] and triple-GEM stations of the COMPASS experiment [@compass]. The GC/MS analysis of another popular epoxy, Araldit106 and HV953 U, extensively used in the assembly of older MWPC’s, revealed traces of heavy hydrocarbon molecules in the effluent gas stream, which could be partially responsible for the observation of aging reported in [@padilla; @kollef2]. In fact, this glue has shown the largest outgassing rate among all tested glues in [@guarino]. Interestingly, outgassing can also be due to an incorrect ratio of hardener to resin or even insufficient curing time; both factors may largely increase the gas contamination [@capeans; @saulir].
Gas tubes used for the supply of the active gas have always been the object of primary attention when analyzing aging effects in wire chambers. Electro-polished stainless steel and hydrogen-fired copper gas pipes are the best choices for gaseous detectors operated in high-rate environments, since they are free of outgassing and ensure zero gas permeability. However, due to their high price and concerns for the material budget in the active area of the detector, many experiments often use cheaper plastic tubes, although these are susceptible to outgassing, have high gas permeability and can consequently cause severe aging. Particularly, PVC, Teflon and neoprene rubber tubes contain halogen atoms in molecular chains, which are known to increase drastically the aging rate [@vavra; @kadyk]. Polyethylene tube outgasses water, large alcanes and substituted aromatics [@wise2]. One of the classical examples, cited by many authors, shows that the introduction of PVC pipe can initiate a gain reduction, which continues with the same rate even after the PVC tube is replaced with the original stainless steel tubes [@kotthaus]. This indicates a potentially very serious problem: one can cause permanent damage to a detector by a wrong choice of material even for a limited period of time. Therefore, one should use as much steel as possible for gas supply lines, especially in parts exposed to high radiation doses.
Up to now, there is no strong objection to the use of nylon (polyamide, RILSAN) tubes if they are not too long. However, plastic pipes usually introduce water to the gas due to the natural outgassing and/or due to the diffusion of air humidity through the walls: as much as $\sim$ 1700 $ppm$ of water can be added to the gas by placing 20 $m$ of nylon pipe at the chamber inlet [@capeans]. Particularly, nylon tubes were used to introduce water indirectly to the chamber for curing Malter breakdown [@kadyk3]. However, the presence of water can cause ‘bad’ surface chemistry as described above and is therefore extremely dangerous for certain RPC and MSGC detectors.
The general recommendations concerning the choice of assembly materials and rules for the mechanical construction of high-rate detectors, which includes adequate assembly procedures, personnel training, quality checks, final testing as part of fighting against the aging, have been reported at the workshop in [@capeans; @schmidt]. There are clearly many ‘bad’ and a lot of usable materials. However, a specific material is either adequate or not for a particular detector type and operating conditions - one has to do tests matching the specific requirements of the experiment. Finally, no spontaneously-chosen materials should be installed in the detector or gas system in the last minute, before the start of real operation.
Micro-pattern Gas Detectors.
-----------------------------
Future high-luminosity experiments have prompted a series of inventions of new high-rate gaseous detectors: MSGC, MICROMEGAS, Gas Electron Multipliers (GEM) and many others [@proc1; @proc2]. The systematic research of the physical parameters used to manufacture and operate MSGC’s, such as substrate and assembly materials, metal for the strips, and type and purity of the gas mixtures play a dominant role in determining their long-term stability [@cern1; @constr1; @sharma]. Despite the promising performance of MSGC’s (high-rate capability, good space accuracy, and excellent multi-track resolution), there are several major processes, particularly at high rates, leading to operating instabilities: charge-up of substrates, destructive microdischarges, and surface deposition of polymers [@cern1].
The influence of glass conductivity has been verified for MSGC’s: the use of borosilicate glass as a substrate results in rate-dependent modification of gain due to the radiation induced variation of surface resistivity. Use of electron-conducting or diamond-coated glass solves the problems of short and long-term instabilities for detectors made on insulating support [@cern1]. The problem of microdischarges, induced by heavily ionizing particles and destroying the electrode structure, turned out to be a major limitation to all single-stage micro-pattern detectors in hadronic beams [@itr; @bressan10]. The nature and resistivity of the strip material affects the developments of sparks [@bschmidt]. Aluminum electrodes are more robust against gas discharges than gold. However, the use of $Al$ electrodes led to the appearance of ‘bubbles’ or ‘craters’ on the cathode strips even at modest collected charges, while no aging effects were observed with strips made from gold [@hildebrandt].
Microstrip chambers have been operated with a large variety of gases; to prevent fast aging at high rates, convincing evidence suggests again to avoid hydrocarbons in the gas [@msgc1; @msgc2]. Under optimal laboratory conditions, absence of any degradation of MSGC performance with $Ar/DME$ has been demonstrated by many groups up to large accumulated charges [@cern1; @sharma; @msgc2]-[@msgc4]. However, MSGC-GEM detectors operated with $Ar/DME$ shows fast aging under $X$-rays, if the size of the irradiated area is large enough, while identical chambers with $Ar/CO_2$ showed no aging [@hildebrandt; @hott]. Long-term survival without degradation has been also observed for triple-GEM and MICROMEGAS-GEM detectors, operated with $Ar/CO_2$ [@kappler; @miyamoto]. Unfortunately, $Ar/CO_2$ mixtures have worse quenching properties and are more prone to discharges than $Ar/DME$. Protection against sparking can be significantly improved by adding a small amount ($\sim 0.3~\%$) of $H_2O$ to the MSGC. However, in contrary to wire chambers, such an addition of water led in one case to massive coating on the anode strips both in $Ar/DME$ and $Ar/CO_2$ mixtures [@cern1; @hildebrandt]. These observations underline the importance of careful selection of materials and gas mixtures for high-rate applications and of treating micro-pattern detectors as delicate devices during production and running phases.
Choice of Gas Mixtures.
------------------------
Future high energy and luminosity experiments pose a new challenge for gas mixtures, raising the requirement for their radiation hardness up to $\sim 1 \frac{C}{cm~wire}$ per year. Under these constraints only a limited choice of gases is available, and from the ‘conventional mixtures’ only $Ar(Xe)/CO_2$ is demonstrated to tolerate such doses. Unfortunately, these mixtures are quite transparent for photons and have a low electron drift velocity, which limits their possible application for high-rate detectors and large drift distances.
About twenty years ago, $CF_4$ was proposed as the most attractive candidate for high-rate environments [@christ1]-[@christ3]. This is primarily due to the high-drift velocity, high primary ionization, low electron diffusion and resistance to aging [@vavra3; @b1shmidt; @fischer]. Within the broad spectrum of gas mixtures, there is no gas mixture without $CF_4$ that is able to tolerate doses $\sim~10~\frac{C}{cm~wire}$. It is believed that, when $CF_4$ dissociates in the gaseous discharges into highly reactive $CF_x$ and $F$ radicals, the atomic fluorine is very effective in suppressing polymerization effects. However, $Ar(Xe)$/$CF_4$ mixtures have rather poor energy and spatial resolution due to the dissociative electron attachment processes in $CF_4$ [@datskos]- [@biagi3]. Moreover, the $CF_4$ molecule has a small quenching cross-sections of metastable $Ar$-states [@velazco] and excited $CF_4$ molecules emit photons from the far UV to the visible [@pansky]. This results in an intolerable level of afterpulsing in $Ar/CF_4$ gases even at moderate gas gains. The advantage of the enhanced drift velocity of $CF_4$ for high-rate applications have been realized by the addition of one of the common quenchers (e.g. $CO_2$, $CH_4$) to $CF_4$ or to $Ar/CF_4$. This can also ‘cool’ electrons to the extent that attachment does not occur.
Lessons learned from detector operation at high ionization densities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerated aging tests, often carried out with radioactive sources or $X$-rays to emulate the long-term lifetime properties of the detector, can be extrapolated to the real experimental conditions directly only if the aging rate depends on the total collected charge and not upon the current density, particle rate, or gas gain at which the dose was accumulated. In reality, many laboratory studies have demonstrated severe gain losses at lower charge accumulation rates, other conditions being held constant [@cern1; @opensh1; @kotthaus; @algeri; @juri; @bouclier]. The lower polymerization rate for higher current densities is attributed to the onset of space charge effects, which reduce the electron energies in the avalanche, thus decreasing the density of ions and radicals in the avalanche plasma.
The new generation of high-rate detectors of the LHC era has not only to cope with high dose rates, but also has to survive in a hostile presence of heavily ionizing particles with an average energy deposition 10-1000 times larger than for MIP’s. An exposure of ‘large-scale’ gaseous detectors over the full area in such a harsh radiation environment at high ionization densities ($>100~nA/cm$) can result in greatly enhanced polymer formation: an abundance of aggresive radicals will diffuse for rather long times ($\sim$ hours) within the irradiated chamber and will react with other avalanche-produced polymer fragments. According to this naive picture, this mechanism could significantly accelerate polymerization in large systems, whereas in small-scale laboratory tests the aging rate typically decreases with increasing gas flow [@kadyk; @opensh1; @opensh2; @atlas2]. Furthermore, polymer deposition in wire chambers likely starts from localized spots and then can spread over the entire irradiated region. Since in large, mass-produced systems an extremely high quality for electrode surfaces and cleanliness of the gas systems are hard to reach, any imperfections – in the presence of high currents – could easily trigger sparks, discharges or Malter currents, which will in turn dramatically increase the polymerization rate.
Recent systematic research clearly demonstrates that the initial stage of radiation tests usually performed in the laboratory may not offer the full information needed to estimate the lifetime of the real detector. Strong dependence of aging performance upon [**[ size of the irradiated area, current density, high voltage (gas gain), irradiation rate, particle type and energy]{}**]{} have been observed in high-rate environments.
Severe anode and cathode aging effects were found in prototype honeycomb drift tubes operated with $CF_4/CH_4$ (80:20) and $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$ (74:20:6) mixtures in the high-rate HERA-B environment (secondaries from interactions of 920 GeV proton with target nucleus) after a few $mC/cm$ of accumulated charge [@bohm; @padilla; @kolanoski; @hohlmann2; @stegmann]. This effect was surprising since chambers had previously been proven to be immune to very large $X$-ray doses up to 5 $C/cm$. An extensive $R\&D$ program, carried out at 10 different radiation facilities to resemble HERA-B conditions, revealed that $X$-rays or electrons were not able to trigger Malter currents, while in the large-area modules, irradiated with hadrons above a certain energy, Malter effect appeared very rapidly. The aging effects in these honeycomb drift tubes were traced to a combination of several problems; a solution which uses gold-coated cathode foils and a $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ (65:30:5) mixture was found to survive in a high-rate hadronic environment up to $\sim~1~\frac{C}{cm~wire}$ [@padilla].
The aging performance of the HERA-B muon proportional chambers has been studied with $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$, $CF_4/CH_4$, and $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ mixtures in a variety of conditions [@titov1]-[@titov4]. The aging rate in $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$ was found to be more than two orders of magnitude higher in hadronic beams than in the laboratory studies with radioactive sources. In addition, strong dependences of the aging properties on high voltage and progressive deterioration of the gas gain in the direction of the serial gas flow have been observed for large-scale prototypes irradiated with $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$ (67:30:3) in the harsh HERA-B environment. Aging effects increasing in the direction of the serial gas flow (even outside the irradiation zone) have been also reported for a $Ar/CO_2/C_2H_2F_4$ mixture [@lobachev]. A strong dependence of the aging properties on high voltage, irradiation rate, length of irradiation and gas flow rate has been also observed in the ATLAS muon drift tubes operated with $Ar/CH_4/N_2/CO_2$ (94:3:2:1) [@pash; @atlas2; @kollef2; @atlas]. Here, the systematic $R\&D$ studies have shown a nearly exponential dependence of chamber lifetime on high voltage and on the counting rate within the experimentally investigated parameter range. Unfortunately, the high voltage is not the physical quantity directly responsible for aging in wire chambers, therefore, these aging effects could be classified as depending on the gas gain and/or current density, which are related to the density of ions and radicals in the avalanche plasma.
Dependence of polymer formation on the energy input is well established in plasma polymerization. Nearly all organic compounds regardless of their chemical nature can be polymerized under certain conditions. The structure of plasma polymers formed from the same monomer is highly dependent on the actual conditions of polymerization: the energy input level, the size (cross-sectional area) of a tube and even on the position within the reactor [@yasuda]. The experimental dependence of chamber lifetime on ionization density, gas gain and irradiation rate, which are also related to the total dissipated energy in the detector from ionizing particles, indicates that the aging behavior can not be solely explained on the basis of the molecule ratios in the mixture (gas composition), without taking into account the actual operating conditions. These results illustrate the need for studying the aging performance of a detector under conditions as close as possible to the real environment.
The dependence of the detector lifetime on the size of the irradiated area, in particular, and the increase of the aging rate in the direction of the serial gas flow means that aging should be viewed as a non-local and intensity-dependent phenomenon. These observations seem to be the most critical when trying to extrapolate the aging behavior from laboratory tests to large-scale detectors. Some of the long-lived aggressive radicals may diffuse in the direction of the gas flow and react with other avalanche generated contaminants, thus enhancing aging effects with increasing usage of the gas. Here it is important to note that due to the increased aging in the direction of the gas flow it is worthwhile to avoid gas distribution systems that supply many chambers by a serial flow.
(100,40) (-5.0,-42.0)
(85.0,-42.0)
As reported above, polymer deposition can occur in $CF_4/CH_4$ mixtures, as suggested by plasma chemistry. Similarly, the aging properties of $Ar(Xe)/CF_4/CO_2$ gases, which by analogy with plasma experiments should have excellent etching properties, have been widely investigated over the last years. Using $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ mixtures under optimal operating conditions, no observable drop in gain due to polymerization has been found for the HERA-B honeycomb drift tubes up to 1.5 $C/cm$ [@padilla], HERA-B aluminum proportional chambers up to 0.7 $C/cm$ [@titov1], CMS cathode strip chambers up to 0.4 $C/cm$ [@prokofiev], 13 $C/cm$ [@gavrilov], LHCb multi-wire proportional chambers up to 0.25 $C/cm$ [@souvorov], COMPASS straw tubes up to 1.1 $C/cm$ [@dunnweber] and HERMES drift tubes up to 9 $C/cm$ [@hermes]. Moreover, honeycomb drift tubes which were initially aged with $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$ were afterwards successfully recovered in $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ [@padilla]. However, an analysis of the cathode surfaces at the end of operation with $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ revealed in some cases the presence of fluorine-based deposits on the cathodes, which fortunately did not result in self-sustained currents [@gavrilov; @titov1; @prokofiev]. Since dissociative products of $CF_4$ react violently with many materials and the resultant polymer films at cathodes could provoke aging effects one should seriously consider using materials in high-rate detectors which are very robust to $CF_4$; gold-plated electrodes [@padilla] or straw cathode materials [@rromaniouk] fulfill this requirement.
A further advantage of $CF_4$-based mixtures is additional resistance against $Si$-polymerization. This suggestion is based on experiences from plasma polymerization, where discharges of $CF_4/H_2$ are successfully used for $Si O_2$ etching, while $CF_4/O_2$ plasmas selectively etches $Si$ [@kushner]. Extensive studies performed for the ATLAS straws partially confirm this hypothesis: $Si$-deposits have not been observed in irradiation area for large current densities ($>1~\mu A/cm$). On the other hand, $SiO/SiO_2$-deposits were found at the edges and even outside of the irradiated area. The resulting balance between $Si$ polymerization and $CF_4$ etching processes was found to be very sensitive to the $Si$-source intensity and ionization density [@rromaniouk].
In the most recent investigations at extremely high current densities ($\sim 1-5 \mu A$/$cm$) in $Ar(Xe)/CF_4/CO_2$ mixtures a new ‘aging phenomenon’ has appeared - the damage of the gold-plating of wires in straws and honeycomb drift tubes. Several years of intensive research at CERN with straw tubes under different conditions and for different types of wires indicate that the main components responsible for gold wire damage in $Xe/CF_4/CO_2$ (70:20:10) are harmful radicals, products of $CF_4$ disintegration, in connection with $H_2O$. (It was suggested that $HF$ acid could be responsible for destruction of gold-plating and formation of $WO$ deposits). No wire damage effects have been observed for water concentrations below 0.1 $\%$ up to 20 $C/cm$ ! [@rromaniouk]. Dedicated studies with straw tubes performed at PNPI with $Xe/CF_4/CO_2$ (70:20:10) and $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ (60:30:10) mixtures demonstrated that under high dose rates the gold-plating of the wire was cracked, the wire diameter increased and a large amount of oxygen was observed on the tungsten in gold cracks [@krivchitch1]-[@krivchitch3]. Similar effects have been observed for wires irradiated in a $Ar/CO_2/C_2H_2F_4$ mixture [@lobachev]. The authors propose a model to explain the results - an anode wire ‘swelling’ mechanism, where the forces causing the damage to the wire surface develop under the gold layer of the wire [@krivchitch2]. Fig. \[damage\] shows examples of a variety of wires with damaged gold-plating from [@rromaniouk; @krivchitch1]. In contrary to the experience with straws, in one test with honeycomb drift tubes irradiated with $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ (65:30:5) the destruction of gold coating and even rupture of anode wires have been observed only for water concentration below 50 $ppm$, while for $H_2O > 400~ppm$, gold wire damage effects were avoided [@schreiner1; @schreiner2]. Further studies still remain to be done to fully understand the exact mechanism of gold wire damage during operation at high ionization densities. Although no $F$-based deposits were observed on the anode wires in any of the tests, the chemically reactive dissociative products of $CF_4$ most probably initiate the destruction processes of gold-plating.
Studies of straw proportional tubes with $Xe/CF_4/CO_2$ mixture revealed another phenomenon, which might degrade detector performance in high rate experiments. The gas composition was found to be modified in the avalanche plasma of a strongly irradiated straw, presumably due to the production of some long-lived and highly electro-negative species [@electr1]. These electro-negative radicals could be also responsible for the so-called ‘transient aging effect’ observed at high-rates in $Xe/CF_4/CO_2$ [@electr2], $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ [@schreiner1] and $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$ [@titov1]. A ‘transient aging effect’ is a temporary gain reduction, which can be restored by an appropriate increase of the gas flow. The very high aggressiveness of dissociative products of $CF_4$ and the dynamic modification of the gas composition requires more detailed studies to evaluate the possible consequence of these effects on the long-term performance and stability of large-area gaseous detectors. In view of the aging results described here, one can see that the presence of large amounts of $CF_4$ in the mixture does not necessarily ensure good aging properties automatically.
The challenge to avoid aging in the new generation of high-rate experiments requires not only a very careful choice of all detector materials, but also forces the gas systems to be of previously unnecessary quality and cleanliness. However, a real system will always contain some degree of imperfection and pollution – despite all precautions. It has to be stressed here that in closed-loop recirculation systems, which are required for detectors operated with expensive gases ($Xe,CF_4$) all impurities and reactive radical fragments will remain in the gas until they are removed by a purification system or deposited elsewhere. Therefore, for the construction of large-area gaseous detectors the maximal cleanliness for all processes and quality checks for all system parts are of primary importance. Examples of ‘clean’ gas systems currently used for high-rate detectors are presented in [@hohlmann; @dreis]. Certainly, the definition of the word ‘clean’ has changed considerably since the 1986 workshop.
Summary
=========
Aging phenomena obviously constitute one of the most complex and serious problems which could limit the use of gaseous detectors in unprecedently severe radiation environments. The operation in high-intensity experiments of the LHC era demand not only an extraordinary radiation hardness of construction materials and gas mixtures, but also appropriate assembly procedures and quality checks during detector construction and testing. Since the 1986 workshop, considerable progress has been made on the understanding of general principles which might help to prevent or at least to suppress the aging rate to an acceptable level. However, a quantitative description of the aging processes, which would require a detailed knowledge of the reaction cross sections of all chemical species in the avalanche plasma, is still not available.
After the many years of intensive research and development of radiation-hard gaseous detectors, an impressive variety of experimental data has been accumulated. The radiation hardness and outgassing properties of the various materials used for the construction of detectors and gas systems are among the most crucial items affecting the lifetime of gaseous detector. However, the observed dependences of aging performance on the nature and purity of the gas mixture, different additives and trace contaminants, construction materials, gas flow, size of the irradiated area, irradiation intensity, ionization density, high voltage, particle type and energy, make quantitative comparisons of aging properties under very different conditions very difficult. Consequently, this data can serve only as a guideline before the start of long-term studies under conditions as close as possible to the real environment of the experiment. Such radiation tests should include an extended study of ‘large-scale’ final prototype chambers, exposed over the full area to a realistic radiation profile (particle type and energy, ionization density, irradiation rate). It is of primary importance to vary the operating parameters systematically in order to investigate their possible influence on the aging performance. In order to exclude statistical fluctuations of unknown nature and to provide a reliable estimate for the detector lifetime, the radiation tests should be carried out with several detectors irradiated under identical conditions.
This paper is based on the results reported at the DESY workshop, and also briefly discusses other experience with gaseous detectors relevant to the present aging problems. Transparencies and videos of presentations from the ‘International Workshop on Aging Phenomena in Gaseous Detectors’ (DESY, Hamburg) are available at the workshop’s web-page (http://www.desy.de/agingworkshop). The proceedings of the workshop will be published in a special volume of Nuclear Instruments and Methods: Section A.
Acknowledgment
==============
We are especially grateful to Andreas Schwarz (DESY), Jaroslav Va’vra (SLAC) and Mar Capeans (CERN) for many helpful discussions and careful reading of this manuscript.
[1]{}
G. Charpak, H. Fisher, C. Gruhn, A. Minten, F. Sauli, G. Plch, G. Flugge, “Time degeneracy of multiwire proportional chambers,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A99, pp. 279-284, 1972.*
J. Va’vra, “Review of wire chamber aging,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A252, pp. 547-563, 1986.*
J. A. Kadyk, “Wire chamber aging,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A300, pp. 436-479, 1991.*
R. Bouclier, M. Capeans, C. Garabatos, G. Manzin, G. Million, L. Ropelewski, $et~al.$, “Aging of microstrip gas chambers: problems and solutions,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A381, pp. 289-319, 1996.*
*Proceedings of the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena in Gaseous Detectors, to be published in *Nucl. Instr. Meth. A**
V. Blinov, “Influence of materials and sense wire surface quality on aging with DME and other gases” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
R. Henderson, R. Openshaw, W. Faszer, M. Salomon, G. Sheffer, “Wire chamber ageing with $CF_4$/isobutane and argon/ethane mixtures,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35(1), pp. 477-482, 1988.*
R. Openshaw, R. Henderson, W. Faszer, D. Murphy, M. Salomon, G.Sheffer, “Tests of wire chamber ageing with $CF_4$/isobutane (80:20), $Ar/C_2H_6$ (50:50) and $Ar/C_2H_6/CF_4$ (48:48:4)” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 36(1), pp. 567-571, 1989.*
J. Kadyk, J. Wise, D. Hess, M. Williams, “Anode wire aging tests with selected gases” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 37(2), pp. 478-486, 1990.*
R. Openshaw, R. Henderson, W. Faszer, M. Salomon “Etching of anode wire deposits with $CF_4$/isobutane (80:20) avalanches,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A419, pp. 351-356, 1991.*
J. Wise, J. Kadyk, D. Hess, “Chemical model for wire chamber aging in $CF_4/iC_4H_{10}$,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 74(9), pp.5327-5340, 1993.*
J. Wise, “Chemistry of radiation damage to wire chambers,” *Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, LBL-32500, 1992.*
J. Va’vra, P. Coyle, J. Kadyk, J. Wise, “Measurements of electron drift parameters for helium and $CF_4$-bases gases,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A324, pp. 113-126, 1993.*
L. Malter, “Thin film field emission,” *Phys. Rev., vol. 50, pp. 48-58, 1936.*
J. Va’vra, “Physics and Chemistry of Aging - Early developments” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
G. Bohm, “Observations on cathode aging in honeycomb drift tubes,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
C. Padilla, “Aging studies for the large honeycomb drift tube system of the outer tracker of HERA-B,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
A. Boyarski, “Laboratory aging tests for the BABAR drift chamber,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
B. Foster, “Whisker growth in test cells,” *Proceedings of Workshop on Radiation Damage to Wire Chambers, LBL-21170, pp. 227-229, 1986.*
R. Kotthaus, “A laboratory study of radiation damage to drift chambers,” *Proceedings of Workshop on Radiation Damage to Wire Chambers, LBL-21170, pp. 161-193, 1986.*
H. Sadrozinski, “Investigation of breakdown conditions of drift chambers,” *Proceedings of Workshop on Radiation Damage to Wire Chambers, LBL-21170, pp. 121-129, 1986.*
J. Va’vra, “Can TMAE photocathode be used for high rate applications?” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A367, pp. 353-357, 1995.*
K. Abe, P. Antilogus, D. Aston, K. Baird, A. Bean, R. Ben-David, $et~al.$, “Performance of the CRID at SLD,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A343, pp. 74-86, 1994.*
V. Pashhoff, “Studies on ageing and reanimation of drift tubes for the ATLAS muon spectrometer,” *Dissertation, University Freiburg, 1999.*
S. Kircher, M.Kollefrath, G. Herten, W. Mohr, “Parameters of MDT ageing and reanimation,” *ATLAS note, ATLAS-MUON-012 (2001).*
H. Yasuda, “Plasma Polymerization,” *Academic Press, 1985.*
H. V. Boenig, “Plasma Science and Technology,” *Cornell University Press, 1982.*
H. Yasuda “New insights into aging phenomena from plasma chemistry,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
M.J. Kushner, “A kinetic study of the plasma-etching processes. A model for the etching of $Si$ and $SiO_2$ in $C_nF_m/H_2$ and $C_nF_m/O_2$ plasmas,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 53(4), pp. 2923-2938, 1982.*
C.J. Mogab, A.C. Adams, D.L. Flamm, “Plasma etching of $Si$ and $SiO_2$ - the effect of oxygen additions to $CF_4$ plasmas,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 49(7), pp. 3796-3803, 1978.*
H.F. Winters, J.W. Coburn, E. Kay, “Plasma etching - A ’pseudo-black-box’ approach,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 48(12), pp. 4973-4983, 1977.*
J.C. Martz, D.W. Hess, W.E. Anderson, “Tantalum etching in fluorocarbon/oxygen rf glow discharges,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 67(8), pp. 3609-3617, 1990.*
E.A. Truesdale, G. Smolinsky, T.M. Mayer, “The effect of added acetylene on the rf discharge chemistry of $C_2F_6$. A mechanistic model for fluorocarbon plasmas,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 51(5), pp. 2909-2913, 1980.*
E.A. Truesdale, G. Smolinsky, “The effect of added hydrogen on the rf discharge chemistry of $CF_4$, $CF_3H$, and $C_2F_6$,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 50(11), pp. 6594-6599, 1979.*
S. Motlagh, J.H. Moore “Cross sections for radicals from electron impact on methane and fluoroalkanes,” *J. Chem. Phys., vol. 109(2), pp. 432-438, 1998.*
T. Arikado, Y. Horiike, “$Si$ and $SiO_2$ etching under low self-bias voltage,” *Jap. J. Appl. Phys., vol. 22(5), pp. 799-802, 1983.*
H.F. Winters, “The role of chemisorption in plasma etching,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 49(10), pp. 5165-5170, 1978.*
M. Kollefrath, V. Paschhoff, M. Spegel, U. Topp, C. Fabjan, G. Herten, $et~al.$, “Aging studies for the ATLAS-monitored drift tubes,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A419, pp. 351-356, 1998.*
J.P. DeWulf, D. Geiregat, P. Vilain, F. Bergsma, C. Busi, A. Capone, $et~al.$, “Test results of the streamer-tube system of the charm II neutrino detector,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A252, pp. 443-449, 1986.*
J. Kadyk, J. Va’vra, J. Wise, “Use of straw tubes in high-radiation environments,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A300, pp. 511-517, 1998.*
J.P. Venuti, G.B. Chadwick, “Radiation aging studies of $CO_2$/hydrocarbon mixtures for the SLD drift chamber,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 36(1), pp. 595-599, 1989.*
A. Algeri, H.G. Fischer, S.O. Holmgren, M. Szeptycka “Anode wire ageing in proportional counters: the problem of analog response,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A338, pp. 348-367, 1994.*
M. Danilov, N. Nagovitsin, V. Shibaev, I. Tichomirov, E. Michel, W. Schmidt-Parzefall, “Study of drift chamber aging with propane,” *DESY note-88-090 (1988).*
J. Va’vra, “Aging of gaseous detectors,” *SLC-PUB-5207, 1990.*
A. Smith, M.J.L. Turner, “Lifetime of proportional counters filled with xenon/methane and argon/methane,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A192, pp. 475-481, 1982.*
H. Sipila, M.L. Jarvinen, “Extended lifetime of a wire chamber,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A217, pp. 298-300, 1983.*
K. Kwong, J.C. Layter, C.S. Lindsey, S.O. Melnikoff, B.C. Shen, G.J. Vandalen, M.C. Williams, “Hydrocarbon polymerization on drift chamber wires,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A238, pp. 265-272, 1985.*
I. Juricic, J. Kadyk, “Anode wire aging measurements and a search for remedies,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 34(1), pp.481-485, 1987.*
K. Silander, E.P. de Lima, M.M. Fraga, R.F. Marcus, F. Fraga, M. Salete Leite, A.J.P.L. Policarpo, “Aging studies with argon/methane based gas mixtures,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A367, pp. 298-301, 1995.*
R. Bouclier, M.Capeans, C. Garabatos, R.D. Heuer, M. Jeanrenaud, T.C. Meyer, F. Sauli, K. Silander, “Results of wire chamber aging tests with $CH_4$- and DME-based gas mixtures,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A346, pp. 114-119, 1994.*
M. Capeans, “Aging and Materials: Lessons for Detectors and Gas Systems” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
M. Atac, “Wire chamber aging,” *Proceedings of Workshop on Radiation Damage to Wire Chambers, LBL-21170, pp. 55-66, 1986.*
S. Beingessner, T. Meyer, V. Vuillemin, M. Yvert, “The UA1 central detector at present and future luminosity,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A257, pp. 552-555, 1987.*
R. Henderson, “Effects of materials on aging rates in wire chambers operated with DME,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
M. Jibaly, S. Majewski, P. Chrusch, R. Wojcik, F. Sauli, J. Gaudaen, “The aging of wire chambers filled with dimethyl ether: wire and construction materials and freon impurities,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A283, pp. 692-701, 1989.*
A. Dwurazny, Z. Hajduk, M. Turala, “Ageing effects in gaseous detectors and search for remedies,” *Proceedings of Workshop on Radiation Damage to Wire Chambers, LBL-21170, pp. 113-120, 1986.*
E. Conti, F. Gasparini, “Test of the wire ageing induced by radiation for CMS barrel muon chambers,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A465, pp. 472-481, 2001.*
V. Bondarenko, V. Grigoriev, S. Zverev, A. Kruglov, I. Markina, V. Peskov, $et~al.$, “Radiation hardness studies of straw proportional tubes,” *CERN-PPE/91-191 (1991).*
V. Bawdekar, “Carbon dioxide quench action in a beryllium proportional counter,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 22(1), pp. 282-285, 1975.*
M. Kollefrath, “Aging tests for the ATLAS muon drift tubes” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
V. Paschhoff, M. Spegel, “Aging effects studies for the ATLAS MDT’s using $Ar/CO_2$ (90:10),” *ATLAS note, ATLAS-MUON-019 (1999).*
J. Adam, C. Baird, D. Cockerill, P.K. Frandsen, H.J. Hilke, H. Hofmann, $et~al.$, “A study of aging effects in wire chambers,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A217, pp. 291-297, 1983.*
G. Gavrilov, “Aging studies of CMS muon chambers prototypes under high doses” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001; and preprint PNPI-2442 (2001).*
A.R. Faruqi, H. Road, “Rapid data collection systems for time resolved $X$-ray scattering experiments,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 27(1), pp. 644-648, 1980.*
T. Kowalski, “A study of aging effect in gas monitoring proportional counters of the BAC calorimeter of the ZEUS experiment,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
D. Hess “Plasma chemistry in wire coating,” *Proceedings of Workshop on Radiation Damage to Wire Chambers, LBL-21170, pp. 15-23, 1986.*
J. Wise, J. Kadyk, D. Hess, M. Williams, “Study of plasma chemistry in wire chambers by GC/MS,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 37(2), pp.470-477, 1990.*
J. Va’vra, “Wire chamber gases,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A323, pp. 34-47, 1992.*
K. Kurvinen, “Analysis of organic compounds formed in electron avalanches in a proportional counter filled with $ar/C_2H_4 mixture$,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
T.J. Sumner, G.K. Rochester, P.D. Smith, J.P. Cooch, R.K. Sood, “Scintillating drift chambers - the nature of the emission process in $Ar/CH_4$,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 29(5), pp. 1410-1414, 1982.*
M.M. Fraga, E.P. Lima, M.A. Alves, J. Escada, R.F. Marques, M.S. Leite, A. Policarpo, “Fragments and radicals in gaseous detectors,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A323, pp. 284-288, 1992.*
A.V. Zarubin, “Properties of wire chamber gases,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A283, pp. 409-422, 1989.*
B. Betev, “Experience with the L3 vertex drift chamber at LEP,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
C. Niebuhr, “Aging effects in Central Jet Chamber of H1,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
D. Bailey, “Experience with the ZEUS Central Tracking Detector,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
M. Binkley, “Experience with the Central Tracking Chambers of CDF,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
T. Marshall, “Restoring contaminated wires, removing gas contaminants and aging studies of drift tube chambers,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
B. Schmidt, “Recommendationd for building and testing the next generation of gaseous detectors,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
D. Marlow, “Recent experiences with aging in RPC’s,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
D. Piccolo “Aging effects in the RPC’s of the BaBar experiment,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
G. Carlino “Aging studies with L3 RPC’s at LEP,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
G. Aielli “Further advances in aging studies of RPC’s,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
G. Pugliese, “Aging studies for the RPC’s of the CMS Muon Trigger Detector,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
G. Passaleva, “First results of an aging test of a prototype RPC for the LHCb muon system,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
J. Seguinot, T. Ypsilantis, “A historical survey of Ring Imaging Cherenkov counters,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A343, pp. 1-29, 1994.*
J. Va’vra, “Photon detectors,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A371, pp. 33-56, 1996.*
C.L. Woody, “Aging effects in low pressure wire chambers containing $TMAE$,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35(1), pp. 493-497, 1988.*
J. Va’vra, “Wire aging of hydrocarbon gases with TMAE additions,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 34(1), pp. 486-490, 1987.*
J. Va’vra, “Wire aging with the TEA photocathode,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A387, pp. 183-185, 1997.*
J. Va’vra, J. Kadyk, J. Wise, P. Coyle, “Study of photosensitive mixtures of TMAE and helium, hydrocarbon of $CF_4$-based carrier gases,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A370, pp. 352-366, 1996.*
J. Va’vra, “Photon detectors with gas amlification,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A387, pp. 137-145, 1995.*
P. Krizan, S. Korpar, M. Staric, A. Stanovnik, M. Cindro, R. Pestotnik, $et~al.$, “Photon detectors for HERA-B RICH,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A387, pp. 146-149, 1995.*
J. Pyrlik, M. Atiya, D. Broemmelsiek, Th. Hamacher, M. Ispiryan, S. Korpar, $et~al.$, “Aging measurements of TMAE based photon detector for the HERA-B RICH,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A414, pp. 170-181, 1998.*
K. Lau, “Test-beam aging studies of a TMAE prototype for the HERA-B RICH,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
J. Va’vra, T. Bienz, F. Bird, M. Gaillard, G. Hallewell, Y. Kwon, $et~al.$, “Construction and initial operation of a proportional wire detector for use in a cherenkov ring imaging system,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 35(1), pp. 487-492, 1988.*
S. Korpar, P. Krizan, A. Stanovnik, M. Staric, D. Skrk, “Aging and rejuvenation of a $TMAE$+methane multiwire photon detector,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 46(3), pp. 317-320, 1999.*
D. Skrk, “Study of in-situ heating of aged anode wires,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
A. Breskin, “CsI photocathodes: history and mystery,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A371, pp. 116-136, 1996.*
J. Va’vra, A. Breskin, A. Buzulutskov, R. Chechik, E. Shefer “Study of CsI photocathodes: volume resistivity and ageing,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A387, pp. 154-162, 1995.*
V. Peskov “Aging in gaseous photodetectors,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
A. Di Mauro, “Aging of large area $CsI$ photocathodes for the ALICE HMPID prototypes,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
http://epims.gsfc.nasa.gov/og/index.cgi
R. Bouclier, M.Capeans, C. Garabatos, F. Sauli, K. Silander, “Effects of outgassing from some materials on gas chamber aging,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A350, pp. 464-469, 1994.*
R. Bouclier, M. Capeans, C. Garabatos, G. Manzin, G. Million, L. Ropelewski, F. Sauli, $et~al.$, “Aging studies with microstrip gas chambers,” *Nucl. Phys. B., vol. 44, pp. 557-566, 1995.*
A. Romaniouk, “Choice of materials for the construction of the TRT,” *ATLAS-INDET/98-211 (1998).*
F. Guarino, S. Ilie, A. Romaniouk, S. Soutchkov, G. Tardelli “Outgassing studies of materials for the TRT construction,” *ATLAS-INDET/99-011 (1999).*
B. Ketzer, S. Bachmann, M. Deutel, J. Friedrich, S. Kappler, I. Konorov, $et~al.$, “GEM Detectors for COMPASS,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 48(4), pp. 1065-1069, 2001.*
F. Sauli, “Review of workhop results on the fundamental understanding of aging processes,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
“Proceedings of the International Workshop on Micropattern Detectors,” *Orsay, France (1999).*
“Proceedings of the PSD99 - 5th International Conference on Position Sensitive Detectors,” *London, England (1999).*
A. Barr, S. Bachmann, B. Boimska, R. Bouclier, A. Braem, C. Camps, $et~al.$, “Construction, test and operation in a high intensity beam of a small system of micro-strip gas chambers,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A403, pp. 31-56, 1998.*
F. Sauli, A. Sharma, “Micro-Pattern Gaseous Detectors,” *CERN-EP/99-69 (1999).*
Y. Bagaturia, O. Baruth, H. Dreis, F. Eisele,I. Gorbunov, W. Gradl, $et~al.$, “Studies of aging and HV breakdown problems during development and operation of MSGC and GEM detectors for the Inner Tracking System of HERA-B,” *submitted for publication to Nucl. Instr. Meth.,*
A. Bressan, M. Hoch, P. Pagano, L. Ropelewski, F. Sauli, S. Biagi, $et~al.$, “High rate behavior and discharge limits in micro-pattern detectors,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A424, pp. 321-342, 1998.*
B. Schmidt, “Microstrip gas chambers: Recent developments, radiation damage and long-term behavior,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A419, pp. 230-238, 1998.*
M. Hildebrandt, “Aging studies for the Inner Tracker of HERA-B,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
R. Bouclier, J. Florent, J. Gaudaen, G. Million, A. Pasta, F. Sauli, $et~al.$, “High flux operation of microstrip gas chambers on glass and plastic supports,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A323, pp. 240-246, 1992.*
L. Alunni, R. Bouclier, G. Fara, C. Garabatos, G. Manzin, G. Million, $et~al.$, “Performance of MSGC on electronically and ionically conductive substrata in various operational conditions,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A348, pp. 344-350, 1994.*
R. Bouclier, M. Capeans, C. Garabatos, G. Manzin, G. Million, L. Ropelewski, $et~al.$, “Development of micro-strip gas chambers for high-rate operation,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A367, pp. 168-172, 1995.*
E. Daubie, “Aging tests of MSGC detectors,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
J. Miyamoto, J. Shipsey, “An aging study of semiconductive microstrip gas chambers and a gas electron multiplier,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A367, pp. 168-172, 1995.*
T. Hott, “Aging problems of the Inner Tracker of HERA-B: An example for new detectors and new effects,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
S. Kappler, “Aging measurements with the gas electron multiplier (GEM),” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
J. Miyamoto, “Aging Study of a MICROMEGAS with GEM preamplification,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
L. Christophorou, D. McCorkle, D. Maxey, J. Carter, “Fast gas mixtures for gas-filled particle detectors,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A163, pp. 141-149, 1979.*
L. Christophorou, P. Datskos, J. Carter, “Gases of possible interest to SSC muon detectors,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A309, pp. 160-168, 1991.*
L. Christophorou, J. Olthoff, M. Rao, “Electron interactions with $CF_4$,” *J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, vol. 25(5), pp. 1341-1387, 1996.*
B. Schmidt, S. Polenz, “Electron motion in counting gases - new answers and new questions,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A273, pp. 488-493, 1988.*
J. Fischer, A. Hrisoho, V. Radeka, P. Rehak, “Proportional chambers for very high counting rates based on gas mixtures of $CF_4$ with hydrocarbons,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A238, pp. 249-264, 1985.*
P.G. Datskos, J.G. Carter, L.G. Christophorou, “Ionization coefficients in selected gas mixtures of interest for particle detectors,” *J. Appl. Phys., vol. 71(1), pp. 15-21, 1978.*
W.S. Anderson, J.C. Armitage, E. Dunn, J.G. Heinrich, C. Lu, K.T. McDonald, $et~al.$, “Electron attachment, effective ionization coefficient, and electron drift velocity for $CF_4$ gas mixtures,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A323, pp. 273-279, 1992.*
S. Biagi, “Accurate three-dimensional simulation of straw chambers using slow, medium and fast gas mixtures,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A310, pp. 133-136, 1991.*
J.E. Velazco, J.H.Kolts, D.W. Setser, “Rate constants and quenching mechanisms for the metastable states of argon, krypton and xenon,” *J. Chem. Phys., vol. 69(10), pp. 4357-4373, 1978.*
A. Pansky, A. Breskin, A. Buzulutskov, R. Chechik, V. Elkind, J. Va’vra, “The scintillation of $CF_4$ and its relevance to detection science,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A354, pp. 262-269, 1995.*
H. Kolanoski, “Investigation of aging in the HERA-B Outer Tracker Drift Tubes,” *Proceedings of Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, France, October 2000.*
M. Hohlmann, “The Outer Tracker of HERA-B,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A461, pp. 21-24, 2001.*
C. Stegmann, “The Outer Tracker of HERA-B,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A453, pp. 153-158, 2001.*
M. Titov, “Aging Studies for the Muon Detector of HERA-B,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
M. Danilov, L. Laptin, I. Tichomirov, M. Titov, Yu. Zaitsev, “Aging tests of the proportional wire chambers using $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$ (74:20:6), $Ar/CF_4/CH_4$ (67:30:3) and $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$ (65:30:5) mixtures for the HERA-B Muon Detector,” *hep-ex/0107080, preprint ITEP-43-00, 2000.*
A. Arefiev, S. Barsuk, M. Danilov, V. Eiges, M. Titov, Yu. Zaitsev, $et~al.$, “A Gaseous Muon Detector at the HERA-B Experiment,” *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 48(4), pp. 1059-1064, 2001.*
M. Danilov, Yu. Gilitsky, T. Kvaratschellia, L. Laptin, I. Tichomirov, M. Titov, Yu. Zaitsev, “Aging studies of large area proportional chambers under high rate irradiation with $CF_4$-based mixtures,” *hep-ex/0111077 and hep-ex/0111078, preprint ITEP-15-01, 2001.*
G. Gavrilov, A. Krivchitch, E. Kuznetsova, V. Lebedev, L. Schipunov, E. Lobachev, “Aging properties of the straw drift-tubes operating with gas mixture containing $C_2H_2F_4$,” *Preprint PNPI-2407, 2001.*
O. Prokofiev, “Aging tests of full scale CMS muon cathode strip chambers,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
V. Souvorov, “First results of an aging test of full scale MWPC for the LHC-B muon system,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
W. Dunnweber “Irradiation response of straw drift tubes,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
J. Brack, J. Belz, S. Clark, J. Ely, B. Fox, G. Hofman, $et~al.$, “The HERMES forward tracking chambers: construction, operation and aging effects,” *Nucl. Instr. Meth., vol. A469, pp. 47-54, 2001.*
A. Romaniouk, “Aging studies for the ATLAS transition radiation tracker (TRT),” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
A. Krivchitch “Anode wire swelling - a new phenomenon for anode wire aging at high doses,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
T. Ferguson, G. Gavrilov, A. Egorov, A. Krivchitch, E. Kuznetsova, V. Lebedev, $et~al.$, “Anode wire swelling - a possible phenomenon in anode wire aging under high-accumulated doses,” *Preprint PNPI-2406, 2001.*
T. Ferguson, G. Gavrilov, A. Krivchitch, E. Kuznetsova, V. Lebedev, L. Schipunov, “The effect of oxygen on anode wire swelling under the high accumulated doses,” *Preprint PNPI-2443, 2001.*
A. Schreiner, “Humidity dependence of anode corrosion in HERA-B outer tracker chambers with $Ar/CF_4/CO_2$,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
A. Schreiner, “Aging studies of drift chambers of the HERA-B outer tracker using $CF_4$-based gases,” *Dissertation, University Humboldt, 2001.*
M. Capeans, C. Garabatos, R. Heuer, R. Mackenzie, T. Meyer, F. Sauli, K. Silander, “Ageing properties of straw proportional tubes with $Xe/CF_4/CO_2$ gas mixture,” *CERN-PPE/93-136, 1993.*
V. Bondarenko, B. Dolgoshein, V. Grigoriev, A. Kruglov, I. Markina, “Studies of radiation aging of the straw proportional tubes with $Xe/CF_4/CO_2$,” *Nucl. Phys. B., vol. 44, pp. 577-580, 1995.*
M. Hohlmann, “A clean gas system with closed loop for a large gaseous detector operating at high rates,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
H.B. Dreis, “Gas support systems for hadronic high-rate detectors,” *presented at the International Workshop on Aging Phenomena, DESY, Hamburg, Oct. 2-5, 2001.*
[^1]: $^*$Featured talk at the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, November 4-10, 2001, San Diego, USA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Marius Crainic
date: 'Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands'
title: 'Chern characters via connections up to homotopy [^1]'
---
[**Introduction:** ]{}The aim of this note is to point out that Chern characters can be computed using curvatures of “connections up to homotopy”, and to present an application to the vanishing theorem for Lie algebroids.\
Classically, Chern characters are computed with the help of a connection and its curvature. However, one often has to relax the notion of connection so that one gains more freedom in representing these characteristic classes by differential forms. A well known example is Quillen’s notion of super-connection [@Chern]. Here we remark that one can weaken the notion of (super-)connections even further, to what we call “up to homotopy”.\
Our interest on this type of connections comes from the theory of characteristic classes of Lie algebroids [@Cra; @Fer] (hence, in particular of Poisson manifolds [@Fer2]). From our point of view, the intrinsic characteristic classes are secondary classes which arise from a vanishing result: the Chern classes of the adjoint representation vanish (compare to Bott’s approach to characteristic classes for foliations). We have sketched a proof of this in [@Cra] for a particular class of Lie algebroids (the so called regular ones). The problem is that the adjoint representation is a representation up to homotopy only [@ELW]. For the general setting, we have to show that Chern classes can be computed using connections up to homotopy. Since we believe that this result might be of larger interest, we have chosen to present it at the level vector bundles over manifolds. In [@Crai] we will describe the secondary characteristic classes which arise in the flat case.
All objects in this note should be viewed in the super (i.e. $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded) setting. E.g. we work with super-vector spaces, super-algebras, super-commutators (i.e. $[a, b]= ab - (-1)^{|a|\cdot |b|} ba$), super-traces (i.e. $Tr_s(A)= Tr(A_{0\, 0})- Tr(A_{1\, 1})$ for any endomorphism $A\in \text{End}(V)$ of a super-vector space $V= V^0\oplus V^1$).\
Let $(E, \partial)$ be a super-complex of vector bundles over a manifold $M$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{complex}
(E, \partial): \ \ \xymatrix{ E^0\ \ar@<-1ex>[r]_-{\partial} & \ \ E^1 \ar@<-1ex>[l]_-{\partial}\ \ \ \ . }\end{aligned}$$ Such an object can be viewed as an element in the $K$-theory of $M$ (the formal differences $E^0- E^1$). Accordingly, the Chern character of $E$ is $$Ch(E)= Ch(E^0)- Ch(E^1) \in H^{*}(M) \ .$$
[**Connections:** ]{}A [*connection*]{} on $E$ is a linear map $$\label{connection}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)\otimes \Gamma E {\longrightarrow}\Gamma E, \ \ (X, s)\mapsto \nabla_{X}(s)$$ with the following properties:
(i) $\nabla_X$ is even (i.e. preserves the degrees), and $\nabla_X\partial= \partial\nabla_X$ ,
(ii) $\nabla_{X}(fs)= f\nabla_{X}(s) + X(f) s$ ,
(iii) $\nabla_{fX}(s)= f\nabla_{X}(s)$ ,
for all $X\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)$, $s\in \Gamma E$, and $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$.
[**Connections up to homotopy:** ]{}A [*connection up homotopy*]{} on $E$ is a local operator (\[connection\]) which satisfies the properties (i) and (ii) above, and satisfies (iii) up to homotopy only. In other words we require $$\label{iiihom}
\nabla_{fX}= f\nabla_{X} + [H_{\nabla}(f, X), \partial] \ ,$$ where $H_{\nabla}(f, X)\in \Gamma \text{End}(E)$ are local operators of odd degree, linear on $X$ and $f$.
[**Nonlinear forms:** ]{}Many of the basic operations on the space ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}(M; E)$ of $E$-valued differential forms $$\label{omega}
\omega: \underbrace{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)\times \ldots \times {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)}_{n} {\longrightarrow}\Gamma(E)$$ hold without any $C^{\infty}(M)$-linearity assumption on $\omega$. We recall these basic operations. So, let us denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}^{n}(M; E)$ the space of all antisymmetric ($\mathbb{R}$-multilinear) maps (\[omega\]). The familiar formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{product}
& (\omega \eta)(X_1, \ldots , X_{n+m}) = & \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{\sigma\in S(n, m)} \text{sgn}(\sigma) \omega(X_{\sigma(1)}, \ldots ,
X_{\sigma(n)}) \eta(X_{\sigma(n+1)}, \ldots , X_{\sigma(n+m)}) &\end{aligned}$$ (where $S(n, m)$ stands for $(n, m)$-shuffles) extends the usual product of forms to a product on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}^{n}(M)$. The same formula defines a left action of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M)$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M;
E)$.\
Any local operator $\nabla$ satisfying (i) and (ii) above can be viewed as a map ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}^{0}(M; E){\longrightarrow}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}^{1}(M; E)$, and it has (by the classical arguments) a unique extension to an odd operator $$\label{operator}
\nabla: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; E){\longrightarrow}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; E)$$ which satisfies the Leibniz rule. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{differential}
\nabla(\omega)(X_1, \ldots , X_{n+1}) & = & \sum_{i<j}
(-1)^{i+j}\omega([X_i, X_j], X_1, \ldots , \hat{X_i}, \ldots ,
\hat{X_j}, \ldots X_{n+1})) \nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{i=1}^{n+1}(-1)^{i+1}
\nabla_{X_i}\omega(X_1, \ldots, \hat{X_i}, \ldots , X_{p+1}) .\end{aligned}$$ In the particular case where $E$ is trivial (and $\nabla_X$ is the Lie derivate along $X$), this gives an operator $d$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M)$ which extends the classical De Rham operator $d$ on differential forms.\
Note that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; E)$ is canonically isomorphic to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M)\otimes_{C^{\infty}(M)}\Gamma(E)$. In particular, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; \text{End}(E))$ has a canonical product. This product is given by the same formula (\[product\]) except for a minus sign (due to the definition of the tensor product of super-algebras [@Chern]) which appears when $m$ and the $E$-degree of $\omega$ are odd.\
For $\nabla$ as above, the operators $[\nabla_X, T]$ acting on $\Gamma(E)$ are $C^{\infty}(M)$-linear for any $T\in \Gamma \text{End}(E)$, and the correspondence $(X, T)\mapsto [\nabla_X, T]$ defines a similar operator $\tilde{\nabla}$ on $\Gamma \text{End}(E)$. Its extension to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; \text{End}(E))$ is denoted by $$d_{\nabla}: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; \text{End}(E)) {\longrightarrow}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; \text{End}(E))$$ Identifying the elements of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; \text{End}(E))$ with the induced multiplication operators (acting on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; E)$), $d_{\nabla}(-)$ coincides with the (graded) commutator $[\nabla, -]$ with (\[operator\]).\
The square of (\[operator\]) is the product by an element $k_{\nabla}\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; \text{End}(E))$, [*the curvature of $\nabla$*]{}, which is given by the usual formula $$\label{curvature}
k_{\nabla}(X, Y)= [\nabla_{X}, \nabla_{Y}]- \nabla_{[X, Y]}: \Gamma E{\longrightarrow}\Gamma E$$
[*Proof:* ]{}As in the classical case [@Chern], the last part follows from (i)-(iii). We still have to prove (iii). Since by adding new vector bundles (and extend $\nabla$ with the help of any connections) we can make $E^0$ and $E^1$ trivial, we may assume that $E$ is trivial as a vector bundle. In this case the assertion follows easily from the fact that $d_{\nabla}= d+ [\theta, -]$ for some $\theta\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}^{1}(M; \text{End}(E))$. ${\raisebox{.8ex}{\framebox}}$\
[**Forms up to homotopy:** ]{}There are various cases where the Chern-type elements $Tr_{s}(k_{\nabla}^{p})$ of the previous lemma are true forms on $M$. This happens for instance when $\nabla$ is a connection up to homotopy. To see this, we consider $\text{End}(E)$-valued [*forms up to homotopy*]{}, i.e. elements $\omega\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; \text{End}(E))$ which commute with $\partial$ and are “$C^{\infty}(M)$- linear up to homotopy”. In other words, we require that $$f\omega(X_1, \ldots , X_n)- \omega(fX_1, \ldots , X_n)=
[H_{\omega}(f, X_1, \ldots , X_n), \partial ]$$ for some operator $$H_{\omega}(f, X_1, \ldots , X_n)\in \Gamma \text{End}(E)$$ depending linearly on $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$ and on the vector fields $X_i$. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\partial}^{n}(M; \text{End}(E))$ the space of such $\omega$’s.
The proof is a simple (and standard) computation. And now the conclusion:\
\[theorem\][*If $\nabla$ is a connection up to homotopy on $(E, \partial)$, and $k= k_{\nabla}$ is its curvature, then $$\label{Chcl} Tr_{s}(k^{p}) \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}^{2p}(M)$$ are closed forms whose De Rham cohomology classes are (up to a constant) the components of the Chern character $Ch(E)$.*]{}\
[*Proof:* ]{}We still have to show that (\[Chcl\]) induce the components of the Chern character. This is clear (by the definition of the Chern character) if $\nabla$ is a connection on $(E, \partial)$. In general, we choose such a connection $\widetilde{\nabla}$. To see that such $\widetilde{\nabla}$ exists, we can locally define $\widetilde{\nabla}_{f \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}}= f \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}}$ and then use a partition of unity argument. Hence it suffices to show that $Tr_{s}(k_{\nabla}^{p})$ and $Tr_{s}(k_{\widetilde{\nabla}}^{p})$ differ by the differential of a (true) differential form on $M$. For this we form the affine combination $\nabla_{t}= (1-t)\nabla+ t\widetilde{\nabla}$ which is a connection up to homotopy on the pull-back of $(E, \partial)$ to $M\times I$ ($I$ is the unit interval). The Chern-Simons type forms $cs_{p}(\nabla, \widetilde{\nabla})= \int_{0}^{1} Tr_{s}(k_{\nabla_t}^{p})$ will satisfy the desired equation $Tr_{s}(k_{\nabla}^{p}) - Tr_{s}(k_{\widetilde{\nabla}}^{p})= d cs_{p}(\nabla, \widetilde{\nabla})$. ${\raisebox{.8ex}{\framebox}}$\
[**Application to Lie algebroids:** ]{}Recall [@McK] that a [*Lie algebroid*]{} over $M$ is a triple $$(\mathfrak{g}, \, [\cdot \, , \cdot ] \, , \rho)$$ consisting of a vector bundle $\mathfrak{g}$ over $M$, a Lie bracket $[ \cdot \, , \cdot ]$ on the space $\Gamma(\mathfrak{g})$, and a morphism of vector bundles $\rho: \mathfrak{g}{\longrightarrow}TM$ ([*the anchor*]{} of $\mathfrak{g}$), so that $[X, fY] = f[X,Y]+ \rho(X)(f) \cdot Y$ for all $X, Y \in \Gamma(\mathfrak{g})$ and $f \in C^{\infty}(M)$. Basic examples are Lie algebras (when $M$ is a point), the tangent bundle (when $\mathfrak{g}= TM$ and $\rho$ is the identity), and foliations (when $\rho$ is the inclusion of the involutive bundle of vectors tangent to the foliation). Formula (\[differential\]) defines a “$\mathfrak{g}$-De Rham differential” on the space $C^*(\mathfrak{g})= \Gamma(\Lambda \mathfrak{g}^*)$, and the resulting cohomology is well known under the name of [*the cohomology of the Lie algebroid*]{} $\mathfrak{g}$, denoted by $H^*(\mathfrak{g})$ [@McK]. It generalizes Lie algebra cohomology and De Rham cohomology. It also relates to the last one by composition with the anchor map: $$\label{anchor}
\rho_{*}: H^{*}(M){\longrightarrow}H^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\ .$$
The formal difference $TM- \mathfrak{g}$ plays the role of the “normal bundle” of $\mathfrak{g}$ (and is minus the “adjoint representation” [@ELW]). The following is at the origin of the appearance of secondary characteristic classes for Lie algebroids [@Cra; @Fer].\
\
[*Proof:* ]{} There is an obvious notion of $\mathfrak{g}$-connection on a vector bundle $E$: a map $\Gamma(\mathfrak{g})\times \Gamma E{\longrightarrow}\Gamma E$ satisfying the usual identities. Exactly as in the classical case, $\mathfrak{g}$-connections define cohomology classes $Ch_{\mathfrak{g}}(E)\in H(\mathfrak{g})$, which do not depend on $\nabla$. Since any (classical) connection on $E$ induces an obvious $\mathfrak{g}$ connection, we see that $Ch_{\mathfrak{g}}(E)= \rho_{*}Ch(E)$. On the other hand, all our arguments have an obvious $\mathfrak{g}$-version (just replace ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)$ by $\Gamma(\mathfrak{g})$). Hence it suffices to point out [@ELW] that the super-complex $$\label{adjrep}
\xymatrix{ \mathfrak{g}\ \ar@<-1ex>[r]_-{\rho} & \ \ TM \ar@<-1ex>[l]_-{0}\ \ \ \ . }$$ is endowed with a canonical $\mathfrak{g}$-connection up to homotopy which is flat: $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{X}(Y)= [X, Y]\ , & \nabla_{X}(V)= [\rho(X), Y] \ , \nonumber \\
H(f, X)(Y)= 0\ , & H(f, X)(V)= V(f) X \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ($X, Y\in \Gamma\mathfrak{g}$, $V\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)$, $f\in C^{\infty}(M)$). ${\raisebox{.8ex}{\framebox}}$\
[**Variations:** ]{}
(i) Exactly the same discussion applies to super-connections [@Chern] as well (note that our exposition is designed for that). Any operator $\nabla: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; E){\longrightarrow}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}(M; E)$ of degree one (with respect to the even/odd grading) which satisfies the Leibniz rule has a decomposition $$\nabla= \nabla_{[0]} + \nabla_{[1]}+ \nabla_{[2]} + \ldots\ ,$$ where $\nabla_{[1]}: {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)\times \Gamma E{\longrightarrow}\Gamma E$, and $\nabla_{[i]}$ are multiplication by elements $\omega_{[i]}\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\text{nl}}^{i}(M; \text{End}(E))$. We say that $\nabla$ is a [*super-connection up to homotopy*]{} if $\nabla_{[1]}$ is a connection up to homotopy and $\nabla_{[i]}$ are multiplication by elements $\omega_{[i]}\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\partial}^{i}(M; \text{End}(E))$. There is an obvious version of our discussion for such $\nabla$’s (and a non-linear version of [@Chern]).
(ii) If (\[complex\]) is contractible over $A\subset M$ (i.e. defines an element in the relative $K$-theory groups), then the Chern-character forms given by our theorem vanish when restricted to $A$, hence define relative cohomology classes.
(iii) Note that a consequence of (\[iiihom\]) is that $$[fH^1(g, X)- H^{1}(fg, X)+ H^{1}(f, gX), \partial ]= 0 \ ,$$ for all $f, g\in C^{\infty}(M)$, $X\in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}(M)$. Hence it seems natural to require that $$\label{higher}
fH^1(g, X)- H^{1}(fg, X)+ H^{1}(f, gX)= [ H^2(f, g, X), \partial ]$$ where $H^{2}(f, g, X)\in \Gamma \text{End}(E)$. Similarly, it seems natural to require the existence of higher $H^{k}$’s satisfying the higher versions of (\[higher\]). A similar remark applies also to the definition of forms up to homotopy, and induces a subalgebra of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}_{\partial}(M; \text{End}(E))$ with similar properties.
[xxxx]{}
Marius Crainic,\
Utrecht University, Department of Mathematics,\
P.O.Box:80.010,3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands,\
e-mail: [email protected]\
home-page: http://www.math.uu.nl/people/crainic/
[^1]: Research supported by NWO
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
CALT-68-2065\
hep-th/9607201
= 20pt
Lectures on Superstring and M Theory Dualities[^1]
John H. Schwarz\
*California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA*
**Abstract**
> These lectures begin by reviewing the evidence for S duality of the toroidally compactified heterotic string in 4d that was obtained in the period 1992–94. Next they review recently discovered dualities that relate all five of the 10d superstring theories and a quantum extension of 11d supergravity called M theory. The study of $p$-branes of various dimensions (some of which are $D$-branes) plays a central role. The final sections survey supersymmetric string vacua in 6d and some of the dual constructions by which they can be obtained. Special emphasis is given to a class of $N=1$ models that exhibit “heterotic-heterotic duality.”
*Lectures presented at the ICTP Spring School (March 1996)*
*and at the TASI Summer School (June 1996)*
Introduction
============
In the first superstring revolution (1984–85) we learned that there are just five superstring theories, each of which admits a 10d Poincaré-invariant vacuum and has a perturbation expansion that is consistent at every finite order.[@green87] Three of the theories have $N=1$ supersymmetry in 10d (type I and the two heterotic theories), one has $N=2$ supersymmetry in 10d with the two supercharges having opposite chirality (type IIA) and one has $N=2$ supersymmetry in 10d with the two supersymmetries having the same chirality (type IIB). One of the theories is based on unoriented open and closed strings (type I) and the other four are based on oriented closed strings. In short, each of the five theories appears to be quite different from the others, with very distinctive features. Of course, we don’t really want five theories, since there is only one universe to explain. So the hope that I and others expressed in the mid 1980’s was that some of these might turn out to be equivalent or inconsistent, but it wasn’t apparent how this could happen.
In the second superstring revolution (1994–??) we are learning that all of these different superstring theories are consistent, but that they are non-perturbatively equivalent. Each of them represents a perturbation expansion of a single underlying theory about a distinct point in the moduli space of quantum vacua. Moreover, there is a sixth rather special point in this moduli space characterized by an 11d Poincaré-invariant vacuum. The rules for doing quantum mechanics in the 11d vacuum are not yet understood, but the answer (whatever it is) has been named ‘M theory’. Some people believe that M theory is more fundamental than the five superstring theories in 10d, but I do not share that viewpoint. Rather, for reasons that will be explained in these lectures, I believe that it is on a roughly equal footing with the type IIB superstring theory (or ‘F theory’). Each of these descriptions (extended by various possible compactifications) gives access to different ‘patches’ of the space of quantum vacua. A good analogy, which I heard first from Vafa (at the CERN workshop in June 1996), is that the underlying theory is being defined in much the same way that one defines a manifold. A manifold can be defined by giving a covering by open sets that are diffeomorphic to open sets in $\RR^n$ and by consistently defining transition functions on their overlaps. In the proposed analogy, each of the superstring theories corresponds to one of the open sets, and the dualities that characterize their non-perturbative equivalences correspond to the transition functions. From this viewpoint the various dualities could be viewed as part of the [*definition*]{} of the underlying theory rather than as conjectured theorems that require proof. Of course, as in the case of ordinary transition functions, they must satisfy a number of consistency conditions. Exactly what consistency conditions are required has not yet been carefully spelled out. There is a widespread belief that a deeper formulation of the theory ought to exist, and I tend to share that belief, but it is also conceivable that the various perturbation expansions and non-perturbative dualities constitute the best definition of the theory.
Duality Symmetries of Supergravity and Superstring Theories
-----------------------------------------------------------
There are three types of dualities that appear in superstring theory, which go by the names of $S$, $T$, and $U$. Two theories, call them A and B, are said to be $S$ dual if theory A at strong coupling is equivalent to theory B at weak coupling (and vice versa). This means that there is an exact map between the A and B descriptions that includes, among other things the relation $\phi_A = - \phi_B$. Here $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ denote the respective dilaton fields, which determine the string coupling constant $\lambda$ according to the rule $\lambda = {\rm exp} <\phi>$. Theories A and B are called $T$ dual if theory A compactified on a space of large volume is equivalent to theory B compactified on a space of small volume (and vice versa). This means, for example, that some other scalar field $t$, the exponential of whose vev determines the volume of the compactified dimensions, satisfies $t_A = - t_B$. $T$ dualities can be checked order-by-order in string perturbation theory, and therefore they were the first ones to be understood. Theories A and B can be called $U$ dual if theory A compactified on a space of large (or small) volume is equivalent to theory B at strong (or weak) coupling. In this case $t_A = \pm \phi_B$. This is not exactly the definition of $U$ duality that was originally proposed, but I feel it is in the spirit of the original proposal and find it to be convenient. When present, each of these dualities is supposed to constitute an exact quantum equivalence, which means that the two ‘theories’ should really be viewed as different descriptions of a single theory. It sometimes happens that a single theory is self-dual under a group of these dualities. In this case, the dualities are symmetries — discrete gauge symmetries, to be precise. This means that configurations related by duality transformations describe equivalent vacua, which should be identified as one and the same.
The appearance of a non-compact global symmetry group $G$ is a characteristic feature of the supergravity theories that represent the low-energy effective action for the massless modes of a superstring compactification. Typically, the group $G$ is realized nonlinearly by scalar fields that parametrize the homogeneous space $G/H$, where $H$ is the maximal compact subgroup of $G$. The first example of this phenomenon, with $G = SL(2,\RR)$ and $H =
U(1)$, was uncovered in 1976 in a version of $N = 4$ 4d supergravity by Cremmer, Ferrara, and Scherk.[@cremmer78a] Curiously, a discrete subgroup of the symmetry of this particular example corresponds precisely to the example of $S$ duality that was first recognized in string theory – that of the toroidally compactified heterotic string. An analogous non-compact $E_7$ symmetry was found in $N = 8$ 4d supergravity by Cremmer and Julia in 1978,[@cremmer78b] and many other examples were worked out thereafter.[@salam89] The Cremmer–Julia example corresponds to the toroidally compactified type II string, and combines $S$, $T$, and $U$ dualities in a single discrete group. (As mentioned above, this usage of the term ‘$U$ duality’ differs a bit from the one proposed by Hull and Townsend,[@hull94] which refers to the entire group as ‘$U$ duality.’)
The first proposal for the non-perturbative behavior of string theory was the 1990 suggestion of Font [@font90] that the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ subgroup of the $SL(2,\RR)$ of Cremmer, Ferrara, and Scherk should be an exact symmetry of the heterotic string toroidally compactified (in the way described by Narain[@narain86]) to 4d. They named this discrete symmetry group $S$ duality, because the $N=1$ superfield (containing the axion and dilaton) that parametrizes $SL(2,\RR)/U(1)$ is often called $S$. That $S$ duality should be an exact symmetry of the quantum string theory was a bold conjecture, since a $\Ztwo$ subgroup is an electric-magnetic duality in which the coupling constant is inverted ($g_{el} \rightarrow g_{mag} \propto
1/g_{el}$). Thus, it relates the strong coupling limit to a weakly coupled description. This proposal extends the duality conjecture of Montonen and Olive [@montonen77] from supersymmetric gauge theories to the superstring setting.
Since string theory had only been formulated in perturbation theory, the proposal of Font [*et al.*]{}, when it first appeared, seemed to me to be an intriguing but untestable suggestion. In any case, the $S$ duality conjecture was eventually picked up and pursued by Sen and myself.[@sen92; @schwarz92; @schwarz93] As we will see, non-trivial tests of $S$ duality have been formulated and verified. The technical tool that makes it possible to extract non-perturbative information about theories that have only been defined perturbatively is supersymmetry. Specifically, when there is enough supersymmetry, states belonging to ‘short representations’ of the supersymmetry algebra are exactly stable and have many of their properties protected from quantum corrections – both perturbative and non-perturbative. This will be discussed in more detail later.
$T$ duality, unlike $S$ duality, holds order by order in string perturbation theory.[@giveon94] In the simplest case – compactification on a circle – the group is $\Ztwo$ and the transformation corresponds to inversion of the radius $(R \rightarrow \alpha'/R)$. Of course, as mentioned above, $R$ is determined by the value of a scalar field (a $T$ modulus). As in the case of $S$ duality, when $T$ duality is a symmetry of a single theory, it is a discrete gauge symmetry that is realized as a field transformation, whereas when it relates two apparently different theories it is a field identification.
The 4d Heterotic String
-----------------------
In the example of toroidal compactification of the heterotic string no supersymmetry is broken, and in 4d there are 132 scalar fields that live on the Narain moduli space ${\cal M}_{6,22}$. Narain spaces ${\cal M}_{k,l}$ are defined by $${\cal M}_{k,l} = SO(k,l;\ZZ) \backslash SO(k,l) / SO(k) \times SO(l).$$ It is convenient to introduce this notation here, since we shall encounter various Narain spaces in the course of these lectures. Recall that $SO(k,l)$ is the noncompact form of $SO(k+l)$ that preserves a metric with $k$ plus signs and $l$ minus signs. The group $SO(k)\times SO(l)$ is its maximal compact subgroup and the quotient space $SO(k,l) /SO (k) \times SO(l)$ is a homogeneous space of dimension $kl$. The discrete group $SO(k,l;\ZZ)$ is an infinite group consisting of all $SO(k,l)$ matrices with integer entries. When $l = k + 16$, it is the subgroup of $SO(k,l)$ that preserves a certain even self-dual lattice of signature ($k, l$) introduced by Narain. A homogeneous space is very smooth and well-behaved, but modding out by the discrete group introduces orbifold singularities, corresponding to the fixed points of the discrete group, in the moduli space. The $T$ duality group for the 4d heterotic string is $G_T = SO(6, 22; \ZZ)$, and the 132 scalar fields belong to 22 Abelian $N = 4$ gauge multiplets. In terms of compactification from 10d, 21 of the scalars originate from the metric, 15 from the two-form $B_{\mu\nu}$, and 96 from the 16 $U(1)$ gauge fields that form the Cartan subalgebra of $E_8 \times E_8$ or $SO(32)$.
The toroidally compactified heterotic string also contains two additional scalar fields – called the axion $\chi$ and the dilaton $\phi$ – which belong to the $N = 4$ supergravity multiplet. The dilaton is the 10d dilaton shifted by a function of the other moduli such that the exponential of its vev gives the 4d coupling constant. The 4d axion is the scalar field that is dual to the two-form $B$ in 4d. The supergravity theory that contains these fields is precisely the one studied by Cremmer, Ferrara, and Scherk. They showed that $\chi$ and $\phi$ parametrize the homogeneous space $SL(2, \RR)/U(1)$. Actually, in the quantum theory, only the discrete $S$ duality subgroup $SL(2,\ZZ)$ is a symmetry, and the moduli space is $${\cal M}_S = SL(2,\ZZ)\backslash SL(2, \RR)/U(1) .$$ To see how this works, let us introduce a complex scalar field $$\rho = \chi + i e^{-2\phi} = \rho_1 + i \rho_2 ~$$ whose vev is $<\rho > = {\theta/ 2\pi} + { i/
\lambda^2}$, where $\theta$ is the vacuum angle and $\lambda$ is the coupling constant. $N=4$ Yang–Mills theories have vanishing $\beta$ function, so that $\theta$ and $\lambda$ are well-defined independent of scale. In terms of $\rho$, the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ symmetry is realized by the non-linear transformations $$\rho \rightarrow {a \rho + b\over c\rho + d} ~, \quad \quad
\left(\begin{array} {cc} a & b \\ c & d \end{array}\right)\, \in \, SL(2, \ZZ) .$$ As usual, when instanton effects are taken into account, the continuous Peccei–Quinn symmetry $\chi \rightarrow \chi + b$, is broken to the discrete subgroup for which $b$ is an integer. This subgroup and the inversion $\rho \rightarrow - 1/\rho$ generate the discrete group $SL(2,\ZZ)$ or, when matrices are not distinguished from their negatives, $PSL(2,\ZZ)$. When $\theta =0$, a special case is inversion of the coupling constant $\lambda \rightarrow 1/\lambda$. In general, the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ symmetry of the theory is broken completely by any specific choice of vacuum. Only when the vev of $\rho$ is at one of the orbifold points of the moduli space does some unbroken symmetry ($\Ztwo$ or $\Zthree$) remain.
Mathematically, $S$ and $T$ duality are quite analogous in the 4d low-energy effective field theory, even though their implications for string theory are dramatically different. This analogy was one of the original motivations for proposing that $S$ duality should also be a symmetry. The massless bosonic fields of the toroidally compactified heterotic string are the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$, the axion-dilaton field $\rho$, 28 Abelian gauge fields $A_\mu^a$ (6 from the 10d metric, 6 from the 10d two-form, and 16 from the Cartan subalgebra), and the 132 moduli parametrizing ${\cal M}_{6,22}$. These are the only massless bosonic fields at generic points in the classical moduli space. At the singular points, where there is enhanced gauge symmetry, there are more. The 132 moduli are conveniently described as a symmetric $28 \times 28$ matrix belonging to the group $SO(6,22)$: $$M^T = M, ~~ M^T LM = L$$ $$L = \left(\begin{array} {ccc} 0 & I_6 & 0 \cr I_6 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & I_{22}
\end{array}\right).$$ Under a $T$ duality transformation given by an $SO(6,22;\ZZ)$ matrix $\Omega$ satisfying $\Omega^T L \Omega = L$ $$M \rightarrow \Omega M \Omega^T, \quad A_\mu \rightarrow \Omega A_\mu {}~,$$ while $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\rho$ are invariant.
The 28 U(1) gauge fields $A_\mu^a$ give rise to 28 electric and 28 magnetic charges. A convenient way to define them is to assume that space-time is asymptotically flat and use the asymptotic behavior of the field strengths: $$F_{0i}^a \sim {q_{el}^a\over r^3} x^i~~\quad
\tilde{F}_{0i}^a \sim {q_{mag}^a\over r^3} x^i ~.$$ The allowed charges are controlled by the asymptotic values of the moduli ($\rho \sim \rho^{(0)}$ and $M_{ab} \sim
M_{ab}^{(0)}$) and a pair of vectors $\alpha^a, \beta^a$ belonging to the Narain lattice, which is an even self-dual Lorentzian lattice of signature (6,22). The formulas are $$q_{el}^a = {1\over \rho_2^{(0)}} M_{ab}^{(0)} (\alpha^b + \rho_1^{(0)}
\beta^b), \quad q^a_{mag} = L_{ab}\beta^b ~.$$ These formulas automatically incorporate the Dirac–Schwinger–Zwanziger–Witten quantization rules ([*i.e.*]{}, the quantization condition for dyons in the presence of a $\theta$ angle). States in the perturbative string spectrum carry electric charge only and therefore have $\beta^a =0$.
The 4d Type II Superstring
--------------------------
The type II (A or B) superstring compactified on $T^6$ is approximated at low-energy by $N=8$ supergravity. The classical theory has a non-compact symmetry group $E_{7,7}$. The natural conjecture for the duality group in this case is the discrete subgroup $E_7(\ZZ)$, which is defined as the intersection of the continuous $E_{7,7}$ group and the discrete group $Sp(28;\ZZ)$.[@hull94] Written in the 56-dimensional fundamental representation, it is evident that $E_{7,7}$ is a subgroup of the non-compact group $Sp(28)$. (Later, in other contexts, the symbol $Sp(n)$ will represent a compact group.) The analog of the Narain moduli space in this case is $${\cal M} = E_7(\ZZ)\backslash E_{7,7}/SU(8).$$ The scalar fields of $N=8$ supergravity parametrize this 70-dimensional space. As in the $N=4$ heterotic theory, there are once again 28 $U(1)$ gauge fields. However, this time only 12 of their electric charges are excited (by Kaluza–Klein and winding excitations) in the perturbative string spectrum. The remaining 16 electric charges and all of the magnetic charges are only carried by non-perturbative excitations. One way of understanding this is to note the decomposition $$E_7(\ZZ) \supset SO(6,6;\ZZ) \times SL(2,\ZZ),$$ which exhibits the $T$ duality and $S$ duality subgroups. With respect to this subgroup, the fundamental [**56**]{} representation decomposes as ${\bf 56} = ({\bf 12}, {\bf 2})
+ ({\bf 32}, {\bf 1} )$. The 12 electric charges that occur perturbatively are carried by states whose mass is finite at weak coupling in the string metric. They are associated to the first term, as are the dual magnetic charges, which give states whose mass is proportional to $1/\lambda^2$. The 16 electric and magnetic charges associated to the 32-dimensional spinorial representation of $SO(6,6)$ turn out to be carried by $D$-branes, and as a result they give masses proportional to $1/\lambda$.
The BPS Condition
-----------------
The $N$-extended 4d supersymmetry algebra (in 2-component notation) includes the anticommutator $$\{ Q^I_{\alpha}, Q^J_{\beta} \} = \epsilon_{\alpha\beta} Z^{I J}.$$ The $N(N-1)/2$ central charges $Z^{IJ} = - Z^{JI}$ are complex numbers whose real and imaginary parts give the electric and magnetic charges associated with the $N(N-1)/2$ $U(1)$ gauge fields in the $N$-extended 4d supergravity multiplet. The supersymmetry algebra implies that the mass of any state is bounded below by its central charges. This bound, known as the Bogomol’nyi bound, is very important. When the mass of a state attains the minimum value allowed for given charges (and moduli), the state is said to be BPS saturated. BPS states belong to smaller representations of the algebra than are possible when the bound is not saturated. There are actually several possibilities for how this can be achieved. To explain this, it is convenient to make an $SO(N)$ change of basis such that (in the case of $N=4$, for example) $$Z = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}0 & Z_1 & 0 & 0\cr -Z_1& 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0& 0 & 0 & Z_2 \cr
0 & 0 & -Z_2 & 0 \end{array}\right) ~.$$ Thus we see that in the $N=4$ case, even though the supergravity multiplet has six $U(1)$ gauge fields, a generic configuration can be described by only considering two electric and two magnetic charges. In this case there are two ways to achieve BPS saturation. In the first case, the mass satisfies the relations $M = |Z_1| = |Z_2|$. This gives ‘ultrashort’ multiplets, such as the 16-dimensional gauge multiplet. The second possibility for a BPS state is $M = |Z_1| > |Z_2|$. The first case occurs when the electric charge vector $\alpha^a$ and the magnetic charge vector $\beta^a$ are parallel, while in the second case they are not parallel. Since BPS states in the perturbative string spectrum are purely electric, they are necessarily of the first type.
These considerations are important in making comparisons of string states and black holes. Static extremal black hole configurations with $M = |Z_1| = |Z_2|$ turn out to preserve one-half of the supersymmetry and to have a horizon of vanishing area (and hence no Bekenstein–Hawking entropy). Ones with $M = |Z_1| > |Z_2|$, on the other hand, preserve only one-quarter of the supersymmetry and have a horizon of finite area. There are analogous statements that can be made in the $N=8$ case. In that case, in order to obtain a finite-area horizon, it is necessary that $M$ equals only one of the four $|Z_i|$’s so that seven-eighths of the supersymmetry is broken. There has been dramatic progress recently in accounting for the entropy of supersymmetric black holes with finite area horizons in terms of the counting of microscopic string degrees of freedom. However, I will leave that (and generalizations) to other lecturers.
Tests of S Duality
------------------
$T$ duality works perturbatively and is well understood, but how can we prove $S$ duality without knowing non-perturbative string theory? As yet, we cannot prove it, but we can subject the conjecture to some non-trivial tests by focusing on BPS states. The essential fact, pointed out long ago by Witten and Olive,[@witten78] is that such states can receive no quantum corrections – perturbative or nonperturbative – to their masses so long as the supersymmetry remains unbroken. Thus, a non-trivial prediction of $S$ duality, which we can attempt to check, is that the multiplicities of BPS states are $SL(2, \ZZ)$ invariant. Note that since the vacuum breaks $S$ and $T$ duality spontaneously, the BPS states do not form degenerate multiplets.
Let us now explore which states in the elementary string spectrum of the 4d heterotic string saturate the Bogomol’nyi bound. Absorbing the moduli $M^{(0)}$ in the definition of the Narain lattice, the BPS condition for purely electric states becomes $$({\rm Mass})^2 = {1\over 16 \rho_2^{(0)}} \hat{\alpha}^a
(I + L)_{ab} \hat{\alpha}^b =
{1\over 8\rho_2^{(0)}} (\hat{\alpha}_R)^2 ~,$$ where $\hat{\alpha} L \hat{\alpha} = \hat{\alpha}_R \cdot \hat{\alpha}_R -
\hat{\alpha}_L \cdot \hat{\alpha}_L$. ($\hat{\alpha}_L$ is 22-dimensional and $\hat{\alpha}_R$ is 6-dimensional. They correspond to the left-moving and right-moving internal momenta of the string.) Now we should compare the free string spectrum, which is given by $$({\rm Mass})^2 = {1\over 4\rho_2^{(0)}} \left[ {1\over 2}
(\hat{\alpha}_L)^2 + N_L - 1\right]
= {1\over 4\rho_2^{(0)}} \left[ {1\over 2} (\hat{\alpha}_R)^2 + N_R -
\delta\right] ~.$$ $N_L$ and $N_R$ represent left-moving and right-moving oscillator excitations. The parameter $\delta$ is 1/2 in the NS sector and $0$ in the R sector. Alternatively, it is simply 0 in the GS formulation. The factor of $(\rho_2^{(0)})^{-1}$ appears because the mass is computed with respect to the canonically normalized Einstein metric. It does not appear if one uses the string metric, which differs by a dilaton-dependent Weyl rescaling. The Einstein metric is more natural in the present context, because it is invariant under $S$ duality transformations. Comparing formulas, one sees that the Bogomol’nyi bound is saturated provided that $N_R =
\delta$ (which gives eight bosonic and eight fermionic right-moving modes – the short representation of $N = 4$) and $N_L = 1 + {1\over 2} \hat{\alpha} L
\hat{\alpha}$. Thus, if $\hat{\alpha} L \hat{\alpha} = 2n - 2$, for a non-negative integer $n$, then there is a short $N = 4$ multiplet for every solution of $N_L = n$. These states are only “electrically” charged. The challenge is to find their predicted $S$ duality partners. Specifically, every elementary string excitation of the type we have just described $(\vec{\alpha}
= \vec{\ell}$, $\vec{\beta} = 0)$ should have magnetically charged partners with $\vec{\alpha} = a \vec{\ell}$ and $\vec{\beta} = c \vec{\ell}$. Since $a$ and $c$ are elements of an $SL(2,\ZZ)$ matrix, they are relatively prime integers.
Sen has investigated the partners of electrically charged states with $\hat{\alpha} L \hat{\alpha} = - 2 $ ([*i.e.*]{}, $N_L = 0$).[@sen94a] He has shown that $S$ duality partners with $c = 1$ can be identified with BPS monopole solutions (and their dyonic generalizations) of the effective field theory. These solutions saturate the bound, of course. Thus, as we have explained, they should persist with exactly this mass in the complete quantum string theory. For $c > 1$, Sen argued that one should examine multi-BPS dyon bound states. Specifically, he showed that the prediction of $S$ duality is that each multi-BPS dyon moduli space should admit a unique normalizable harmonic form. Poincaré duality would give a second one unless it is self-dual or anti-self-dual. He constructed such an anti-self-dual form explicitly for the case of $c =2$,[@sen94b] providing the first really non-trivial test of $S$ duality. Progress toward extending this result to $c > 2$ has been made by Segal and Selby [@segal] and by Porrati.[@porrati95] More recently, a simpler and more general proof has been constructed [@landsteiner] using D-brane techniques. [@bershadsky].
DUALITIES IN NINE DIMENSIONS
============================
Introductory Comments
---------------------
The five 10d superstring theories – types I, IIA, IIB and the $E_8 \times
E_8$ and $SO(32)$ heterotic – are related to one another by a rich variety of dualities. The dualities that require compactification of only one spatial dimension, leaving a 9d Minkowski space-time, are sufficient to show that all five are related to one another. This strongly suggests that they are best regarded as different descriptions of a single underlying theory. Each one is better suited to describing some portion of the moduli space of possible vacua than the others. In a later section, we will discuss some of the additional dualities that emerge upon compactification to 6d, but in this section we wish to explore what can be learned while retaining an uncompactified $\RR^{\, 9}$.
Two of the relevant dualities are $T$ dualities, which can be understood perturbatively, and therefore they were understood prior to the recent non-perturbative discoveries. When the IIA and IIB theories are each compactified on a circle, so that altogether the space-time topology is $\RR^{ 9}
\times S^1$, the two theories are $T$ dual.[@dai89; @dine89] This means that they describe identical physics, provided that the radius of one circle is the inverse of the other one (in string units). In a similar manner, one can show that the $SO(32)$ and $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string theories are $T$ dual when each of them is compactified on a circle.[@narain86; @ginsparg87] This heterotic case is somewhat more subtle than the type II one. Wilson lines have to be included, as part of the characterization of the compactification, in order to match corresponding points in the moduli space of 9d vacua. The relevant moduli space in this case is the Narain space ${\cal M}_{1,17}$ defined earlier.
The pair of $T$ dualities described above provides two connections among the five superstring theories. To see that all five are connected requires examining non-perturbative dualities – analogs of the $S$ duality of the 4d heterotic string discussed in Section 1. One way of addressing the problem is to ask, for each of the five theories, whether the strong coupling limit has a dual weakly coupled description. As in the case of the $S$ duality of the 4d heterotic string, the procedure is to identify a plausible candidate for an $S$ dual description and then to examine its consequences. The result is that an interesting and consistent story emerges. In fact, it is so compelling that there can be little doubt about the truth of the proposed dualities. So let me now say what they are.
The type I and $SO(32)$ heterotic string theories are $S$ dual.[@witten95a; @polchinski96] This means that the respective dilatons are related by $\phi_I = - \phi_H$, so that the coupling constants $(\lambda = e^{<\phi>})$ are reciprocal to one another. This identification is supported by the fact that both have the same low-energy effective field theory descriptions ($N = 1$ supergravity coupled to $SO(32)$ super Yang–Mills in 10d). The field redefinition $\phi_I = - \phi_H$ must be accompanied by a Weyl rescaling of the metric to convert from one version of the action to the other. On the other hand, the type IIB superstring in 10d is self-dual.[@hull94] More precisely, there is an $SL(2,\ZZ)$ $S$-duality group, very much like that of the 4d heterotic string, that is a gauge symmetry of the theory. This will be described in detail later.
The strong coupling limits of the IIA and $E_8 \times E_8$ theories turn out to provide quite a different surprise. In each case there is an eleventh dimension (tenth spatial dimension) that becomes large at strong coupling.[@townsend95a; @witten95a; @horava95] Specifically, the size of this dimension scales as $L_{11} \sim
\lambda^{2/3}$, where $\lambda$ is the 10d coupling constant. Such a compact dimension is completely invisible in perturbation theory (an expansion about $\lambda = 0$), which is why it passed unnoticed for so many years. In the IIA case, the hidden dimension is a circle $S^1$, whereas in the $E_8 \times
E_8$ case it is a line interval $I$, or (more precisely) an $S^1/\ZZ_2$ orbifold. This means that in the $E_8 \times E_8$ case one can visualize the space-time as an 11d space-time with two 10d faces, which are sometimes referred to as “end-of-the-world 9-branes,” since they have nine spatial dimensions.[@horava95] One of the $E_8$ gauge groups is associated to each face. In any case, at strong coupling the faces move apart and (away from the faces) the theory is described by the same 11d bulk theory that describes the IIA theory at strong coupling. This 11d theory is described in leading order in a low-energy expansion by 11d supergravity, a classical field theory that was discovered almost 20 years ago.[@cremmer78c] It is not yet known what is the correct algorithm that determines all the higher-dimension terms of the low-energy expansion of the effective action, but since we are confident that there is a consistent quantum theory, such an algorithm should exist. The unknown 11d quantum theory is referred to as M theory. As we will discuss, certain of its supersymmetric solitons are known, and they provide a handle on many of its interesting properties.
The equivalences discussed above can be summarized by the diagram in Figure 1. This diagram is sufficient to show that the five superstring theories are all part of a single structure, but it is by no means the whole story. There are a variety of other surprising dualities that are only revealed upon compactification of additional dimensions. Some of these will be described later.
=4truein
The IIA/IIB $T$ duality and the IIA/M $S$ duality can be combined as a duality between IIB theory on $\RR^{9} \times
S^1$ and M theory on $\RR^{ 9} \times T^2$. This viewpoint turns out to be very powerful for understanding the structure of both the IIB and M theories separately, as will be discussed in considerable detail. The $T^2$ is characterized by three real parameters – its area $A_M$ and its modular parameter $\tau$, which characterizes its complex structure up to an $SL(2,\ZZ)$ transformation. Indeed, we will find that in 9d the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ modular group of the torus precisely corresponds to the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ $S$ duality group of the IIB theory. This geometrization of $S$ duality is quite profound.
There is an analogous duality relating M theory and the $SO(32)$ theory (both type I and heterotic). This duality can be understood as arising as a corollary of the first one after modding out by a suitable $\ZZ_2$ symmetry. In this case, M theory compactified on a cylinder $C =
I \times S^1$ is dual to the $SO(32)$ theory compactified on a circle $S^1$. This also has consequences for both theories.
General Features of $p$-branes
------------------------------
M theory and the various superstring theories admit a rich variety of soliton solutions. When the core of such a solution extends over $p$ spatial dimensions (and one time dimension), the soliton is called a $p$-brane. Of special interest are $p$-brane solitons that saturate a BPS bound, which means that they preserve some fraction of the underlying supersymmetry. We will focus on ones that preserve one-half of the supersymmetry, but ones that preserve a smaller fraction, such as one-quarter or one-eighth, can be constructed.
Supersymmetric $p$-branes are a natural generalization of the BPS states ($0$-branes) discussed in Section 1. In this case the relevant central charges in the supersymmetry algebra are $p$-forms.[@townsend95b] Their magnitudes give a lower bound on the $p$-brane tension $T_p$, which is the mass per unit volume of the brane. Supersymmetry is preserved when the bound is saturated. As in the case of the $0$-branes, the BPS condition ensures that solutions of classical low-energy supergravity field equations exhibit some features of the exact quantum string theory, such as the relationship between the tension and the charge.
The supergravity solutions are non-singular in certain cases, so that the energy is smoothly spread over a region surrounding a $p$-dimensional subspace. In other cases there are delta function singularities at the core that can be compensated by postulating the presence of “fundamental $p$-branes.” Many authors distinguish these two categories of $p$-branes by calling them “solitonic” and “fundamental,” respectively. As far as I can tell, this is a distinction that need not persist in the underlying quantum theory, rather it could just be an artifact of formalism and approximations. Therefore, we regard both categories of $p$-brane solutions as “solitonic” without focussing on this distinction. (See Ref. [@duff94] for a review of $p$-brane solutions.)
The effective supergravities in question contain various antisymmetric tensor gauge fields. These can be represented as differential forms $$A_n = A_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2} \ldots \mu_{n}} dx^{\mu_{1}}~\wedge dx^{\mu_{2}}
\wedge \ldots \wedge dx^{\mu_{n}} .$$ In this notation, a gauge transformation is given by $\delta A_n = d \Lambda_{n
- 1}$, and the gauge-invariant field strength is $F_{n + 1} = dA_n$. When interactions are included, these formulas are sometimes modified. The origin of $p$-branes can be understood by considering an action that (schematically) has the structure [@horowitz91] $$S \sim \int d^D x \sqrt{-g} \{R + (\partial \phi)^2 + e^{-a\phi} F_{n+1}^2
+ \ldots\}.$$ Here, $\phi$ represents a dilaton field, $R$ is the scalar curvature, and $a$ is a numerical constant whose value depends on the particular theory. The dots include all the additional terms required to make the theory locally supersymmetric. In this case it is meaningful to seek BPS $p$-brane solutions, and it turns out that solutions exist for $p = n - 1$ and $p = D - n - 3$. By a straightforward generalization of the nomenclature of Maxwell theory, it is natural to call these “electric” and “magnetic,” respectively. The electric $p$-brane, with $p = n - 1$, has an $n$-dimensional world-volume. The fact that it is a source for “electric” charge is exhibited by the coupling $$\int A_{\mu_{1} \ldots \mu_{n}} {\partial x^{\mu_{1}}\over \partial \sigma_1}
\ldots {\partial x^{\mu_{n}}\over\partial\sigma_n} d^n \sigma,$$ which generalizes the familiar $j \cdot A$ coupling of Maxwell theory.
A $p$-brane in $D$ dimensions (let’s assume it is an infinite hyperplane, for simplicity) can be encircled by a $(D-p-2)$-dimensional sphere $S^{D-p-2}$. Thus, the “electric charge” of the $p$-brane is given by a straightforward generalization of Gauss’s law for point charges $$Q_E \sim \int_{S^{D - p - 2}} * F,$$ where $*F$ is the Hodge dual of $F$. In these lectures, we will not need to commit ourselves to specific normalization conventions. Similarly, a dual $(D
- p - 4)$-brane has “magnetic charge” $$Q_M \sim \int_{S^{p + 2}} F.$$ Note that the charge associated with a $p$-brane has dimension $(length)^{D/2 -
2 - p}$. This is dimensionless when $p = (D-4)/2$ – , for point particles in 4d, strings in 6d, membranes in 8d, etc. In these cases the electric and magnetic branes have the same dimensionality and it is possible to have dyonic $p$-branes.
The charges of $p$-branes can also be described by generalizations of Coulomb’s law. So, for an electric $p$-brane, as $r\rightarrow\infty$ $$A \sim {Q_E \over r^{D - p - 3}}\omega_{p + 1},$$ where $r$ is the transverse distance from the brane and $\omega_{p+1}$ is the volume form for the $p$-brane world-volume. Similarly, for the dual magnetic ($D -p-4$)-brane, as $r\rightarrow\infty$ $$F \sim {Q_M \over r^{p + 2}}\Omega_{p + 2},$$ where $\Omega_{p+2}$ is the volume form on a sphere $S^{p + 2}$ surrounding the brane. In this case it is convenient to describe the magnetic field, rather than the potential, in order to avoid introducing generalizations of Dirac strings. Of course, the distinction between electric and magnetic branes is not so great, since it is often possible to make a duality transformation that replaces $A$ by a dual potential $\tilde{A}$ whose field strength $d\tilde{A}$ is the dual of $F = dA$. From the point of view of $\tilde{A}$, the original electric brane is magnetic and vice versa. Another significant fact,[@nepomechie85] noted more than ten years ago, is that the Dirac quantization condition has a straightforward generalization to the charges carried by a dual pair of $p$-branes: $Q_E Q_M \in 2\pi \ZZ$. This assumes appropriate normalization conventions, of course.
The crudest first approximation to classical $p$-brane dynamics is given by a straightforward generalization of the Nambu area formula for the string world-sheet action. This gives an action proportional to the $(p + 1)$-dimensional volume induced by embedding the world volume into the $D$-dimensional target space: $$S_{eff} = T_P \int \sqrt{{\rm det}\ G_{\alpha\beta}}\, d^{p + 1} \sigma ,$$ where $$G_{\alpha\beta} = \eta_{\mu\nu} \partial_\alpha x^\mu \partial_\beta
x^\nu, \alpha,\beta = 0, 1, \ldots, p,$$ and $\eta$ is the metric (Minkowski, for example) of the target space. Just as for strings, this formula is invariant under reparametrizations of the world volume. Also, it defines the $p$-brane tension $T_p$ – the universal mass per unit volume of the $p$-brane. Note that $T_p \sim (mass)^{p +1}$.
Specific $p$-branes
-------------------
Let us now examine what BPS $p$-branes occur in the theories of most interest to us. We begin with 11d supergravity, the low-energy effective field theory for M theory. 11d supergravity has three massless fields: the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ (with 44 physical polarizations), the gravitino $\psi_\mu$ (with 128 physical polarizations), and a three-form potential $C_{\mu\nu\rho}$ (with 84 physical polarizations). By the reasoning given above one expects to find two kinds of branes associated with $C$: an electric 2-brane [@bergshoeff87; @duff91] and a magnetic 5-brane,[@guven92] and this is indeed the case, even though 11d supergravity has no dilaton field. These branes have a number of interesting properties, which we will return to later.
The only anomaly-free 10d theories with $N=1$ supersymmetry have as their massless sector $N=1$ supergravity coupling to either $SO(32)$ or $E_8 \times E_8$ super Yang–Mills matter.[@green84] The relevant antisymmetric tensor gauge field that couples to $p$-branes is the two-form potential $B$ belonging to the supergravity multiplet. In this case the electric $p$-brane is a $1$-brane, which [*is*]{} the heterotic string.[@dabholkar95] Its magnetic dual is a $5$-brane.[@strominger90] Type I strings cannot be found in this way, because they are not BPS (and hence not stable).
Type IIA supergravity in 10d can be understood as arising from compactification of M theory on a circle.[@townsend95a; @witten95a] Doing this, the 11d metric gives rise to the 10d metric, a one-form $A$, and a dilaton $\phi_A$. Specifically, if $g^{(10)}$ denotes the IIA string metric, $$g_{MN}^{(11)} dx^M dx^N = e^{-2\phi_{A}/3} g_{\mu\nu}^{(10)} dx^\mu dx^\nu
+ e^{4\phi_{A}/3} (dx^{11} - A_\mu dx^\mu)^2.$$ Identifying the string coupling constant $\lambda = e^{<\phi_{A}>}$, one sees that $R_{11} \sim \lambda^{2/3}$, as was asserted earlier. Also, the 11d three-form $C$ decomposes in 10d into a three-form $C$ and a two-form $B$.
The IIA theory has six kinds of $p$-branes:[^2] $p = 0,6$ associated to $A$; $p =
1,5$ associated to $B$; $p = 2,4$ associated to $C$. Some of these have a simple interpretation in terms of the 2-brane and 5-brane in 11d. The 2-brane and 5-brane in 10d are given by a straight dimensional reduction and the 1-brane and 4-brane in 10d are given by a double dimensional reduction. The fact that a $p$-brane solution in $D$ dimensions implies that there is also one in $D-1$ dimensions (for $p <D-3$) after compactification on a circle depends crucially on the BPS property. This allows one to form an infinite periodic array of parallel $p$-branes in $D$ dimensions, and then a periodic identification gives a single $p$-brane in $D-1$ dimensions. Double dimensional reduction is more straightforward: one dimension of the $p$-brane wraps around the circular dimension of the space-time. The $0$-brane and $6$-brane couple to the Kaluza–Klein gauge field $A$, and can therefore be called Kaluza–Klein $p$-branes. The charge carried by a KK $0$-brane is interpreted as momentum in the 11th dimension. Their role in 11d is simply to allow this momentum to be excited. The dual 6-brane, on the other hand, has a tension that diverges in the decompactification limit. Thus, there is no corresponding soliton in 11d Minkowski space.
Let us now consider the most interesting case of all – type IIB superstrings in 10d.[@green82] In the NS-NS sector there is a 2-form potential $B^{(1)}$. The fundamental IIB string is electrically charged with respect to this field. In addition, the R-R sector has a zero-form $\chi$, a two-form $B^{(2)}$, and a four-form $A_4$. The four-form $A_4$ has a self-dual field strength $(dA_4 = * dA_4)$, something that is possible only when the number of spatial dimensions minus the number of time dimensions is a multiple of four.
Formally, a zero-form gives a $(-1)$-brane and a $7$-brane, both of which are rather special. A $(-1)$-brane has a point-like world volume. After a Wick rotation, it can be interpreted as a kind of instanton called a $D$-Instanton. Its magnetic dual, a $7$-brane, is also special. Whenever $p = D-3$, the presence of the brane gives rise to a conical deficit angle in the geometry of the transverse plane, a fact that is artfully exploited by F theory.[@vafa96a] Here, we will only consider branes with $p < D - 3$. The four-form $A_4$ gives rise to a self-dual 3-brane. It has an identified electric and magnetic charge, because $\int_{S^{5}} F_5 =
\int_{S^{5}} * F_5$. Thus, $A_4$ only gives one kind of $p$-brane. Finally, we turn to the two forms $B_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}$ and $B_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}$. Each can couple to an electric $1$-brane or a magnetic $5$-brane. However, as we will argue, these 1-branes or 5-branes can form bound states. Thus, we will get an infinite family of strings labelled by two electric charges $(q_1, q_2)$ and an infinite family dual magnetic $5$-branes labelled by two magnetic charges.
Type IIB String Solitons
------------------------
As has already been noted, the type IIB superstring in 10d has two two-form potentials, $B_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}$ and $B_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}$. Therefore, string-like solutions can, in general, carry a pair of charges $$q_I \sim \int_{S^{7}} * dB^{(I)}, \quad I = 1,2.$$ Let us construct these solutions explicitly. To make the $SL(2,\RR)$ symmetry of the supergravity field equations manifest, it is convenient to introduce a two-component vector notation $$H = dB = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
dB^{(1)}\\
dB^{(2)} \end{array} \right).$$ It is also convenient to combine the $RR$ scalar $\chi$ and the dilaton $\phi$ into a complex scalar field $$\rho = \chi + i e^{-\phi},$$ and to represent the vev of this field by $$<\rho> = \rho_0= \chi_0 + i e^{-\phi_{0}} = {\theta\over 2\pi} +
{i\over\lambda_B}.$$ The field $\rho$ is very similar to the axion-dilaton field of the 4d heterotic theory described in Section 1. Indeed, as in that case, it transforms nonlinearly under an $SL(2,\RR)$ transformation $\Lambda
= \left(\begin{array}{cc} a & b\\ c & d \end{array} \right)$, by the rule $\rho
\rightarrow {a\rho + b\over c\rho + d}$. There are differences of detail, however. For example, the imaginary part of $\rho$ is $e^{-\phi}$ here, whereas in Section 1 it was $e^{-2\phi}$. It is also convenient to introduce the symmetric $SL(2,\RR)$ matrix $${\cal M} = e^\phi \left(\begin{array}{cc}
|\rho|^2 & \chi\\
\chi & 1 \end{array} \right),$$ which transforms by the simple rule $${\cal M} \rightarrow \Lambda {\cal M} \Lambda^T.$$
The $B$ fields transform linearly by the rule $B \rightarrow (\Lambda^T)^{-1}
B$, while the canonical metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the four-form $A_4$ are invariant. Note that since the dilaton transforms, the IIB string metric $$g_{\mu\nu}^{(B)} = e^{\phi/2} g_{\mu\nu}, \label{twog}$$ is not $SL(2,\RR)$ invariant. For this reason, it is convenient to use the canonical metric for the time being.
The string-like solutions of the IIB supergravity field equations that we are seeking have $A_4$ and all fermi fields equal to zero. While it is difficult to formulate a convenient action that gives the complete field equations (because the field strength of $A_4$ is self-dual), it is not hard to find the action that gives the field equations with $A_4$ and the fermi fields set equal to zero. It is $$S = \int d^{10} x \sqrt{-g} (R - {1\over 12} H_{\mu\nu\rho}^T {\cal
M}H^{\mu\nu\rho} + {1\over 4} \tr (\partial^\mu {\cal M} \partial_\mu {\cal M}^{-1})).$$ This action is manifestly invariant under global $SL(2,\RR)$ transformations. The solution we seek consists of a string-like soliton along the $x^1$ axis with $B$ charges $(q_1, q_2)$ and vacuum defined by $\rho (r) \sim \rho_0$ as $ r \rightarrow\infty$, where $r^2 = \vec x \cdot \vec x$, and $\vec x$ refers to the eight transverse directions $x^2, x^3, \ldots, x^9$. Also, the metric should approach the Minkowski metric as $r \rightarrow \infty$.
Our problem was solved some time ago by Dabholkar, [*et al.*]{}, for a special case, namely $\vec q = (1,0)$ and $\rho_0 = i$.[@dabholkar90] This solution, which has $\chi = 0$ and $B_{\mu\nu}^{(2)} = 0$, arose in considering the heterotic string, which does not contain the fields $\chi$ and $B_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}$. However, its equations agree with the ones being considered here when they are set to zero. Using the $SL(2,\RR)$ symmetry of the IIB theory, the solution of Dabholkar, [*et al.*]{}, can be transformed to give a IIB solution with charges $(q_1, q_2)$ and $\rho (r) {\sim } \rho_0$.[@schwarz95a] The solution obtained in this way is given by $$ds^2 = A^{-3/4} (-dt^2 + (dx^1)^2) + A^{1/4} d\vec x \cdot d \vec x$$ $$B_{01}^{(I)} = q_I \Delta_{(q_1,q_2)}^{-1/2} A^{-1}$$ $$\rho = {i (q_2 \chi_0 + q_1 |\rho_0|^2) A^{1/2} - q_2 e^{-\phi_{0}}\over
i(q_1 \chi_0 + q_2) A^{1/2} + q_1 e^{-\phi_{0}}},$$ where $$A = 1 + {Q \Delta_{(q_1,q_2)}^{1/2}\over r^6},$$ $$\Delta_{(q_1,q_2)} = e^{\phi_{0}} |q_1 - q_2 \rho_0|^2, \label{twoa}$$ and the charge $Q$ is a constant proportional to the tension scale $T_1^{(B)}$ and the 10d Newton constant.
While classically $q_1$ and $q_2$ are arbitrary real numbers, quantum mechanically they must be integers. This follows (by the same reasoning Dirac used to explain the quantization of electric charge) from the existence of 5-branes and the Dirac quantization condition. Later, we will argue that stability requires that $q_1$ and $q_2$ should actually be [*relatively-prime integers*]{}. By allowing all pairs of relatively prime integers, we define an infinite family of string-like solitons, which form an irreducible $SL(2,\ZZ)$ multiplet. Note that if, for a given string solution, $\rho_0$ is analytically continued outside the fundamental region ${\cal F}$ of $SL(2,\ZZ)$, then the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ transformation that brings $\rho_0$ back inside ${\cal F}$ will redefine the charges of the string.
By considering the asymptotic behavior of the metric component $g_{00}$ for $r
\rightarrow\infty$, one can read off the “ADM tension” of the string[@schwarz95a] $$T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} = \Delta_{(q_1,q_2)}^{1/2} T_1^{(B)}. \label{twob}$$ To get a sense of the meaning of this equation, it is convenient to restrict to the special case $\chi_0 = 0$, so that $\rho_0 = i/\lambda_B$. Then the tension of the $(q_1, q_2)$ string in the canonical metric is $$T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} = (\lambda_B q_1^2 + \lambda_B^{-1} q_2^2)^{1/2} T_1^{(B)}.$$ Converting to the IIB string metric, redefines this by a factor of $\lambda_B^{-1/2}$, giving $$\tilde{T}_{(q_{1},q_{2})} = (q_1^2 + \lambda_B^{-2} q_2^2)^{1/2} T_1^{(B)}.$$ Thus, in the string metric, the fundamental string tension is a constant, $\tilde{T}_{(1,0)} = T_1^{(B)}$. The $D$-string, which carries $RR$ charge only, on the other hand has tension $\tilde{T}_{(0,1)} = \lambda_B^{-1}
T_1^{(B)}$. The scaling $T \sim \lambda^{-1}$ is characteristic of $D$-branes in the string metric.[@polchinski95] This is to be contrasted with ordinary solitons, like the ‘t Hooft–Polyakov monopole, which have $T \sim \lambda^{-2}$.
As is typical of BPS mass formulas, the tensions we have found satisfy a triangle inequality $$T_{(p_{1} + q_{1}, p_{2} + q_{2})} \leq T_{(p_{1}, p_{2})} + T_{(q_{1},
q_{2})},$$ and equality requires that $\vec p$ and $\vec q$ are parallel. This means that if $q_1$ and $q_2$ are relatively prime, a string with charges $(q_1, q_2)$ and tension $T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})}$ is absolutely stable, protected by charge conservation and a “tension gap” (the analog of a mass gap) from decay into multiple strings. On the other hand, a string with charges $(nq_1, nq_2)$ is at the threshold for decay into $n (q_1, q_2)$ strings. Whether one has a bound state or not, in such a case, is a delicate issue whose answer depends on the particular problem. We will show that the duality relation to M theory requires that only strings with $q_1$ and $q_2$ relatively prime be included. This conclusion is supported by a bound-state analysis carried out by Witten.[@witten95b] One way of stating the conclusion is that $q_1$ fundamental strings and $q_2$ $D$-strings (all of which are parallel) can form a single bound state if and only if $q_1$ and $q_2$ are relatively prime. It should also be noted that the $(-q_1, -q_2)$ string is the orientation-reversed $(q_1, q_2)$ string.
Compactification of IIB Theory on a Circle
------------------------------------------
Let us now consider type IIB string theory compactified on a circle of radius $R_B$ (and circumference $L_B = 2\pi R_B)$. Since all of the $(q_1, q_2)$ strings are related by $SL(2,\ZZ)$ transformations, they are all equivalent and any one of them can be weakly coupled. However, when one is weakly coupled, all the others are necessarily strongly coupled. Nevertheless, let us consider an arbitrary $(q_1, q_2)$ string and write down the spectrum of its 9d excitations in the limit of weak coupling. This is given by standard string theory formulas: $$M_B^2 = \left({m\over R_B}\right)^2 + (2\pi R_B n T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})})^2
+ 4\pi T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} (N_L + N_R). \label{twoc}$$ Here $m$ is the Kaluza–Klein excitation number and $n$ is the string winding number. $N_L$ and $N_R$ are excitation numbers of left-moving and right-moving oscillator modes, and the level-matching condition is $$N_R - N_L = mn.$$
Now our purpose is to use this formula for all the $(q_1, q_2)$ strings simultaneously. However, the formula is completely meaningless at strong coupling, and (as we have said) at most one of the strings is weakly coupled. The appropriate trick in this case is to consider only BPS states - ones belonging to short supersymmetry multiplets. They are easy to identify, being given by either $N_L = 0$ or $N_R = 0$. (Ones with $N_L = N_R = 0$ are ultrashort.) For these states the mass formula should be exact, even at strong coupling. Therefore, it can be used for all the strings at the same time. In this way, we obtain reliable mass formulas for a very large part of the spectrum – much more than appears in perturbation theory. Of course, the appearance of this rich spectrum of BPS states depends crucially on the compactification.
Using eqs. (\[twoa\]) and (\[twob\]), the winding-mode term in eq. (\[twoc\]) contains the factor $$n^2 \Delta_{(q_1,q_2)} = e^{\phi_{0}} |\ell_1 - \ell_2 \rho_0|^2,$$ where $(\ell_1, \ell_2) = n (q_1, q_2)$. There is a unique correspondence between the three integers $n, q_1, q_2$ and an arbitrary pair of integers $\ell_1, \ell_2$. The integer $n$ is the greatest common division of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$. The only ambiguity is whether to choose $n$ or $-n$, but since $n$ is (oriented) winding number and the $(-q_1, -q_2)$ string is the orientation-reversed $(q_1, q_2)$ string, the two choices are actually equivalent. Thus BPS states are characterized by three integers $m, \ell_1, \ell_2$ and oscillator excitations corresponding to $N_L = |mn|$, tensored with a 16-dimensional short multiplet from the $N_R=0$ sector (or vice versa).
Comparison with M Theory on a Torus
-----------------------------------
Let us now consider 11d M theory compactified on a torus. The torus is characterized by a complex modulus $\tau = \tau_1 + i \tau_2$ (as usual) and by its area ${A}_M$, measured in the 11d canonical metric. If the two periods of the torus are $2\pi R_{11}$ and $2\pi R_{11} \tau$, then $A_M =
(2\pi R_{11})^2 \tau_2$. In terms of coordinates $z = x + i y$ on the torus, a single-valued wave function has the form $$\phi_{\ell_{1}, \ell_{2}} \sim {\rm exp} \left\{{i\over R_{11}} \left[x \ell_2 -
{y\over\tau_2} (\ell_2 \tau_1 - \ell_1)\right]\right\}.$$ These characterize Kaluza–Klein excitations. The contribution to the mass-squared is given by the eigenvalue of $- \partial_x^2 - \partial_y^2$, $${1\over R_{11}^2} \left(\ell_2^2 + {1\over\tau_2^2} (\ell_2 \tau_1 -
\ell_1)^2\right) = {|\ell_1 - \ell_2 \tau|^2\over (\tau_2 R_{11})^2}.$$ Our purpose is to match BPS states of M theory on $T^2$ and IIB theory on $S^1$. Clearly, this term has the right structure to match the string winding-mode terms described at the end of the last subsection, provided that we make the identification[@schwarz95a; @aspinwall95a] $$\tau = \rho_0.$$ The normalizations of the two terms we are matching are not the same, but that is because they are measured in different metrics. The matching tells us how to relate the two metrics, a formula to be presented soon. For now, let me emphasize that the identification $\tau = \rho_0$ is a pleasant surprise, because it implies that the non-perturbative $SL(2,\ZZ)$ symmetry of the IIB theory, after compactification on a circle, can be reinterpreted as the modular group of a toroidal compactification! Of course, once the symmetry is established for finite $R_B$, it should also persist in the limit $R_B
\rightarrow \infty$.
To go further, we also need an M theory counterpart of the term $(m/R_B)^2$ in the IIB string mass formula. Here there is also a natural candidate: wrapping M theory 2-branes so as to cover the torus M times. If the 2-brane tension is $T_2^{(M)}$, this gives a contribution $(A_M
T_2^{(M)} m)^2$ to the mass-squared. Matching the normalization of this term, as well as the Kaluza–Klein term, one learns that the metrics are related by $$g^{(M)} = \beta^2 g^{(B)}, \label{twod}$$ where $$\beta^2 = A_M^{1/2} T_2^{(M)}/T_1^{(B)}, \label{twoe}$$ and that the compactification volumes are related by $$(T_1^{(B)} L_B^2)^{-1} = {1\over (2\pi)^2} T_2^{(M)} A_M^{3/2}. \label{twof}$$ Since all the other factors are constants, this gives (for fixed $\tau = \rho_0$) the scaling law $L_B \sim A_M^{-3/4}$.
We still have the oscillator excitations of the type IIB string BPS mass formula to account for. Their M theory counterparts must be excitations of the wrapped 2-brane. Unfortunately, since the quantization of the 2-brane is not yet understood, this cannot be checked. The story could be turned around at this point to infer what the BPS excitation spectrum of wrapped 2-branes must be. Maybe, trying to understand this spectrum will lead to a better understanding of 2-brane quantization. In any case, assuming that this works, we have found that Kaluza–Klein excitations of the type IIB theory compactified on a circle correspond to wrappings of the 2-brane on the torus and that Kaluza–Klein modes of M theory on the torus correspond to windings of an infinite family of type IIB strings on the circle.
In the preceding discussion it was not specified exactly how the M theory 2-brane wraps on the torus when it “covers it $m$ times.” There are a variety of different possible maps that could define the mapping, and it should be specified which ones are allowed and what is the proper way to count them. I do not have a complete answer to this question, but there is one comment that may prove useful. In the simpler problem of M theory compactified on a circle, the IIA string in 10d arises from wrapping one cycle of a toroidal 2-brane on the spatial circle.[@duff87] If one were to wrap the circle $m$ times, instead, this would appear to give a IIA string of $m$ times the usual tension. However, it is quite clear that no such string exists, so such a configuration must be unstable to decay into $m$ strings. Perhaps the rule is that one cycle should be wrapped only once and the dual one $m$ times, but this requires identifying a preferred cycle on the torus. The only preferred cycle in the problem is the one defined by the Kaluza–Klein excitation.
Matching p-branes
-----------------
We have conjectured that M theory compactified on a torus of area ${A}_M$ and modular parameter $\tau$ is identical to type IIB string theory compactified on a circle of circumference $L_B$ and vacuum parameter $\rho_0$. The conjecture was supported by matching BPS 0-branes in 9d, which dictated how to match parameters $(\tau = \rho_0,$ etc.). We can carry out additional tests of the proposed duality, and learn interesting new relations at the same time, by also matching BPS $p$-branes with $p > 0$ in 9d.[@schwarz95b] Here we will describe the results for $p = 1,2,3,4$, though other cases can also be analyzed.
Let us start with $p = 1$ (strings) in 9d. Trivial reduction of the IIB strings in 10d gives strings with the same charges $(q_1, q_2)$ and tensions $T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})}$ in 9d. The interesting question is how these should be interpreted in M theory. The way to do this is to start with a 2-brane of toroidal topology in M theory and to wrap one of its cycles on a $(q_1, q_2)$ homology cycle of the spatial torus. The minimal length of such a cycle is $$L_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} = 2 \pi R_{11}|q_1 - q_2 \tau| = (A_M \Delta_{(q_1,q_2)})^{1/2}. \label{twoi}$$ Thus, this wrapping gives a 9d string whose tension is $$T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})}^{(11)} = L_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} T_2^{(M)}.$$ The superscript 11 emphasizes that this is measured in the 11d metric. To compare with the IIB string tensions, we use eqs. (\[twod\]) and (\[twoe\]) to deduce that $$T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} = \beta^{-2} T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})}^{(11)} = (\Delta_{(q_{1},
q_{2})})^{1/2} T_1^{(B)}.$$ This agrees with the result in subsection 4, showing that this is a correct interpretation.
To match 2-branes in 9d we must wrap the IIB theory 3-brane on the circle and compare to the M theory 2-brane. The wrapped 3-brane gives a 2-brane with tension $L_B T_3^{(B)}$. Including the metric conversion factor, the matching gives $$T_2^{(M)} = \beta^3 L_B T_3^{(B)}.$$ Combining this with eqs. (\[twoe\]) and (\[twof\]) gives the identity $$T_3^{(B)} = { 1\over 2\pi} (T_1^{(B)})^2. \label{twoh}$$ It is remarkable that the M theory/IIB theory duality not only relates M theory tensions to IIB theory tensions, but it implies a relation involving only IIB tensions. The 3-brane tension is a constant in the canonical metric, but using eq. (\[twog\]) it scales as $\lambda_B^{-1}$ in the string metric, as expected for a $D$-brane.
Wrapping the M theory 5-brane on the spatial torus gives a 9d 3-brane, which can be identified with the IIB theory 3-brane reduced to 9d. This gives $$T_5^{(M)} A_M \beta^4 T_3^{(B)},$$ which combined with eqs. (\[twoe\]) and (\[twoh\]) implies that $$T_5^{(M)} = {1\over 2\pi} (T_2^{(M)})^2. \label{twoj}$$ This corresponds to satisfying the Dirac quantization condition with the minimum allowed product of charges.[^3]
The matching of 4-branes works similarly. The IIB theory has an infinite family of 5-branes with tensions $T_{5(q_{1}, q_{2})}^{(B)}$. Wrapping a cycle on the spatial circle gives a family of 9d 4-branes with tensions $L_B
T_{5(q_{1}, q_{2})}^{(B)}$. This should match the 4-branes obtained by wrapping the M theory 5-brane on a $(q_1, q_2)$ homology cycle of the spatial torus. Thus, $$T_5^{(M)} L_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} = \beta^5 L_B T_{5(q_{1}, q_{2})}^{(B)}.$$ Combined with eqs. (\[twoe\]), (\[twof\]), (\[twoi\]), and (\[twoj\]), this implies that the IIB 5-brane tensions are given by $$T_{5(q_{1}, q_{2})}^{(B)} = {1\over (2\pi)^2} (\Delta_{(q_1, q_2)})^{1/2}
(T_1^{(B)})^3.$$ In this case $q_1$ is the magnetic RR charge and $q_2$ is the magnetic NS-NS charge. Thus, the tension of a 5-brane with pure RR charge scales as $\lambda_B^{1/2}$ and the tension of one with pure NS-NS charge scales as $\lambda_B^{1/2}$. Converting to the string metric, these become $\lambda_B^{-1}$ and $\lambda_B^{-2}$, respectively, as expected for a $D$-brane and an ordinary soliton.
The matching of 5-branes in 9d works differently. The M theory 5-brane reduced to 9d corresponds in the IIB picture to the Kaluza–Klein 5-brane, which couples magnetically to the $U(1)$ gauge field associated to the isometry of the circle. Similarly, the two-parameter family of IIB theory 5-branes corresponds to the two-parameter family of Kaluza–Klein 5-branes, in the M theory description, which couple magnetically to the two $U(1)$ gauge fields associated to the two isometries of the torus.
Implications of the Duality
---------------------------
What does the IIB/M theory duality mean? Certain facts are an immediate consequence of the scaling rule $L_B \sim A_M^{-3/4}$. Namely, compactifying M theory on a torus and letting $A_M \rightarrow 0$, while holding $\tau$ fixed, gives the IIB theory in 10d in the limit. Similarly, compactifying the IIB theory on a circle and letting $L_B \rightarrow 0$, for fixed modulus $\rho_0$, gives M theory in 11d in the limit.
When $L_B$ and $A_M$ are finite, and the vacuum has only 9d Poincaré symmetry, one might ask “how many compactified dimensions are there?” From the IIB viewpoint there is one, and from the M theory viewpoint there is two. Is one of these answers better than the other? Can they be combined and regarded as three compact dimensions? To see what is happening it is instructive to list the 9d massless bosonic fields showing their corresponding M theory and IIB descriptions. $$\begin{array}{rl}
{\bf M \ theory} & \quad \quad {\bf IIB\ theory}\\
g_{\mu\nu}^{(M)} \quad & \quad \quad \quad g_{\mu\nu}^{(B)}\\
g_{\mu\alpha}^{(M)} \quad & \quad \quad \quad B_{\mu 9}^{(\alpha)}\\
g_{\alpha\beta}^{(M)} \quad & \quad \quad \quad \rho, g_{99}^{(B)}\\
C_{\mu\nu\rho} \quad & \quad \quad \quad A_{\mu\nu\rho 9}\\
C_{\mu\nu\alpha} \quad & \quad \quad \quad B_{\mu\nu}^{(\alpha)}\\
C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} \quad & \quad \quad \quad g_{\mu 9}^{(B)}\\
\end{array} \label{lista}$$ The indices $\alpha, \beta = 1,2$ refer to the two internal directions of the M theory torus, the index 9 refers to the IIB theory circle, and $\mu, \nu$ are 9d indices. What the list demonstrates is that which fields are “matter” and which ones are “geometrical” is subjective, depending on whether you adopt an M theory or IIB theory viewpoint. Both viewpoints are valid, and neither is preferable to the other. So, how many compact dimensions there are is just a matter of how the fields are labelled! However, there is no straightforward choice of labelling that exhibits three compact dimensions. In my opinion, some of the recent suggestions that these theories can be derived from 12d are effectively counting the dimensions of both the torus and the circle.
The tests and implications of the M theory/IIB theory duality that we have presented so far are certainly not the only ones. For example, there are other solitons – intersecting $p$-branes, for example – that break 3/4 or 7/8 of the supersymmetry.[@papadopoulos96] They still have good BPS saturation properties, so that they are under control. It would be instructive to consider the matching of these solitons in 9d, too, something that has not yet been done.
M Theory/SO(32) Theory Duality
------------------------------
As we mentioned at the beginning of this section, there is a second duality that is closely related (and, therefore, quite similar) to the one we have been discussing. It relates M theory compactified on $S^1/ \ZZ_2 \times S^1$ to $SO(32)$ theory compactified on $S^1$.[@schwarz96] Since $S^1/ \ZZ_2$ can be regarded as a line interval $I,$ $S^1/ \ZZ_2 \times S^1$ can be regarded as a cylinder $C$. We will choose its height to be $L_1$ and its circumference to be $L_2 = 2\pi
R_2$. The circumference of the circle on which the $SO(32)$ theory is compactified is denoted $L_O = 2\pi R_O$ in the canonical 10d metric.
Before describing $p$-brane matching in 9d, let us briefly review the Horava–Witten picture of the $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string theory.[@horava95] Compactification of M theory on $S^1/\ZZ_2 = I$ gives a space-time with two 10d faces, separated by a distance $L_1 \sim
\lambda_H^{2/3}$, where $\lambda_H$ is the coupling constant of the $E_8 \times
E_8$ theory in 10d. The two 10d faces are sometimes called “end-of-the-world 9-branes.” Each of them carries the gauge fields for one of the two $E_8$’s. For reasons that will be explained in the next section, M theory 2-branes are allowed to terminate on a face, so that the boundary of the 2-brane is a circle inside the face. In this picture, an $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string is a cylindrical 2-brane suspended between the two faces, with one $E_8$ current algebra associated to each boundary. This cylinder (or strip) is well approximated by a string living in 10d when the separation $L_1$ is small. Since perturbation theory in $\lambda_H$ is an expansion about $L_1 = 0$, the fact that there really are eleven dimensions and that the string is actually a membrane is invisible in that approach.
The story described above is very similar to the relation between the IIA superstring and M theory. In that case the compact dimension is a circle and the IIA string arises from wrapping the M theory 2-brane around the circle. Thus, in a sense, the non-perturbative $E_8 \times E_8$ theory just involves modding out the non-perturbative IIA theory by a $\ZZ_2$. (This is a bit glib, since the rules for carrying out the modding in M theory, which is not a string theory, are not so obvious.) Similarly, the type I $SO(32)$ string theory in 10d can be constructed as a $\ZZ_2$ orientifold of the type IIB theory in 10d. Thus, the duality we are considering now can be viewed as arising from modding out the previous one by a $\ZZ_2$ on both sides. However, in the following we will treat it as a separate problem instead of attempting to exploit that picture. Because of the similarity of the two problems, fewer details will be provided this time.
The $SO(32)$ theory in 10d has both a type I and a heterotic description, which are $S$ dual. That is, their coupling constants, $\lambda = e^{<\phi>}$, satisfy $\lambda_H^{(0)} = (\lambda_I^{(0)})^{-1}$. As before, we match supersymmetry-preserving (BPS) branes in 9d. Recall that in the $SO(32)$ theory, there is just one two-form field $B_{\mu\nu}$, and the $p$-branes that couple to it are the $SO(32)$ heterotic string and its magnetic dual, which is a 5-brane. The type I open and closed strings do not carry a conserved charge and are not BPS. This is the reason that they can break. So from the type I viewpoint it is clear that the heterotic string can give a $0$-brane or a $1$-brane in 9d and that the dual 5-brane can give a 5-brane or a 4-brane in 9d. In each case, the issue is simply whether or not one cycle wraps around the spatial circle.
Now we need to find the corresponding 9d $p$-branes from the M theory viewpoint, to understand why they are the only ones, and to explore what can be learned from matching tensions. We described how the $E_8 \times E_8$ string arises in 10d from wrapping the M theory 2-brane on $I$. Subsequent reduction on a circle can clearly give a $0$-brane or a $1$-brane. But why is there no BPS 2-brane in 9d? When the 2-brane is forced to be in a 10d boundary, rather than in the 11d bulk, it becomes breakable (non-BPS). The technical reason (see the next section) is that there is no 3-form gauge field on the boundary (or in the 10d reduction). The story for the five-brane is just the reverse. Whereas the 2-brane must wrap on the $I$ dimension, the five-brane must not do so. As a result it gives a 5-brane or a 4-brane in 9d according to whether or not it wraps around the $S^1$ dimension. So, altogether, both pictures give the electric-magnetic dual pairs ($0,5$) and ($1,4$) in 9d.
From the $p$-brane matching one learns that $$\lambda_H^{(0)} = {L_1\over L_2}.$$ Thus, the $SO(32)$ heterotic string is weakly coupled when the spatial cylinder of the M theory compactification is a thin ribbon $(L_1 \ll L_2)$. This is consistent with the earlier conclusion that the $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string is weakly coupled when $L_1$ is small. Conversely, the type I string is weakly coupled for $L_2 \ll L_1$, in which case the spatial cylinder is long and thin. The $\ZZ_2$ transformation that inverts the modulus of the cylinder, $L_1/L_2$, corresponds to the type I/heterotic duality of the $SO(32)$ theory. Since it is not a symmetry of the cylinder it implies that two different-looking string theories are $S$ dual. This is to be contrasted with the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ modular group symmetry of the torus, which accounts for the self-duality of the IIB theory.
The $p$-brane matching in 9d gives the relation $$L_1 L_2^2 T_2^{(M)} = \left({T_1^{(0)} L_0^2\over 2\pi}\right)^{-1},$$ which is the analog of eq. \[twof\]. As in that case, it tells us that for fixed modulus $L_1/L_2$, one has the scaling law $L_O \sim A_C^{-3/4}$, where $A_C =
L_1 L_2$ is the area of the cylinder. Eq. \[twoj\] relating $T_2^{(M)}$ and $T_5^{(M)}$ is reobtained, and one also learns that $$T_5^{(O)} = {1\over (2\pi)^2} \left({L_2\over L_1}\right)^2 (T_1^{(O)})^3.$$ In the heterotic string metric, where $T_1^{(O)}$ is a constant, this implies that $T_5^{(O)} \sim (\lambda_H^{(O)})^{-2}$, as is typical of a soliton. In the type I superstring metric, on the other hand it implies that $T_1^{(O)}
\sim 1/\lambda_I^{(O)}$ and $T_5^{(O)} \sim 1/\lambda_I^{(O)}$, consistent with the fact that both are $D$-branes from the type I viewpoint. So, what kind of object you have depends very much on your point of view.
Some Remarks on the Origins of Chirality in M Theory
----------------------------------------------------
In its heyday (around 1980) there were two major reasons for being skeptical about 11d supergravity. The first was its evident lack of renormalizability, which led to the belief that it does not approximate a well-defined quantum theory. The second was its lack of chirality (, its left-right symmetry), which suggested that it could not have a vacuum with the chiral structure required for a realistic model. Our attitude towards both these issues now needs to be reconsidered. First, we now view 11d supergravity as a low-energy effective description of M theory. As such, it seems reasonable to believe that there is a well-defined quantum interpretation. The situation with regard to chirality is also changed. Here the new ingredients are the branes – the 2-brane and 5-brane, as well as the end-of-the-world 9-branes. They can and do introduce left-right asymmetry (consistent with anomaly cancellation requirements).
In the duality between M theory on a torus and IIB theory on a circle, that we have been discussing, the issue of chirality already appears. In the limit that the area $A_M$ of the torus vanishes, one obtains the IIB theory in 10d, which is a chiral theory. Let’s track down the M theory origins of the chiral asymmetry. One question is whether it is property of the limit $A_M \rightarrow 0$, or whether it is already visible in 9d. Let’s look at this question first from the IIB viewpoint.
The chiral fields of the IIB theory in 10d are the massless fermions and the four-form $A_4$, whose field strength is self-dual. This means that the associated physical degrees of freedom belong to parity non-invariant representations of the massless little group, spin (8). Compactifying on a circle, they give BPS Kaluza–Klein towers of excitations with $M_n^2 =
(n/R_B)^2$. These belong now to representations of the massive 9d little group, which is also spin (8). Indeed, it is obvious that these are the same parity non-invariant representations we started with. So, in this sense, one could say that these massive excitations are chiral. Certainly, they account for the chirality of the massless 10d field in the decompactification limit. The massive 4-form modes in 9d are described by complex fields (combining $n$ and $-n$). Dropping the index $n$, they satisfy a free wave equation of the form $A_4 \sim im * F_5$.[@townsend84a] Taking the exterior derivative, $F_5 \sim imd (*F_5)$. Even though there is no manifestly covariant action in 10d for a 4-form with a self-dual field strength, there is one for this massive complex 4-form in 9d: $${\cal L} (A_4) \sim \int F_5^* \cdot F_5 d^9 x + im \int A_4^* \wedge F_5.$$ As expected, this has a parity-violating mass term. The number of propagating modes described by such a Lagrangian is the same for $m \not= 0$ as it is for $m = 0$. This structure is quite similar to the much-studied “topologically massive gauge theory” in 3d: [@deser82] $${\cal L} (A_1) \sim \int F_2 \cdot F_2 d^3 x + m \int A_1 \wedge F_2.$$ One difference is that the construction can be carried out for real fields in dimensions $4k - 1$ whereas complex fields are required in dimensions $4k + 1$.
Having identified where the chirality resides in 9d, we can now ask how these states originate in the 11d description. The answer is immediate, because one of the things we learned from studying the M theory/IIB theory duality is that type IIB Kaluza–Klein excitations on $S^1$ correspond to M theory wrapping modes of the 2-brane on $T^2$. Therefore, the massive chiral modes in 9d must arise from wrapping the 2-brane. The 2-brane world-volume theory itself is 3d, so one might think it could not be chiral. However, it contains a “charge” coupling to the background 3-form gauge field $\int
C_{\mu\nu\rho} dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu \wedge dx^\rho$, and this is precisely the relevant chiral term. The 3-form gives a $U(1)$ gauge field in 9d with two indices in internal directions $(C_{\mu 12})$, and the massive chiral modes due to $n$ units of wrapping carry $n$ units of electric charge, as measured by this gauge field in 9d. The corresponding field in the IIB picture is the Kaluza–Klein gauge field $g_{\mu 9}$. (This correspondence already appeared in eq. (\[lista\]).)
WHICH BRANES CAN END ON WHICH?
==============================
In considering the Horava–Witten description of the $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string, we concluded that in M theory a 2-brane can terminate on an end-of-the-world 9-brane. This section discusses, with several examples, the general question of when one supersymmetric (BPS) brane is allowed to terminate on another one. Following Strominger, we argue that charge conservation is an essential consideration.[@strominger95a] However, we will discover that there is also a subtle “wormhole” construction, which gives additional possibilities. The basic idea is explained by $D$-branes, which are defined as $p$-branes on which strings can terminate.[@polchinski95] The type II (A or B) fundamental string carries a conserved charge and couples electrically to the NS-NS sector two-form gauge field $B_{\mu\nu}$. When a string carrying this kind of conserved charge has an end, flux associated with a $U(1)$ gauge field emerges from the end into the $D$-brane. This means that there is a point electric charge on the end of the string (explaining Chan–Paton factors), and that the $D$-brane world-volume theory contains a $U(1)$ gauge field $A_\alpha$, which can assume a suitable configuration to carry away the flux. An interesting generalization is the case of $N$ coincident $D$-branes when the $[U(1)]^N$ gauge symmetry of the individual $D$-branes gets extended to a non-Abelian $U(N)$ gauge symmetry. Let us turn now to specific examples of branes ending on branes.
Three Examples
--------------
An example of a $D$-brane is the 2-brane of type IIA string theory in 10d. As with all type II $D$-branes, massless fields of the world-volume theory form an $N=1$ 10d gauge multiplet, restricted to the brane. The vector $A_\mu$ of the 10d gauge theory decomposes into a three-vector $A_\alpha$ and seven scalars $\phi_i$ in the world-volume theory. The scalars can be regarded as collective coordinates for excitations of the brane in the seven transverse dimensions or as Goldstone bosons for broken translational symmetries. Similarly, the world-sheet fermions corrspond to broken supersymmetries. The gauge field $A_\alpha$ carries off the flux when a type IIA string terminates on the 2-brane. From the point of view of this gauge field, the charge on the end of the string is electric. However, there is a dual magnetic picture, which is also interesting. The world-volume theory of the 2-brane can be recast by a duality transformation $(dA = * d \phi_8)$ that replaces $A_\alpha$ by an eighth scalar $\phi_8$.[@duff93; @townsend95c] This scalar is a zero-form gauge field, and from its point of view the charge on the end of the string is magnetic. However, a more profound viewpoint is that $\phi_8$ represents excitations in an eighth transverse dimension, so that the 2-brane actually lives in an 11d space-time. This strongly suggests that, after the duality transformation, one is describing the 2-brane of M theory. But this raises a paradox: M theory in 11d Minkowski space does not have strings that can terminate on the 2-brane, so what is the strong coupling description of a configuration consisting of a type IIA string ending a 2-brane? I’ll return to this question later in this section.
Let’s now consider the Dirichlet 5-brane of the type IIB theory. By the same reasoning as before, the 6d world-volume theory in this case contains a six-vector $A_\alpha$ and four scalars $\phi_i$ representing transverse excitations. Let us once again replace the $U(1)$ gauge field $A_\alpha$ by a dual gauge field. In 6d the dual gauge field is a three-form. As explained in Section 2.2, a 2-brane can couple electrically to a three-form. Thus, BPS 2-branes can live inside the 5-brane. What this means is that the 3-brane of the IIB theory can terminate on the 5-brane.[@strominger95a] Its boundary is a 2-brane, and the charge that exists on its boundary gives rise to electric flux of the three-form gauge field of the 5-brane. Equivalently, had we not made a duality transformation, it would give magnetic flux of the original $U(1)$ gauge field. Thus, it is consistent with charge conservation for a type IIB 3-brane to terminate on a Dirichlet 5-brane. The $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality symmetry of the type IIB theory can be invoked to draw additional conclusions. Under an $SL(2,\ZZ)$ transformation the 3-brane is invariant, but the Dirichlet 5-brane, which carries $B_{\mu\nu}^{(I)}$ magnetic charges $(0,1)$, can be transformed into a $(q_1, q_2)$ 5-brane. This implies that the 3-brane is allowed to terminate on any of the 5-branes.
As a third example, let us consider the M theory 5-brane. Its massless sector consists of a 6d $N=2$ tensor supermultiplet.[@callan91; @becker96] The bosons in this multiplet are a two-form gauge field $B_{\alpha\beta}$, with a self-dual field strength $(dB = - * dB)$, and five scalars $\phi_i$ describing transverse excitations of the 5-brane in 11d. The fact that this is the appropriate multiplet can be argued in many different ways. Here we will simply remark that this is the only matter supermultiplet with the correct supersymmetry, and it contains the desired number of scalar fields. The two-form can couple to a self-dual string, which can be identified as the boundary of 2-brane that ends on the 5-brane. Thus, the M theory 2-brane can terminate on the M theory 5-brane, but not on another 2-brane. Thus, the M theory 5-brane can be regarded as a higher-dimension analog of a $D$-brane. Rather than being defined as an object on which an open string can end, it is an object on which an open membrane can terminate. The reason that the $D$-brane picture is so powerful is that open strings can be quantized, and they can be used to describe excitations of the $D$-brane. We do not have this kind of mathematical control for open membranes, so the $D$-brane picture is less useful (at the present time) in the case of M theory. However, compactification on a circle makes it clear that this is really more than an analogy. If the compactification is arranged so that one dimension of both the 2-brane and the 5-brane are wrapped on the spatial circle, then the resulting 10d picture precisely corresponds to a IIA string ending on a IIA 4-brane. This 4-brane is a standard $D$-brane.
Parallel p-branes
-----------------
When a $p_1$-brane is allowed to end on a $p_2$-brane, then it is also possible to consider a pair of parallel $p_2$ branes with an open $p_1$-brane suspended between them. To be clear what we are talking about, let me emphasize that all the branes under consideration are supersymmetric (BPS) branes carrying conserved charges. This means (for $p_2 < D-3$) that a pair of parallel $p_2$-branes (infinite hyperplanes) is a stable configuration because the forces between the branes cancel in such a case. If one imagines attaching an open $p_1$-brane that connects them, its tension would cause some bending of the $p_2$-branes in the vicinity of the junction. As far as I know, explicit field configurations that realize this picture have not been studied, but the qualitative picture is clear. In any case, the main reason to be interested in such configurations is as a way of thinking about quantum excitations of a system of parallel $p$-branes. New classical configurations are more of a curiosity.
As the separation of two $p_2$-branes becomes small, the “length” $\ell$ of the $p_1$-brane becomes small. In this case, it can become a good approximation to view the pair of $p_2$-branes (and the intervening space) as a single $p_2$-dimensional system and the collapsed $p_1$-brane as a $(p_1-1)$-brane of tension $T_{NC} = \ell \, T_{p_{1}}$ inside this $p_2$-dimensional space. The subscript NC denotes ‘non-critical’, since the tension of such branes can be arbitrarily small (as $\ell \rightarrow 0$). Note that in the case of the $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string the vanishing of the tension as $\ell \rightarrow 0$ can be compensated by a Weyl rescaling of the metric so that there is a finite tension in the limit. In other cases, such as the ones to be discussed here, such a rescaling is not appropriate, and the non-critical $(p_1-1)$-brane has a spectrum of excitations that become massless as $\ell \rightarrow 0$. These excitations should be viewed as possible excitations of a pair of nearly coincident $p_2$-branes.
A word of warning is in order here. The solitons that are being described as “$p$ dimensional” are given by field configurations that spread to some extent in the transverse dimensions. As explained to me by Maldacena, in certain cases the limit in which the length $\ell \rightarrow 0$ can result in the size of transverse spread becoming large at the same time. Then the simple geometric picture becomes misleading. Most of the considerations that follow do not require taking a limit $\ell \rightarrow 0$, so they are not subject to this criticism. The limit only appears when one wants to identify non-critical branes.
The specific example that we will focus on here is a pair of parallel 3-branes in 9d. Our purpose in doing this is to extract additional implications of the duality between M theory compactified on a torus and type IIB theory compactified on a circle. We have already seen that a single 3-brane in 9d can be viewed equally as a IIB 3-brane or as an M-theory 5-brane wrapped on the spatial torus. Now we wish to extend this picture to a pair of parallel 3-branes including the possibility of suspending other branes between them. The plan is to first consider parallel 3-branes of the IIB theory and then parallel 5-branes of M theory.
Parallel 3-branes of Type IIB Theory
------------------------------------
Since 3-branes of IIB theory are $D$-branes, fundamental $(1,0)$ type IIB strings can end on them. Also, such a string can be suspended between a pair of parallel 3-branes. The 4d world-volume theory of this system is a $U(2)$ gauge theory, spontaneously broken to $U(1) \times U(1)$ when the separation $\ell > 0$. The open string introduces a unit of electric charge for a $U(1)$ subgroup. (The appropriate $U(1)$ is the one inside the $SU(2)$ factor.) The sign of the charge is tied to the orientation of the string. An $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality transformation gives the same configuration with the fundamental $(1,0)$ string replaced by a $(q_1, q_2)$ string. In this case the lightest modes have mass $$M = \ell \, T_{(q_{1}, q_{2})} = \ell (q_1^2 + \lambda_B^{-2} q_2^2)^{1/2} T_1^{(B)},$$ where we have used the results of Section 2.4 for the tension of $(q_1, q_2)$ strings. This formula, which can be generalized to include a $\theta$ angle, agrees with the BPS formula for dyons of the $N = 4$ gauge theory in 4d. Thus, this picture relates the conjectured $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality of $N = 4$ gauge theory in 4d to that of type IIB superstring theory in 10d. Note that in this example it is $0$-branes that are becoming massless as $\ell
\rightarrow 0$. This implies that only states with spin $J\leq 1$ have $M
\rightarrow 0$ as $\ell \rightarrow 0$. This picture is also applicable in 9d if a dimension orthogonal to the brane is compactified.
Parallel 5-branes of M Theory
-----------------------------
As we have explained, an M theory 2-brane can end on a 5-brane, and, therefore, a 2-brane can be suspended between a pair of parallel 5-branes. To make contact with the results in preceding subsection, we wish to take this configuration and compactify on a spatial torus in such a way that we end up with a string suspended between 3-branes in 9d. The interesting point is that this can be done such that the string is a $(q_1,
q_2)$ string. This is to be expected because the torus is responsible for the $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality.
To give a specific realization suppose that the 5-brane spatial coordinates are in the $x_2, x_3, x_4, x_5, x_6$ hyperplane, and the other coordinates are fixed at two sets of values on the two 5-branes. Now suppose that the $x_2$ and $x_3$ coordinates are compactified to form the spatial torus. This implies that the 5-branes are wrapped on the torus, giving parallel 3-branes in 9d. Now consider a 2-brane connecting the two 5-branes. To get a string in 9d we want only one of its coordinates to be wrapped. Therefore, suppose it lies in a plane defined by $x_1, x_2'$, with the other coordinates fixed. Here $x_2'$ is a line in the $x_2$ - $x_3$ plane, and hence on the spatial torus. It belongs to the $(q_1, q_2)$ homology class if it satisfies $q_2 x_2 = q_1 x_3$. In this way, we obtain what we wanted, a $(q_1, q_2)$ string suspended between parallel 3-branes in 9d. This is the dual description of the configuration obtained in the preceding subsection
A Paradox and its Resolution
----------------------------
In the preceding subsection we considered an M theory 2-brane suspended between parallel 5-branes and showed that it could be wrapped on a spatial torus to give a $(q_1, q_2)$ string suspended between parallel 3-branes. An alternative possibility would be to wrap two dimensions of the 5-branes and no dimensions of the 2-brane on the spatial torus. This gives a 2-brane suspended between parallel 3-branes in 9d. What is the IIB interpretation of this configuration? The only simple guess is an open 3-brane suspended between parallel 3-branes. This is not allowed, however, because the boundary of a 3-brane is a 2-brane and the world-volume theory does not contain the gauge field needed to carry off its flux. Before explaining the right answer, let us first examine an analogous problem for which the answer is known.
The IIA theory in 10d can have a string suspended between a pair of parallel 4-branes, since they are $D$-branes. As we remarked earlier, this is interpreted in M theory as a wrapping of an 11d configuration consisting of a 2-brane suspended between parallel 5-branes. But what is the M theory interpretation of a string suspended between parallel 2-branes? The two problems seem quite analogous, but the interpretations are rather different. The simplest guess, an open 2-brane suspended between parallel 2-branes is not allowed by charge conservation, so that is not the answer. The correct answer, which we will now describe, was presented by Aharony, Sonnenschein, and Yankielowicz.[@aharony96]. (I first heard it from Polchinski. Later, Yankielowicz explained it to me in detail and drew my attention to ref. [@aharony96].)
Consider an M theory 2-brane in a “wormhole” configuration. This means one smooth surface consisting of parallel 2-branes connected by a throat . As described, there are actually two [*anti-parallel*]{} branes connected by a throat. Such a configuration is highly unstable. The size of the throat would grow rapidly eating up the branes. To stabilize the configuration one must flip-over one of the two faces to make them parallel. This can be achieved by rotating one of them by $\pi$ in a plane orthogonal to the throat – the $x_3$ - $x_4$ plane, say. This rotation involves no self-intersections of the surface, but since more than three spatial dimensions are required, it is somewhat difficult to visualize. In any case, after doing this we have two [*parallel*]{} branes connected by a throat. This configuration is consistent with charge conservation and represents an excitation of a BPS system.
Now the desired 10d configuration – an open string suspended between parallel 2-branes – can be obtained by compactification on a circle. The geometry is a bit subtle, however. Suppose $y$ is the compact coordinate of the spatial circle, and $x_2$ and $x_3$ are the coordinates that parametrize one of the faces. Now imagine going around a circle on the face that encloses the throat. By continuity with the connecting tube (the throat), which is wrapped around the $y$ direction, it is clear that this circle also winds around the $y$ direction. The coordinate $y$ corresponds to the scalar field of the M theory 2-brane world volume, which was called $\phi_8$ earlier when we introduced it as a zero-form dual of a $U(1)$ gauge field. The throat is a source of $y$ (or $\phi_8$) magnetic charge on the end faces, since $\oint dy \not= 0$ when the contour encloses the throat. In the dual formulation, appropriate to the IIA description of the membrane, $\phi_8$ is replaced by a $U(1)$ gauge field $A_\alpha$ and this magnetic charge is re-interpreted as electric charge. This matches the picture expected from the $D$-brane viewpoint, showing that we have found the correct M theory interpretation.
Now it is clear what the answer to the original problem – the IIB interpretation of a 2-brane suspended between parallel 3-branes in 9d – should be. The correct 10d picture is a parallel 3-branes connected by a throat, altogether forming one smooth surface. Again one of the 3-branes must be flipped over to ensure that they are parallel and not anti-parallel. Compactification on a circle is then arranged so that one dimension of the connecting throat is wrapped leaving a 2-brane from the 9d viewpoint. The throat again introduces a magnetic charge $\oint dy$. In 9d this is best viewed in the dual picture in which $y$ is replaced by a two-form, since the 3-brane has a 4d world volume. A two-form is just what is needed to carry off the flux associated to the charge on the string-like boundary of a 2-brane. So, again, there is a consistent picture.
It was emphasized earlier that the $N=4$ gauge theory that describes the world-volume theory of a pair of parallel 3-branes has an infinite spectrum of dyons with $J\leq 1$ whose mass vanishes as $\ell \rightarrow 0$. They were interpreted in terms of strings suspended between the 3-branes. Now we have seen that in 9d there can also be a suspended 2-brane, which gives a noncritical string as $\ell \rightarrow 0$. The string modes describe states of arbitrarily high spin whose mass vanishes as $\ell \rightarrow 0$ in the effective $N = 4$ 4d gauge theory.
Three-String Junctions
----------------------
The definition of a $D$-brane as a $p$-brane on which a type II string can end has to be interpreted carefully for $p \leq 1$. For example, in the case of IIB strings, we found that there is an infinite family of strings with $B_{\mu\nu}$ charges $(q_1, q_2)$, where $q_1$ and $q_2$ are relatively prime integers. The $(1,0)$ string is the fundamental string and the $(0,1)$ string is the $D$-string. A naive interpretation of ‘a fundamental string ending on a $D$-string’ is described as the junction of three string segments, one of which is $(1,0)$ and two of which are $(0,1)$. This is not correct, however, because the charge on the end of the fundamental string results in flux that must go into one or the other of the attached string segments changing the string charge in the process. In short, the three-string junction must satisfy charge conservation.[@aharony96] This means that an allowed junction that describes the joining of three strings has charges $(q_1^{(i)}, q_2^{(i)})$, $ i = 1,2,3$ such that $q_1^{(i)}$ and $q_2^{(i)}$ are relatively prime for each value of $i$ and $\sum_i q_1^{(i)} = \sum_i q_2^{(i)} = 0$. The configuration is stable if the three strings are semi-infinite and the angles are chosen so that tensions, treated as vectors, add to zero. It would be interesting to construct the corresponding solution of the supergravity field equations. I expect it to be supersymmetric and, therefore, to have the usual nice BPS properties. For example, a periodic array could be formed so that compactification on a circle would give the same configuration in 9d.
Given the three-string junction in 9d, it is natural to ask about its 11d M theory interpretation. The answer is easily found and very pleasing. In 11d one could consider a three-membrane junction which consists of a single smooth surface. Topologically it is the same as the “pants diagram,” which describes the world sheet for a closed string breaking into two closed strings. Of course, in the present problem the time coordinate is suppressed and the surface is just a spatial diagram (like real pants).
Now we want to compactify on a torus to 9d in such a way that one dimension of each of the three protruding 2-branes is wrapped on the torus. Labelling the three 2-branes by an index $i = 1,2,3$, we want the circular coordinate of the $i$th 2-brane to wrap on a $(q_1^{(i)}, q_2^{(i)})$ homology cycle of the torus. It is a simple geometrical fact that this is only possible if $\sum_i q_1^{(i)} = \sum_i
q_2^{(i)} = 0$. Thus, we reproduce the three-string junction in 9d with exactly the desired properties.
This three-string junction could prove to be useful in future studies. For example, one might wish to consider a collection of wrapped, intersecting 3-branes as part of a study of black holes in string theory. Excitations of such a system would be represented by open strings connecting the 3-branes. However, it would also be possible to have open strings ending on three different 3-branes if they are joined by a junction of the kind we have described. Of course, given the existence of the three-string junction, one can also build up more complicated networks, similar to $\phi^3$ Feynman diagrams.
6D STRING VACUA WITH EXTENDED SUPERSYMMETRY
===========================================
Compactification to 9d was sufficient to demonstrate that there are dualities connecting all superstring theories to one another as well as to M theory. Also, we learned that the dualities in 9d provide non-perturbative information about these theories. In this section we will survey many (possibly all) superstring vacua with extended supersymmetry in 6d. The next section will give a much less complete survey of 6d vacua with N=1 supersymmetry. In the process, many new dualities that give additional insights into the structure of the theory will appear.
Since vacua are characterized by their unbroken supersymmetry and massless spectrum, among other things, we need to know what the possibilities are in 6d. Massless particles are specified by representations of the little group, which is spin (4) or $SU(2) \times SU(2)$. Labelling representations by $SU(2) \times SU(2)$ multiplicities, one can have the following massless particles $$\begin{array}{rl}
{\rm graviton}: & (3,3) \nonumber \\
{\rm gravitino}: & 2(3,2)\ {\rm or} \ 2(2,3)\nonumber \\
{\rm self \ dual\ tensor}: & (3,1)\ {\rm or}\ (1,3) \nonumber \\
{\rm vector}: & (2,2) \nonumber \\
{\rm spinor}: & 2(2,1)\ {\rm or}\ 2(1,2)\nonumber \\
{\rm scalar}: & (1,1).
\end{array}$$
Parity interchanges the two $SU(2)$’s. Thus, the fermions and self-dual tensors are chiral, while the other particles are not. The factors of two in the fermion multiplicities appear because a Weyl spinor in 6d is necessarily complex. The supersymmetry type can be labelled by the number of gravitinos of each chirality. The maximal case (32 supercharges) corresponds to $(2,2)$ or $N = 4$ and is non-chiral. There are two $N = 2$ possibilities, just as in ten dimensions: $(1,1)$ or IIA is non-chiral and $(2,0)$ or IIB is chiral. $N = 1$ or $(1,0)$ supersymmetry is also chiral. One might also consider $(4,0), (3,1), (3,0)$, and $(2,1)$ supersymmetries, but I believe that none of these is possible.[^4]
Vacua with (2,2) Supersymmetry
------------------------------
Let us begin with maximal $(2,2)$ unbroken supersymmetry. In this case there is a unique massless multiplet – the supergravity multiplet. One way to determine its particle is by decomposing the massless fields of 11d supergravity into 6d pieces. The result is as follows: $$\begin{array}{rl}
{\rm bosons:} &(3,3) \!+ \!5(3,1) \!+ \!5(1,3) \!+ \!16(2,2) \!+
\!25(1,1)\nonumber \\
{\rm fermions:} &4(3,2) + 4(2,3) + 10(2,1) + 10(1,2).
\end{array}$$ The $U$ duality group in this case is $SO(5,5;\ZZ)$ and the moduli space, parametrized by the 25 scalar fields, is ${\cal M}_{5,5}$ .
A string vacuum with this amount of supersymmetry and this massless sector can be obtained either by compactifying the type IIB theory on $T^4$ or M theory on $T^5$. Each construction explains a subgroup of the $U$ duality group. The type IIB theory compactification gives a $T$ duality group $SO(4,4;\ZZ)$ from the $T^4$; in the M theory compactification, the modular group of $T^5$ accounts for an $SL(5,\ZZ)$. The complete answer, $SO(5,5;\ZZ)$, is the smallest group that contains both of these as subgroups. Once again, we see the power of M theory/IIB theory duality. By considering both at the same time one can make deductions that are not apparent from either viewpoint separately. The multiplicities of the other boson fields are given by $SO(5,5)$ representations. Thus, for example, the 16 vectors belong to a spinor representation, which is real for this signature. The 10 tensors (($3,1$) and ($1,3$)) belong to the fundamental representation of $SO(5,5)$. The fact that three-form field strengths mix with their duals under the duality group is a higher-dimension analog of electric-magnetic duality, and is a hallmark of an $S$ duality. The fermions belong to representations of the denominator algebra – $SO(5) \times
SO(5)$ in this case – in constructions of this type.
Vacua with $(1,1)$ Supersymmetry
--------------------------------
Let us now consider vacua with non-chiral 2A supersymmetry. In this case the gravity supermultiplet consists of $$\begin{array}{rl}
{\rm bosons:} &(3,3) + (3,1) + (1,3) + 4(2,2) + (1,1)\nonumber \\
{\rm fermions:} &2(3,2) + 2(2,3) + 2(2,1) + 2(1,2).
\end{array}$$ In addition there can be massless vector supermultiplets, whose content is $$(2,2) + 4(1,1) + 2(2,1) + 2(1,2).$$ When there are $n$ Abelian vector multiplets, so that the gauge group is $[U(1)]^n$, the duality group is $SO(4,n;\ZZ)$, and the moduli space ${\cal
M}_{4,n}$ is spanned by the $4n$ scalar fields belonging to the vector multiplets. The additional scalar field in the supergravity multiplet, which can be identified as the dilaton, has a moduli space $\RR$, so that the complete moduli space is ${\cal M}_{4,n} \times \RR$.
Toroidal compactification of the heterotic string to 6d gives a vacuum with $(1,1)$ supersymmetry and $n = 20$, which is the standard Narain result.[@narain86] Note that the compactification of 20 left-moving dimensions gives rise to the 20 vector fields belonging to the vector supermultiplets, whereas the compactification of 4 right-moving dimensions gives the 4 vector fields belonging to the supergravity multiplet.
The heterotic string vacuum described above (with $n = 20$) has a dual description given by the type IIA string compactified on $K3$.[@hull94] We won’t present a complete discussion of this result, which will be discussed by other lecturers, but simply verify that the massless field content works out correctly. Compactification on $K3$ breaks half the supersymmetry that is present in 10d, giving the desired $(1,1)$ supersymmetry, so it suffices to check the bosonic field content. To do this, we need some basic facts about the cohomology and the moduli space of $K3$. As usual for a compact connected 4-manifold, $b_0 = 1$ and $b_4 = 1$. Furthermore $b_1=b_3=0$, so the only non-trivial cohomology is $H^2$. It has 22 generators, which can be chosen to be 3 self-dual 2-forms $(b_2^+ = 3)$ and 19 anti-self-dual 2-forms $(b_2^- = 19)$. The moduli space of complex structure deformations, for a $K3$ of fixed volume, is ${\cal M}_{3,19}$, which is 57 dimensional. Including the volume of the manifold, there are 58 moduli altogether. This implies that the 6d zero modes obtained form the 10d metric consist of the 6d metric and 58 scalar fields. Altogether, the massless bosonic IIA fields on $K3$ give $$\begin{array}{rl}
g_{\mu\nu} & \rightarrow (3,3) + 58 (1,1)\nonumber \\
\phi & \rightarrow (1,1)\nonumber \\
A_\mu & \rightarrow (2,2) \nonumber \\
B_{\mu\nu} & \rightarrow (3,1) + (1,3) + 22(1,1)\nonumber \\
C_{\mu\nu\rho} & \rightarrow 23(2,2).
\end{array}$$ One of the 23 vectors obtained from $C_{\mu\nu\rho}$ arises because a 3-form in 6d is equivalent (by a duality transformation) to a vector. These multiplicities agree precisely with those of $(1,1)$ supergravity coupled to 20 vector supermultiplets.
The 6d duality between the heterotic string on $T^4$ and the IIA string on $K3$ can be lifted to a 7d duality.[@witten95a] Since the IIA theory can be viewed as M theory on $S^1$, it is plausible that one can identify this $S^1$ with one of the $S^1$’s inside the $T^4$ used to compactify the heterotic theory. Decompactifying this $S^1$ then leaves a 7d duality between M theory compactified on $K3$ and the heterotic theory compactified on $T^3$. This duality also passes all the checks that have been made. For example, the duality group computed from both viewpoints is $SO(3,19; \ZZ)$ and the moduli space is ${\cal M}_{3,19} \times \RR$.
It is even possible to go one more step and to lift this duality to 8d using “F theory.”[@vafa96a] This topic is beyond the scope of these lectures, so let’s just state the result. On the one hand, consider the heterotic string compactified on $T^2$, which has a duality group $SO(2,18; \ZZ)$ and a moduli space ${\cal M}_{2,18} \times \RR$. The F theory dual description consists of a non-perturbative type IIB vacuum, which can be formally described as a compactification from 12d to 8d on a special class of $K3$ manifolds – those that have an elliptic fibration. Remarkably, the moduli space of these $K3$’s is given by a ${\cal M}_{2,18}$ subspace of the ${\cal M}_{3,19}$ moduli space of $K3$’s, so that the matching of moduli spaces required for the duality again works beautifully.
The 6d duality between the heterotic string theory on $T^4$ and the IIA string theory on $K3$ is an $S$ duality. One way to see this is by comparing low-energy effective supergravity Lagrangians and noting that the field mapping between the two descriptions includes $$\phi_H = - \phi_{IIA},$$ as well as a duality transformation of the two-form potential. This relation between dilaton fields implies that the coupling constants are reciprocal to one another, which is $S$ duality. This also means that the heterotic and type IIA strings, both of which occur in the 6d theory, are electric–magnetic duals of one another. When one is regarded as fundamental, the other must be viewed as a soliton. This observation is the key to understanding their 10d origins. In the 10d IIA theory the magnetic dual of the IIA string is the 5-brane. Thus, the heterotic string in 6d arises from wrapping a 5-brane of topology $K3 \times S^1$ on the spatial $K3$, leaving a string $(S^1)$ in 6d.[@duff95c; @harvey95a; @townsend95d] The corresponding BPS soliton of the 6d supergravity field equations has been constructed explicitly.[@sen95a; @harvey95a] The converse story, which must surely be true too, is less well established. It requires that the IIA string in 6d should arise from wrapping a 5-brane of the 10d heterotic theory on the spatial $T^4$.
We have now found two entirely different constructions of heterotic strings as M theory solitons. The first one (discussed in Section 2.9) arises from wrapping the M theory 2-brane on $S^1/\ZZ_2 = I$. The second one, which we have just found, entails wrapping the M theory 5-brane on $K3$. Later, we will discuss a class of vacua in which both kinds of heterotic strings can occur at the same time.
In the heterotic picture, perturbative reasoning shows that there is enhanced gauge symmetry at singular points of the moduli space ${\cal M}_{4,20}$. It is interesting to ask where the additional massless states come from in the dual description. The mechanism, which is non-perturbative, is that the singular points of the moduli space correspond to limits in which a two-cycle on the $K3$ shrinks to a point.[@witten95a; @aspinwall95b] Type IIA 2-branes wrapped on the two-cycle give 0-branes in 6d whose mass is proportional to the area of the two cycle. There is an ADE classification of the two-cycles on $K3$ that can vanish, which has just the properties required to account for the symmetry enhancement that is obtained in the dual heterotic description.
We have explained that a type IIA vacuum in 6d should have a duality group $SO(4,n;\ZZ)$ and a moduli space ${\cal M}_{4,n} \times \RR$, and then we presented a pair of dual constructions for the special case $n = 20$. It is natural to ask whether other values of $n$ are also possible. Constructions that give other values of $n$ are conveniently described from the M theory viewpoint. The $n = 20$ result, itself, can be viewed as arising from M theory compactified on $K3 \times S^1$, since type IIA theory is M theory compactified on $S^1$. To generalize this, the idea is to replace the compact space by $(K3 \times S^1)/\ZZ_h$. For this to work, one needs to restrict to a class of $K3$’s having a $\ZZ_h$ discrete symmetry, and then to combine the action of the generator of this group with a rotation by $2\pi/h$ on the circle. This ensures that there are no fixed points, so that a smooth manifold results. The $h=2$ case was analyzed in ref. [@schwarz95d]. The possible discrete symmetries of $K3$’s have been classified by the mathematician Nikulin.[@nikulin80] Chaudhuri and Lowe have applied his results to the problem at hand to conclude that the complete set of possibilities is given by [@chaudhuri95a] $$\begin{array}{rl}
h = 2 & \rightarrow n = 12\nonumber \\
h = 3 & \rightarrow n = 8\nonumber \\
h = 4 & \rightarrow n = 6\nonumber \\
h = 5,6 & \rightarrow n = 4\nonumber \\
h = 7,8 & \rightarrow n = 2\nonumber .
\end{array}$$ Thus, there are consistent string vacua for these values of $n$. The $h = 5$ and $6$ constructions give the same massless spectrum and moduli space, but it is not known whether they are completely identical. (The same remark applies to $h = 7,8.$) It is also not known whether other $n$ values could be obtained by other constructions that have not yet been considered.
In the special case of $h = 2$ a dual construction is known.[@chaudhuri95b] One starts with the $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string compactified on $T^4$, and mods out by a $\ZZ_2$ that interchanges the two $E_8$’s. Clearly, this reduces the rank by 8 (reducing $n$ from 20 to 12).
Vacua with $(2,0)$ Supersymmetry
--------------------------------
Type IIB supersymmetry in 6d admits two massless supermultiplets. The gravity supermultiplet particle content is $$(3,3) + 4(2,3) + 5(1,3)$$ and the tensor supermultiplet particle content is $$(3,1) + 4(2,1) + 5(1,1).$$ A superstring vacuum with IIB supersymmetry in 6d can be obtained by compactifying the type IIB superstring on $K3$. The resulting massless bosons in 6d are as follows: $$\begin{array}{rl}
g_{\mu\nu} & \rightarrow \ (3,3) + 58(1,1)\nonumber \\
\phi, \chi & \rightarrow \ 2(1,1)\nonumber \\
B_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}, B_{\mu\nu}^{(2)} & \rightarrow \ 2(3,1) + 2(1,3) +
44(1,1)\nonumber \\
A_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda}^+ & \rightarrow \ 3(1,3) + 19(3,1) + (1,1).
\end{array}$$ This shows that the massless content is given by the gravity multiplet plus 21 tensor multiplets.
Since the particle content is chiral, there are potential gravitational anomalies. In six dimensions these are characterized by eight-forms. Up to a common overall normalization, the contributions of each of the chiral fields is as follows: $$\begin{array}{rl}
2(2,3): &{49\over 72} \tr R^4 - {43\over 288} (\tr R^2)^2\nonumber \\
\nonumber\\
2(1,2): &{1\over 360} \tr R^4 + {1\over 288} (\tr R^2)^2\nonumber \\
\nonumber\\
(1,3): &{7\over 90} \tr R^4 - {1\over 36} (\tr R^2)^2.
\end{array}$$ Combining these with weights corresponding to one gravity multiplet and $n_T$ tensor multiplets, one finds that the sum vanishes provided that $n_T = 21$. Thus, $n_T = 21$, the result we found by $K3$ compactification of the IIB superstring, is the only value that can give a consistent anomaly-free theory.[@townsend84b]
The vacua with $n_T = 21$ have the duality group $SO(5,21;\ZZ)$ and the moduli space ${\cal M}_{5,21}$ parametrized by the 105 scalars in the tensor multiplets. Note that there are no scalars in the gravity supermultiplet, so that this is the complete moduli space. This also means that the dilaton must be one of these 105 scalar fields. Compactifying further on a circle to 5d gives one more scalar field corresponding to the radius of the circle. There are no other new scalars, since the 6d theory has no vector fields. Then the moduli space becomes ${\cal M}_{5,21} \times \RR$. This 5d model has the same supersymmetry, massless fields, and moduli space as the heterotic string compactified to 5d, so it is natural to conjecture that they are dual. In fact, this is a consequence of two dualities that we have already discussed: Type IIA on $K3 \sim$ heterotic on $T^4$ and IIA on $S^1 \sim$ IIB on $S^1$. In the heterotic picture, the scalar field that corresponds to the $\RR$ factor in the moduli space is the dilaton. Thus, we have a $U$ duality: the heterotic string compactified on $T^5$ at strong coupling corresponds to the type IIB string on $K3 \times S^1$ at large radius of the $S^1$. In particular, the strong-coupling limit of the 5d heterotic string is six dimensional. This is analogous, of course, to the fact that the strong-coupling limit of the 10d type IIA string or $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string is eleven dimensional.
The 6d theory with IIB supersymmetry and 21 tensor supermultiplets has another dual description given by M theory compactified on the orbifold $T^5/\ZZ_2$.[@dasgupta95; @witten95d] The $\ZZ_2$ acts on each of the five circles of the torus, which introduces 32 orbifold points. Including the other six space-time dimensions, they are 32 orbifold planes. In units where an M theory 5-brane carries one unit of magnetic charge, it turns out that each of these orbifold planes carries $- 1/2$ unit of magnetic charge. The charge cannot be cancelled locally, but it can be cancelled globally by introducing 16 5-branes. This is necessary, since the total charge on a compact space must vanish. One can then account for the massless field content as follows: Compactification of 11d supergravity on $T^5/\ZZ_2$ gives an untwisted sector consisting of the gravity multiplet and five tensor multiplets. Each of the 5-branes introduces an additional tensor multiplet, so that altogether there are 21 of them, as required. The 5-branes can be represented as points on the $T^5/\ZZ_2$, and their coordinates are controlled by the five scalar fields in the tensor multiplet associated to the 5-brane. The 25 scalar fields belonging to the other five tensor multiplets arise from zero modes of the 11d metric and three-form on $T^5$.
The 6d theory contains, among other things, self-dual solitonic strings whose tension can become arbitrarily small in suitable limits. In terms of the IIB superstring compactified on $K3$, their appearance can be traced to singular limits in which a two-cycle on the $K3$ shrinks to a point.[@witten95e] The reason for this is that the self-dual 3-brane can wrap around the cycle, leaving a string in the 6d space-time whose tension is proportional to the area of the two-cycle. In the IIA case, the corresponding mechanism gave 0-branes with an ADE classification. Here it gives non-critical strings with an ADE classification. The existence of strings whose tension can become small, so that they effectively decouple from gravity, is an interesting phenomenon. It would be very desirable to have a better understanding of their properties, because they seem to encode in a deep way the essential features of $N = 4$ gauge theory. The point is that, compactifying further to 4d on $T^2$, windings of the string around the two cycles of the torus give electric and magnetic charge in 4d.[@verlinde95] The $SL(2,\ZZ)$ duality of $N=4$ gauge theory derives from that of the torus (again!). The appearance of non-critical strings can also be understood in terms of the description in terms of M theory compactified on $T^5/\ZZ_2$.[@witten95d] In this case, there are 16 “parallel” 5-branes, represented by points on the compact space. Since an M theory 2-brane can be suspended between parallel 5-branes, when a pair of 5-branes approach one another this 2-brane is approximated by a string whose tension is proportional to the separation of the 5-branes.
6D $\!$STRING $\!$VACUA WITH ${\bf N=1}$ SUPERSYMMETRY
======================================================
The preceding section described various possibilities for superstring vacua with extended supersymmetry in 6d. The supersymmetry was very constraining, so the classification presented was reasonably complete. In the case of $N = 1$ supersymmetry in 6d the story becomes much more complex. Each time the number of supersymmetries or the number of uncompactified dimensions is decreased, new issues arise. While our ultimate goal is to understand vacua with $N = 1$ or $N=0$ in 4d, I am most comfortable proceeding in steps, absorbing the lessons at one stage before moving on to the next one. The cutting edge, where the understanding is increasing most rapidly at the present time, is for vacua with $N = 1$ in 6d or with $N = 2$ supersymmetry in 4d. I will only discuss the former, and even this will not be complete. Many, but not all, 4d vacua with $N = 2$ can be obtained from these by a subsequent $T^2$ compactification.
$N = 1$ supersymmetry in 6d admits four kinds of massless supermultiplets: $$\begin{array}{rl}
{\rm gravity}: & (3,3) + 2(2,3) + (1,3)\nonumber \\
{\rm tensor}: & (3,1) + 2(2,1) + (1,1) \nonumber \\
{\rm vector}: & (2,2) + 2(1,2) \nonumber \\
{\rm hyper}: & 2(2,1) + 4(1,1).
\end{array}$$ In general, a 6d $N = 1$ string vacuum will give one gravity multiplet, $n_T$ tensor multiplets, $n_V$ vector multiplets, and $n_H$ hyper multiplets. Since all models of this kind are chiral, anomaly cancellation always provides non-trivial constraints.[@green84; @green85] For example, cancellation of the $\tr R^4$ term in the anomaly eight-form gives the requirement $$n_H + 29n_T = n_V + 273. \label{fivea}$$
In this section we will discuss $N = 1$ models constructed in a number of different ways. One approach is compactification of the $SO(32)$ theory on a smooth $K3$. Such models can have non-perturbative symmetry enhancement when 5-branes are included. A second approach is $K3$ compactification of the $E_8
\times E_8$ theory. Non-perturbatively, this can be regarded as M theory compactified on $K3 \times S^1 /\ZZ_2$. In this case there is freedom associated with dividing the instanton number between the two $E_8$’s as well as the possibility of including 5-branes. A third approach that we will mention, which turns out to be dual to one of the $E_8 \times E_8$ compactifications, is based on $T^4/\ZZ_2$ orbifold compactification of the $SO(32)$ theory.
General Considerations
----------------------
For the most part we will consider models with $n_T = 1$, in which case eq. (\[fivea\]) simplifies to $n_H = n_V + 244$. When $n_T = 1$ it is possible to give a manifestly covariant effective action for the massless modes. The point is that the two-form with self-dual field strength in the gravity multiplet and the two form with anti-self-dual field strength in the tensor multiplet can be combined and represented by a two-form with an unconstrained field strength. Another advantage of $n_T = 1$ is that anomaly cancellation can be achieved by straightforward analogs of the techniques introduced for 10d models in Ref. [@green84]. (Otherwise, a generalization given in Ref. [@sagnotti92] is required.) In the $n_T = 1$ case, with a semi-simple gauge group $G = \prod G_\alpha$, anomaly cancellation is possible if the anomaly eight-form factorizes into a product of two four-forms. This means that $I_8 \sim X_{4} \wedge \tilde{X}_4$, where $$X_4 = \tr R^2 - \sum_\alpha v_\alpha \tr F_\alpha^2$$ $$\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 - \sum_\alpha \tilde{v}_\alpha \tr F_\alpha^2.$$ Here $F_\alpha$ is the Yang–Mills two-form associated to the group $G_\alpha$, given by matrices in a convenient (fundamental, for instance) representation of the Lie algebra. The $v_\alpha, \tilde{v}_\alpha$ are numerical constants.
Anomaly cancellation is achieved by assigning non-trivial Yang–Mills and local Lorentz gauge transformation assignments to the two-form $B_{\mu\nu}$, choosing its field strength to be gauge invariant ($H = dB +$ Chern–Simons terms), and adding a suitable counterterm of the form $\int B \wedge \tilde{X}_4$ to the effective action. Taking the exterior derivative of the field strength $H$ gives the Bianchi identity $dH \sim \tr R^2 - \sum v_\alpha \tr F_\alpha^2$. Under the $S$-duality transformation $$\phi \rightarrow - \phi, \quad H \rightarrow e^{-2\phi} * H,$$ the Bianchi identity is intercharged with the one-loop corrected field equations $$d (e^{-2\phi} * H) \sim \tr R^2 - \sum \tilde{v}_\alpha \tr F_\alpha^2.$$
When there are also $U(1)$ factors in the gauge group, there can be additional terms in the anomaly eight-form of the structure $F \wedge Y_6$, where $F$ is the $U(1)$ field-strength two-form and $Y_6$ is a six-form. When such terms appear, anomaly cancellation can still be achieved provided there is a suitable scalar field $\chi$ that transforms under the $U(1)$ gauge transformation $(\chi \rightarrow \chi + \Lambda)$. In this case its gauge-invariant field strength has the structure $d\chi - A$. This results in the $U(1)$ gauge field eating the scalar $\chi$ to become massive. Then there is no longer an unbroken $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, but at least the theory is consistent. There is an analogous mechanism in 4d, which has been known for a long time.[@witten84] However, in 4d a scalar is dual to a 2-form, so that this is just a dual description of the same mechanism as in 10d. In 6d that is not the case.
The constants $v_\alpha$ in the form-form $X_4$ have a simple interpretation, pointed out in Ref. [@duff96], provided the group $\prod G_\alpha$ can be realized by a perturbative heterotic string construction. In this case the factor $G_\alpha$ is realized in the world-sheet theory as an affine Kac–Moody Lie algebra. For a level $n_\alpha$ representation $v_\alpha$ is given by $$v_\alpha \tr F_\alpha^2 = {n_\alpha\over h_\alpha} \Tr F_\alpha^2.$$ We use the symbol ‘tr’ for traces in the fundamental representation and ‘Tr’ for traces in the adjoint representation. Here, $h_\alpha$ is the dual Coxeter number of the group $G_\alpha$. In practice, the only cases we will encounter are at level one $(n_\alpha = 1)$. In this case one can show that $v = 2$ for an $SU(n)$ or $Sp(n)$ group, $v = 1$ for an $SO(n)$ group, $v = 1/3$ for $E_6$, $v = 1/6$ for $E_7$, and $v = 1/30$ for $E_8$.
We will mostly be interested here in $K3$ compactifications. In this case, integrating the four-form Bianchi identity over the $K3$ manifold gives a consistency condition for the compactification. Specifically, in the $SO(32)$ case, one obtains the condition $$n_1 + n_5 = 24.$$ Here, 24 arises is the Euler number of the $K3$ manifold and $n_1$ is the number of instantons embedded in the $SO(32)$ gauge group, (, the second Chern class of the gauge bundle). The integer $n_5$ is the number of 5-branes in the solution. These 5-branes correspond to delta-function sources in $dH$ at isolated points on the $K3$, filling the 6d space-time. Their appearance is a non-perturbative phenomenon. In the case of $E_8 \times E_8$ models compactified on $K3$, the integrated Bianchi identity gives a very similar consistency condition $$n_1 + n_2 + n_5 = 24.$$ Here $n_1$ and $n_2$ denote the number of instantons embedded in each of the two $E_8$ factors, and $n_5$ is again the number of (non-perturbative) 5-branes. The study of branes in Section 2 showed that 5-branes of M theory (or $E_8 \times E_8$ theory) and 5-branes of $SO(32)$ theory are quite different. This will be reflected here by the fact that inclusion of 5-branes has very different implications for the 6d vacua in the two cases.
K3 Compactification of the SO(32) Theory
----------------------------------------
The $SO(32)$ theory can be viewed either as a heterotic string theory or a type I string theory since the two descriptions are $S$ dual. To make contact with the interpretation of the constants $v_\alpha$ in the preceding subsection, the heterotic interpretation is appropriate. Let us begin with perturbative vacua with $n_1 = 24$ and $n_5 = 0$, which were understood a long time ago.[@green85]
To describe the instantons in the $SO(32)$ gauge group, one must select an $SU(2)$ subgroup in which to embed them. One choice (but not the only possible one, as we will see later) is to consider the decomposition $SO(32) \supset SO (28) \times SU(2) \times SU(2)$ and embed the instantons in one of the two $SU(2)$’s. This leaves an unbroken $SO(28) \times SU(2)$ gauge symmetry. Using appropriate index theorems, one can compute the number of hypermultiplet zero modes belonging to each representation of this group. Such an analysis gives the hypermultiplet content $10({\bf 28,2}) + 65({\bf 1,1})$. Note that altogether there are ${1\over 2} 28 \cdot27 + 3 = 381$ vector multiplets and $560 +
65=625$ hyper multiplets, which satisfies the condition $n_H = n_V + 244$. The contribution of each of these fields to the anomaly polynomial can be computed using formulas in Refs. [@green85; @erler94; @schwarz95c]. One finds $$X_4 = \tr R^2 - \tr F_1^2 - 2 \tr F_2^2$$ $$\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 + 2 \tr F_1^2 - 44 \tr F_2^2.$$ Note that $v_1 = 1$ for the $SO(28)$ factor and $v_2 = 2$ for the $SU(2)$ factor, as expected for level-one representations. The potential of scalar fields has many flat directions. At special values one can get symmetry enhancement, the maximal case being $SO(28) \times [SU(2)]^6$. However, the generic situation is for symmetry breaking (“Higgsing”) to occur. The gauge symmetry can be broken to $SO(8)$ but not further.
Let us now go beyond perturbation theory and include 5-branes in the vacuum configuration. This problem was studied first by Witten, who identified the 5-branes as instantons that have shrunk to zero size, what he called “small instantons.”[@witten95c] From the type I viewpoint the $SO(32)$ 5-branes (as well as the heterotic strings) are $D$-branes. In a type II theory a single $D$-brane carries a $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, and when $n$ of them coincide the group is enhanced to $U(n)$. However, the projections that give a type I theory modify these rules. For example, the 32 coincident 9-branes that fill the space-time are responsible for the $SO(32)$ gauge symmetry from the type I viewpoint. Dynamical 5-branes in the type I theory correspond to a group of four stuck together from the type II viewpoint. (This is the minimal unit, as long as the compactification manifold is smooth.) It turns out that such a dynamical 5-brane carries a $Sp(1) = SU(2)$ gauge group, and that when $n$ of them coincide the symmetry is enhanced to $Sp(n)$.[@witten95c] The number $n_5$ in the condition $n_1 + n_5 = 24$ refers to the number of dynamical 5-branes, and so the maximum number allowed is 24.
The example with the largest gauge group is achieved by taking $n_1 = 0$ and $n_5 = 24$ and then taking the 24 5-branes to coincide. This means that they are all at the same point on the $K3$ manifold. In this case the unbroken gauge symmetry in 6d is $G = SO(32) \times Sp (24)$. This group has rank 40, which is the world record for 6d models, as far as I know. The massless spectrum of this theory contains vector multiplets belonging to $SO(32) \times
Sp(24)$. From the type I viewpoint, the $SO(32)$ vector multiplets arise as zero modes of 99 open strings, , open strings connecting 9-branes to 9-branes. Similarly, the $Sp(24)$ vector multiplets arise from 55 open strings, strings connecting 5-branes to 5-branes. The massless hyper multiplets turn out to be as follows: 55 strings give an $Sp(24)$ antisymmetric tensor $({\bf 1,1127}) + ({\bf 1,1})$; 59 strings give ${1\over 2} ({\bf 32,48})$; the $K3$ moduli give $20({\bf 1,1})$. The factor of $1/2$ appears because it is possible to have “half hyper multiplets” when they belong to a pseudoreal representation of a symmetry group. (Fundamental representations of symplectic groups are pseudoreal.) Altogether there are 1672 vector multiplets and 1916 hypermultiplets, which again satisfies the condition $n_H = n_V + 244$.
The factorized anomaly polynomial of the $SO(32) \times Sp(24)$ model has [@schwarz95c] $$X_4 = \tr R^2 - \tr F_1^2$$ $$\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 + 2 \tr F_1^2 - 2 \tr F_2^2.$$ The point to be noted is that the $SO(32)$ group has a perturbative heterotic string interpretation, and it appears in $X_4$ with $v_1 = 1$, as expected. The $Sp (24)$ group, on the other hand, is non-perturbative from the heterotic string viewpoint, and it does not appear in $X_4$.
The “small instanton” model described above can be generalized in two ways. One is to consider $n_5 < 24$ and to embed $n_1 = 24-n_5$ units of instanton number in the $SO(32)$ group. In this case the maximal non-perturbative gauge group is $Sp(n_5)$. The second generalization is to allow the $n_5$ 5-branes to come apart into groups of $\{n_{5i}\}$ with $\sum n_{5i} =
n_5$. Then the non-perturbative gauge group is $\prod Sp(n_{5i})$.
We have discussed the significance of the $v_\alpha$’s in $X_4$, but not the $\tilde{v}_\alpha$’s in $\tilde{X}_4$. Sagnotti has shown that supersymmetry considerations imply that the kinetic terms of the gauge fields have the form [@sagnotti92] $$\sum_\alpha (v_\alpha e^{-\phi} + \tilde{v}_\alpha e^\phi) \tr (F_\alpha \cdot
F_\alpha),$$ where $\phi$ is the heterotic dilaton. At weak coupling $(\phi \rightarrow -
\infty)$ the perturbative $v_\alpha$ term dominates. However, as the coupling is increased the second term becomes important. In particular, if it happens that $\tilde{v}_\alpha < 0$, then there is a singularity (divergent coupling constant) at $\phi = \phi_0$, where $$e^{2\phi_{0}} = - v_\alpha/\tilde{v}_\alpha.$$ Duff and collaborators have argued that this singularity is associated with the vanishing of a string tension.[@duff96b] Specifically, they argue that there are solitonic dyonic strings in 6d whose electric and magnetic charges $(p,q)$ are proportional to $(v_\alpha, \tilde{v}_\alpha)$ and whose tension is given by $T_{(p,q)} = pe^{-\phi} + qe^\phi$. Thus, the tension of such a string vanishes at the singularity. In the examples that have been discussed so far the $SO(n)$ group has $v_1 = 1$ and $\tilde{v}_1 = - 2$, and, therefore, its coupling constant diverges for $e^{2\phi_{0}} = 1/2 = - p/q$. Thus, a $(1,
-2)$ string becomes tensionless. These theories are well-defined for weak coupling $(e^{\phi_{0}} \ll 1)$ and should continue smoothly up to the singularity at $e^{2\phi_{0}} = 1/2$. At that point one expects a phase transition to take place. Beyond that point, our formulas are no longer applicable. Later, we will speculate about what happens at the phase transition.
K3 Compactification of the ${\bf E_8 \times E_8}$ Theory
--------------------------------------------------------
Perturbative vacua of the $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string compactified on $K3$ have $n_5 = 0$ (no 5-branes) and $n_1 + n_2 = 24$. Let us begin by considering the special case $n_1 = 24$, $n_2 = 0$, which corresponds to embedding all 24 units of instanton number into one of the two $E_8$ factors. A maximal subgroup of $E_8$ is $E_7 \times SU(2)$. So if we embed the instantons in this $SU(2)$, this leaves an unbroken $E_8 \times E_7$ gauge symmetry. In this case application of index theorems give massless hypermultiplets transforming as $10({\bf 1,56}) + 65 ({\bf 1,1})$. Just as in the $SO(28)
\times SU(2)$ model of the preceding subsection, there are 381 vector multiplets and 625 hypermultiplets. The factorized anomaly eight-form has $$X_4 = \tr R^2 - {1\over 30} \tr F_1^2 - {1\over 6} \tr F_2^2$$ $$\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 + {1\over 5} \tr F_1^2 - \tr F_2^2.$$ Note that $v_1 = 1/30$ and $v_2 = 1/6$ are the values expected for $E_8$ and $E_7$, respectively. By giving vevs to scalars corresponding to flat directions one can find enhanced gauge symmetry as large as $E_8 \times E_7 \times
[SU(2)]^5$, or symmetry breaking giving a complete Higgsing of the $E_7$ leaving only an unbroken $E_8$. Note that the $E_8$ kinetic term becomes singular for $\phi \rightarrow \phi_0$, where $e^{2\phi_{0}} = 1/6$. At this point a $(1,-6)$ string becomes tensionless.
The second possibility for perturbative vacua of the $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string theory on $K3$ is to embed some instantons in each of the $E_8$’s. It is not possible to have $n = 1,2,3$, so the possibilities are $$n_1 \geq n_2 = 24 - n_1 \geq 4.$$ Embedding all instantons in $SU(2)$ subgroups can leave an unbroken $E_7 \times
E_7$. The hypermultiplets in this case are ${1 \over 2}(n_1 - 4 )({\bf 56,1})
+ {1 \over 2} (n_2 - 4)({\bf 1,56}) + 62 ({\bf 1,1})$. Half integer coefficients are allowed, because the [**56**]{} is a pseudoreal representation of $E_7$. The factorized anomaly polynomial is now $$X_4 = \tr R^2 - {1\over 6} \tr F_1^2 - {1\over 6} \tr F_2^2$$ $$\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 + \left(1 - {n_1\over 12}\right) \tr F_1^2 + \left(1 -
{n_2\over 12}\right) \tr F_2^2. \label{fiveb}$$
It is interesting to ask whether any of these models could be a dual description of the perturbative $SO(32)$ string compactification. Certainly the groups we have found in the two cases are different. However, in the case of the $SO(32)$ model it was possible to Higgs to an $SO(8)$ subgroup leaving $X_4 = \tr R^2 - \tr F^2$ and $\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 + 2 \tr F^2$, where $F$ refers to the $SO(8)$. In the case of the $E_7 \times E_7$ models under consideration here, it is possible to completely Higgs one $E_7$ and to Higgs the other to $SO(8)$. Then, using the rule $\tr_{E_{7}} F^2 \rightarrow 6 \tr_{SO(8)} F^2$, we are left with $X_4 = \tr R^2 - \tr F^2$ and $\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 + \left( 6 -
{1\over 2}n_2\right) \tr F^2$. Thus, the two $SO(8)$ models have the same anomaly polynomials (and the same massless field content) for $n_1 = 16$, $n_2 =
8$. Thus, it is plausible (and supported by other studies) that perturbative $SO(32)$ compactifications and perturbative $(16,8)$ $E_8 \times E_8$ compactifications on $K3$ give the same moduli space of models. Of course, the portion of the moduli space that is visible in each approach is different. To find $SO(28)$ from the $E_8 \times E_8$ approach or $E_7 \times E_7$ from the $SO(32)$ approach would require discovering the appropriate unHiggsing.
Now, let us move beyond perturbation theory and consider $E_8 \times E_8$ models with 5-branes. The 5-branes of $E_8 \times E_8$ are the 5-branes of M theory, which we saw carry a $ (2,0)$ tensor multiplet. But the compactification on $K3$ cuts the supersymmetry in half leaving $N = 1$. The $(2,0)$ tensor multiplet decomposes into a $N = 1$ tensor multiplet plus a $N = 1$ hypermultiplet. This is to be contrasted with the $SO(32)$ 5-branes, which carry a $ (1,1)$ vector multiplet (that decomposes into a $N = 1$ vector multiplet and a $N = 1$ hypermultiplet). So $SO(32)$ 5-branes carry vector multiplets, and that is why we found that they give rise to additional (non-perturbative) gauge symmetry. The $E_8 \times E_8$ 5-branes, on the other hand, do not have vector multiplets and they do not give additional gauge symmetry. Rather, each $E_8 \times E_8$ 5-brane adds a tensor multiplet (and a hypermultiplet). Thus, by including them, we obtain models with $n_T = n_5 + 1$ tensor multiplets. When $SO(32)$ 5-branes coincided, we found that the 55 strings connecting them gave massless gauge bosons resulting in enhanced gauge symmetry. When $E_8 \times E_8$ 5-branes coincide, the 2-branes connecting them give tensionless strings.[@ganor96; @seiberg96a]
Let’s begin with the extreme case $n_5 = 24$, $n_1 = n_2 = 0$.[@seiberg96a] Since there are no instantons to embed, the $E_8 \times E_8$ gauge symmetry is unbroken (so that $n_V
= 496$). The number of tensor multiplets is $n_T = 25$. The 24 5-branes each give a hypermultiplet, and there are also 20 of them associated to the $K3$ moduli, so $n_H = 44$. Note that these numbers satisfy the anomaly condition $n_H + 29 n_T = n_V + 273$.
The $E_8 \times E_8$ theory – viewed as M theory with two boundaries – has no anomalies in the bulk (where it is non-chiral), only on the boundaries.[@horava95] The anomaly cancellation condition, therefore, requires that the anomaly form be expressible as a sum of two factorized pieces, one associated to each boundary. This structure, which persists after $K3$ compactification, was analyzed by Seiberg and Witten.[@seiberg96a] They found, in general, that for $n_1 + n_2 \leq 24$ and $n_5 = 24 - n_1 - n_2$ the anomaly polynomial can be written in the form $$\left({1\over 2} \tr R^2 - A_1\right) \left({n_1 -8\over 4} \tr R^2 - {n_1 -
12\over 2} A_1\right)$$ $$+ \!\left({1\over 2} \tr R^2 - \!A_2\right) \!\!\left(\!{n_2 -8\over 4} \tr R^2 -
{n_2 -12\over 2} A_2\!\right)\!\!,$$ where $$A_i = \sum_\alpha v_{\alpha i} \tr F_{\alpha i}^2.$$ Here $(n_1, A_1)$ and $(n_2, A_2)$ are associated to the two boundaries. Remarkably, when $n_1 + n_2 = 24$, so that $n_T = 1$, this can be recast as a single factorized expression.
One would like to have a global view of the moduli space of $N = 1$ vacua in 6d. On the face of it, it would seem that there should (at least) be a separate component for each possible number of tensor multiplets $n_T \leq 25$. The reason is that a tensor multiplet contains a tensor field $B_{\mu\nu}^-$ with an anti-self-dual field strength, and the only way such a field can acquire mass is by joining up with another tensor field $B_{\mu\nu}^+$, whose field strength is self-dual. However, the only massless $B_{\mu\nu}^+$ belongs to the gravity supermultiplet, and it must stay put if the supersymmetry doesn’t change. This simple argument can be evaded, but this requires something remarkable to happen.
In the M theory picture of the $E_8 \times E_8$ theory, we have argued that extra tensor multiplets correspond to 5-branes in the bulk. One could imagine the number of 5-branes changing by emission or absorption by an end-of-the-world 9-brane.[@seiberg96a] Inside the 9-brane it can presumably turn into an instanton. To see the transition, one should consider a 5-brane in the bulk very close to one of the 9-branes. In this case a 2-brane which can be suspended between them, is approximated by a string whose tension vanishes as the 5-brane approaches the 9-brane. So once again the proposed phase transition is associated with the appearance of a string of vanishing tension.[@witten96a] This is just what one needs to evade the argument in the preceding paragraph. When a string goes to zero tension, all its modes go to zero mass, and this undoubtedly includes an infinite number of massive $B_{\mu\nu}$ fields. This makes it possible for the $B_{\mu\nu}^-$ of the tensor multiplet to pair up with a $B_{\mu\nu}^+$. The idea is that $B_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}$ breaks up into $B_{\mu\nu}^{(n)+}$ and $B_{\mu\nu}^{(n)-}$, but then, on the other side of the transition, $B_{\mu\nu}^{(n)-}$ joins up with $B_{\mu\nu}^{(n+1)+}$ to become massive again, leaving $B_{\mu\nu}^{(1)+}$ available to pair with $B_{\mu\nu}^-$ from the tensor multiplet. In view of the physical picture of the transition in terms of 5-brane emmission and absorption from 9-branes it seems likely that this actually happens and so there might be a single connected moduli space of $N = 1$ vacua in 6d. Altogether, as required by eq. (\[fivea\]), the massless tensor multiplet is replaced by 29 massless hypermultiplets.
Models Without Phase Transitions
--------------------------------
We have seen that there are singularities, associated with the appearance of tensionless strings, at specific value of the dilaton whenever one of the $\tilde{v}_\alpha$ parameters is negative. Indeed this phenomenon occurs in almost all the models we have considered. However, referring to eq. (\[fiveb\]), there are no negative $\tilde{v}_\alpha$’s for the special case $n_1 = n_2 = 12$. Thus the $(12,12)$ models, in which the instantons are embedded symmetrically into the two $E_8$ factors could have smooth continuations from weak coupling to strong coupling.[@duff96] Specifically, this $E_7 \times E_7$ model lies on one branch of an interesting moduli space of models. These models, in general, have a gauge group of the form $G = G_F \times G_D$, where $G_F$ is realized perturbatively by “fundamental” heterotic strings and $G_D$ is realized non-perturbatively by “dual” heterotic strings. The specific example we have here is a somewhat degenerate case, since it has $G_F = E_7 \times E_7, ~{\rm and}~ G_D = 0$.
Where do these two kinds of heterotic strings come from? Non-perturbatively, the vacua we are considering correspond to M theory compactified on $K3 \times
S^1 /\ZZ_2$. Recall that we found two different ways to make heterotic strings in M theory: 1) as a 2-brane suspended between end-of-the-world 9-branes, or (equivalently) as a 2-brane wrapped on $S^1 /\ZZ_2$; 2) as a 5-brane (of topology $K3 \times S^1$) wrapped on $K3$. The claim is that the first construction gives the “fundamental” heterotic string with its associated gauge group $G_F$, and the second one gives the “dual” heterotic string with its associated gauge group $G_D$.
In this class of $(12,12)$ models there is an $S$ duality that interchanges the role of the two strings. This is reflected in the structure of the factorized anomaly polynomial, which has $$X_4 = \tr R^2 - \sum_\alpha v_\alpha \tr F_\alpha^2$$ $$\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 - \sum_i v_i \tr F_i^2,$$ where $G_F = \prod G_\alpha$ and $G_D = \prod G_i$. We will refer to these models as DMW models, since they were introduced by Duff, Minasian, and Witten.[@duff96] The parameters $v_\alpha$ and $v_i$ take the perturbative values (listed earlier) for $G_\alpha$ and $G_i$, respectively. Thus the $G_F$ field strengths do not appear in $\tilde{X}_4$ and the $G_D$ field strengths do not appear in $X_4$. The $S$ duality transformation $\phi \rightarrow - \phi, H \rightarrow e^{-2\phi}
* H$ interchanges the Bianchi identity and the field equation for $H$. This means that it interchanges $X_4$ and $\tilde{X}_4$, and hence $G_F$ and $G_D$. Thus in one picture $G_F$ is realized perturbatively and $G_D$ is realized non-perturbatively, while after the $S$ duality transformation the situation is reversed. In this case the duality is called “heterotic string – heterotic string duality.”[@aldazabal96] This duality is to be contrasted with the “type IIA string – heterotic string duality” discussed earlier.
By a remarkable coincidence, a dual type I construction of the same class of models was discovered independently by Gimon and Polchinski,[@gimon96] and posted to the hep-th archives on the same day as the Duff, Minasian, Witten paper. (For earlier related work see ref. [@pradisi].) The GP construction considers type I superstrings compactified on the orbifold $T^4/\ZZ_2$. This orbifold, which is a singular limit of a $K3$, has 16 fixed points. To make a consistent model, it is necessary to arrange for the cancellation of certain tadpoles introduced by the orientifold projection used to define the type I theory. This requires the introduction of 32 Dirichlet 9-branes and 32 Dirichlet 5-branes. The 9-branes would give an $SO(32)$ gauge group in 10d, but after the compactification on $T^4/\ZZ_2$ to 6d it turns out that “99 open strings” can give at most a $U(16)$ gauge group. This can be Higgsed to various subgroups. We will refer to the gauge group arising in this way as $G_9$. The 32 5-branes are required to clump in groups of four (as in subsection 2), so they give eight dynamical 5-branes.
Recall the $SO(32)$ condition $n_1 + n_5 = 24$. This is satisfied in the GP model by $n_5 = 8$. The reason that the model has $n_1 = 16$ is that each of the orbifold points contains a “hidden” instanton, as can be demonstrated by blowing up the singularity.[@berkooz96] However, this blow-up does not give the $n_1 = 16$, $n_5 = 8$ model described in subsection 2. The reason for this is that the instantons are embedded in the $SO(32)$ group differently than they were in the examples discussed previously. The relevant embedding uses the maximal subgroup $SO(4n)
\supset Sp (n) \times SU(2)$ for the case $n = 8$. This accounts for the fact that an $Sp(8)$ gauge group can be obtained when the 5-branes coincide away from the orbifold points. At an orbifold point it is possible to have one-half of a dynamical 5-brane (which is two Dirichlet 5-branes). This means that there are $2^{15}$ topological sectors according to which of the orbifold points have a half-integral number of 5-branes attached. In fact, a $T$ duality transformation (on the $T^4/\ZZ_2$) interchanges the 5-branes and 9-branes, so there are also $2^{15}$ topological sectors for the 9-branes, giving $2^{30}$ altogether.
It turns out that there are new non-perturbative anomalies that rule out most of these topological sectors. The issue, roughly, (see Ref. [@berkooz96] for details) is that these sectors would give states belonging to the wrong spin(32) conjugacy classes. Consistency allows for there to be either 0, 8, or 16 half 5-branes attached to orbifold points and similarly for the 9-branes. Thus, in view of the symmetry between them, there are altogether six topologically distinct sectors.
Let us now consider the gauge groups that can be obtained in the GP construction. As we have seen before, if $n$ dynamical 5-branes coincide at a non-singular point of $T^4/\ZZ_2$, the 55 open strings connecting them give a $Sp(n)$ gauge group. If, on the other hand, $m/2$ dynamical 5-branes coincide at one of the $T^4/\ZZ_2$ orbifold points, the 55 open strings connecting them turn out to give a $U(m)$ gauge group. Thus, altogether, the gauge group arising from 55 open strings is [@gimon96] $$G_5 = \prod_I U(m_I) \cdot \prod_J Sp (n_J)$$ $${1\over 2} \sum m_I + \sum n_J = 8.$$ The largest group possible – $U(16)$ – is realized if all of the 5-branes are at a single orbifold point. This satisfies the non-perturbative criterion given above. The structure of $G_9$, the group given by 99 open strings is exactly the same, as required by $T$ duality. Thus altogether the gauge group of a GP model is $G = G_5 \times G_9 \subseteq U(16) \times U(16)$. The $U(1)$ factors are broken by the mechanism described earlier,[@berkooz96] so actually $G_{max} = SU(16) \times SU(16)$.
There are various massless hyper multiplets in the spectra of 99, 59, and 55 open strings. Aside from $U(1)$ terms of the form $F \wedge Y_6$, they result in an anomaly polynomial $X_{4} \wedge \tilde{X}_4$ with $$X_4 = \tr R^2 - 2 \sum_\alpha \tr F_\alpha^2$$ $$\tilde{X}_4 = \tr R^2 - 2 \sum_i \tr F_i^2,$$ where, now, $G_5 = \prod G_\alpha$ and $G_9 = \prod G_i$. The reason that the coefficients are all $v_\alpha = v_i = 2$ is because the groups are unitary or symplectic groups, for which $v = 2$ is the perturbative value. Note that in the GP construction the entire $G_5 \times G_9$ is realized perturbatively, since both factors are associated with weakly coupled open strings. Moreover, the interchange of the two groups $G_5 \leftrightarrow G_9$ is achieved by a $T$ duality transformation.
Clearly the DMW and GP models are closely related, but what is the exact correspondence? In the DMW picture the two groups are carried by two kinds of heterotic strings, related by an $S$ duality, whereas in the GP picture the two groups are carried by two kinds of open strings, related by a $T$ duality. Recall that in the 10d $SO(32)$ theory the group was also carried by either heterotic or open strings. In that case the heterotic string is a BPS soliton of a type I theory, and the two descriptions are $S$ dual. In the 6d problem being considered now, the story is similar. Both kinds of heterotic strings, F and D, are solitons ($D$-branes, in fact) of the type I description.[@berkooz96] One corresponds to the 10d heterotic string and the other corresponds to the dual 10d 5-brane wrapped on the orbifold. $T$ duality interchanges these two solitons. It is less straightforward to look for the open strings in the heterotic construction since they are not BPS solitons. Altogether, the DMW and GP models are $U$ dual, since the mapping between them turns the $S$ duality of the DMW picture into the $T$ duality of the GP picture. This is an example of “duality of dualities.” These models also have dual descriptions in terms of type IIA theory [@aspinwall96] and F theory,[@morrison96] but since I’ve gone on long enough already, that will have to wait for another occasion.
[99]{} M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, [*Superstring Theory*]{} in 2 vols. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).
E. Cremmer, J. Scherk, and S. Ferrara, Phys. Lett. [**74B**]{} (1978) 61; E. Cremmer and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. [**74B**]{} (1978) 341.
E. Cremmer and B. Julia, Phys. Lett. [**80B**]{} (1978) 48; Nucl. Phys. [**B159**]{} (1979) 141.
A. Salam and E. Sezgin, eds., [*Supergravities in Diverse Dimensions*]{}, reprints in 2 vols., World Scientific (1989).
C. Hull and P. Townsend, “Unity of Superstring Dualities,” Nucl. Phys. [**B438**]{} (1995) 109, hep-th/9410167.
A. Font, L. Ibañez, D. Lüst, and F. Quevedo, Phys. Lett., [**B249**]{} (1990) 35; S.J. Rey, Phys. Rev. [**D43**]{} (1991) 526.
K. Narain, Phys. Lett. [**B169**]{} (1986) 41; K. Narain, H. Sarmadi, and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B279**]{} (1987) 369.
A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. [**B404**]{} (1993) 109, hep-th/9207053; Phys. Lett. [**B303**]{} (1993) 22, hep-th/9209016; Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A8**]{} (1993) 5079, hep-th/9302038; Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A8**]{} (1993) 2023, hep-th/9303057.
J.H. Schwarz, p. 503 in [*String Theory, Quantum Gravity, and the Unification of Fundamental Interactions*]{} (World Scientific, 1993), hep-th/9209125.
J.H. Schwarz and A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. [**B411**]{} (1994) 35, hep-th/9304154; Phys. Lett. [**B312**]{} (1993) 105, hep-th/9305185.
C. Montonen and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. [**B72**]{} (1977) 117; P. Goddard, J. Nuyts, and D. Olive, Nucl. Phys. [**B125**]{} (1977) 1; H. Osborne, Phys. Lett. [**B83**]{} (1979) 321.
A. Giveon, M. Porrati, and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Rept. [**244**]{} (1994) 77, hep-th/9401139.
E. Witten and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. [**78B**]{} (1978) 97; G. Gibbons and C. Hull, Phys. Lett. [**109B**]{} (1982) 190.
A. Sen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A9**]{} (1994) 3707, hep-th/9402002; J.H. Schwarz, “String Theory Symmetries,” hep-th/9503127.
A. Sen, Phys. Lett. [**B329**]{} (1994) 217, hep-th/9402032.
G. Segal and A. Selby, Commun. Math. Phys. [**177**]{} (1996) 775.
M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. [**B377**]{} (1996) 67, hep-th/9505187; “How to Find H-Monopoles in Brane Dynamics,” hep-th/9607082.
K. Landsteiner, E. López, and D.A. Lowe, “Evidence for S-Duality in N=4 Supersymmetric Gauge Theory,” hep-th/9606146.
M. Bershadsky, V. Sadov, and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. [**B463**]{} (1996) 420, hep-th/9511222.
J. Dai, R.G. Leigh, and J. Polchinski, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A4**]{} (1989) 2073.
M. Dine, P. Huet, and N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. [**B322**]{} (1989) 301.
P. Ginsparg, Phys. Rev. [**D35**]{} (1987) 648.
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B443**]{} (1995) 85, hep-th/9503124.
J. Polchinski and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{} (1996) 525, hep-th/9510169.
P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**B350**]{} (1995) 184, hep-th/9501068.
P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{} (1996) 506, hep-th/9510209; hep-th/9603142.
E. Cremmer, B. Julia, and J. Scherk, Phys. Lett. [**76B**]{} (1978) 409.
P.K. Townsend, “P-Brane Democracy,” hep-th/9507048.
M.J. Duff, R.R. Khuri, and L.X. Lu, Phys. Rep. [**259**]{} (1995) 213, hep-th/9412184.
G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. [**B360**]{} (1991) 197.
R.I. Nepomechie, Phys. Rev. [**D31**]{} (1985) 1921; C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. [**167B**]{} (1986) 69.
M.J. Duff and K.S. Stelle, Phys. Lett. [**B253**]{} (1991) 113.
R. Güven, Phys. Lett. [**B276**]{} (1992) 49.
M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. [**149B**]{} (1984) 117.
A. Dabholkar, Phys. Lett. [**B357**]{} (1995) 307, hep-th/9506160; C. Hull, Phys. Lett. [**B357**]{} (1995) 545, hep-th/9506194.
A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. [**B343**]{} (1990) 167, Erratum: [**B353**]{} (1990) 565.
E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, M.B. Green, G. Papadopoulos, and P.K. Townsend, “Duality of Type II 7-branes and 8-branes,” hep-th/9601150.
M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. [**109B**]{} (1982) 444; J.H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. [**B226**]{} (1983) 269.
C. Vafa, “Evidence for F-Theory,” hep-th/9602022.
A. Dabholkar, G. Gibbons, J.A. Harvey, and F. Ruiz Ruiz, Nucl. Phys. [**B340**]{} (1990) 33; A. Dabholkar and J.A. Harvey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{} (1989) 478.
J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. [**B360**]{} (1995) 13, Erratum: Phys. Lett. [**B364**]{} (1995) 252, hep-th/9508143.
J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 4724, hep-th/9510017; J. Polchinski, S. Chaudhuri, and C.V. Johnson, “Notes on D-branes,” hep-th/9602052.
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{} (1996) 335, hep-th/9510135.
P.S. Aspinwall, "Some Relationships Between Dualities in String Theory,” hep-th/9508154.
E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, and P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**B189**]{} (1987) 75.
M.J. Duff, P.S. Howe, T. Inami, and K.S. Stelle, Phys. Lett. [**B191**]{} (1987) 70.
J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. [**B367**]{} (1996) 97, hep-th/9510086.
M.J. Duff, J.T. Liu, and R. Minasian, “Eleven-dimensional Origin of String-String Duality: a One-Loop Test,” hep-th/ 9506126.
G. Papadopoulos and P.K. Townsend, “Intersecting M-branes,” hep-th/9603087; A.A. Tseytlin, “Harmonic Superpositions of M-branes,” hep-th/9604035; J.P. Gauntlett, D.A. Kastor, and J. Traschen, “Overlapping Branes in M-Theory,” hep-th/9604179.
J.H. Schwarz, “M Theory Extensions of T Duality,” hep-th/9601077.
P.K. Townsend, K. Pilch, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Lett. [**136B**]{} (1984) 38.
S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and S. Templeton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{} (1982) 975; Ann. Phys. [**140**]{} (1982) 372.
A. Strominger, “Open P-Branes,” hep-th/9512059.
M.J. Duff and J.X. Lu, Nucl. Phys. [**B390**]{} (1993) 276, hep-th/9207060.
P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**B373**]{} (1996) 68, hep-th/9512062.
C. Callan, J.A. Harvey, and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. [**B367**]{} (1991) 60.
K. Becker and M. Becker, “Boundaries in M-Theory,” hep-th/9602071.
O. Aharony, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, “Interactions of Strings and D-branes from M Theory,” hep-th/9603009.
J. Strathdee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A2**]{} (1987) 273.
M.J. Duff, Nucl. Phys. [**B442**]{} (1995) 47, hep-th/9501030.
J.A. Harvey and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. [**B449**]{} (1995) 535, Erratum: [**B458**]{} (1996) 456, hep-th/9504047.
P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**B354**]{} (1995) 247, hep-th/9504095.
A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. [**B450**]{} (1995) 103, hep-th/9504027.
P.S. Aspinwall, Phys. Lett. [**B357**]{} (1995) 329, hep-th/9507012.
J.H. Schwarz and A. Sen, Phys. Lett. [**B357**]{} (1995) 323, hep-th/9507027.
V.V. Nikulin, Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. [**2**]{} (1980) 71; S. Mukai, Invent. Math. [**94**]{} (1988) 183.
S. Chaudhuri and D. Lowe, Nucl. Phys. [**B459**]{} (1996) 113, hep-th/9508144; hep-th/9512226.
S. Chaudhuri and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{} (1995) 7168, hep-th/9506048.
P.K. Townsend, Phys. Lett. [**139B**]{} (1984) 283.
K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, Nucl. Phys. [**B465**]{} (1996) 399, hep-th/9512196.
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B463**]{} (1996) 383, hep-th/9512219.
E. Witten, “Some Comments on String Dynamics,” hep-th/9507121.
E. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys. [**B455**]{} (1995) 211, hep-th/9506011.
M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz, and P.C. West, Nucl. Phys. [**B254**]{} (1985) 327.
A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. [**294B**]{} (1992) 196, hep-th/9210127.
E. Witten, Phys. Lett. [**149B**]{} (1984) 351; M. Dine, N. Seiberg, and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B289**]{} (1987) 589.
M.J. Duff, R. Minasian, and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B465**]{} (1996) 413, hep-th/9601036.
J. Erler, J. Math. Phys. [**35**]{} (1994) 1819, hep-th/9304104.
J.H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. [**B371**]{} (1996) 223, hep-th/9512053.
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{} (1996) 541, hep-th/9511030.
M. Duff, S. Ferrara, R.R. Khuri, and J. Rahmfeld, Phys. Lett. [**B356**]{} (1995) 479, hep-th/ 9506057; M. Duff, H. Lü, and C.N. Pope, “Heterotic Phase Transitions and Singularities of the Gauge Dyonic String,” hep-th/9603037.
O.J. Ganor and A. Hanany, “Small $E_8$ Instantons and Tensionless Strings,” hep-th/9602120.
N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Comments on String Dynamics in Six Dimensions,” hep-th/ 9603003.
E. Witten, “Phase Transitions in M-Theory and F-Theory,” hep-th/9603150.
G. Aldazabal, A. Font, L.E. Ibañez, and F. Quevedo, “Heterotic/Heterotic Duality in D=6 and D=4,” hep-th/9602097.
E.G. Gimon and J. Polchinski, “Consistency Conditions for Orientifolds and D-Manifolds, hep-th/9601038.
G. Pradisi and A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. [**B216**]{} (1989) 59; M. Bianchi and A. Sagnotti, Nucl. Phys. [**B361**]{} (1991) 519.
M. Berkooz, R.G. Leigh, J. Polchinski, J.H. Schwarz, N. Seiberg, and E. Witten, “Anomalies, Dualities, and Topology of D=6 N=1 Superstring Vacua,” hep-th/9605184.
P.S. Aspinwall and M. Gross, “Heterotic-Heterotic String Duality and Multiple K3 Fibrations,” hep-th/9602118.
D. Morrison and C. Vafa, “Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi–Yau Three-Folds – I and II,” hep-th/9602114 and hep-th/9603161; P.S. Aspinwall and M. Gross, “The SO(32) Heterotic String on a K3 Surface,” hep-th/9605131.
[^1]: Work supported in part by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701.
[^2]: Another possibility, 8-branes, will not be considered here. (See Ref. [@bergshoeff96].)
[^3]: According to Ref. [@duff95a], it corresponds to one-half of the minimum product. The result given here has been confirmed by $D$-brane arguments, so I am quite sure it is correct.
[^4]: A gravity supermultiplet has been proposed for the $(2,1)$ case,[@strathdee87] but it gives gravitational anomalies that cannot be cancelled.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=-1cm
[**BU-HEPP-10-03** ]{}\
[**June, 2010**]{}\
[“Low” Energy GUTs $^{\dagger}$ ]{}
[**B.F.L. Ward**]{}\
[*Department of Physics,\
Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 76798-7316, USA*]{}\
[**Abstract**]{}
We introduce a new approach to the subject of grand unification which allows the GUT scale to be small, $\lesssim 200$TeV, so that it is within the reach of [*conceivable*]{} laboratory accelerated colliding beam devices. Central to the approach is a novel abstraction of the heterotic string symmetry group physics ideas to render baryon number violating effects small enough to have escaped detection to date.
- Work partly supported by NATO Grant PST.CLG.980342.
=cmssbx10 scaled 2
.1truein
The structure of the Standard Model(SM) [@sm1; @qcd], in view of its success, leads naturally to the suggestion that all forces associated with the gauge interactions therein may be unified into a single gauge principle associated with a larger group ${\cal G}$ which contains the SM gauge group $SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_Y\times SU(3)^c$ as a subgroup, where we use a standard notation for the SM gauge group. Originally introduced in the modern context in Refs. [@pati-salam; @geor-glash], this idea continues to be a fashionable area of investigation today, where approaches which unify the SM gauge forces with that of quantum gravity are now very much in vogue via the superstring theory [@gsw; @jp] and its various low energy reductions and morphisms [@jp]. In what follows here, we focus only on the unification of the SM gauge forces themselves, candidates for which we call as usual GUTs, so that we leave aside any possible unification with quantum gravity until a later study [@elswh].
We admit that a part of our motivation is the recent progress in the approaches to the Einstein-Hilbert theory for quantum gravity in Refs. [@asympsfty; @bw1; @kreimer; @lpqg] in which improved treatments of perturbation theory via resummation methods, the asymptotic safety approach, the resummed quantum gravity approach or the Hopf-algebraic Dyson-Schwinger equation renormalization theory approach, and the introduction of an underlying loop-space at Planck scales, loop quantum gravity, all support the view that the apparently bad unrenormalizable behavior of the Einstein-Hilbert theory may be cured by the dynamical interactions or modifications within the theory itself, as first anticipated by Weinberg [@asympsfty]. In what follows, we explore the suggestion, which follows from such progress, that the unification of all other forces can be a separate problem from the problem of treating the apparently bad UV behavior of quantum gravity.
Our objective is to formulate GUTs so that they are accessible to very high energy colliding beam devices such as the VLHC, which has been discussed elsewhere [@vlhc] with cms energies in the 100-200TeV regime. We show in what follows that we can achieve such GUTs that satisfy the usual requirements: no anomalies, unified SM couplings, baryon stability, absence/suppression of other unwanted transitions and naturalness requirements (this may just mean N=1 susy here [@wittn]). Here, we add the new condition that the theory will live in 4-dimensional Minkowski space. We call this our [*known physical reality condition*]{}. The most demanding requirement will be seen to be baryon stability.
To illustrate why the most difficult aspect of a GUT with a (several) hundred TeV unification scale is the issue of baryon number stability we note that the proton must be stable to $\sim 10^{29-33}$yrs, depending on the mode. Standard methods can be used to show that the natural lifetime for physics with a $100$TeV scale for a dimension 6 transition in a state with the size and mass of the proton is $\sim 0.01$yr for example. Clearly, some new mechanism is needed to suppress the proton decay process here.
In proceeding to isolate such a mechanism, we will use what is sometimes called a radically conservative approach - we will try to rely on well-tested ideas used in a novel way. In this way we may hope to avoid moving the GUT scale to $\sim 10^{13}$TeV as it is usually done [@gut1], or invoking hitherto unknown phenomena, such as extra dimensions [@kdgut; @gut1], etc. We notice that the fundamental structure of a GUT theory has it organized by gauge sector, by family sector and by Higgs sector for spontaneous symmetry breaking. We turn now to the family and gauge sectors. Let us also note that, in effecting this discussion, we present here a different realization of the basic ideas we already introduced in Ref. [@bw2]. Only experiment can tell us which realization is used by Nature.
Specifically, the ${\bf 10+\bar{5}}$ of $SU(5)$ was advocated in Ref. [@geor-glash] and shown to accommodate the SM family with a massless neutrino. With the recent advent of neutrino masses [@neut1; @neut2], we must extend this fifteen dimensional representation to a sixteen dimensional representation. We choose to use the ${\bf 16}$ of $SO(10)$ [@gross], as it decomposes as ${\bf 10+\bar{5}\bf+1}$ under an inclusion of $SU(5)$ into $SO(10)$. From the heterotic string formalism [@gsw; @jp](we view here modern string theory as an extension of quantum field theory which can be used to abstract dynamical relationships which would hold in the real world even if the string theory itself is in detail only an approximate, mathematically consistent treatment of that reality, just as the old strong interaction string theory [@schwz1] could be used to abstract properties of QCD such as Regge trajectories even before QCD was discovered) we know that in the only known and accepted unification of the SM and gravity, the gauge group $E_8\times E_8$ is singled-out when all known dualities [@jp] are taken into account to relate equivalent superstring theories. A standard breakdown of this symmetry to the SM gauge group and family structure is as follows [@jp]: $$\begin{split}
E_8&\rightarrow SU(3)\times E_6 \rightarrow SU(3)\times SO(10)\times U'(1)\nonumber\\
&\rightarrow SU(3)\times SU(5)\times U''(1)\times U'(1)\nonumber\\
&\rightarrow SU(3)\times SU(3)^c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U''(1)\times U'(1)
\end{split}$$ where the SM gauge group is now called out as $SU(3)^c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$. It can be shown that the ${\bf 248}$ of $E_8$ then splits under this breaking into $({\bf 8,1})+({\bf 1,78})+({\bf 3,27})+(\bar{\bf{3}},
\overline{\bf{27}})$ under $SU(3)\times E_6$ and that each ${\bf{27}}$ under $E_6$ contains exactly one SM family 16-plet with 11 other states that are paired with their anti-particles in helicity via real representations so that they would be expected to become massive at the GUT scale. Let us consider that we have succeeded with the heterotic string breaking scenario to get 6 families [@gut1] under the first $E_8$ factor, $E_{8a}$, in the $E_8\times E_8$ gauge group. They are singlets under the second $E_8\equiv E_{8b}$. We take the first 3 families to be those with the known light leptons and the remaining 3 families to be those with the known light quarks. The quarks in the families with the known light leptons are at a scale $M_{QL}$ that is beyond current experimental limits on new quarks; the leptons in the families with the known light quarks are at a scale $M_{LL}$ that is beyond the current experimental limits on heavy leptons. We now repeat the same pattern of breaking for the second factor $E_{8b}$ as well and we leave open the issue of observable families under this $E_{8b}$, as they may exist in principle as well. The scales $M_{QL},M_{LL}$ are bounded by the grand unified theory (GUT) scale $M_{GUT}$. This scenario stops baryon instability: the proton can not decay because the leptons to which it could transform via (leptoquark) bosons are all at too high a scale. The extra heavy quarks and leptons just introduced here may of course appear already at the LHC.
The ordinary electroweak and strong interaction gauge bosons are now an unknown mixture of the two copies of such bosons from the two $E_8's$ associated to heterotic string theory[^1]: when we break the two $E_8$’s each to a product group $SU(3)\times E_6$ and then subsequently break each of the two $E_6$’s to get two copies of ${SU(3)}^c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$, for the initially massless gauge bosons for $SU(3)^c_i\times SU(2)_{Li}\times U(1)_{Yi}\in E_{8i}$, $G^a_i,~a=1,\cdots,8,~A^{i'}_i,~i'=1,\cdots,3,~B_i$, $i=1,2$, in a standard notation, we assume a further breaking at the GUT scale so that the following linear combinations are massless at the GUT scale $M_{GUT}$ while the orthogonal linear combinations acquire masses ${\cal O}(M_{GUT})$ – $$\label{fgauge1}
\begin{split}
A_f^{i'}=\sum_{i=1}^{2}\eta_{2i} A^{i'}_i\\
B_f= \sum_{i=1}^{2}\eta_{1i} B_i .
\end{split}$$ The mixing coefficients $\{\eta_{aj}\}$ satisfy $$\sum_{i=1}^{2}\eta_{ai}^2=1,\; a=1,2$$.
For the strong interaction, we take the minimal view that the quarks in each of the families from the two $E_8$’s are confined. We use discrete symmetry to set the two strong interaction gauge couplings to be equal at the GUT scale. This means that for the known quarks we have gluons $G^a_1$. Of course, experiments may ultimately force us to break the as yet unseen color group. This is straightforward to do following Ref. [@LFLi].
For the low energy EW bosons, we have some freedom in (\[fgauge1\]). We note the following values [@siggi; @pdg08] of the known gauge couplings at scale $M_Z$: $$\label{fgauge2}
\begin{split}
&\alpha_s(M_Z)|_{\overline{MS}}= 0.1184\pm 0.0007\\
&\alpha_W(M_Z)|_{\overline{MS}}= 0.033812\pm 0.000021\\
&\alpha_{EM}(M_Z)|_{\overline{MS}}= 0.00781708\pm0.00000098
\end{split}$$ It is well-known [@gqw] that the factor of almost 4 between $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and $\alpha_W(M_Z)$ and between $\alpha_W(M_Z)$ and $\alpha_{EM}(M_Z)$ when the respective unified values are 1 and 2.67 require $M_{GUT}\sim 10^{13}-10^{12}$TeV. Here, with the use of the $\{\eta_{kj}\}$ we can absorb most of the discrepancy between the unification and observed values of the coupling ratios so that the GUT scale is not beyond current technology for accelerated colliding beam devices.
More precisely, we can set $$\label{fgauge3}
\begin{split}
\eta_{21}\cong \frac{1}{\sqrt{2.000}}\\
\eta_{11}\cong \frac{1}{\sqrt{3.260}}
\end{split}$$ and this will leave a “small” amount of evolution do be done between the scale $M_Z$ and $M_{GUT}$.
Indeed, with the choices in (\[fgauge3\]), and the use of the one-loop beta functions [@qcd], if we use continuity of the gauge coupling constants at mass thresholds with one such threshold at $m_H\cong 120$GeV and a second one at $m_t=171.2$GeV for definiteness to illustrate our approach, then the GUT scale can be easily evaluated to be $M_{GUT}\cong 136$TeV, as advertised. For, we get, $$\label{fgauge4}
b^{U(1)_Y}_{0} = \frac{1}{12\pi^2}\begin{cases}4.385&,\;M_Z\le \mu\le m_H\cong 120\text{GeV}\\ 4.417&, \; m_H< \mu \le m_t\\
5.125&, \; m_t < \mu \le M_{\text{GUT}}
\end{cases}
$$ from the standard formula [@qcd] $$\label{fgauge5}
b^{U(1)_Y}_{0}=\frac{1}{12\pi^2}\left(\sum_j n_j\left(\frac{Y_j}{2}\right)^2\right)$$ where $b^{U(1)_Y}_0$ is the coefficient of $g'^3$ in the beta function for the $U(1)_Y$ coupling constant $g'$ in the $SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_Y$ EW theory of Glashow, Salam and Weinberg [@sm1], $n_j$ is the effective number of Dirac fermion degrees of freedom, i.e., a left-handed Dirac fermion counts as $\frac{1}{2}$, a complex scalar counts as $\frac{1}{4}$, and so on. Similarly, for the QCD and $SU(2)_{L}$ theories, we get the analogous $$\label{fgauge6a}
b^{SU(2)_{L}}_{0} = \frac{-1}{16\pi^2}\begin{cases}3.708&,\;M_Z\le \mu\le m_H\cong 120\text{GeV}\\ 3.667&, \; m_H< \mu \le m_t\\
3.167&, \; m_t < \mu \le M_{\text{GUT}}
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{fgauge6b}
b^{QCD}_{0} = \frac{-1}{16\pi^2}\begin{cases}7.667&,\;M_Z\le \mu\le m_t\\ 7&, \; m_t < \mu \le M_{\text{GUT}}
\end{cases}
$$ from the standard formula [@qcd] $$\label{fgauge7}
b^{\cal H}_{0}=\frac{-1}{16\pi^2}\left(\frac{11}{3}C_2({\cal H})-\frac{4}{3}\sum_j n_jT(R_j)\right)$$ where $T(R_j)$ sets the normalization of the generators $\{\tau^{R_j}_a\}$ of the group ${\cal H}$ in the representation $R_j$ via $\text{tr}\tau^{R_j}_a\tau^{R_j}_b=T(R_j)\delta_{ab}$ where $\delta_{ab}$ is the Kronecker delta and $C_2({\cal H})$ is the quadratic Casimir invariant eigenvalue for the adjoined representaion of ${\cal H}$. These results (\[fgauge4\],\[fgauge5\],\[fgauge6a\],\[fgauge6b\],\[fgauge7\]) together with the standard one-loop solution [@qcd] $$\label{fgauge8}
g^2_{\cal H}(\mu)=\frac{g^2_{\cal H}(\mu_0)}{1-2b^{\cal H}_0 g^2_{\cal H}(\mu_0)\ln(\mu/\mu_0)}$$ allow us to compute the value $M_{GUT}\cong 136$TeV for the values of $\eta_{ij}$ given in (\[fgauge3\]). Here, we use standard notation that $g^2_{\cal H}(\mu)$ is the squared running coupling constant at scale $\mu$ for ${\cal H}=U(1)_Y, \; SU(2)_{L}, \; QCD\equiv SU(3)^c$.
For illustration we have chosen the value of $136$TeV for the unification scale.In principle any value between the TeV scale and the Planck scale is allowed in our approach and wait for experiment to tell us what the true value is.
We sum up with the following observation, already made in Ref. [@bw2]: instead of the traditional “desert” [@geor-glash; @gqw] between the TeV scale and the GUT scale, we propose here a “green pasture”.
[99]{} S.L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. [**22**]{} (1961) 579; S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{} (1967) 1264; A. Salam, in [*Elementary Particle Theory*]{}, ed. N. Svartholm (Almqvist and Wiksells, Stockholm, 1968), p. 367; G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B[**44**]{},189 (1972) and [**50**]{}, 318 (1972); G. ’t Hooft, [*ibid.*]{} [**35**]{}, 167 (1971); M. Veltman, [*ibid.*]{} [**7**]{}, 637 (1968). D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{} (1973) 1343; H. David Politzer, [*ibid.*]{}[**30**]{} (1973) 1346; see also , for example, F. Wilczek, in [*Proc. 16th International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions, Ithaca, 1993*]{}, eds. P. Drell and D.L. Rubin (AIP, NY, 1994) p. 593, and references therein. J. C. Pati and Adbus Salam, Phys. Rev. D[**8**]{}, 1240 (1973). H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32**]{}, 438 (1974). M.B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B[**149**]{}, 117 (1984); [*ibid.*]{} [**151**]{}, 21 (1985); D.J. Gross [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 502 (1985); Nucl. Phys. B[**256**]{}, 253 (1985); [*ibid.*]{} [**267**]{}, 75 (1986); see also M. Green, J. Schwarz and E. Witten, [*Superstring Theory, v. 1 and v.2*]{}, ( Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987 ) and references therein. See, for example, J. Polchinski, [*String Theory, v. 1 and v. 2*]{}, (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998), and references therein. B.F.L. Ward, to appear. S. Weinberg, in [*General Relativity*]{}, eds. S.W. Hawking and W. Israel,(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1979) p.790; A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D[**65**]{} (2002) 043508; J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**140**]{} (2008) 012008; Phys. Rev. D[**62**]{} (2000) 043008; M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D[**57**]{} (1998) 971; O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, [*ibid.*]{} [**66**]{} (2002) 025026, and references therein; D. F. Litim, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**92**]{}(2004) 201301; Phys. Rev. D[**64**]{} (2001) 105007 and references therein; R. Percacci and D. Perini, Phys. Rev. D[**68**]{} (2003) 044018; A. Codello, R. Percacci and C. Rahmede, Ann. Phys. [**324**]{} (2009) 414; P. F. Machado and R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. D[**80**]{} (2009) 024020; R. Percacci, arXiv:0910.4951; G. Narain and R. Percacci, Class. Quant. Grav. [**27**]{} (2010) 075001, and references therein; J. Ambjorn, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, arXiv:1004.0352, and referenecs therein. B.F.L. Ward, Mod. Phys. Lett. A[**17**]{} (2002) 2371; Open Nucl. Part. Phys. J [**2**]{} (2009) 1; J. Cos. Astropart. Phys.[**0402**]{} (2004) 011; Mod. Phys. Lett. A[**23**]{} (2008) 3299, and references therein. D. Kreimer, Ann. Phys. [**323**]{} (2008) 49; [*ibid.*]{} [**321**]{} (2006) 2757. T. Thiemann, in [*Proc. 14th International Congress on Mathematical Physics*]{}, ed. J.-C. Zambrini,(World Scientific Publ. Co., Hackensack, 2005) pp. 569-83; L. Smolin, hep-th/0303185; A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Class. Quantum Grav. [**21**]{} (2004) R53-153, and references therein; M. Bojowald [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005) 091302, and references therein. G. Ambrosio [*et al.*]{}, FNAL-TM-2149 (2001); W. Scandale and F. Zimmermann, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. [**177-178**]{} (2008) 207; P. Limon, in eConf/C010107; G. Dugan and M. Syphers, CBN-99-15 (1999); A.D. Kovalenko, in [*Tsukuba 2001, High Energy Accelerators*]{}, p2hc05; P. McIntyre, in [*Proc. Beyond 2010*]{}, in press; and references therein. See for example E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B[**105**]{} (1981) 267; Nucl. Phys. B[**188**]{}(1981) 513; M. Dine, W. Fishler, and M. Srednicki, [*ibid.*]{}[**189**]{}(1981) 575; S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, Stanford ITP preprint (1981); S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D[**24**]{} (1981) 1681, and references therein. See for example S. Raby, AIP Conf. Proc. [**1078**]{} (2009) 128; J. Ellis, A. Mustafayev and K. A. Olive, arXiv:1003.3677, and references therein. K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas and T. Gherghetta, Phys.Lett. B[**436**]{} (1998) 55; Nucl.Phys. B[**537**]{} (1999) 47, and references therein. B.F.L. Ward, arXiv:1005.3394. See for example D. Wark, in [*Proc. ICHEP02*]{}, eds. S. Bentvelsen et al., (North-Holland,Amsterdam, 2003), Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**117**]{} (2003) 164. See for example M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, hep-ph/0211054, in [*Proc. ICHEP02*]{}, eds. S. Bentvelsen et al., (North-Holland,Amsterdam, 2003), Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**117**]{} (2003) 186, and references therein. See for example G. G. Ross, [*Grand Unified Theories*]{}, (Benjamin-Cummings Publ. Co., Menlo Park, 1985), and references therein. See, for example, J. Schwarz, in [*Proc. Berkeley Chew Jubilee, 1984*]{}, eds. C. DeTar [*et al.*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985) p. 106, and references therein. See for example L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. D[**9**]{} (1974) 1723 and rferences therein. S. Bethke, Eur. Phys. J. C[**64**]{} (2009) 689. C. Amsler [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B[**667**]{} (2008) 1. S. Schael [*et al.*]{}, J. Abdallah [*et al.*]{}, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, G. Abbiendi [*et al.*]{} and K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rept. [**427**]{} (2006) 257. H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**33**]{} (1974) 451.
[^1]: If one wants to avoid any reference to superstring theory, one can just postulate our symmetry and families as needed, obviously; we leave this to the discretion of the reader.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'To obtain an exact solution of a four-body system containing two quarks and two antiquarks interacting through two-body terms is a cumbersome task that has been tackled with more or less success during the last decades. We present an exact method for the study of four-quark systems based on the hyperspherical harmonics formalism that allows us to solve it without resorting to further approximations, like for instance the existence of diquark components. We apply it to systems containing two heavy and two light quarks using different quark-quark potentials. While $QQ\bar n \bar n$ states may be stable in nature, the stability of $Q\bar Qn \bar n$ states would imply the existence of quark correlations not taken into account by simple quark dynamical models.'
author:
- 'J. Vijande$^{1,2}$[^1], E. Weissman$^3$, A. Valcarce$^2$, N. Barnea$^{3,4}$'
title: 'On the existence of exotic and non-exotic multiquark meson states'
---
The discoveries on several fronts [@Pdg06], of unusual charmonium states like $X(3872)$ and $Y(4260)$ and open-charm mesons with unexpected masses like $D_{sJ}^*(2317)$ and $D^*_0(2308)$, have re-invigorated the study of hadronic resonances. Any debate on the possible multiquark structure of meson resonances should be based on our capability to find an exact solution of the four-body problem [@Ade82]. Theoretical predictions often differ because of the approximation method used. A powerful tool to solve a few-particle system is an expansion of the trial wave function in terms of hyperspherical harmonics (HH) basis functions. In Ref. [@Vij07] a generalization of the HH formalism to study four-quark systems in an exact way was presented. Due to their actual interest and having in mind that systems with unequal masses are more promising [@Ade82], we will center our attention on $Q Q\bar n \bar n$ and $Q \bar Q n\bar n$ states ($n$ stands for a light quark and $Q$ for a heavy one). We will analyze the possible existence of compact four-quark bound states using two standard quark-quark interactions, a Bhaduri-like potential (BCN) [@Bha81] and a constituent quark model considering boson exchanges (CQC) [@Vij05]. Both interactions fulfill the requirement of giving a reasonable description of meson and baryon spectroscopy. Assuming non-relativistic quantum mechanics we solve the four-body Schrödinger equation. The grand angular momentum $K$ is the main quantum number in our expansion and the calculation is truncated at some $K$ value. Further details of the numerical method can be found in Ref. [@Vij07].
In spite of the shortcomings of the methods used to study four-quark systems, in the past, many four-quark bound states have been suggested. To analyze their stability against dissociation, parity and total angular momentum must be preserved. Additionally, $C-$parity is a good quantum number for $c\bar c n\bar n$ and the Pauli principle must be fulfilled in the $cc\bar n\bar n$ case. The corresponding thresholds can be computed by adding the meson masses of the dissociation channel. Four-quark states will be stable under strong interaction, and therefore very narrow, if their total energy lies below all allowed two-meson thresholds. Sometimes, results of four-quark calculations have been directly compared to experimental thresholds. In this case one could misidentify scattering wave functions as bound states. When they are referred to the thresholds within the same model, theoretical predictions do not imply an abundance of multiquark states in the data.
[cp[4mm]{}cccp[4mm]{}ccc]{} &&&&\
$K$ && E & $P_{11}$&$P_{88}$&& E & $P_{11}$& $P_{88}$\
18 && 3791& 0.9962 & 0.0038&& 3840 &0.9995 & 0.0005\
20 && 3786& 0.9968 & 0.0032&& 3822 &0.9996 & 0.0004\
22 && $-$ & $-$ & $-$ && 3808 &0.9997 & 0.0003\
$J/\psi\,\omega\vert_S$ && 3745 & 1 & 0 && 3874 & 1 & 0\
$\chi_{cJ}\,\eta \vert_P$ && 4281 & 1 & 0 && 3655 & 1 & 0\
\[t2\]
Once the method has been established, we concentrate on the $c\bar c n\bar n$ systems as a potential structure for the $X(3872)$. To make the physics clear we compare with the $cc \bar n \bar n$ system. In particular, we focus on the $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ $c\bar c n\bar n$ and $J^{P}=1^{+}$ $cc\bar n \bar n$ quantum numbers to illustrate their similitudes and differences. A complete study of all the quantum numbers have been reported in Ref. [@Vij07]. For the $c\bar c n\bar n$ system, independently of the quark-quark interaction, the system evolves to a well separated two-meson state, see Table \[t2\]. This is clearly seen in the energy, approaching the corresponding two free-meson threshold, but also in the probabilities of the different color components of the wave function. Comparing the theoretical predictions with the experimental threshold, $M_{J/\psi\,\omega\vert_S} = 3879.57\pm0.13$ MeV, one could be tempted to claim for the existence of a bound state. However, the experimental threshold is not reproduced by the effective Hamiltonians. Thus, in any manner one can claim for the existence of a bound state. Similar conclusions are drawn for all quantum numbers of this system. A completely different behavior is observed in the case of $J^P=1^+$ $cc\bar n\bar n$. The energy quickly stabilizes below the lowest theoretical thresholds (3937 MeV for CQC and 3906 for BCN), being the results obtained for $K_{max}=24$ completely converged, 3861 MeV for CQC and 3900 for BCN. Besides, the radius is also stable and is smaller than the sum of the radius of the two-meson threshold. We obtain $r_{4q}=0.37$ fm compared to $r_{M_1}+r_{M_2}= 0.44$ fm.
It is thus important to realize that a bound state should be pursued not only by looking at the energy, but also with a careful analysis of the radius and probabilities. This detailed analysis allows us to distinguish between compact states and meson-meson molecules [@Jaf05] and it does consider the contribution of all meson-meson channels to a particular set $J^{PC}$ of quantum numbers. Inherent to our discussion is a much richer decay spectrum of compact states due to the presence of octet-octet color components in their wave function.
Let us notice that there is an important difference between the two physical systems studied. While for the $c\bar c n\bar n$ there are two allowed physical [*decay channels*]{}, $(c\bar c)(n\bar n)$ and $(c\bar n)(\bar c n)$, for the $cc\bar n\bar n$ only one physical system contains the possible final states, $(c \bar n)(c\bar n)$. This has important consequences if both systems (two- and four-quark states) are to be described within the same two-body Hamiltonian, the $c \bar c n \bar n$ will hardly present bound states, because the system will reorder itself to become the lightest two-meson state, either $(c\bar c)(n\bar n)$ or $(c\bar n)(\bar c n)$. In other words, if the attraction is provided by the interaction between particles $i$ and $j$, it does also exist in the asymptotic two meson state reflecting this attraction. This may not happen for the $c c\bar n\bar n$ if the interaction between, for example, the two quarks is strongly attractive. In this case there is no asymptotic two-meson state with such attraction, and therefore the system will bind.
Therefore, our conclusions can be made more general. If we have an $N$-quark system described by two-body interactions in such a way that there exists a subset of quarks that cannot make up a physical subsystem, then one may expect the existence of $N$-quark bound states by means of central two-body potentials. If this is not true one will hardly find $N-$quark bound states [@Lip75].
This work has been partially funded by Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología under Contract No. FPA2007-65748, and by Junta de Castilla y León under Contract No. SA016A07.
[9]{}
W.-M. Yao [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G [**33**]{} 1 (2006).
J.P. Ader, J.-M. Richard, and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D [**25**]{}, 2370 (1982); L. Heller and J.A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 755 (1985); [*ibid*]{} [**35**]{}, 969 (1987).
N. Barnea, J. Vijande, and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 054004 (2006); J. Vijande, E. Weissman, A. Valcarce, and N. Barnea, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 094022 (2007).
R.K. Bhaduri, L.E. Cohler, and Y. Nogami, Nuovo Cimento [**A65**]{}, 376 (1981).
J. Vijande, F. Fernández, and A. Valcarce, J. Phys. G [**31**]{}, 481 (2005).
R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rep. [**409**]{}, 1 (2005); hep-ph/0701038.
H.J. Lipkin, Phy. Lett. [**58B**]{}, 97 (1975).
[^1]: *E-mail address:* [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss system with non-isotropic non-Heisenberg Hamiltonian with nearest neighbor exchange within a mean field approximation process. We drive equations describing non-Heisenberg non-isotropic model using coherent states in real parameters and then obtain dispersion equations of spin wave of dipole and quadrupole branches for a small linear excitation from the ground state. In final, soliton solution for quadrupole branches for these linear equations obtained.'
author:
- Yousef Yousefi
title: Magnetic Solitons for Non Heisenberg Anisotropic Hamiltonians in Linear Quadrupole Excitations
---
Introduction
============
During the past decade study of nonlinear behavior of magnetic crystals has been attracted large attention, specially it accompany with the progress in some other fields such as development of theory of nonlinear differential equation, achieving new laboratory results and also potential applications in other branches of science and technology \[1, 2\].
Particles with spin $S\geq 1$ are more interesting among the other nano particles \[3, 4\]. This is because of existing of complexity in their behavior due to their multipole dynamic spin excitations. In such systems, the number of necessary parameters for complete description of macroscopic properties increases up to 4S, that S stands for magnitude of system spin.
Also it worthwhile, the process of achieving classical spin equations and dynamic multipoles is based on coherent states that are obtained in $SU(2S+1)$ group\[5\].
We consider unitary anisotropic Hamiltonian as form of:
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat H=-J\sum_i(\hat S_i \hat S_{i+1}+\delta\hat S_i^z \hat S_i^z)\end{aligned}$$
Which, $ \hat S_i^x , \hat S_i^y ,\hat S_i^z$ are spin operators in lattice $i$, and $\delta$ is anisotropy coefficient. This is Hamiltonian of one dimensional ferromagnetic spin chain observed in compositions like $CSNiF_3$ \[6\].
In this paper the goal is to obtain classical equation for stated Hamiltonian and finding the answer of spin wave for small linear excitations upper than the ground state. Coherent states issued nearest approximation to classical state i.e. pseudo classical, because they minimize uncertainty principles. For this reason, in section 2, coherent states for spin $S=1$ developed that are the same as coherent states in SU(3) group. To obtain classical Hamiltonian, we need average values of spin operator; so in section 3, these values and classical Hamiltonian equation are derived. In section 4, Hamiltonian equation computed in previous section is substituted in classical equations of motion resulted from using Feynman path integral on coherent states, and then we acquire spin wave equations and dispersion equations of dipole and quadupole branches for small linear excitation above the ground state, and finally we calculate soliton answers of linearized equations.
Coherent states in SU(3) group
==============================
Coherent states are special quantum states that their dynamic is very similar to behavior of their classical system. The kind of coherent state that is used in a problem depends on symmetry of existent operators. With considering existent symmetry in operators of Hamiltonian (1), coherent states in SU(3) group is used for accurate description and considering all multipole excitations. In this group, ground state considered as $(1,0,0)^T$ and its single-site coherent state is written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
|\psi \rangle = D^1(\theta, \phi)e^{-i\gamma \hat S^z} e^{2ig\hat Q^{xy}}|0\rangle \end{aligned}$$
In above equation, $D^1 (\theta,\phi)$ is Wigner function for spin $S=1$ and two angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ determine alignment of classical spin vector. Angle $\gamma$ determines direction of quadruple torque around the spin vector. Parameter g specifies change of length of average value of quadruple torque and also of magnitude of spin vector. Lagrangian can be obtained by use of Feynman path integral for declared coherent states as:\[8\]
$$\begin{aligned}
L=cos2g(cos\theta \phi_t -\gamma_t )-H(\phi, \theta, g, \gamma)\end{aligned}$$
Where $ x_t=\frac{\partial}{⁄\partial t}$ and H is classical energy of system obtained by averaging Hamiltonian (1) on coherent states (2).
Two other terms appear when acquiring Lagrangian of spin system. The first is Kinetic term that has Berry phase characteristics issued from quantum interference of Instanton paths and has important role in quantum phenomenons such as spin tunneling and the second is boundary term that depends on boundary values of path. Both of term have no role in classical dynamic of spin excitations and so are not considered here.
Classical Hamiltonian and equations in SU(3) group
==================================================
Average spin values in SU(3) group written as:\[9\]
$$\begin{aligned}
S^+ &=& e^{i\phi}cos(2g)sin\theta \nonumber\\
S^- &=& e^{-i\phi} cos(2g)sin\theta \nonumber\\
S^z &=& cos(2g) cos\theta \end{aligned}$$
By averaging Hamiltonian (1) and using (4), the continuous limit of classical Hamiltonian obtained as:\[4\]
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{cl}&=& -J\int \frac{dx}{a_0}(cos^2( 2g)+\frac{\delta}{2}(cos^2\theta+sin(2g)cos(2\gamma) sin^2\theta) \nonumber\\
& &-\frac{a_0^2}{2}((\theta_x^2+\phi_x^2 sin^2\theta)cos^2( 2g)+4g_x^2 sin^2( 2g)))\end{aligned}$$
To obtain classical equation of motion, the above classical Hamiltonian is substituted in motion equations resulted from Lagrangian equation:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\omega_0}\phi_t &=& \delta cos\theta(sec(2g)-cos(2\gamma) tan(2g))+a_0^2cos(2g)(\theta_{xx}csc\theta+\phi_x^2cos\theta) \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\omega_0}\theta_t &=& \frac{\delta}{2}sin(2\theta) sin(2\gamma) tan(2g)-a_0^2 \phi_{xx}cos(2g)sin\theta \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\omega_0}g_t &=&- \frac{\delta}{2}sin(2\gamma) sin^2\theta \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\omega_0}\gamma_t &=&(4cos(2g)-\delta(cos(2\gamma)(cot(4g)-cos(2\theta) csc(4g))+cos^2\theta sec(2g) )) \nonumber\\
& &+(cos(2g)(8g_x^2-2\theta_x^2+\frac{1}{2}\phi_x^2(-3+cos(2\theta))-\theta_{xx}cot\theta)+4g_{xx}sin(2g))a_0^2 \nonumber\\
& &\end{aligned}$$
These equations completely describe nonlinear dynamics of Hamiltonian of problem up to quadrupole excitation. Solutions of these equations are magnetic solitons. These equations result Landau-Lifshitz equation if quadrupole excitations ignored $(g=0)$. So these equations are more general in comparison with landau-Lifshitz and have more degree of freedom. It’s noteworthy that solution of these equations has different range of solitons.
For small linear excitation from ground stste, classical equations of motion change to:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\omega_0}\phi_t &=& \delta (secg_0+tang_0)\theta+a_0^2cosg_0\theta_{xx} \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\omega_0}\theta_t &=& -a_0^2 \phi_{xx}cosg_0 \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\omega_0}g_t &=&- \frac{\delta}{2}\gamma \nonumber\\
\frac{1}{\omega_0}\gamma_t &=&-2(2sing_0+\frac{\delta}{cosg_0})g+4a_0^2 g_{xx}sing_0 \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
To obtain dispersion equations, functions $\theta, \phi ,\gamma$ and g are considered as plane waves and their substitution in linearized equations result in dispersion equation for spin wave near the ground state:
$$\begin{aligned}
\omega_1^2 &=& \omega_0^2 k^2 a_0^2 (\delta(1+sing_0)+k^2 a_0^2 cos^2g_0) \nonumber\\
\omega_2^2 &=& \omega_0^2 [2sing_0 k^2 a^2_0+\delta (\frac{4\delta}{sin^2g_0}-2sing_0)]\end{aligned}$$
From the above equation, it is obvious that both dipole and quadruple branches of unitary Hamiltonian are dispersive in presence of linear excitations.
To compute soliton answers of equations (7), we define variable $\eta$ such as $\eta=x-vt$. In this case above equations convert to below nonlinear equations.
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{v^2}{\omega_0^2}+\delta a_0^2 (1+sing_0)\theta_{\eta}+( a_0^2 cosg_0)^2\theta_{\eta \eta \eta}=0 \nonumber\\
\frac{-2}{\delta\omega_0}g_{tt}+2(2sing_0+\frac{\delta}{2cosg_0})g-4a_0^2g_{xx}sing_0=0\end{aligned}$$
The first equation is third order differential equation. So change of dipole moment in Hamiltonian (1) is not of the form of soliton. Solution of this equation has the following forms:
$$\begin{aligned}
\theta=C sin[(x-vt)(\frac{(a_0^2cosg_0)^2}{\frac{v^2}{\omega_0^2}+\delta a_0^2 (1+sing_0)})^{1/2}]\end{aligned}$$
The second equation is nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation and shows change of average value of quadruple excitation that its solution is of the form of Hylomorphic solitons. These solitons are like Q-ball solitons. The reason of this name is because of they cause matter have appropriate form. Also these solitons are of the kind of non topologic ones because their boundary values in ground and infinity are the same from the topological point of view. If rewrite nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation (9) as:
$$\begin{aligned}
g_{tt}=\alpha g_{xx}+\beta g\end{aligned}$$
Where
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &=&-\delta \omega_0a_0^2sing_0 \nonumber\\
\beta&=&\frac{\delta \omega_0(4sin2g_0+\delta)}{8cosg_0}\end{aligned}$$
Numerical solution of (11) is plotted in figure (1). In this computation we consider $\alpha=10^5$ and $\beta=10^{10}$ .
{width="80.00000%"}
Analytical solution of above nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation is the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}
g(x,t)=C sinh[(x-vt)(\frac{-\omega_0(4sin2g_0+\delta)}{cosg_0(v^2+\delta \omega_0a_0^2sing_0)})^{1/2}]\end{aligned}$$
Where C is constant.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we study semi-classic theory for spin systems with spin $ S=1$ that contain anisotropic exchange terms. it is shown that for anisotropic ferromagnet, value of average quadruple torque is not constant ($g_t\neq0$) and its dynamic contains rotational term around classical spin vector ($\gamma_t\neq0$) and another dynamics that relates to change of length of quadruple torque. There are no such excitations in regular magnets and their dynamics is achieved by use of average value of Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian. Also it is shown that soliton solutions are of the kind of non topologic Hilomorphic solitons for quadruple excitations.
[99]{}
E. L. Nagaev, Sov. Phys. Usp. 25, 31 (1982); ´ E. L. Nagaev, Magnets with Nonsimple Exchange Interactions \[in Russian\], Nauka, Moscow (1988).
V. M. Loktev and V. S. Ostrovski˘ı, Low Temp. Phys. 20, 775 (1994). Kh. O. Abdulloev, Kh. Kh. Muminov, Phys. Solid state 36 (1), Jan (1994).
Khikmat Kh. Muminov, Yousef Yousefi, Advanced in Condensed matter Physics, Volume 2012, Article ID 749764. V.S.Ostrovskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 64(5), 999, (1986).
L. Mead and N. Papanikolaou, Phys. Lett. 41, No 16, 1137 (1978).
Kh. O. Abdulloev, Kh. Kh. Muminov, Coherent states of SU(4) group in real parameterization and Hamiltonian equations of motion. Reports of Tajikistan Academy of science V.36, N6, I993 (in Russian).
Kh. O. Abdulloev, Kh. Kh. Muminov, Accounting of quadrupole dynamics of magnets with spin, Proceedings of Tajikistan Academy of Sciences, N.1, 1994, P.P. 28-30 (in Russian). V. G. Makhankov, M. A. Granados, and A. V. Makhankov, “Generalized coherent states and spin $S \geq 1$ systems,” Journal of Physics A, vol. 29, no. 12, 2005.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Giuseppe Dibitetto
- Nicolò Petri
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Surface defects in the D4-D8 brane system'
---
Introduction
============
The most peculiar feature of the quantum string theory spectrum is the presence of extended objects of non-perturbative nature, which are referred to as branes. Therefore, branes as such are the key to the non-perturbative aspects of string theory. Even if a lot of progress has been made in this respect, all main insights in this direction are still coming from the low-energy description of brane systems. For this reason, the search for new supersymmetric solutions within supergravity theories, as well as engineering novel examples of SCFTs emerging from branes should be considered as the most practical, concrete and predictive playgrounds for producing quantitative results concerning the physics of strings propagating within ten dimensional spacetime.
The aim of this paper is to take some further steps in this direction by considering the holographic realization of defect conformal field theories arising from brane systems. Generally speaking, these are CFTs defined on a defect hypersurface within the background of a higher-dimensional bulk CFT [@Cardy:1984bb; @Cardy:1989ir; @Cardy:1991tv; @McAvity:1993ue; @McAvity:1995zd; @Behrend:1999bn]. From the point of view of this “mother” theory, the presence of the defect is realized through a deformation associated to a position-dependent coupling. This deformation turns out to partially break conformal invariance in the bulk, while only preserving the conformal transformations leaving the defect CFT intact. As an immediate consequence, the one-point correlation functions are no longer vanishing, and a non-trivial displacement operator appears. This a sign of the fact that the energy-momentum tensor needs not be conserved in the presence of the defect.
The first realizations of defect CFTs in string theory were constructed in [@Karch:2000gx]. Then many other examples and applications followed (for a non-exhaustive list of references on conformal defects in string theory and holography see [@DeWolfe:2001pq; @Bachas:2001vj; @Erdmenger:2002ex; @Constable:2002xt; @Aharony:2003qf; @Bak:2003jk; @Clark:2004sb; @Kapustin:2005py; @Clark:2005te; @DHoker:2006qeo; @DHoker:2006vfr; @Buchbinder:2007ar; @DHoker:2007zhm; @DHoker:2007hhe; @Lunin:2007ab; @Gaiotto:2008sa; @Gaiotto:2008sd; @Aharony:2011yc; @Chiodaroli:2010ur; @Chiodaroli:2011fn; @Chiodaroli:2012vc; @Gutperle:2012hy; @deLeeuw:2015hxa; @Billo:2016cpy; @Karndumri:2017bqi; @Dibitetto:2017tve; @Dibitetto:2017klx; @DelZotto:2018tcj; @Karndumri:2018yiz]). The key idea is to let defect CFTs emerge from some particular supersymmetric brane configurations in which some “defect branes” end on a given brane system, which is known to give rise to an AdS vacuum in the near-horizon limit. The main effect of these intersections is to break partially the isometry group of the AdS vacuum of the original brane system and to produce a lower-dimensional warped AdS solution. The defect CFT describes the boundary conditions defining the intersection with the defect branes and the warping of the corresponding background describes the backreaction of the defect onto the bulk geometry. This may be viewed as the supergravity picture associated to the position-dependent deformation of the “mother” SCFT, dual to the original higher-dimensional AdS vacuum.
More concretely, let us consider a SUSY $\mathrm{AdS}_d$ closed string vacuum associated with the near-horizon of some brane system, where we furthermore assume the existence of a consistent truncation linking the 10d (or 11d) picture to a solution in a $d$-dimensional gauged supergravity describing the excitations around the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_d$ vacuum. If some defect branes end on this system, then we have a bound state with a $(p+1)$-dimensional worldvolume whose physics is captured by a $d$-dimensional Janus-type background $$ds_d^2=e^{2U(r)}\,ds^2_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{p+2}}}+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2+e^{2W(r)}\,ds^2_{d-p-3}\,.
\label{slicing}$$ The $d$-dimensional background is thus characterized by a ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{p+2}$ slicing and an asymptotic region locally described by the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_d$ vacuum[^1]. The solutions like can be then consistently uplifted producing warped geometries of the type ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{p+2}\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_{d-p-2}\times \Sigma_{D-d}$, where ${\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_{d-p-2}$ is realized as a fibration of the $(d-p-3)$-dimensional transverse manifold over the interval $I_r$ and $\Sigma_{D-d}$ is the internal manifold of the truncation with $D=10 \text{ or }11$. From the point of view of the dual field theories, this is exactly the supergravity realization of a defect ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_{p+1}$ within the “mother” ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_{d-1}$.
In this paper we consider D4-D8 systems in massive IIA string theory and its intersection with D2-NS5-D6 defect branes. It is well-known that stacks of coincident D4 branes localized on D8 branes and in the presence of O8 planes are described at the horizon by a warped vacuum $\mathrm{AdS}_6\times S^4$ [@Brandhuber:1999np]. The dual picture of this vacuum is realized by a matter-coupled ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ arising as a fixed point of the 5d quantum field theory living on the worldvolume of the D4s [@Intriligator:1997pq; @Seiberg:1996bd; @Ferrara:1998gv; @Brandhuber:1999np]. For a non-exhaustive list of references on ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacua in string theory and ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6/{\mbox{$\mathrm{CFT}$}}_5$ correspondence we will refer to [@DeWolfe:1999hj; @Jafferis:2012iv; @Assel:2012nf; @Bergman:2012qh; @Bergman:2012kr; @Passias:2012vp; @Lozano:2012au; @Karndumri:2012vh; @Bergman:2013koa; @Lozano:2013oma; @Apruzzi:2014qva; @Pini:2014bea; @Kim:2015hya; @Karndumri:2016ruc; @DHoker:2016ujz; @DHoker:2016ysh; @Passias:2018swc; @Bergman:2018hin; @Bah:2018lyv].
Massive IIA string theory can be consistently truncated around the $\mathrm{AdS}_6\times S^4$ vacuum [@Cvetic:1999un] and the theory produced by this truncation is $d=6$, ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(1,1)$ gauged supergravity, also known as $F(4)$ gauged supergravity [@Romans:1985tw]. The minimal incarnation of this theory will be the main tool of this paper and, within this context, we will be able to derive a new class of analytic BPS solutions characterized by a running profile for the 2-form gauge potential included into the supergravity multiplet. This new class of flows will be presented by starting from the simplest 6d background compatible with the presence of the 2-form, to subsequently move to more complicated 6d geometries. The main results are thus represented by three backgrounds of the type , namely, warped solutions of the type ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{3}\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_{3}$ admitting a locally ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ asymptotic geometry with a 2-form charge. In particular one of these backgrounds is non-singular in the IR and, in this limit, the geometry is locally given by ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times T^3$.
Among these warped ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{3}\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_{3}$ solutions, we then consider the simplest one, given by a “charged” domain wall with a running profile for the 2-form and we interpret the singular behavior appearing in the IR regime as a brane singularity associated to D2-NS5-D6 defect branes ending on the D4-D8 system. The key point of this interpretation is based on the presence of the 2-form that turns out to be the related to the $F_{(4)}$, $F_{(2)}$ and $H_{(3)}$ fluxes in the 10d picture. Thanks to the uplift formula, we then obtain the corresponding 10d backround written as ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{3}\times S^2\times S^3$ fibered over two intervals $I_r\times I_\xi$, where ${\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_3$ is realized by an $S^2$ fibration over $I_r$ and the 4d squashed sphere defining the truncation is written as an $S^3$ fibration over $I_\xi$. Then we discuss the relations of the 10d background ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{3}\times S^2\times S^3\times I_r\times I_\xi$ with the near-horizon geometry of the brane intersection D2-D4-NS5-D6-D8 found in [@Dibitetto:2017klx] and we formulate the holographic interpretation of the 6d charged domain wall as a defect ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(0,4)$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_2$ within the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$. Finally we test this interpretation by deriving the one-point functions of the defect both from holographic arguments and conformal perturbation expansion, and we find agreement in the position-dependence for the coupling driving the deformation produced by the defect.
The D4-D8 System and ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6/{\mbox{$\mathrm{CFT}$}}_5$ {#D4D8system}
==========================================================================
Let us consider the brane system discussed in [@Seiberg:1996bd; @Brandhuber:1999np; @Ferrara:1998gv]. The construction starts from a probe five-brane brane in type I string theory on $\mathbb{R}^9\times S^1$ whose worldvolume is wrapping the circle. Performing a T-duality along the circle we obtain a four-brane in type I’ on the interval $S^1/\mathbb{Z}_2$ with two $\mathrm{O}8$ planes in the fixed points. Then the four-brane can be interpreted as a D4 brane in massive IIA string theory located at a point of the interval. In order to cancel the $-16$ charge units carried by the O8 planes, one has to include at least $16$ D8 branes whose position is described by the moduli appeared after dualizing. Then a slightly more general construction involving two D8 stacks can be considered, one of each consisting of $N_f$ and $16-N_f$ D8 branes, respectively.
Let us now move to discussing the worldvolume theory of this construction. Along the interval $S^1/\mathbb{Z}_2$, the gauge group of the theory on the D4 brane is broken to $\textrm{U}(1)$, but at the two endpoints a larger gauge symmetry is restored. In particular, if the D4 and $N_f$ D8 branes are located at one orientifold and the other $16-N_f$ at the other O8, then we have a $d=5$ ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $\textrm{SU}(2)$. The 5d vector multiplet includes a gauge field and a real scalar describing the locus of the D4 along $S^1/\mathbb{Z}_2$. The matter content is given by $N_f$ hypermultiplets in the fundamental, arising from open strings streched between the D4 and the D8 branes, and by an antisymmetric massless hypermultiplet coming from the D4 brane. The supercharges and the scalars coming from the antisymmetric hypermultiplet transform as a doublet under the R-symmetry group, that is given by $\textrm{SU}(2)_R$. The global symmetry of the theory is $\textrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{SO}(2N_f)\times \textrm{U}(1)_I$, where the $\textrm{SU}(2)$ factor is associated to the antisymmetric hyper, the $\textrm{SO}(2N_f)$ one is related to the $N_f$ hypers in the fundamental and finally the extra $\textrm{U}(1)_I$ corresponds to the instanton number conservation[^2].
The above construction can be extended to a stack of $N$ coinciding D4 branes entirely localized on the $N_f$ D8 branes at a 9-dimensional orientifold and other $16-N_f$ D8 branes at the other O8 plane. In this case we have a ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ SYM theory with gauge group ${\mbox{$\mathrm{USp}$}}(N)$ coupled to $N_f$ “quark” hypers and to an antisymmetric hyper.
If the number of flavors is such that $N_f<8$, the theory introduced above has a non-trivial fixed point at the origin of the Coulomb branch, given by $\mathbb{R}^+$ and the global symmetry associated to the Higgs branch is then enhanced to $\textrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{E}_{N_f+1}$ [@Seiberg:1996bd]. This fixed point is described by a ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ with ${\mbox{$\mathrm{USp}$}}(N)$ gauge group and couplings to matter given by $N_f$ fundamental and one antysimmetric hypermultiplets.
The low-energy description of the above brane system is naturally realized in massive IIA supergravity[^3]. It turns out that this construction includes an ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum in its near-horizon limit and this corrisponds to a fixed point in the RG flow of the 5d worldvolume theory of the D4 branes [@Brandhuber:1999np; @Ferrara:1998gv].
\[1\]
branes $t$ $y^{1}$ $y^{2}$ $y^{3}$ $y^{4}$ $z$ $\rho$ $\theta^{1}$ $\theta^{2}$ $\theta^{3}$
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------
D8 $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
D4 $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$
: [*The brane picture underlying the 5d ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ SCFT defined by the D4-D8 system. The system is $\text{BPS}/4$ and the $\textrm{AdS}_{6}\times S^4$ vacuum is realized by a combination of $\rho$ and $z$.*]{}[]{data-label="Table:BO"}
Let us now consider the supergravity solution describing the simplest realization of such D4-D8 system. Given a D4 probing a D8 background with worldvolume along the coordinates $(t, x^1, x^2, x^3, x^4)$ and located at points $(z, \rho, \theta^1, \theta^2, \theta^3)$, the massive IIA field configuration has the following form [@Brandhuber:1999np; @Youm:1999zs; @Imamura:2001cr] $$\begin{split}
d s_{10}^2&=H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{-1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{-1/2}\,d s^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,4}}+H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{1/2}\,dz^2+H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{-1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{1/2}\,\left(d \rho^2+\rho^2\,ds^2_{S^3} \right)\ ,\\
e^{\Phi}&=g_s\,H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{-5/4}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{-1/4}\ ,\qquad C_{(5)}=\frac{1}{g_s\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}}\ ,
\label{BOsolution}
\end{split}$$ where $H_{\mathrm{D}8}=H_{\mathrm{D}8}(z)$ and $H_{\mathrm{D}4}=H_{\mathrm{D}4}(z,\rho)$ are suitable functions given by $$H_{\mathrm{D}4}(z, \rho)=1+\frac{Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}}{(\rho^2+\frac{9}{4}\,g_sm\,z^3)^{5/3}}\qquad \text{and}\qquad H_{\mathrm{D}8}(z)=g_s\,m\,z\ ,
\label{BOsolution2}$$ while $ds^2_{S^3}$ is the metric on the round $S^3$ parametrized by the coordinates $\theta^i$. This solution depends on two parameters, respectively given by the D4 charge $Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}$, and the D8 charge $Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}8}}}\,=\,g_s m$, $m$ being the Romans’ mass. The background satifies the 10d equations of motion , while the Bianchi identities are trivially satified. This last feature may be viewed as a consequence of the fact that the Hanany-Witten effect does not occur in D4-D8 constructions.
The AdS geometry arising in the near-horizon limit can be understood by introducing the following change of coordinates $$\rho=\zeta\,\cos\alpha \qquad \text{and}\qquad z=\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2/3}g_s^{-1/3}m^{-1/3}\,\zeta^{2/3}\,\sin^{2/3}\alpha\ ,$$ the functions take the following form $$H_{\mathrm{D}8}=\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{2/3}g_s^{2/3}m^{2/3}s^{2/3}\zeta^{2/3}\qquad \text{and}\qquad H_{\mathrm{D}4}=1+\frac{Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}}{\zeta^{10/3}}\ ,$$ with $s=\sin\alpha$ and $c=\cos\alpha$.
In this new coordinate system, the near-horizon limit is given by $\zeta \rightarrow 0$ and it corresponds to the regime in which the “$1$” in $H_{\mathrm{D}4}(\zeta)$ can be dropped. In this case the metric in can be cast in the following form [@Brandhuber:1999np] $$\begin{split}
d s^2_{10}&= \left(\frac32 g_s m\, s \right)^{-1/3}\,\left[Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}^{-1/2}ds^2_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6}}+ Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}^{1/2} ds_{S^4}^2 \right]\ ,\\[2mm]
ds^2_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6}} &=\frac{9\,Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}}{4}\,\frac{du^2}{u^2}+u^2 ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,4}}\ ,\\[1mm]
ds^2_{S^4}&=d\alpha^2+c^2\,d \Omega^2_3\ ,
\label{BOvacuum}
\end{split}$$ where $u=\zeta^{2/3}$. From we conclude that the near-horizon limit of is described by a warped vacuum of the type ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ where $S^4$ is only the upper emisphere of a (round) 4-sphere [@Brandhuber:1999np]. The boundary of $S^4$ is located at $z=0$ (or at $\alpha \rightarrow 0$) and it describes the location of the O8 plane. The isometry group of this vacuum is given by $\textrm{SO}(2,5)\times \textrm{SU}(2)\times \textrm{SU}(2)$.
If we now consider the more general case of a stack of $N=Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}$ coinciding D4 branes entirely localized on the $N_f$ D8 branes at a 9-dimensional orientifold and other $16-N_f$ D8 branes at the other O8 plane, we may conclude, following the usual holographic dictionary, that the low-energy limit of the above D4-D8 construction enjoys two dual descriptions appearing at the near-horizon of the corresponding brane solution. In particular it turns out that massive IIA string theory on the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ vacuum is dual to the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ emerging at the horizon as a fixed point of the worldvolume theory of the underlying D4-D8 system [@Brandhuber:1999np; @Ferrara:1998gv]. In particular the two $\textrm{SU}(2)$ isometry groups of the supergravity vacuum respectively correspond to the R-symmetry group of the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ and to the global symmetry of the antysimmetric hypermultiplet. Moreover this theory realizes the exceptional superconformal algebra $F(4)$, whose R-symmetry only includes a single $\textrm{SU}(2)_R$. As far as the number of flavors is concerned, it must satisfy $N_f<8$, and it is associated to the Romans’ mass through $m=8-N_f>0$. The further enhancement to $\textrm{E}_{N_f+1}$ which is expected at the fixed point from a field-theoretical viewpoint, may be obtained in this context by observing that the dilaton blows up as $\alpha \rightarrow 0$, thus rendering the corresponding type I’ string theory descriprion strongly coupled. The aforementioned enhancement can then be explained in terms of D0 brane instanton effects. These appear at the boundary and take the new gauge degrees of freedoms into account [@Seiberg:1996bd; @Brandhuber:1999np; @Ferrara:1998gv].
Including a NUT Charge
----------------------
In the previous subsection we reviewed the simple original construction of D4-D8 systems and the associated 5d fixed points. As already explained, these theories realize the exceptional superconformal algebra $F(4)$, whose R-symmetry only includes a single $\textrm{SU}(2)$ factor. Note that the $\textrm{SU}(2)^{2}$ isometries of the background in can be broken to $\textrm{SU}(2)$ by writing the round $S^{3}$ metric as a Hopf fibration of $S^{2}$ over $S^{1}$, *i.e.* $$d s^2_{S^3} \ = \ \frac{1}{4}\,d s^2_{S^2} \,+\, \frac{1}{4}\,\left(d\theta^{3}+\omega\right)^{2}\ ,$$ where the round $S^{2}$ is parametrized by $(\theta^{1},\theta^{2})$, and $d\omega\,=\,\mathrm{vol}_{S^{2}}$. The above metric can be viewed as a (trivial) lens space bearing a unit NUT charge [@Cvetic:2000cj]. Hence it becomes very natural to deform the range of the fiber coordinate $\theta^{3}$ by turning on a non-trivial NUT charge. This procedure yields the brane system depicted in table \[Table:BONUT\], which turns out preserve the same amount of supersymmetry as the one in table \[Table:BO\].
\[1\]
branes $t$ $y^{1}$ $y^{2}$ $y^{3}$ $y^{4}$ $z$ $\rho$ $\theta^{1}$ $\theta^{2}$ $\theta^{3}$
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- -------------- --------------
D8 $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
D4 $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$
KK5 $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$ ISO
: [*The brane picture underlying 5d ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ SCFT’s defined by the D4-D8-KK5 system. The system is $\text{BPS}/4$ and in the $\textrm{AdS}_{6}\times S^4/\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ vacuum the AdS radial coordinate is represented by a combination of $\rho$ and $z$, while the $\mathbb{Z}_{k}$ orbifold is realized by the KK5 charge.*]{}[]{data-label="Table:BONUT"}
The massive type IIA supergravity background describing a semilocalized D4-D8-KK5 system reads $$\begin{split}
d s_{10}^2&=H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{-1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{-1/2}\,d s^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,4}}+H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{1/2}\,dz^2+H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{-1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{KK}5}\,\left(d \rho^2+\rho^2\,d s^2_{S^2} \right)\,+\\
&\phantom{=}\,+\,H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{-1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{1/2}\,H_{\mathrm{KK}5}^{-1}\,\left(d\theta^{3}+Q_{\textrm{KK}5}\,\omega\right)^{2} \ ,\\
e^{\Phi}&=g_s\,H_{\mathrm{D}8}^{-5/4}\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}^{-1/4}\ ,\qquad C_{(5)}=\frac{1}{g_s\,H_{\mathrm{D}4}}\ ,
\label{BOsolution}
\end{split}$$ where $H_{\mathrm{D}8}=H_{\mathrm{D}8}(z)$, $H_{\mathrm{D}4}=H_{\mathrm{D}4}(z,\rho)$ and $H_{\mathrm{KK}5}=H_{\mathrm{KK}5}(\rho)$ are suitable functions given by $$H_{\mathrm{D}4}(z, \rho)=1+\frac{Q_{{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}}{(\rho+\frac{g_s m}{9Q_{\mathrm{KK}5}}\,z^3)^{5/3}}\ ,\quad H_{\mathrm{D}8}(z)=g_s\,m\,z
\quad \text{and}\quad H_{\mathrm{KK}5}(\rho)=\frac{Q_{\mathrm{KK}5}}{\rho}\ .
\label{BOsolutionKK}$$ If we now introduce $$\rho=\frac{g_s m}{9}\,\zeta^{3}\,\cos^{2}\alpha \qquad \text{and}\qquad z=Q_{\mathrm{KK}5}^{1/3}\,\zeta\,\sin^{2/3}\alpha\ ,$$ the metric takes the form $$\ell^{2}\,ds_{10}^{2}\,=\, s^{-1/3}\,\left(ds_{\mathrm{AdS}_{6}}^{2}\,+\,\frac{4}{3^{5/3}}\,Q_{\mathrm{KK}5}\,ds^{2}_{S^{4}/\mathbb{Z}_{k}}\right)\ ,$$ with $\ell^{2}=3^{5/3}\,(g_s m)^{1/3}Q_{\mathrm{KK}5}^{1/6}Q_{\mathrm{D}4}^{-1/2}$ and $$ds^{2}_{S^{4}/\mathbb{Z}_{k}}=d\alpha^2+\frac{c^2}{4}\left(d s^2_{S^2} +\left(Q_{\mathrm{KK}5}^{-1}\,d\theta^{3}+\omega\right)^{2}\right)\,,$$ where $s=\sin\alpha$ and $c=\cos\alpha$.
The Supergravity Setup
======================
The bosonic isometries of the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ vacuum introduced in section \[D4D8system\] are naturally embedded into the $F(4)$ superalgebra and this hints a strong link with minimal[^4] ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(1,1)$ gauged supergravity in $d=6$. This theory is also known as $F(4)$ or Romans supergravity and it was firstly studied in [@Romans:1985tw]. In this section we will introduce the main properties of this supergravity theory, we will present the unique supersymmetric $\mathrm{AdS}_6$ vacuum admitted by the scalar potential and we will revisit some domain wall solutions as simplest examples of backgrounds involving non-trivial field profiles.
Subsequently we will present the consistent truncation of massive IIA supergravity around the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ [@Cvetic:1999un]. This will turn out to reproduce exactly the equations of motion of $F(4)$ gauged supergravity. For this reason this 6d supergravity will constitute a powerful tool to capture the low-energy physics of those brane systems in massive IIA that are related to the D4-D8 constructions presented in section \[D4D8system\].
Minimal ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(1,1)$ Gauged Supergravity in $d=6$
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Half-maximal ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(1,1)$ supergravities in $d=6$ [@Romans:1985tw; @Andrianopoli:2001rs] admit the coupling of the supergravity multiplet to an arbitrary number $n$ of matter multiplets. Each of these includes four real scalar fields and the entire set of moduli parametrizes the $(4n+1)$-dimensional coset $$\mathbb R^+ \times \frac{\mathrm{SO}(4,n)}{\mathrm{SO}(4)\times \mathrm{SO}(n)}\ .$$ In this paper we consider the minimal realization of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(1,1)$ supergravity in $d=6$, then retaining in our analysis only the pure supergravity multiplet. We refer to appendix \[app:halfmax\] for the details of the truncation yielding the theory in its minimal incarnation as originally introduced in [@Romans:1985tw]. In this case the global isometry group breaks down to [@Andrianopoli:2001rs; @Karndumri:2016ruc; @Karndumri:2012vh] $$G_0=\mathbb R^+ \times \mathrm{SO}(4)\,.
\label{global}$$ The R-symmetry group is the diagonal $\mathrm{SU}(2)_R \subset \mathrm{SO}(4)\simeq \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)$ corresponding to $16$ preserved supercharges, which are in turn organized in their irreducible chiral components. The fermionic field content of the supergravity multiplet is given by two gravitini and two gaugini. Both the gravitini and the gaugini can be packed into pairs of Weyl spinors with opposite chiralities. Moreover, in $d=1+5$ spacetimes it is possible to introduce symplectic-Majorana-Weyl spinors[^5] (SMW). This formulation turns out to be very convenient in that it arranges the fermionic degrees of freedom of the theory into $\mathrm{SU}(2)_R$ doublets, respectively denoted by $\psi_{\mu}^a$ and $\chi^a$ with $a=1,2$. Note that such objects must also respect the pseudo-reality condtion in order for them to describe the correct number of propagating degrees of freedom.
The bosonic content of the supergravity multiplet consists of the graviton $e_\mu^m$ with $m=0,\dots,5$, a real scalar $X$, a 2-form gauge potential ${\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}$, a non-Abelian $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ valued vector $A^i$ and an Abelian vector $A^0$.
The consistent deformations of the minimal theory are determined by the gauging of the R-symmetry $\mathrm{SU}(2)_R \subset \mathrm{SO}(4)$, through the vectors $A^i$, and by a Stückelberg coupling giving mass to the 2-form ${\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}$. The first deformation is described by a coupling constant $g$ and the second by a mass parameter $m$.
The bosonic Lagrangian has the form [@Romans:1985tw; @Cvetic:1999un; @Nunez:2001pt] $$\begin{split}
\label{6dlagrangian}
{\mbox{$\mathcal{L}$}}&= R\,\star_{\,6} 1-4 \, X^{-2}\,\star_{\,6}\,dX\,\wedge \, dX-\frac12\,X^4\,\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}\wedge {\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}-V(X)\\
&- \frac12\, X^{-2} \,\left( \,\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^{i}\wedge {\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^i+\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\wedge {\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\,\right)-\frac12 \, {\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge \,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^0\,\wedge {\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^0\\
&-\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\,m \, {\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge \,{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge {\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^0-\frac13\,m^2 \, {\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge \,{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge {\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}-\frac12 \, {\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge\, {\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^{i}\wedge {\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^i\,,
\end{split}$$ where the field strengths are defined as $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}_{(3)} \ &= \ d{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)} \ ,\\
\mathcal{F}_{(2)}^0 \ &= \ dA^0 \ ,\\
\mathcal{H}_{(2)} \ &= \ dA^0+\sqrt{2}\,m\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)} \ ,\\
\mathcal{F}_{(2)}^{i} \ &= \ d A^{i} + \frac{g}{2} \, \epsilon^{ijk}\,A^{j}\wedge A^{k} \ .\\
\end{split}$$ The scalar potential $V(X)$ induced by the gauging is given by $$V(X)=m^2\,X^{-6}-4\sqrt{2}\,gm\,X^{-2}-2\,g^2\,X^2\ ,
\label{scalarpotential}$$ and it can be expressed in terms of a real function $f(X)$, the BPS superpotential, as it follows $$V(X) = 16\,X^{2}\,\left(D_{X}f\right)^{2} -80\,f(X)^{2}\ ,$$ where $f(X)$ is given by $$f(X)=\frac{1}{8}\,\left(m\,X^{-3}+\sqrt2 \,g\, X \right)\ .
\label{superpotential}$$ The SUSY variations of the fermions are expressed in terms of a 6d Killing spinor $\zeta^a$ in the following way [@Romans:1985tw; @Nunez:2001pt] $$\begin{split}
\label{SUSYvariation6d}
\delta_\zeta \psi_{\mu}^a\,=\,&\,\nabla_\mu\,\zeta^a+4g\,(A_\mu)^{a}_{\,\,\,b}\,\zeta^b+\frac{X^2}{48}\,\Gamma_*\Gamma^{mnp}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)\,mnp}\,\Gamma_\mu\zeta^a\\
&+i\,\frac{X^{-1}}{16\sqrt2}\,\left(\Gamma_\mu^{\,\,\,mn}-6\,e_\mu^m\,\Gamma^n\right)\,({\mbox{$\mathcal{\hat{H}}$}}_{mn})^{a}_{\,\,\,b}\,\zeta^b-if(X)\,\Gamma_\mu\Gamma_*\zeta^a\ ,\\
\delta_\zeta \chi^{a}\,=\,&\,X^{-1}\Gamma^m\partial_m X\,\zeta^a+\frac{X^2}{24}\,\Gamma_*\Gamma^{mnp}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)\,mnp}\,\zeta^a\\
&-i\,\frac{X^{-1}}{8\sqrt2}\,\Gamma^{mn}({\mbox{$\mathcal{\hat{H}}$}}_{mn})^{a}_{\,\,\,b}\,\zeta^b+2i\,XD_X\,f(X)\,\Gamma_*\,\zeta^a\ ,
\end{split}$$ with $\nabla_\mu\,\zeta^a=\partial_\mu\zeta^a+\frac14\,\omega_\mu^{\,\,\,mn}\,\Gamma_{mn}\,\zeta^a$ and $({\mbox{$\mathcal{\hat{H}}$}}_{mn})^{a}_{\,\,\,b}$ defined as $$({\mbox{$\mathcal{\hat{H}}$}}_{\mu\nu})^{a}_{\,\,\,b}={\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)\,\mu\nu}\,\delta^{a}_{\,\,\,b}-4\,\Gamma_*\,({\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)\,\mu\nu})^{a}_{\,\,\,b}\ ,$$ where we introduced the notation $A^{a}_{\,\,\,b}=\frac12\,A^i(\sigma^i)^{a}_{\,\,\,b}$ with $\sigma^i$ Pauli matrices given in . Varying with respect to all the bosonic fields we obtain the equations of motion $$\begin{split}
&R_{\mu\nu}-4\,X^{-2}\,\partial_\mu X\,\partial_\nu\,X-\frac14\,V(X)\,g_{\mu\nu}-\frac14\,X^4\,\left({\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)\,\mu}^{\quad \,\,\, \alpha\beta}{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)\,\nu\alpha\beta}-\frac16\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}^2\,g_{\mu\nu}\right)\\\vspace{2mm}
&-\frac12\,X^{-2}\,\left({\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)\,\mu}^{\quad\,\,\,\alpha\,}{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)\,\nu\alpha}-\frac18\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}^2g_{\mu\nu}\right)-\frac12\,X^{-2}\left({\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)\,\mu}^{i\quad\alpha}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}^i_{(2)\,\nu\alpha}-\frac18{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^{i\,\,\,2}\,g_{\mu\nu}\right)=0\,,\\\vspace{2mm}
&d\left(X^4\,\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}\right)=-\frac12\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}-\frac12\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}^i_{(2)}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}^i_{(2)}-\sqrt{2}\,m \,X^{-2}\,\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\,,\\\vspace{2mm}
&d\left(X^{-2}\,\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\right)=-{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}\,,\\\vspace{2mm}
& D\left( X^{-2}\,\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^i\right)=-{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}^i_{(2)}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}\,,\\\vspace{3mm}
&d\left( X^{-1}\star_{\,6}dX\right)+\,\frac18\,X^{-2}\,\left(\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}+\star_{\,6}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}^i_{(2)}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}^i_{(2)}\right)\\
&-\frac14\,X^4\,\star_{\,6}{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}-\frac18\,X\,D_X\,V(X)\star_{\,6}1=0\,,
\end{split}
\label{eom}$$ where $D$ is the gauge covariant derivative defined as $D \,\omega^i=d\omega^i+g\,\epsilon_{ijk}\,A_{}^j\,\wedge\,\omega^k$ with $\omega^i$ any $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ covariant quantity.
${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ Vacuum and Domain Walls
---------------------------------------------------
The scalar potential admits a critical point giving rise to an $\mathrm{AdS}_6$ vacuum preserving 16 real supercharges. This vacuum is realized by the following value of $X$ $$X=\frac{3^{1/4}\,m^{1/4}}{2^{1/8}\,g^{1/4}}\ ,
\label{AdS6}$$ and by setting all the gauge potentials to zero. The simplest excited background in 6d ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(1,1)$ gauged supergravity is a field configuration involving only the scalar $X$. Such a system is described by a domain wall flow of the type $$\begin{split}
& ds_{6}^{2} = e^{2V(r)} \,dr^{2}+ e^{2U(r)}\,ds_{\mathbb{R}^{1,4}}^{2} \ , \\
& X = X(r) \,,
\label{DWansatz}
\end{split}$$ where $ds_{\mathbb{R}^{1,4}}^{2}$ is the metric of the 5d Minkowski spacetime. In order to derive the explicit radial dependence of the warp factors and of the scalars, we can set to zero the SUSY variations of fermions and choose as Killing spinor a Dirac spinor[^6] $\zeta$ of the form $$\zeta(r) = Y(r)\,\zeta_{0}\ ,
\label{KspinorDW}$$ where $\zeta_{0}$ is a constant Dirac spinor satisying the projection condition $$-i\,\Gamma^3\,\Gamma_*\,\zeta_{0}=\zeta_{0}\ .
\label{projDW}$$ Imposing the background with the Killing spinor , the SUSY variations reduce to a set of flow equations given by $$U' = -2 \, e^{V} \, f(X) \ , \qquad Y' \, = -Y\, e^{V} \,f(X) \ , \qquad X' = 2\, e^{V} \,X^{2} \,D_{X}f \ .
\label{floweqDW}$$ The warp factor $V$ is pure gauge and it can be defined as $$e^{V}=\frac{ X^{-2}}{2\, D_{X}f}\ ,$$ so that the flow equations can be easily intergrated to give $$e^{2U}= \left(\frac{r}{\sqrt{2}\, g \,r^4-3 \,m}\right)^{2/3}\ , \qquad e^{2V}= \left(\frac{4\,r^2}{\sqrt{2}\, g \,r^4-3 \,m}\right)^{2}\,,\qquad X=r\ ,
\label{DWsolution}$$ with a radial dependence of the Killing spinor specified by $Y=e^{U/2}$.
The Massive IIA Origin of $F(4)$ Supergravity {#reduction}
---------------------------------------------
In this subsection we present the consistent truncation of massive IIA supergravity around the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ vacuum introduced in section \[D4D8system\]. The 6d vacuum will then gain a natural interpretation in massive IIA string theory as the near-horizon of a D4-D8 system and $F(4)$ gauged supergravity will turn out to be the effective theory capturing the physics associated to the background’s excitations around this vacuum. The stringy interpretation of is realized thanks to the reduction Ansatz constructed in [@Cvetic:1999un], in which a consistent truncation to the theory is constructed. In particular, after fixing the 6d gauge parameter as $$m \ = \ \frac{\sqrt{2}\,g}{3}\ ,
\label{m&guplift}$$ the 6d equations of motion can be obtained from the following truncation Ansatz of the 10d background[^7] [@Cvetic:1999un] $$\begin{split}
ds^2_{10}=s^{-1/3}\,X^{-1/2}\,\Delta^{1/2}\,\left[ds^2_6+2g^{-2}\,X^{2}\,ds_{\tilde{S}^4}^2\right]\ ,
\label{truncationansatz}
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta=Xc^2+X^{-3}s^2$ and $ds_{\tilde{S}^4}^2$ is the metric of a squashed 4-sphere $\tilde{S}^4$ describing a fibration of a 3-sphere over a circle $$ds_{\tilde{S}^4}^2=d\xi^2+\frac14\,\Delta^{-1}\,X^{-3}\,c^{2}\,\sum_{i=1}^3\,\left(\theta^i-gA^i \right)^2\ ,
\label{4-sphere}$$ with $c=\cos\xi$ and $s=\sin \xi$. By observing the internal structure of , one may immediately conclude that also the internal 3-sphere is deformed and, in particular, it identifies an $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ bundle for which the 6d vectors $A^i$ are the connections and $\theta^i$ the left-invariant 1-forms[^8]. The rest of the 10d fields are given by [@Cvetic:1999un] $$\label{10dfluxes}
\begin{split}
F_{(4)}&=-\frac{\sqrt 2}{6}\,g^{-3}\,s^{1/3}\,c^3\,\Delta^{-2}\,U\,d\xi\,\wedge\,\epsilon_{(3)}-\sqrt{2}\,g^{-3}\,s^{4/3}\,c^4\,\Delta^{-2}\,X^{-3}\,dX\,\wedge\,\epsilon_{(3)}\\
&-\sqrt2 \,g^{-1}\,s^{1/3}\,c\,X^4\,\star_{\,6}{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}\,\wedge\,d\xi-\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\,s^{4/3}\,X^{-2}\,\star_{\,6}{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\\
&+\frac{g^{-2}}{\sqrt 2}\,s^{1/3}\,c\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^i\,h^i\,\wedge\,d\xi-\frac{g^{-2}}{4\sqrt2}\,s^{4/3}\,c^2\,\Delta^{-1}\,X^{-3}\,\epsilon_{ijk}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(2)}^i\,\wedge h^j\wedge\,h^k\ ,\\
F_{(2)}&=\frac{s^{2/3}}{\sqrt 2}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\ ,\qquad H_{(3)}=s^{2/3}\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}+g^{-1}\,s^{-1/3}\,c\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{H}$}}_{(2)}\,\wedge\,d\xi\ ,\\
e^{\Phi}&=s^{-5/6}\,\Delta^{1/4}\,X^{-5/4}\ ,\qquad F_{(0)}=m\ .
\end{split}$$ where $U=X^{-6}\,s^2-3X^2\,c^2+4\,X^{-2}\,c^2-6\,X^{-2}$ and $\epsilon_{(3)}=h^1\,\wedge\,h^2\,\wedge\,h^3$ with $h^i=\theta^i-gA^i$. Expressing in terms of , one obtains the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ vacuum . In particular, for $X=1$ and vanishing gauge potentials, the manifold becomes a round 4-sphere[^9]. From it follows that $F_{(4)}$ is the only non-zero flux, in addition to the Romans’ mass, supporting the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ vacuum. Together with the dilaton, it has the following form $$F_{(4)}=\frac{5\sqrt{ 2}}{6}\,g^{-3}\,s^{1/3}\,c^3\,d\xi\,\wedge\,\epsilon_{(3)}\ ,\qquad e^{\Phi}=s^{-5/6}\ ,$$ which are exactly the flux and dilaton configurations corresponding to the near-horizon of the semilocalized D4-D8 system introduced in section \[D4D8system\] [@Brandhuber:1999np; @Cvetic:1999un].
In terms of an embedding tensor/fluxes dictionary, the massive type IIA origin of the minimal theory is summarized in table \[Table:ET/fluxes\].
\[1\]
Fluxes $\Theta$ Minimal $\mathbb{R}^{+}_{X}$ weights
--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------- ------------------------------
$F_{0ijk}$ $\zeta_{0}\,\epsilon_{ijk}$ $m$ $+3$
\[1mm\] $F_{(0)}$ $\frac{1}{3!}\epsilon^{ijk}\,f_{ijk}$ $g$ $+1$
\[1mm\] $\omega_{ij}^{\phantom{kl}k}$ $f_{ijk}$ $g$ $+1$
\[1mm\]
: [*The embedding tensor/fluxes dictionary specifying the massive IIA origin of Romans’ theory in 6d. The $\Theta$ notation refers to the theory coupled to four vector multiplets in appendix \[app:halfmax\]. $\omega_{ij}{}^{k}$ refers to the spin connection of $S^{3}$.*]{}[]{data-label="Table:ET/fluxes"}
Note that this massive IIA realization of Romans’ theory supports spacetime-filling KK monopoles. As already mentioned in appendix \[app:halfmax\], the presence of such a tadpole is inferred by a violation of the extra constraints in . The fact that the source is of a KK5-brane type is due to the fact that its WZ action is constructed through the coupling to a *mixed* symmetry potential of $(7,1)$ type. The corresponding tadpole will then be a $(3,1)$-form. Such an object can be constructed in our case as $\theta^{ae}\,F_{bcde}$, where $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ are $\mathrm{SO}(4)$ indices and $\theta^{ij}$ is constructed from the above $\omega_{ij}^{\phantom{kl}k}$ by contracting it with $\epsilon^{ijk}$. Such KK5 branes as spacetime-filling sources exactly correspond to the objects appearing in the brane system introduced in table \[Table:BONUT\].
In the following section we are going to present new classes of solutions to 6d $F(4)$ supergravity involving non-trivial profiles for the two-form field. Thanks to the uplift formulae revisited in this section, these will gain a natural massive type IIA origin that will allow us to speculate on their possible holographic interpretation.
BPS Flows with the 2-form Gauge Potential {#flows}
=========================================
In this section we derive a new class of supersymmetric solutions for the theory by solving the BPS equations associated to the SUSY variations . These flows are characterized by a non-trivial profile for the 2-form gauge potential ${\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}$ and some of them enjoy a UV regime reproducing locally the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum . The spacetime backgrounds defining these solutions may be divided into two classes: one featured by a three-dimensional Minkowski $\mathbb R^{1,2}$ slicing and the other by a ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ foliation.
We will firstly formulate the general Ansatz on the bosonic fields and on the Killing spinor giving rise to the first-order flow associated to this class of backgrounds. Then we will explicitly solve the first-order equations obtaining a class of novel solutions preserving 8 real supercharges.
The General Ansatz
------------------
The 6d metrics considered are of the general form $$ds_6^2=e^{2U(r)}\,ds^2_{M_3}+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2+e^{2W(r)}\,ds^2_{\Sigma_2}\ ,
\label{general6dmetric}$$ where the “worldvolume” part $M_3$ is given by the 3-dimensional Minkowski spacetime $\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$ or by ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$, and the “transverse” space $\Sigma_2$ can be either $\mathbb{R}^2$ or $S^2$. As in the case of the domain wall solution , we introduce the non-dynamical warp factor $V$ that will turn out to be crucial to analytically solve the flow equations.
For simplicity we will consider vanishing vectors, *i.e.* $A^i=0$ and $A^0=0$ and, as far as the 2-form gauge potential ${\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}$ is concerned, it will be considered wrapping the manifold $\Sigma_2$ as it follows $${\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}=b(r)\,\text{vol}_{\Sigma_2}\ .
\label{general2form}$$ We furthermore also assume a purely radial dependence for the scalar $$X=X(r)\ .$$ Since we are looking for SUSY backgrounds, we need to specify a suitable Killing spinor realizing a set of non-trivial first-order equations corresponding to the spacetime background given in and . As in the case of the domain wall , the action of the SUSY variations on the $\mathrm{SU}(2)_R$ indices of the Killing spinor $\zeta^a$ is trivial, so it is more natural to reorganize the components of a Killing spinor into a $(1+5)$-dimensional Dirac spinor $\zeta$. Following the splitting of the Clifford algebra given in , the Killing spinors considered are of the form $$\begin{split}
\zeta(r)=&\ \zeta^++i\,B\,\Gamma_*\,\zeta^-\ ,\\
\zeta^\pm =& \,Y(r)\,\eta_{M_3}\,\otimes \,\left(\cos\theta(r)\,\chi^\pm_{\Sigma_2}\otimes \varepsilon_0+i\,\sin\theta(r)\,\gamma_*\,\chi^\pm_{\Sigma_2}\,\otimes\sigma^3 \varepsilon_0 \right)\ ,
\label{generalKilling}
\end{split}$$ where the explicit representations of the chiral operator $\Gamma_*$ is defined in and the complex-conjugation matrix $B$ in in terms of the Dirac matrices on $\Sigma_2$. The spinor $\eta_{{\scriptsize{\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}}$ on $M_3={\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ is a Majorana Killing spinor enjoying 2 real independent components and satisfying the following Killing equation $$\nabla_{\scriptsize{x^\alpha}}\, \eta_{M_3}=\frac{L}{2}\,\rho_{\scriptsize{x^\alpha}}\,\eta_{M_3}\ ,
\label{killingM3}$$ where $\rho_{\scriptsize{x^\alpha}}$ are the Dirac matrices introduced in and $L^{-1}$ the radius of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$. The flat case $M_3=\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$ is recovered by taking a solution of with $L=0$.
Let us now consider the Euclidean spinor $\chi_{S^2}$ on $\Sigma_2=S^2$ with radius $R^{-1}$. This is a complex spinor carrying 4 real independent degrees of freedom that can split into 2+2 components $\chi^\pm_{S^2}$ solving the following Killing conditions on $S^2$, $$\begin{split}
& \nabla_{\scriptsize{\theta^i}}\, \chi^+_{\Sigma_2}=\frac{R}{2}\,\gamma_*\,\gamma_{\scriptsize{\theta^i}}\,\chi^-_{\Sigma_2}\ ,\\
& \nabla_{\scriptsize{\theta^i}}\, \chi^-_{\Sigma_2}=\frac{R}{2}\,\gamma_*\,\gamma_{\scriptsize{\theta^i}}\,\chi^+_{\Sigma_2}\ .
\label{killingS2}
\end{split}$$ In the $R=0$ limit we obtain the Killing spinor equations for the flat case $\Sigma_2=\mathbb{R}^2$ in which $\chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}^+=\chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}^-\equiv \chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}$.
Finally $\varepsilon_0$ is a 2-dimensional real constant spinor encoding the two different chiral parts of $\zeta$ as $$\Gamma_*\,\zeta=\pm\,\zeta \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad \sigma^3\,\varepsilon_0=\pm\,\varepsilon_0\ ,$$ where we used the identity . Summarizing, we have that our $\zeta$ depends on 16 real independent components in total. As we shall see later, these will be reduced by half by an algebraic projection condition associated with the particular background considered.
Background with $M_3=\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$ and $\Sigma_2=\mathbb{R}^{2}$ {#sec:MkW3R2}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s start with the simplest configuration in which the metric is featured by $M_3=\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$ and $\Sigma_2=\mathbb{R}^{2}$. The 6d background takes the following form $$\begin{split}
&ds_6^2=e^{2U(r)}\,ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,2}}+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2+e^{2W(r)}\,ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ ,\\
&{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}=b(r)\,\text{vol}_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ ,\\
& X=X(r)\,.
\label{MkW3R2ansatz}
\end{split}$$ The Killing spinor realizing the background is included into the general expression given in . In the case in which both $M_3$ and $\Sigma_2$ are flat, the spinors $\eta_{\mathbb{R}^{1,2}}$, $\chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}^\pm$ respectively satisfy the Killing spinor equations and in the limits where both $L=0$ and $R=0$. This implies that the Killing spinor of the background may be written as $$\zeta=Y(r)\,\eta_{\,\mathbb{R}^{1,2}}\otimes \left(\cos\theta(r)\,\chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}\otimes \varepsilon_0+i\,\sin\theta(r)\,\gamma_*\,\chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}\otimes\sigma^3 \,\varepsilon_0 \right)\ .
\label{killingMkW3R2}$$ The projection condition expressed in terms of takes the form $$(\gamma_*\otimes \sigma^1)\,(\chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}\otimes \varepsilon_0)=\chi_{\mathbb{R}^2}\otimes \varepsilon_0\ ,
\label{projMkW3R2}$$ where we omitted the spinor’s $\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$ part since the action of on $\eta_{\mathbb{R}^{1,2}}$ is given by the identity. We can recast in the more compact form given by $$\zeta=Y(r)\left(\cos\theta(r)\,\mathbb{I}_8-\sin \theta(r)\,\Gamma^4\,\Gamma^5\,\Gamma_* \right)\zeta_0\ ,$$ where $\zeta_0$ is a constant Dirac spinor satisfying the condition $-i\,\Gamma^3\,\Gamma_*\,\zeta_{0}=\zeta_{0}\,$.
Evaluating the SUSY variations onto the background and the Killing spinor satisfying , we obtain the following set of first-order equations $$\begin{split}
U^\prime=&\ -2\,e^{V}\,\frac{\cos(4\theta)}{\cos(2\theta)}\,f\ ,\\
W^\prime=&\ 2\, e^{V} \,\frac{\cos (4 \theta )-2}{ \cos (2 \theta )}\,f\ ,\\
b^\prime=&\ \frac{16}{X^2} \,e^{V+2 W}\, \sin (2 \theta )\,f\ ,\\
X^\prime=&\ \frac{2\, e^{V}\, X}{\cos(2\theta)}\, \left(\cos(2\theta)\,X D_X \,f+2 \,(2\cos(2\theta)-1)\,\sin^2(2\,\theta)\,f\right)\ ,\\
Y^\prime=&\, -Y\,e^{V}\,\frac{\cos(4\theta)}{\cos(2\theta)}\,f\ ,\\
\theta^\prime=&\ 4 \,e^{V} \,\sin (2 \theta )\,f\ .
\label{floweqMkW3R2}
\end{split}$$ For consistency the above equations have to be supplemented by the two constraints $$\begin{split}
&b\overset{!}{=}\frac{8}{m}\,e^{2W}\,X\,\tan(2\theta)\,f\ ,\\
&X\,D_X\,f+3\,f\overset{!}{=}0\ .
\label{constraintsMkW3R2}
\end{split}$$ The second relation of implies that the flow must be driven by the run-away superpotential given by $$f=\frac{m}{8}\,X^{-3}\ .
\label{superpotentialMkW3R2}$$ If holds, than the expression of $b$ in is automatically compatible with . In order to intergrate the equations we make the following gauge choice $$e^{V}=(4\,f)^{-1}\ .$$ Starting from the equation for $\theta^\prime$ we can solve the whole system obtaining $$\begin{split}
e^{2U}=&\ \sinh(4 r)^{1/4} \coth(2 r)^{3/4}\ ,\\
e^{2W}=&\ \sinh (4 r)^{1/4} \tanh (2 r)^{5/4}\ ,\\
e^{2V}=&\ \frac{4}{m^2}\, \coth(2 r)^{3/4}\, \sinh(4 r)^{9/4}\ ,\\
b=&\,-\frac{1}{\sqrt2}\cosh(2r)^{-2}\ ,\\
X=&\ \sinh(4 r) ^{3/8}\coth (2 r)^{1/8}\ ,\\
Y=&\ \sinh(4 r)^{1/16} \coth(2 r) ^{3/16}\ ,\\
\theta=&\ \arctan\left(e^{2 r}\right)\ .
\label{flowMkW3R2}
\end{split}$$ The solution satisfies the equations of motion with a run-away scalar potential given by $$V(X)=m^2\,X^{-6}\ .
\label{run-away}$$ The potential does not admit critical points so cannot be asymptotically $\mathrm{AdS}_6$ for $r \rightarrow +\infty$, while in the IR regime $r \rightarrow 0$ the background becomes singular.
Background with $M_3=\mathrm{AdS}_3$ and $\Sigma_2=\mathbb{R}^{2}$ {#sec:AdS3R2}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s now consider a curved worldvolume part $M_3=\mathrm{AdS}_3$, the 6d spacetime background takes the following form $$\begin{split}
ds_6^2=&\ e^{2U(r)}\,ds^2_{\mathrm{AdS}_3}+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2+e^{2W(r)}\,ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ ,\\
{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}=& \ b(r)\,\text{vol}_{\mathbb{R}^{2}}\ ,\\
X=& \ X(r)\ .
\label{AdS3R2ansatz}
\end{split}$$ As opposed to the previous case, a Killing spinor for has to produce the new contributions to the SUSY variations coming from the non-zero curvature of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$. Considering the general form , these contributions are encoded in $\eta_{\mathrm{AdS}_3}$ satisfying with $L\neq 0$. In order to simplify the derivation of BPS equations one may notice that the first-order formulation of the theory defined by is gauge-dependent, *i.e.* it depends explicitly on the spin connections of the background. This means that we can look for a parametrization of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ producing contributions in the SUSY variations[^10] that do not depend on the internal coordinates of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$. This would allow us to keep the same Killing spinor of the flat case [@Dibitetto:2017tve]. The parametrization of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ giving rise to constant components of the spin connections in the flat basis is the Hopf fibration, $${{\rm d}}s_{\mathrm{AdS}_3}^{2}=\frac{1}{4L^2}\left[ (dx^1)^2+\cosh^2x^1 (dx^2)^2-\left(d t-\sinh x^1 d x^2\right)^2 \right] \ ,
\label{AdS3}$$ where the corresponding non-symmetric dreibein has the following form $$\begin{split}
&e^{0} = \frac{1}{2L} \,\left({{\rm d}}t -\sinh x^1 {{\rm d}}x^2\right)\ ,\\
&e^{1} = \frac{1}{2L} \, \left(\cos t \,{{\rm d}}x^{1}\,-\,\sin t \cosh x^1 \,{{\rm d}}x^{2}\right) \ ,\\
&e^{2} = \frac{1}{2L}\left(\cos t \cosh x^1{{\rm d}}x^2 + \sin t \, {{\rm d}}x^1 \right) \ .
\end{split}
\label{AdS3vielbein}$$ The dreibein defines a constant spin connection in the flat basis. As a consequence, in this non-symmetric parametrization of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$, we can keep the same form of the Killing spinor given in with the projection condition .
Evaluating the Ansatz into the SUSY variations with the Killing spinor satisfying , we obtain the following set of first-order equations $$\begin{split}
U^\prime=&\ -\frac{1}{4}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((3+5\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
W^\prime=&\ -\frac{1}{4}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((7+\cos(4\theta))\,f-6 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
b^\prime=&\ -\frac{2}{X^2} \,e^{V+2 W}\, \sin (2 \theta )\,\left(f+3\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
X^\prime=&\ \frac14\, e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\, X\, \left((-1+\cos(4\theta))\,f+ (5+3\cos(4\theta))\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
Y^\prime=&\ -\frac{Y}{8}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((3+5\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
\theta^\prime=&\ e^{V} \,\sin (2 \theta )\,\left(f-X\,D_Xf \right)\ .
\label{floweqAdS3R2}
\end{split}$$ where one has to impose the two additional constraints $$\begin{split}
b\overset{!}{=}&\,\frac{2}{m} \,e^{2 W}\, \tan (2 \theta )\,X\,\left(f-X\,D_Xf\right)\ ,\\
L\overset{!}{=}&\,- e^{U}\, \sin (2 \theta )\,\left(3\,f+X\,D_Xf\right)\ .
\label{constraintsAdS3R2}
\end{split}$$ The relations in are automatically satisfied if $f$ coincides with the superpotential of the theory . If we perform the gauge choice $$e^V=\left(f-X\,D_Xf\right)^{-1}\ ,$$ we can analytically intergrate the system in , obtaining the following solution $$\begin{split}
e^{2U}=&\ 2\,\sinh(4 r)\ ,\\
e^{2W}=&\ 2\,\sinh (2 r)^{2} \tanh (2 r)\ ,\\
e^{2V}=&\ \frac{2^{5/4}\,3^{3/2}}{m^{1/2}\,g^{3/2}}\, \tanh(2 r)^{-3}\ ,\\
b=&\ -\frac{2^{5/4}\,g^{1/2}}{3^{1/2}\,m^{1/2}}\sinh(2r)\, \tanh (2 r)^2\ ,\\
X=&\ \frac{3^{1/4}\,m^{1/4}}{2^{1/8}\,g^{1/4}} \tanh (2 r)^{-1/2}\ ,\\
Y=&\ 2^{1/4}\,\sinh(4 r)^{1/4}\ ,\\
\theta=&\ \arctan\left(e^{2 r}\right)\ .
\label{flowAdS3R2}
\end{split}$$ The equations of motion are satified by the flow if the radius of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ takes the following form $$L=2^{3/8}\,3^{1/4}\,(g^{3}\,m)^{1/4}\ ,$$ with $g>0$ and $m>0$. In the asymptotic limit $r \rightarrow + \infty$ the background defines locally the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum introduced in . As for the $r \rightarrow 0$ limit, the solution is singular.
Background with $M_3=\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$ and $\Sigma_2=S^{2}$ {#sec:MkW3S2}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let’s consider the specular case of transverse space with non-zero curvature, *i.e.* $\Sigma=S^2$. In this case the 6d background takes the following form $$\begin{split}
ds_6^2=&\ e^{2U(r)}\,ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,2}}+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2+e^{2W(r)}\,ds^2_{S^2}\ ,\\
{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}=&\ b(r)\,\text{vol}_{S^2}\ ,\\
X=&\ X(r)\ ,
\label{MkW3S2ansatz}
\end{split}$$ and the corresponding Killing spinor is given by $$\begin{split}
\zeta(r)=&\ \zeta^++i\,B\,\Gamma_*\,\zeta^-\ ,\\
\zeta^\pm=&\ Y(r)\,\eta_{\mathbb{R}^{1,2}}\,\otimes \,\left(\cos\theta(r)\,\chi^\pm_{S^2}\otimes \varepsilon_0+i\,\sin\theta(r)\,\gamma_*\,\chi^\pm_{S^2}\,\otimes\sigma^3 \varepsilon_0 \right)\ ,
\label{killingMkW3S2}
\end{split}$$ where $\chi^\pm_{S^2}$ satify the equations . By further imposing the algebraic condition $$(\gamma_*\otimes \sigma^1)\,(\chi^\pm_{S^2}\otimes \varepsilon_0)=\pm\,\chi^\pm_{S^2}\otimes \varepsilon_0\ ,
\label{projMkW3S2}$$ the BPS equations for the background take the form $$\begin{split}
U^\prime=&\ -\frac{1}{2}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((3+\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
W^\prime=&\ \frac{1}{2}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((-5+\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
b^\prime=&\ \frac{4}{X^2} \,e^{V+2 W}\, \sin (2 \theta )\,\left(f-\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
X^\prime=&\ \frac12\, e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\, X\, \left(2\,\sin(2\theta)^2\,f+ (3+\cos(4\theta))\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
Y^\prime=&\ -\frac{Y}{4}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((3+\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
\theta^\prime=&\ e^{V} \,\sin (2 \theta )\,\left(f-X\,D_Xf \right)\ .
\label{floweqMkW3S2}
\end{split}$$ Just as in the previous examples we have two additional constraints $$\begin{split}
b\overset{!}{=}&\ -\frac{4}{m} \,e^{2 W}\, \tan (2 \theta )\,X\,\left(f+X\,D_Xf\right)\ ,\\
R\overset{!}{=}&\ 2\, e^{W}\, \tan (2 \theta )\,\left(3\,f+X\,D_Xf\right)\ ,
\label{constraintsMkw3S2}
\end{split}$$ which are automatically satified if $f$ has the form of the prepotential . The gauge choice $$e^{V}=\left(\sin{(2\theta)}\,(f-X\,D_Xf) \right)^{-1}
\label{gaugechoiceMkW3S2}$$ restricts the range of the $r$ coordinate to $(0,\frac{\pi}{4})$. Thanks to the choice in , we can integrate to obtain the following solution $$\begin{split}
e^{2U}=&\ \left(2-\cos(4 r)\right)^{1/2}\,\sin(2r)^{-2}\ ,\\
e^{2W}=&\ \left(2-\cos(4 r)\right)^{1/2}\,\tan(2r)^{-2}\ ,\\
e^{2V}=&\ \frac{2^{5/4}\,3^{3/2}}{m^{1/2}\,g^{3/2}}\, \left(2-\cos(4 r)\right)^{-3/2}\,\sin(2r)^{-2}\ ,\\
b=&\ -\frac{2^{5/4}\,g^{1/2}}{\,3^{1/2}\,m^{1/2}}\cos(2r)^{2}\, \tan (2 r)^{-2}\ ,\\
X=&\ \frac{3^{1/4}\,m^{1/4}}{2^{1/8}\,g^{1/4}} \,\left(2-\cos(4 r)\right)^{-1/4}\ ,\\
Y=&\ \left(2-\cos(4 r)\right)^{1/8}\,\sin(2r)^{-1/2}\ ,\\
\theta=&\ r\ .
\label{flowMkW3S2}
\end{split}$$ From the constraints we obtain the expression for the inverse of the radius of the 2-sphere $$R=2^{3/8}\,3^{1/4}\,(g^{3}\,m)^{1/4}\ ,
\label{RMkW3S2}$$ for $g>0$ and $m>0$. Imposing the equations of motion are satified by the flow . In the limit $r \rightarrow 0$ the background reproduces locally the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum , while in the limit $r \rightarrow \frac{\pi}{4}$ the solution is singular.
Background with $M_3={\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ and $\Sigma_2=S^{2}$ {#sec:AdS3S2}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let’s now move to the most involved case where $M_3={\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ and $\Sigma_2=S^{2}$. In this case the 6d background takes the following form $$\begin{split}
ds_6^2=&\ e^{2U(r)}\,ds^2_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}}+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2+e^{2W(r)}\,ds^2_{S^2}\ ,\\
{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}=&\ b(r)\,\text{vol}_{S^2}\ ,\\
X=&\ X(r)\ .
\label{AdS33S2ansatz}
\end{split}$$ We take a Killing spinor of the following form $$\begin{split}
\zeta(r)=&\ \zeta^++i\,B\,\Gamma_*\,\zeta^-\ ,\\
\zeta^\pm=&\ Y(r)\,\eta_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}}\,\otimes \,\left(\cos\theta(r)\,\chi^\pm_{S^2}\otimes \varepsilon_0+i\,\sin\theta(r)\,\gamma_*\,\chi^\pm_{S^2}\,\otimes\sigma^3 \varepsilon_0 \right)\ ,
\label{killingAdS3S2}
\end{split}$$ where $\eta_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}}$ and $\chi^\pm_{S^2}$ respectively satisfy the Killing spinor equations and . As in section \[sec:AdS3R2\], in order to simplify the derivation of the first-order flow equations, we parametrize the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ foliation with the Hopf coordinates since this is equivalent to replacing $\eta_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}}$ by $\eta_{\mathbb{R}^{1,2}}$ inside .
An explicit realization of is defined by a specific relation between $R$ and $L$ characterizing the geometry of the 6d background. In this section we derive two solutions corresponding to two different relations between $R$ and $L$.
Let’s start with the simplest case with two equal warp factors in , *i.e.* $U(r)=W(r)$. If one imposes the algebraic conditions on , the SUSY variations imply a non-trivial set of BPS equations if and only if $$R=2L\qquad \text{and} \qquad \theta(r)=0\ .$$ We obtain the following set of first-order equations $$\begin{split}
U^\prime=&\ -2\,e^{V}\,f\,,\qquad \ Y^\prime=-Y\,e^{V}\,f\ ,\\
b^\prime=&\ \frac{2\,e^{U+V}\,L}{X^2}\,,\qquad X^\prime=2\,e^{V}\,X^2\,D_Xf\ ,
\label{chargedDW}
\end{split}$$ with the constraint $$b\overset{!}{=}-\frac{2\,e^{U}\,X\,L}{m}\ .$$ The above expression is compatible with the BPS flow equations in if $f$ is given by . If we further choose $$e^V=\left(2\,X^2\,D_Xf\right)^{-1}\ ,$$ we can integrate the system in to obtain $$\begin{split}
e^{2U}=&\ \left(\frac{r}{\sqrt{2}\, g \,r^4-3 \,m}\right)^{2/3}\ ,\\
e^{2V}=&\ \left(\frac{4\,r^2}{\sqrt{2}\, g \,r^4-3 \,m}\right)^{2}\ ,\\
Y=&\ \left(\frac{r}{\sqrt{2}\, g \,r^4-3 \,m}\right)^{1/6}\ ,\\
b=&\ -\frac{2\,r^{4/3}\,L}{m\,(\sqrt2\,g\,r^4-3\,m)^{1/3}}\ ,\\
X=&\ r\ ,
\label{chargedDWsol}
\end{split}$$ with $r$ running between 0 and 1 if we choose $m$ and $g$ such that holds. We point out that the $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ slicing is responsible for the non-trivial profile of the 2-form. In a sense, the flow is the “charged” generalization of the domain wall solution . In the $r\rightarrow 1^{-}$ limit, the solution locally reproduces the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum with $m=\frac{\sqrt2\,g}{3}$, while in $r\rightarrow 0^{+}$ it manifests a singular behavior.
Let us now consider the most general case of backgrounds of the form with two independent warp factors. Given the Killing spinor satisfying the algebraic conditions , we obtain a set of BPS equations of the form $$\begin{split}
U^\prime=&-\frac{1}{2}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((3+\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf+L\,e^{-U}\sin(2\theta) \right)\ ,\\
W^\prime=&\frac{1}{2}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((-5+\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf -L\,e^{-U}\sin(2\theta) \right)\ ,\\
b^\prime=&\frac{2\,e^{V+2 W}}{X^2}\,\left(L\,e^{-U}+2 \sin (2 \theta )\,\left(f-\,X\,D_Xf \right)\right)\ ,\\
\theta^\prime=& e^{V} \,\sin (2 \theta )\,\left(f-X\,D_Xf \right)\ ,\\
Y^\prime=&-\frac{Y}{4}\,e^{V}\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\left((3+\cos(4\theta))\,f+2 \sin{(2\theta)}^2\,X\,D_Xf+L\,e^{-U}\sin(2\theta) \right)\ ,\\
X^\prime=&\frac12\, e^{V}\, X\,\left(L\,e^{-U}\tan(2\theta)+\cos(2\theta)^{-1}\, \left(2\,\sin(2\theta)^2\,f+ (3+\cos(4\theta))\,X\,D_Xf \right)\right)\ .
\label{floweqAdS3S2}
\end{split}$$ The equations have to be supplemented with the constraints $$\begin{split}
b\overset{!}{=}&\ -\frac{2\,e^{2 W}}{m}\,X\,\cos (2 \theta )^{-1}\,\left(L\,e^{-U}+2\,\sin(2\theta)\,\left(f+\,X\,D_Xf \right)\right)\ ,\\
R\overset{!}{=}&\ 2\,e^{-U+W}\,L\,\cos(2\theta)^{-1}+ 2\, e^{W}\, \tan (2 \theta )\,\left(3\,f+X\,D_Xf\right)\ ,
\label{constraintsAdS3S2}
\end{split}$$ which are automatically satified if $f$ has the form of the prepotential . If we choose $$e^{V}=\left(\sin{(2\theta)}\,(f-X\,D_Xf) \right)^{-1}\ ,
\label{gaugechoiceAdS3S2}$$ the solution of is given by $$\begin{split}
e^{2U}=&\ \frac{2^{1/4}\,g^{1/2}}{3^{1/2}\,m^{1/2}}\,\sin{(2r)}^{-1}\,\left(\sin(2 r)^{-2}+6\right)^{1/2}\ ,\\
e^{2W}=&\ 2^{-5/4}\,(-g)^{1/2}\,\tan(2r)^{-2}\,\left(4-3\cos(4 r)\right)^{1/2}\ ,\\
e^{2V}=&\ \frac{2^{5/4}\,3^{3/2}}{m^{1/2}\,g^{3/2}}\,\frac{ \left(\sin(2 r)^{-2}+6\right)^{1/2}\,\sin(2r)^{-1}}{\left(4-3\cos(4 r)\right)^{2}}\ ,\\
b=&\ -\frac{3^{1/2}\,4\,g}{(-m)^{1/2}}\cos(2r)^{2}\, \tan (2 r)^{-2}\ ,\\
X=&\ \frac{3^{1/4}\,m^{1/4}}{2^{1/8}\,g^{1/4}} \,\left(4-3\,\cos(4 r)\right)^{-1/4}\ ,\\
Y=&\ \frac{2^{1/16}\,g^{1/8}}{3^{1/8}\,m^{1/8}}\,\sin{(2r)}^{-1/4}\,\left(\sin(2 r)^{-2}+6\right)^{1/8}\ ,\\
\theta=&\ r\ ,
\label{flowAdS3S2}
\end{split}$$ with $r$ varying between 0 and $\frac{\pi}{4}$. The above solution solves the equations of motion provided that $$L=\frac{2\sqrt2\,g}{3}\qquad \text{and}\qquad R=\frac{2^{3/4}\,7}{3^{3/4}}\,g\,(-m)^{-1/4}\ ,
\label{L&R}$$ with $m<0$ and $g<0$. The values satisfies that, if evaluated on the solution, takes the following form $$R=(-6\,m)^{1/4}\,\left(2\,L+\sqrt2\,g \right)\,.
\label{onshellconstraint}$$ In the $r\rightarrow 0^{+}$ limit the flow reproduces locally the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum . The IR regime, *i.e.* $r\rightarrow \left(\frac{\pi}{4}\right)^{-}$ is particularly interesting since the scalar potential is finite and the flows turns out to be locally described by ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times T^3$ with $$X=\frac{3^{1/4}\,m^{1/4}}{2^{1/8}\,7^{1/4}\,g^{1/4}}\qquad \text{and} \qquad {\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)\,345}=2^{13/8}\,3^{3/4}\,7^{1/4}\,g^{5/4}\,m^{-1/4}\ ,$$ where we point out that the particular relation between $R$ and $L$ turns out to be crucial to reproduce the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times T^3$ geometry.
Surface Defects within the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$
==================================================================================
In section \[D4D8system\] we briefly reviewed the main features of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6/{\mbox{$\mathrm{CFT}$}}_5$ in massive IIA string theory. Our present goal is now that of providing a 10d interpretation for the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ slicing characterizing the 6d backgrounds obtained in section \[sec:AdS3S2\]. For the sake of simplicity we will consider the charged domain wall . This flow is a 6d warped product ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_3$ where ${\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_3$ is given by a 2-sphere fibered over an interval. Asymptotically ($r\rightarrow 1^{-}$), the solution locally reproduces $\mathrm{AdS}_6$, while in the IR ($r\rightarrow 0^{+}$) it possesses a singularity. We claim that this divergent behavior is related to the intersection of the D4-D8 system, originating the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum, with a bound state of D2-NS5-D6 defect branes. The ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ slicing captures exactly the low-energy regime of this intersection. In particular, the presence of the 2-form gauge potential, whose field strength ${\mbox{$\mathcal{F}$}}_{(3)}$ fills the transverse space ${\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_3$, realizes a partial symmetry breaking within the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum. In this way the divergent behavior appearing in the IR limit describes the regime in which we get infinitely close to the defect branes, namely the D2-NS5-D6.
From the point of view of the dual field theory, this phenomenon is well encoded by a ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(0,4)$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_2$ living on a surface conformal defect [@Karch:2000gx] within the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ dual to ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$. This defect field theory can be seen as a “position dependent” deformation [@Clark:2004sb] of the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ partially breaking the $\mathrm{SO}(2,5)$ conformal invariance in the 5d bulk, while still keeping intact only those conformal isometries allowing non-trivial boundary conditions between the D4-D8 system and the defect branes.
In this section we will firstly consider in more detail the 6d solution and its uplift to massive IIA using the formulas and . We will then consider the 10d background corresponding to the bound state D2-D4-NS5-D6-D8 realizing the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ slicing and we will propose a holographic interpretation of our ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_3$ background as a conformal defect within the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$.
Charged Domain Wall and Massive IIA Uplift
------------------------------------------
Let us go back to the explicit form of the background . The line element is given by $$\begin{split}
ds_6^2=&\ e^{2U(r)}\left( \,ds^2_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}}+ds^2_{S^2}\right)+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2\ ,\\
{\mbox{$\mathcal{B}$}}_{(2)}=&\ b(r)\,\text{vol}_{S^2}\ ,\\
X=&\ X(r)\ ,
\label{CDWansatz}
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
e^{2U}= &\ \frac{2^{-1/3}}{g^{2/3}}\,\left(\frac{r}{r^4-1}\right)^{2/3}\ , \qquad e^{2V}=\frac{8}{g^2}\,
\frac{r^4}{\left( r^4-1\right)^2}\ ,\\
b=&\ -\frac{2^{1/3}\,3}{g^{4/3}}\,\frac{L\,r^{4/3}}{(r^4-1)^{1/3}}\ ,\qquad \ X=r\ ,
\label{CDW}
\end{split}$$ where we made the choice on $m$ and with $r$ running between 0 and 1. Let’s consider more in detail the UV and IR regimes. As $r \rightarrow 1^{-}$ one obtains $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{R}_{6}=&\ -\frac{20}{3}\,g^2+{\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}} (1-r)^{2/3}\ ,\\
X=&\ 1+{\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}} (1-r)\ ,
\label{UVCDW}
\end{split}$$ where $\mathcal{R}_{6}$ is the scalar curvature. The asymptotic background reproduces only locally ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ and this is mainly due to the presence of the running 2-form. The ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum emerges in the asymptotics only as a leading local effect, but globally a 2-form charge is still present. As for the $r\rightarrow 0^{+}$ limit, one finds that $$\begin{split}
e^{2U}=&\ \frac{g^{-2/3}}{2^{2/3}}\,r^{2/3}+{\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}(r^{7/3})\ ,\qquad \ e^{2V}=\frac{8\,r^4}{g^2}+{\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}(r^5)\ ,\\
b=&\ \frac{2^{1/3}\,3\,L}{g^{4/3}}\,r^{4/3}+{\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}(r^{7/3})\ ,\qquad X=r+{\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}(r^5)\ .
\label{IRCDW}
\end{split}$$ In this regime the background is manifestly singular, so then we want to study the uplift to massive IIA supergravity to shed some light on the origin of this divergent behavior. If we plug the 6d bacgkround into the uplift formulas [@Cvetic:1999un] and , the 10d metric has the form $$\begin{split}
ds^2_{10}=s^{-1/3}\,X(r)^{-1/2}\,\Delta^{1/2}\,\left[e^{2U(r)}\left( \,ds^2_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}}+ds^2_{S^2}\right)+e^{2V(r)}\,dr^2+2g^{-2}\,X(r)^{2}\,ds_{{\scriptsize{\tilde{S}^4}}}^2\right]\ ,
\label{upliftCDW}
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta=X(r)\,c^2+X(r)^{-3}\,s^2$ and $ds_{\tilde{S}^4}^2$ is the metric of a squashed 4-sphere $$ds_{{\scriptsize{\tilde{S}^4}}}^2=d\xi^2+\frac14\,\Delta^{-1}\,X(r)^{-3}\,c^{2}\,ds_{S^3}^2\ ,
\label{intspaceCDW}$$ with $c=\cos\xi$ and $s=\sin \xi$ and $ds_{S^3}^2$ is the metric of a round[^11] $S^3$. The 10d fluxes have the form $$\label{10dfluxesCDW}
\begin{split}
F_{(4)}&=-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6} g^{-3}\,\Delta^{-2}\,c^3\,s^{1/3}\left[ U\,d\xi+6s\,c\,X(r)^{-3}\,X^\prime(r)\,dr\right]\,\wedge\,\text{vol}_{S^3}\\
&+e^{-2U(r)-V(r)}\,s^{1/3}\,c\left[\sqrt2 \,g^{-1}\,X(r)^4\,b^\prime(r)\,d\xi-m\,s\,c^{-1}\,X(r)^{-2}\,e^{2V(r)} b(r)\, dr\right]\wedge \text{vol}_{{\scriptsize {\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3}} \ ,\\
F_{(2)}&=m\,s^{2/3}\,b(r)\,\text{vol}_{S^2}\ ,\qquad \quad\ H_{(3)}=s^{2/3}\left[b^\prime(r)\,dr +\sqrt2\,m\,g^{-1}\,s\,c\,b(r)\,d\xi\right]\wedge\text{vol}_{S^2}\ ,\\
e^{\Phi}&=s^{-5/6}\,\Delta^{1/4}\,X(r)^{-5/4}\ ,\qquad F_{(0)}=m\ .
\end{split}$$ where $U=X(r)^{-6}\,s^2-3X(r)^2\,c^2+4\,X(r)^{-2}\,c^2-6\,X(r)^{-2}$, while $\text{vol}_{S^3}$ and $\text{vol}_{S^2}$ are respectively the volume form of the internal $S^3$ included in and the volume form of the 2-sphere appearing into the 6d bacgkround.
The background with fluxes is a solution of massive IIA supergravity describing a warped geometry of the type ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^2 \times S^3$ fibered over two intervals $I_r\times I_\xi$. In the same way as this solution, also the other flows of section \[flows\] admit similar uplifts to 10d. In particular, the 10d background corresponding to the solution , in the $r\rightarrow 0$ limit, is locally described by the warped geometry ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times T^3 \times \tilde{S}^4$ where $\tilde{S}^4$ is a fibration of a 3-sphere over the interval $I_\xi$.
Defect ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_2$ and the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^2\times S^3\times I^2$ Solution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now address the interpretation of the charged domain wall in terms of physics of branes in massive type IIA string theory. In section \[D4D8system\] we reviewed the main properties of the 10d solution describing the low-energy regime of a D4-D8 system. We saw that the near-horizon limit is described by the vacuum geometry ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6\times S^4$ from which a clear holographic interpretation in terms of a $d=5$ ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ comes out.
We can now look at this ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ as a “mother” CFT whose conformal invariance is partially broken by a deformation associated with a position dependent coupling produced by D2-NS5-D6 branes ending on the bound state D4-D8. The low-energy description of this intersection is realized by the emergence of the warped background ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times {\mbox{$\mathcal{M}$}}_3$ that partially breaks the isometries of the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_6$ vacuum.
\[1\]
branes $t$ $y$ $\rho$ $\varphi^{1}$ $\varphi^{2}$ $\varphi^{3}$ $z$ $r$ $\theta^{1}$ $\theta^{2}$
--------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------- ---------- -------------- --------------
${\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}8$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
${\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
${\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$
${\mbox{$\mathrm{NS}$}}5$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$ $-$
${\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}6$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $-$ $-$ $-$
: [*The brane picture underlying the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(0,4)$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_2$ defect theory described by D2-NS5-D6 branes ending on an D4-D8 intersection. The system is ${\mbox{$\mathrm{BPS}$}}/8$.*]{}[]{data-label="Table:branes"}
The 10d solution describing a D2-D4-NS5-D6-D8 system has been obtained in [@Dibitetto:2017klx] generalizing the corresponding massless background originally found in [@Boonstra:1998yu]. The solution is an example of “non-standard” intersection since the are no common transverse directions and the only solution that could be obtained by applying the standard harmonic superposition principle would be 10d flat space, *i.e.* all $H$ functions equal to $1$. The explicit form of this non-standard solution is given by [@Dibitetto:2017klx] $$\label{brane_sol}
\begin{split}
{{\rm d}}s_{10}^{2} = &\ S^{-1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}^{-1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}^{-1/2}\,d s_{\scriptsize{\mathbb{R}^{1,1}}}^{2}\,+\,
S^{-1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}^{1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}^{1/2}\,\left(d \rho^{2}+\rho^{2}\,d s_{\scriptsize{S^3}}^{2}\right) \,\\
&+ K\,S^{-1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}^{-1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}^{1/2}\,d z^{2}\,+\,K\,S^{1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}^{1/2}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}^{-1/2}\,\left(d r^{2}+r^{2}\,d s_{\scriptsize{S^2}}^{2}\right) \ ,\\[2mm]
e^{\Phi} = &\ g_{s}\,K^{1/2}\,S^{-3/4}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}^{1/4}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}^{-1/4} \ ,\\
H_{(3)} = &\ \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(KS\right){\mbox{$\mathrm{vol}$}}_{S^3} \,-\,dz\,\wedge\,\star_{3}\, {{\rm d}}K \ ,\\[1mm]
F_{(0)} = &\ m \ ,\\
F_{(2)} = &\ -g_{s}^{-1}\,\star_{3}\, {{\rm d}}S \ ,\\
F_{(4)} = &\ g_{s}^{-1}\,{\mbox{$\mathrm{vol}$}}_{\mathbb{R}^{1,1}}\,\wedge\,d z\,\wedge\, {{\rm d}}H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}^{-1} \, + \,
\star_{10}\left(\textrm{vol}_{\mathbb{R}^{1,1}}\,\wedge\,{\mbox{$\mathrm{vol}$}}_{S^3}\wedge\, H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}^{-1}\right) \ .
\end{split}$$ The two functions $K(z,r)$ and $S(z,r)$ satsify the equations [@Imamura:2001cr] $$\begin{split}
mg_{s}\,K \,-\, \frac{\partial S}{\partial z} = & \ 0 \ , \\
\Delta_{(3)}S \, + \, \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial z^{2}} S^{2} = &\ 0 \ .
\end{split}$$ These relations must hold in order to satify equations of motion and Bianchi identities and their explicit solutions turn out to describe a rich plethora of different physical sytems. The background and the corresponding $\mathrm{AdS}_6\times S^4$ vacuum in the near-horizon can be found by choosing $$\begin{split}
S=&\ (2mg_s\,z)^{1/2}\ ,\qquad\, K\ =\ (2mg_s\,z)^{-1/2}\ , \\
H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}=&\ 1\ , \qquad\qquad\qquad H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}=\ 1+\frac{Q_{\mathrm{D}4}}{\left(\rho^{2}+\frac{4}{9}\frac{(2z)^{3/2}}{(g_s m)^{1/2}}\right)^{5/3}}\ ,
\end{split}
\label{SKeq}$$ and by subsequently performing the change of coordinates $z \rightarrow \frac{m\,g_s}{2}\,z^2$. As we can notice from physics described by the solution depends explicitly on the choice of particular solutions for $S$ and $K$. As we showed in [@Dibitetto:2017klx], from it is also possible to find the massive IIA $\mathrm{AdS}_7\times \tilde{S}^3$ vacuum [@Apruzzi:2013yva] that, in turn, can be obtained as a vacuum of the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=1$ minimal gauged supergravity in $d=7$ thanks to the consistent truncation from massive IIA over a squashed 3-sphere [@Passias:2015gya]. Within a warped solution ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^3\times S^2\times I^2$, with $I^2$ describing two intervals on which the $S^2$ and the $S^3$ are respectively fibered, has been derived in the near-horizon of by choosing $$\begin{split}
H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}2}}(\rho,r) = &\ \left(1+\frac{Q_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}{\rho^{2}}\right)\left(1+\frac{Q_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}6}}}{r}\right)\ ,\\
H_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}(\rho) = &\ \left(1+\frac{Q_{\scriptsize{{\mbox{$\mathrm{D}$}}4}}}{\rho^{2}}\right) \ ,
\label{H2H4}
\end{split}$$ and for suitable expressions of $S$ and $K$. This ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^3\times S^2\times I^2$ near-horizon is captured by a warped background $\mathrm{AdS}_3\times S^3\times I_{r'}$ describing[^12] a charged domain wall in 7d minimal ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=1$ gauged supergravity with a running 3-form gauge potential and the dilaton [@Dibitetto:2017klx].
The very interesting fact we point out is that the above ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ near-horizon has the same structure of fluxes and 10d metric of our 6d background uplifted to massiva IIA and it also preserves the same amount of SUSY. The unique difference between and (3.13) of [@Dibitetto:2017klx] is in the parametrization of the 10d background. In our case the $S^2$ is related to the 6d background and the $S^3$ is associated to the internal squashed 4-sphere $I_\xi\times S^3$, *i.e.* we have ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^2\times S^3\times I^2$, while the 7d case is exactly specular, *i.e.* the squashed 3-sphere $I_{\xi'}\times S^2$ defines the truncation and the near horizon can be written as ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^3\times S^2\times I^2$. In other words, we could say that the coordinates $(r, \xi)$ of the uplift exchange their role when we look at the 10d background split as a 7+3 rather than a 6+4 manifold.
The 10d solution , realizes the brane picture of and then, we may holographically interpret our 6d warped background as a conformal defect within the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$. The defect is realized by a ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(0,4)$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_2$ dual to the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ foliation and it breaks the $\mathrm{SO}(5,2)$ conformal group of the 5d mother SCFT through a relavant deformation driven by a position-dependent coupling.
The above arguments provide compelling evidence to infer that the defect ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_2$ is actually the same as the one obtained in [@Dibitetto:2017klx]. We remind that, in the latter case, a warped ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^3\times I_{r'}$ solution within 7d minimal ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=1$ supergravity was capturing the physics of D2-D4 branes intersecting the bound state NS5-D6-D8 and giving rise to a surface defect within the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(1,0)$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_6$. In our actual case we have a ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3\times S^2\times I_r$ warped flow associated to D2-NS5-D6 ending on the D4-D8 system. In both cases we have a $p$-form gauge potential which makes the existence of such an ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ slicing possible. Zooming on the defect, we obtain the same ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ solution, up to a change of parametrization exchanging the roles of the coordinates within the intervals in $I^2$ and thus swapping $S^3$ and $S^2$.
Finally we point out that these arguments hint at the existence of a deeper relation between the two lower-dimensional supergravities giving rise to these ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ warped backgrounds. The existence of a possible link between them was already adressed in [@Jeong:2013jfc] within the slightly different context of non-Abelian T-duality and the possibility of uplifting the Romans’ theory to type IIB. Our conjecture here is about the existence of a 3d ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=4$ gauged supergravity realizing a consistent truncation respectively of $F(4)$ gauged supergravity over a squashed 3-sphere or, alternatively, of 7d minimal ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=1$ gauged supergravity over a squashed 4-sphere. As a consequence, this 3d gauged supergravity should include an ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ vacuum capturing the IR physics of surface defects of both brane systems, *i.e.* D4-D8 and NS5-D6-D8.
One-Point Correlation Funtions
------------------------------
In conclusion, we want to provide a holographic test in support of the presence of a ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=(0,4)$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_2$ defect theory. As we already mentioned, the coupling of the bulk theory to the defect induces the breaking of the 5d conformal group $\mathrm{SO}(2,5)$. This automatically implies that, in this case, the 1-point functions of the 5d “mother” field theory are no longer vanishing. Such a fact stems at leading order from non-vanishing defect to bulk correlators. By making use of the standard holographic dictionary [@Clark:2004sb], we can sketch the derivation in two different ways and see explicitly that the resulting position-dependence of the coupling in the 5d theory realizing the defect matches.
Let’s consider the extrapolation from the bulk side. The boundary of our 6d background is located at $r=1$. The metric can be rewritten as $$\begin{split}
ds^2_6=&\ F^{-2}\left(ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,5}}+\rho^2\,dR^2\right)\ ,\\
ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,5}}=&\ ds^2_{\mathbb{R}^{1,1}}+d\rho^2+\rho^2\,ds_{S^2}^2\ ,
\end{split}$$ with $F=\rho\,e^{-U}$ and $dR=e^{V-U}\,dr$. The coordinate $\rho$ is the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_3$ radial coordinate and it fixes the location of the defect at $\rho=0$.
The idea is to view the scalar $X$ as the bulk field associated with the deformation induced by the defect. Its normalized mass at the boundary is given by [@Andrianopoli:2001rs] $$m_X^2=-6=\Delta_X(\Delta_X-5)\ ,$$ whence $\Delta_X=3$. If we consider the asymptotic behavior of $X$ given in , we can cast it as a function of $R$ as $$X(R)=1-\frac{g^2}{3^3 2^5}\,R^3\ .$$ As usual in holography, the vev of $X$ is associated to the 1-point function of the dual operator ${\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X$ as it follows $$X=1-b\,\langle {\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X \rangle \,F^{\Delta_X}+\dots\ .$$ Finally by comparing the last two relations we obtain $$\langle {\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X \rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt2\,g\,b}\rho^{-3}\ .
\label{1pointbulk}$$ From the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$ side, we can proceed through conformal perturbation techniques. We interpret the defect as a running vev written in terms of a position-dependent coupling $\phi(\rho)$ and producing a deformation of the type $\gamma\,\phi(\rho)\,{\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X$, where $\gamma$ is a dimensionsless coupling associated with the anomalous dimension of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X$. We can treat this deformation as a perturbation produced by an operator insertion inside the $n$-point functions as it follows [@Clark:2004sb; @Dibitetto:2017klx] $$\begin{split}
\langle\mathcal{O}_{1}(x_{1})\cdots&\mathcal{O}_{n}(x_{n})\rangle_{\textrm{def.}} = \langle\mathcal{O}_{1}(x_{1})\cdots\mathcal{O}_{n}(x_{n})\rangle_{0} \\
& + \gamma\,\int {{\rm d}}^{5}z \,\phi(z)\,\langle\mathcal{O}_{1}(x_{1})\cdots\mathcal{O}_{n}(x_{n})\,\mathcal{O}_{X}(z)\rangle_{0} \, \\
&+ \frac{\gamma^{2}}{2!}\,\int {{\rm d}}^{5}z\int d^{5}w \,\phi(z)\phi(w)\,\langle\mathcal{O}_{1}(x_{1})\cdots\mathcal{O}_{n}(x_{n})\,\mathcal{O}_{X}(z)\,\mathcal{O}_{X}(w)\rangle_{0} \, + \, \dots
\end{split}$$ If we now choose ${\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_1={\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X$, we obtain $$\langle\mathcal{O}_{X}(\rho)\rangle_{\textrm{def.}}\,=\,\underbrace{\langle\mathcal{O}_{X}(\rho)\rangle_{0}}_{0}
\,+\,\gamma\,\int {{\rm d}}^{5}z\,\phi(z)\,\underbrace{\langle\mathcal{O}_{X}(\rho)\mathcal{O}_{X}(z)\rangle_{0}}_{\frac{a}{|\rho-z|^{6}}}\,+\,\dots
\label{1pointfgeneral}$$ Performing the integral in , it follows that, if $\phi(\rho)\sim\rho^{-2}$, whence the 1-point function associated to ${\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X$ is given by $$\langle {\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}_X \rangle =\frac{2\,\pi^{2}a\,\gamma}{3\,\rho^3}\ .
\label{1pointbulk}$$ We conclude that the $\rho^{-3}$ dependence of matches non-trivially with the holographic result . As far as a more complete matching is concerned (*i.e.* including the parameters $a,c$ and $\gamma$), it would require a more rigourous derivation considering the explicit form of the parameters inside correlators and the Lagrangian of the ${\mbox{$\mathcal{N}$}}=2$ ${\mbox{$\mathrm{SCFT}$}}_5$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Y. Lozano for very interesting and stimulating discussions. NP would also like to acknowledge the members of theoretical group of IPM, Tehran, for their kind hospitality while part of this work was being prepared. The work of GD is supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR). The work of NP was partially supported by ICTP.
Massive IIA Supergravity {#app:massiveIIA}
========================
In this appendix we review the main features of massive IIA supergravity [@Romans:1985tz]. The theory is characterized by the bosonic fields $g_{MN}$, $\Phi$, $B_{(2)}$, $C_{(1)}$ and $C_{(3)}$. The action has the following form $$S_{\mathrm{mIIA}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa_{10}^2}\,\biggl [\int {{\rm d}}^{10}x\,\sqrt{-g}\,e^{-2\Phi}\left(R+4\,\partial_{\mu}\,\Phi\,\partial^{\mu}\,\Phi-\frac12\,|H_{(3)}|^2 \right)-\frac12 \sum_{p=0,2,4} |F_{(p)}|^2 \biggr]+S_{\text{top}}\ ,
\label{massiveIIAaction}$$ where $S_{\text{top}}$ is a topological term given by $$\begin{split}
S_{\text{top}}=&-\frac{1}{2} \int ( B_{(2)}\wedge F_{(4)}\wedge F_{(4)}-\frac13 F_{(0)}\wedge B_{(2)}\wedge B_{(2)}\wedge B_{(2)}\wedge F_{(4)}\\
&+\frac{1}{20}F_{(0)}\wedge F_{(0)}\wedge B_{(2)}\wedge B_{(2)}\wedge B_{(2)}\wedge B_{(2)}\wedge B_{(2)})\ ,
\end{split}$$ where $H_{(3)}=dB_{(2)}$, $F_{(2)}=dC_{(1)}$, $F_{(3)}=dC_{(3)}$ and the 0-form field strength $F_{(0)}$ is associated to the Romans’ mass as $F_{(0)}=m$.
All the equations of motion can be derived[^13] consistently from . They have the following form $$\begin{split}
R_{MN}-\frac12\,T_{MN}&=0\ ,\\[1mm]
\Box\Phi-|\partial \Phi|^2+\frac14R-\frac18 |H_{(3)}|^2&=0\ ,\\[1mm]
d\left(e^{-2\Phi}\star_{10}H_{(3)}\right)&=0\ ,\\[1mm]
\left(d+H_{(3)}\wedge\right)(\star_{10}F_{(p)})&=0\ ,\quad \text{with}\quad p=2,4\ ,
\end{split}
\label{massiveIIAeoms}$$ where $M, N, \dots=0,\dots, 9$ and $R$ and $\Box$ are respectively the 10d scalar curvature and the Laplacian. The stress-energy tensor is given by $$\begin{split}
T_{MN}&=e^{2\Phi}\sum_p \left(\frac{p}{p!}\,F_{(p)\,MM_1\dots M_{p-1}}F_{(p)\,N}^{\qquad M_1\dots M_{p-1}}-\frac{p-1}{8}g_{MN}|F_{(p)}|^2 \right)\\
&+\left(\frac12\,H_{(3)\,MPQ}H_{(3)\,N}^{\qquad PQ}-\frac14 g_{MN}|H_{(3)}|^2 \right)-\left(4\nabla_M \nabla_N \Phi +\frac12 g_{MN}(\Box \Phi-2|\partial \Phi|^2) \right)\,,
\end{split}$$ with $\nabla_M$ being associated with the Levi-Civita connection of the 10d background. The Bianchi identities take the form $$\begin{split}
dF_{(2)}&= F_{(0)}\wedge H_{(3)}\ ,\\
d F_{(4)}&=-F_{(2)}\wedge H_{(3)}\ ,\\
d H_{(3)}&=0\ ,\\
d F_{(0)}&=0\ .
\label{massiveIIAbianchi}
\end{split}$$ As a consequence of , the following fluxes $$m,\qquad H_{(3)}\,\qquad F_{(2)}-m B_{(2)}\,,\qquad F_{(4)}-B_{(2)}\wedge F_{(2)}+\frac12\,mB_{(2)}\wedge B_{(2)}\,,$$ turn out to satisfy a Dirac quantization condition.
It may be worth mentioning that the truncation Ansatz of section \[reduction\] is obtained by casting massive IIA supergravity into the Einstein frame [@Cvetic:1999un]. To convert the action , the equations of motions and Bianchi identities into the Einstein frame, one has to redefine the metric as $g_{MN}=e^{\Phi/2}\,g^{(\mathrm{E})}_{MN}$.
Symplectic-Majorana-Weyl Spinors in $d=1+5$ {#app:SM_spinors}
===========================================
In this appendix we collect the conventions and the fundamental relations involving irreducible spinors in $d=1+5$. Subsequently, we construct an explicit representation of Dirac matrices. In $d=1+5$ Dirac spinors enjoy 16 independent real components and they can be decomposed into irreducible Weyl spinors with opposite chirality and having 8 independent real components each. The 6d Clifford algebra is defined by the relation $$\left\{\Gamma^{m},\,\Gamma^{n}\right\} = 2\,\eta^{mn} \, \mathbb{I}_{8} \ ,
\label{clifford6d}$$ where $\left\{\Gamma^{m}\right\}_{m\,=\,0,\,\cdots\,5}$ are the $8\times 8$ Dirac matrices and $\eta=\text{diag}(-1,+1,+1,+1,+1)$. The chirality operator $\Gamma_*$ can be defined in the following way in terms of the above Dirac matrices $$\label{gammastar}
\Gamma_*=\Gamma^0\,\Gamma^1\,\Gamma^2\,\Gamma^3\,\Gamma^4\,\Gamma^5\qquad \text{with}\qquad \Gamma_*\,\Gamma_*=\mathbb{I}_{8}\ .$$ For $(1+5)$-dimensional backgrounds, we can choose the matrices $A, B, C$, respectively realizing Dirac, complex and charge conjugation, satisfying the following defining relations [@VanProeyen:1999ni] $$\left(\Gamma^{m}\right)^{\dagger} = -A \, \Gamma^{m} \, A^{-1} \,,\quad \left(\Gamma^{m}\right)^{*} = B \, \Gamma^{m} \, B^{-1}\,, \quad \left(\Gamma^{m}\right)^{T} = -C \, \Gamma^{m} \, C^{-1} \ ,$$ with $$B^{T} = C \, A^{-1} \ ,\quad B^{*}\,B = -\mathbb{I}_{8} \ ,\quad C^{T} = -C^{-1} = -C^{\dagger} = C \ .
\label{ABCidentities}$$ The second identity in implies that it is actually inconsistent to define a proper reality condition on Dirac (or Weyl) spinors. However, it is always possible to introduce $\mathrm{SU}(2)_R$ doublets $\zeta^a$ of Dirac spinors, called symplectic-Majorana (SM) spinors respecting a pseudo-reality condition [@VanProeyen:1999ni] given by $$\label{SM_cond}
\zeta_{a} \equiv\left(\zeta^{a}\right)^{*} \overset{!}{=} \epsilon_{ab}\,B\,\zeta^{b} \ ,$$ where $\epsilon_{ab}$ is the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ invariant Levi-Civita symbol. The condition ensures us that the number of independent components of a SM spinor be the same of those of a Dirac spinor. Moreover, the above condition also turns out to be compatible with the projections onto the chiral components of a Dirac spinor. Hence it is possible to construct SM doublets of irreducible Weyl spinors that are called symplectic-Majorana-Weyl (SMW) spinors.
Let us now construct an explicit representation for the Dirac matrices satisfying . We firstly introduce the Dirac matrices $\left\{\rho^\alpha \right\}_{\alpha\,=\,0,\,1\,,2}$ for a $(1+2)$-dimensional background in the Majorana representation as it follows $$\rho^0=i\sigma^2\ ,\qquad \rho^1=\sigma^1\ ,\qquad \rho^2=\sigma^3\ ,
\label{rho3d}$$ and the Dirac matrices for a Euclidean 2-dimensional background $\left\{\gamma^i \right\}_{i\,=1\,,2}$ as $$\gamma^1=\sigma^1\ ,\qquad \gamma^2=\sigma^3\ ,\qquad \gamma_*=i\gamma^1\gamma^2=\sigma^2\ ,
\label{gammai}$$ where $$\label{Pauli}
\sigma^{1} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\hspace{5mm} \textrm{ , } \hspace{5mm}
\sigma^{2} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\hspace{5mm} \textrm{ , } \hspace{5mm}
\sigma^{3} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right) \ .$$ are the Pauli matrices. An explicit representation of the $(1+5)$-dimensional Dirac matriced satisying can be defined in the following way $$\begin{split}
\Gamma^\alpha&=\rho^\alpha \,\otimes \, \mathbb{I}_2 \,\otimes \, \sigma^1 \ ,\qquad \text{with}\qquad \alpha=0,\,1,\,2\ ,\\
\Gamma^3&=\mathbb{I}_2 \,\otimes \, \gamma_* \,\otimes \, \sigma^2\ ,\\
\Gamma^i&=\mathbb{I}_2 \,\otimes \, \gamma^i \,\otimes \, \sigma^2\ ,\qquad \,\text{with}\qquad \,i=1,\,2\ .
\label{gammamatrices}
\end{split}$$ In this representation the chirality operator takes the form $$\Gamma_*=\mathbb{I}_2 \,\otimes \, \mathbb{I}_2 \,\otimes \, \sigma^3\ ,
\label{gammastarrep}$$ while the matrices $A, B, C$ may be written as $$\begin{split}
A&=\Gamma^0=i\,\sigma^2\,\otimes \, \mathbb{I}_2 \,\otimes \, \sigma^1\ ,\\
B&=-i\,\Gamma^4\,\Gamma^5=-\mathbb{I}_2 \,\otimes \, \gamma_*\,\otimes \, \mathbb{I}_2\ ,\\
C&=i\,\Gamma^0\,\,\Gamma^4\,\Gamma^5=i\,\sigma^2 \,\otimes \, \gamma_*\,\otimes \, \sigma^1 \ .
\label{abcrep}
\end{split}$$
Gauged $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ Supergravities in Six Dimensions {#app:halfmax}
===========================================================
Half-maximal supergravities in $(1+5)$ spacetime dimensions enjoy sixteen real supercharges. As we have seen in the previous appendix, these can be organized into two chiral spinors. As a consequence, just as in $(1+9)$ dimensions, we have the choice of picking both spinors with the same (iib), or opposite (iia) chiralities. In this paper we are only interested in the latter case, *i.e.* $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ supergravities. The goal of this appendix is that of giving an overview of consistent embedding tensor deformations of these theories and understanding what particular choice gives rise to the Romans’ theory.
If we start from a maximal theory with $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry and $\mathrm{SO}(5,5)$ global symmetry, its fields can be rearranged as shown in table \[table:fields\_max\].
\[1\]
Field Type Field Name $\mathrm{SO}(5,5)$ irrep’s
------------ --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Scalars $\mathcal{V}_{A}^{\phantom{A}\alpha\dot{\alpha}}$ $\textbf{45}$ ($25$ phys.)
Vectors $A_{\mu}^{\phantom{A}A}$ $\textbf{16}_{c}$
Two-forms $\mathcal{B}_{\mu\nu}^{\phantom{\mu\nu}M}$ $\textbf{10}$ ($5$ phys.)
: [*The (bosonic) field content of maximal supergravity in six dimensions. $\mu$ denotes a spacetime index, $A$ is a MW spinor of $\mathrm{SO}(5,5)$, $M$ is an $\mathrm{SO}(5,5)$ fundamental index, while $\alpha$ & $\dot{\alpha}$ denote spinors of the time(space)like $\mathrm{SO}(5)$ subgroups of $\mathrm{SO}(5,5)$.*]{}[]{data-label="table:fields_max"}
The embedding tensor deformations were exhaustively studied in [@Bergshoeff:2007ef] and can be arranged into a unique $\mathrm{SO}(5,5)$ irrep, *i.e.* $\Theta\in\textbf{144}_{c}$. Following now the philosophy of [@Dibitetto:2011eu], we identify a $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ that partially breaks supersymmetry down to $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$, while retaining the correct field content. This is realized by $$\begin{array}{cccccc}
\mathrm{SO}(5,5) & & \overset{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}{\supset} & & \mathbb{R}^{+}\times\mathrm{SO}(4,4) & , \\[2mm]
\textbf{10} & & \longrightarrow & & \underbrace{\textbf{1}^{(+2)} \,\oplus\,\textbf{1}^{(-2)}}_{\textrm{even}} \,\oplus\,\underbrace{\textbf{8}_{v}^{(0)}}_{\textrm{odd}} & .
\end{array}$$ The above $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ is completely specified by assigning *even* parity to the $\textbf{8}_{c}$ of $\mathrm{SO}(4,4)$, while keeping the $\textbf{8}_{s}$ & $\textbf{8}_{v}$ parity-*odd*. Correspondingly, the $\mathrm{SO}(5)^{2}$ R-symmetry group of the maximal theory is broken to $\mathrm{SO}(4)^{2}$, its diagonal $\mathrm{SO}(4)_{\textrm{diag}}=\mathrm{SU}(2)_{\textrm{L}}\times\mathrm{SU}(2)_{\textrm{R}}$ subgroup being the R-symmetry group of the half-maximal theory. The supercharges branch as $$\begin{array}{cccccc}
\mathrm{SO}(5)\times\mathrm{SO}(5) & & \overset{\mathbb{Z}_{2}}{\supset} & & \mathrm{SU}(2)_{\textrm{L}}\times\mathrm{SU}(2)_{\textrm{R}} & , \\[2mm]
(\textbf{4},\textbf{4}) & & \longrightarrow & & \underbrace{(\textbf{2},\textbf{2})}_{\textrm{even}} \,\oplus\,\underbrace{(\textbf{1},\textbf{1}) \,\oplus\,(\textbf{3},\textbf{1})}_{\textrm{odd}} & .
\end{array}$$ This procedure gives rise to a half-maximal theory coupled to four vector multiplets, whose field content is summarized in table \[table:fields\_halfmax\].
\[1\]
Field Type Field Name $\mathbb{R}^{+}\times\mathrm{SO}(4,4)$ irrep’s
------------ ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Scalars $X$ & $\mathcal{M}_{MN}$ $\textbf{1}^{(0)}\,\oplus\,\textbf{28}^{(0)}$ ($17$ phys.)
Vectors $A_{\mu}^{\phantom{A}M}$ $\textbf{8}^{(+1)}$
Two-forms $\mathcal{B}_{\mu\nu}^{\phantom{\mu\nu}\pm}$ $\textbf{1}^{(+2)}\,\oplus\,\textbf{1}^{(-2)}$ ($1$ phys.)
: [*The (bosonic) field content of half-maximal supergravity in six dimensions. $\mu$ denotes a spacetime index, $M$ is a MW spinor of $\mathrm{SO}(4,4)$. Note that the degrees of freedom of the two-form are halved by means of a self-duality condition.*]{}[]{data-label="table:fields_halfmax"}
The consistent embedding tensor deformations can be obtained by branching the $\textbf{144}_{c}$ of $\mathrm{SO}(5,5)$ w.r.t. its $\mathbb{R}^{+}\times\mathrm{SO}(4,4)$ subgroup and only retaining the parity-even irrep’s. This yields $$\begin{array}{lccclc}
\Theta & & \in & & \underbrace{\textbf{8}_{c}^{(-1)}}_{\xi_{M}}\,\oplus\,\underbrace{\textbf{8}_{c}^{(+3)}}_{\zeta_{M}}\,\oplus\,\underbrace{\textbf{56}_{c}^{(-1)}}_{f_{[MNP]}} & ,
\end{array}$$ where $\xi$ & $f$ parametrize gaugings, of $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\mathrm{SO}(4,4)$ respectively, while $\zeta$ represents a massive deformation inducing a Stückelberg coupling for the two-form. Such embedding tensor needs to satisfy the following quadratic constraint (QC) for consistency (when $\xi_{M}=0$) $$\begin{array}{lcccclc}
f_{R[MN}\,f_{PQ]}^{\phantom{PQ]}R} \ = \ 0 & , & & & & f_{MNP}\,\zeta^{P} \ = \ 0 & ,
\end{array}\label{QC}$$ where all contractions are taken w.r.t. the $\mathrm{SO}(4,4)$ invariant metric $\eta_{MN}$. It is worth mentioning that, in order for our half-maximal theory to still admit an embedding within the maximal theory, the following set of *extra* QC is required $$\begin{array}{lcccclc}
f_{MNP}\,f^{MNP} \ = \ 0 & , & & & & \left.f_{[MNP}\,\zeta_{Q]}\right|_{\textrm{SD}} \ = \ 0 & ,
\end{array}\label{extraQC}$$ where $|_{\textrm{SD}}$ denotes the projection on the self-dual four-form of $\mathrm{SO}(4,4)$.
The scalar potential induced by the above deformations (after setting $\xi_{M}=0$) reads $$\begin{split}
V=&f_{MNP}f_{QRS}X^{2}\left(\frac{1}{12}\mathcal{M}^{MQ}\mathcal{M}^{NR}\mathcal{M}^{PS}-\frac{1}{4}\mathcal{M}^{MQ}\eta^{NR}\eta^{PS}+\frac{1}{6}\eta^{MQ}\eta^{NR}\eta^{PS}\right)\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\zeta_{M}\zeta_{N}X^{-6}\mathcal{M}^{MN}\,+\,\frac{2}{3}f_{MNP}\zeta_{Q}X^{-2}\mathcal{M}^{MNPQ} \ ,
\end{split}\label{Half_Max_Pot}$$ where $\mathcal{M}^{MNPQ}=\frac{1}{4!}\epsilon_{abcd}\mathcal{V}^{Ma}\mathcal{V}^{Nb}\mathcal{V}^{Pc}\mathcal{V}^{Qd}$, $\mathcal{V}$ being the “vielbein” reproducing the scalar coset representative $\mathcal{M}$.
The Romans’ theory is further obtained by truncating away *all* scalars but $X$, *i.e.* picking $\mathcal{M}_{MN}=\delta_{MN}$, and keeping only fields with legs within the timelike $\mathrm{SO}(4)$, call it $a=0,\,i$, where $i=1,2,3$. Finally pick the following embedding tensor $$\begin{array}{lccclc}
f_{ijk} \ = \ g\,\epsilon_{ijk} & , & & & \zeta_{0} \ = \ -\sqrt{2}\,m & ,
\end{array}
\label{ET_Romans}$$ all the other components being zero. This choice can be checked to satisfy the QC in , which are needed for consistency. The scalar potential specified to this case reads $$V(X)\,=\,m^2\,X^{-6}-4\sqrt{2}\,gm\,X^{-2}-2\,g^2\,X^2\ ,$$ which precisely reproduces .
As a final comment, we note that the *extra* QC needed for a consistent embedding in maximal supergravity are actually violated by , thus suggesting the presence of spacetime-filling branes within the massive IIA realization of this theory.
[^1]: We point out that the main difference between this case and the one of RG flows across dimensions can be observed by considering the “radial” coordinates giving rise to the AdS vacua respectively in the UV and IR. In a conformal defect, the radii of the ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{p+2}$ and ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_d$ are different, while in a supergravity solution describing an RG flow across dimensions, the AdS backrounds arising in the UV and in the IR are described by the same radial coordinate. Conformal defects and RG flows across dimensions are somehow two complementary descriptions. For example one may guess the existence of more general flows involving $r$ as well as the radial coordinate of ${\mbox{$\mathrm{AdS}$}}_{p+2}$ describing a geometry where the metric is replaced by an $\mathbb{R}^{1,p}$ slicing of the $d$-dimensional background.
[^2]: It is related to the 5d conserved current $\star_{\,5}(F\wedge F)$ [@Seiberg:1996bd; @Ferrara:1998gv].
[^3]: See Appendix \[app:massiveIIA\] for a brief review on massive IIA supergravity.
[^4]: By “minimal” we mean the truncation to the pure supergravity multiplet of the theory.
[^5]: For more details on Clifford algebras for $d=1+5$ spacetime dimensions see Appendix \[app:SM\_spinors\].
[^6]: The fermionic parameter $\zeta^a$ appears inside the SUSY variations as a SMW spinor since vector fields have a natural $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ action on spinor doublets. As we explained in appendix \[app:SM\_spinors\], the pseudo-reality condition guarantees that the number of independent components of a SM (SMW) doublet are the same as those of a Dirac (Weyl) spinor. This means that, whenever vectors are vanishing, it will be more suitable to reorganize them into Dirac or Weyl spinors.
[^7]: For our later convenience, we formulate the Ansatz in the string frame, while in [@Cvetic:1999un] it is given in the Einstein frame. See appendix \[app:massiveIIA\].
[^8]: They satisfy the identity $d\theta^i=-\frac12\,\varepsilon_{ijk}\,d\theta^j\,\wedge\,d\theta^k$.
[^9]: As pointed out in [@Brandhuber:1999np] and in the discussion above on , this is only the upper hemisphere of a 4-sphere with a bounday appearing for $\xi\rightarrow 0$.
[^10]: Such a [*parallelized basis*]{} does not clearly exist for every manifold. For example, in the next section we will consider $\Sigma_2=S^2$ and we will be forced to include a dependence on the coordinates of the $S^2$ into the Killing spinor.
[^11]: The 3-sphere is round because the vectors $A^i$ vanish for the charged domain wall.
[^12]: For sake of clarity, the coordinates associated with the 7d flow will be called as $r', \xi',\dots$.
[^13]: We set $\kappa_{10}=8\pi G_{10}=1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Matrix integrals used in random matrix theory for the study of eigenvalues of matrix ensembles have been shown to provide $ \tau $-functions for several hierarchies of integrable equations. In this paper, we construct the matrix integral solutions to the Leznov lattice equation, semi-discrete and full-discrete version and the Pfaffianized Leznov lattice systems, respectively. We demonstrate that the partition function of Jacobi unitary ensemble is a solution to the semi-discrete Leznov lattice and the partition function of Jacobi orthogonal/symplectic ensemble gives solutions of the Pfaffianized Leznov lattice.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, People’s Republic of China.'
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, People’s Republic of China.'
author:
- 'Bo-Jian Shen'
- 'Guo-Fu Yu'
title: Matrix integral solutions to the related Leznov lattice equations
---
Introduction
============
The studies in the connections between matrix models and integrable systems originated from the context of string theory and AdS/CFT correspondence [@gerasimov90]. The matrix models were used to evaluate non-perturbative correlators in string models constructed from conformal field theories, while at the same time, they were used to provide different tau functions for the integrable equations and hierarchies. During the courses of these studies, the famous integrable KP and 1d-Toda chain were firstly connected with the Hermitian matrix model with unitary invariance [@makeenko91; @adler97]. Later on, with the development of random matrix theory, many different matrix models were considered during the late 1990s. The most general case were considered in [@adler99] about two-matrix models and it was shown that the time-dependent partition function of coupled two matrix models is the tau function of general 2d-Toda hierarchy [@adler99]. According to the Kyoto school’s classification about integrable hierarchies [@jimbo83], the equations and hierarchies mentioned above belong to $A_\infty$ type, and therefore, it is natural to consider the other kinds of integrable hierarchies afterwards. The matrix integral solution of BKP hierarchy was shown to be the time-dependent partition function of Bures ensemble [@hu17; @orlov16] and the one of DKP (or Pfaff lattice) hierarchy were demonstrated to be the partition function of orthogonal ensemble or symplectic ensemble [@orlov16; @adler02; @vandeleur01; @kakei00]. Very recently, the matrix integral solution of CKP hierarchy were shown to be the time-dependent partition function of Cauchy two-matrix model [@CS], and thus complete a list of connections between typical integrable hierarchies (we mean the AKP, BKP, CKP and DKP equation in the Kyoto school’s classification) and the matrix models.
The discrete integrable systems also play important roles in integrable theory and their connections with matrix models are interesting to be discussed. For example, in [@HZL], the matrix integral solutions of several integrable differential-difference systems were considered, whose tau functions were shown to be related to the integrals of the eigenvalues in the form $$\int_{\gamma^n} \prod_{1 \leq j<k\leq N}|x_j-x_k|^\beta \exp\left(\sum_{j=1}^Nf(x_j)\right)dx_1\dots dx_N,\label{1.1}$$ where the Dyson index $\beta=1,\,2,\, 4$ correspond to the orthogonal, unitary, and symplectic ensembles respectively and $\exp(f(x))$ is a weight function with respect to the integral contour $\gamma$. Moreover, in [@lafortune16], the matrix integral solutions to the discrete KP hierarchy and its Pfaffianized version were considered, which provides us an idea to extend the original equations to Pfaffianized systems, to connect the tau function of the original one with $\beta=2$ with the tau functions of the Pfaffianized one with $\beta=1,\,4$.
In this article, we’d like to extend the relation between integrals of the form (\[1.1\]) and integrable systems by obtaining matrix integral solutions to the semi-discrete and full-discrete Leznov lattice. The nonlinear two-dimensional (2D) Leznov lattice [@lez2000]
$$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial p(n)}{\partial y}=\theta(n+1)-\theta(n-1),\label{lez-1}\\
& \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x\partial y}\ln\theta(n)=\theta(n+1)p(n+1)-2\theta(n)p(n)+\theta(n-1)p(n-1), \label{lez-2}\end{aligned}$$
which is a special case of the so-called UToda $(m_1,m_2)$ system with $m_1=1,m_2=2$. If we set the variable transformations $\,
a(n)=p(n+1),c(n)=\theta(n+1)$, then (\[lez-1\]) and (\[lez-2\]) can be transformed into
$$\begin{aligned}
&a_y(n)=c(n+1)-c(n-1),\\
&b_y(n)=a(n-1)c(n-1)-a(n)c(n),\\
&c_x(n)=c(n)[b(n)-b(n+1)],\end{aligned}$$
which is a two-dimensional generalization of the Blaszak-Marciniak lattice [@BM94; @HuZhu98]. By the dependent variable transformation [@HTam] $$\theta(n)=\frac{f(n+1)f(n-1)}{f(n)^2},\quad p(n)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{D_xD_yf(n)\cdot f(n)}{f(n+1)f(n-1)},$$ the Leznov lattice (\[lez-1\])-(\[lez-2\]) can be transformed into a quadric linear form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}D_y(D_xD_yf(n)\cdot f(n))\cdot (e^{D_n}f(n)\cdot
f(n))=2\sinh(D_n)(e^{D_n}f(n)\cdot f(n))\cdot f^2(n).\label{quadr}\end{aligned}$$ To decouple (\[quadr\]) into the bilinear form, we need to introduce an auxiliary variable $z$ to obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
& (D_yD_z-2\,\mathrm{e}^{D_n}+2)f(n)\cdot f(n)=0,\label{le1}\\
& (D_yD_x-2D_z \mathrm{e}^{D_n})f(n)\cdot f(n)=0,\label{le2}\end{aligned}$$
where the Hirota’s bilinear differential operator $D_y^mD_t^k$ and the bilinear difference operator $\exp(\delta D_n)$ are defined [@H2], respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
&& D_y^m D_t^k a\cdot b \equiv (\frac{\partial}{\partial y}- \frac{\partial}{\partial {y'}})^m (\frac{\partial}{\partial t}- \frac{\partial}{\partial {t'}})^k a(y,t)b(y',t')|_{y'=y,t'=t},
\\ &&\exp(\delta D_n)a(n)\cdot b(n) \equiv \exp\Big[\delta \Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial n}-\frac{\partial}{\partial {n'}}\Big)\Big] a(n)b(n')|_{n'=n} = a(n+\delta)b(n-\delta).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by making use of the direct integrable discretization method proposed by Hirota [@H1], the integrable difference Leznov lattice equations were constructed in [@JDEA09] and the discrete integrability were demonstrated by the Bäcklund transformation and Lax pair. The advantage of this method is to find the solutions easily. It is known that the original Leznov lattice has Wronskian determinant solutions, and therefore the solutions of integrable semi(full)-discrete Leznov lattices inherit the determinant structure, which means both of them have Casorati determinant solutions [@GHX]. The Pfaffianization procedure [@ohta; @Gilson1; @Gilson2; @Gilson3] was also applied to the Leznov lattice and demonstrated that Pfaffianized Leznov lattice equation has solutions which could be expressed by Pfaffian [@GHX].
Motivated by the previous study of Leznov lattice and the importance of the matrix integrals, in this paper, we’d like to consider the matrix integral solutions to the Leznov lattice and its Pfaffianized version. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present the Andréief formula and matrix integral formulae that solve the Leznov lattice and its discrete versions. We show that the partition function of Jacobi unitary ensemble (JUE) in (\[jue\]) is a solution to the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in the $y$-direction. While in section 3, we demonstrate that the partition function of Jacobi orthogonal/symplectic ensemble form solutions to the Pfaffianized semi-discrete Leznov lattice in $y$-direction and the Pfaffianized Leznov lattice system. Finally, conclusion and discussion are given in section 4.
Matrix integral solutions to the Leznov lattice and discrete Leznov lattices
============================================================================
Matrix integral solution to the Leznov lattice
----------------------------------------------
In [@zhao], it was shown that the bilinear Leznov lattice equation - has the Casorati determinant solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Cast}
f(n)
=\left|\begin{array}{cccccccc}\phi_1(n) & \phi_1(n+1)& \cdots &\phi_1(n+N-1)\\
\phi_2(n) & \phi_2(n+1) & \cdots & \phi_2(n+N-1)\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots
\\
\phi_N(n) & \phi_N(n+1) & \cdots & \phi_N(n+N-1)
\end{array}
\right|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\phi_i(n):=\phi_i(n,x,y,z),\,i=1,2,\cdots, N\}$ satisfy the dispersion relations $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \phi_j(n)}{\partial y}=\phi_j(n+1),\quad
\frac{\partial \phi_j(n)}{\partial z}=-\phi_j(n-1),\quad
\frac{\partial \phi_j(n)}{\partial x}=-\phi_j(n-2).\end{aligned}$$ It should be emphasized that if we consider the Casorati determinant of the form with the seed function $\phi_i(n,x,y)$, which is only dependent on variables $n,\,x,\,y$, then the determinant is also the tau function of Leznov lattice in quadric form , reflecting the fact that $z$ is only an auxiliary variable and wouldn’t change the properties of solutions. Therefore, in the latter use, we would like to say the tau functions with variable $z$ are the solutions of the decoupled bilinear forms and the ones without $z$ are the solutions of the quadric forms or nonlinear forms.
A special solution solving the above relations is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_i(n)=\int_\gamma t^{n+i-1}e^{\eta(x,y,z,t)}dt,\end{aligned}$$ with $\eta(x,y,z,t)=yt-zt^{-1}-xt^{-2}+\eta_0(t)$ and $\eta_0(t)$ is a weight function with respect to the integral contour $\gamma$. Usually, in integrable theory, the variable $y$ is regarded as the $t_1$-time flow and $x$ is regarded as the $t_{-2}$-time flow. Considering $z$ is an auxiliary variable, the Casorati determinant solution with $z=0$ solves multi-linear Leznov lattice equation .
By making use of the Andréief formula $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N!}\int_{\gamma^n} \det[\phi_i(x_j)]_{i,j=1}^{N} \det[\psi_i(x_j)]_{i,j=1}^N\prod_{i=1}^N \omega(x_i)dx_i=\det\left[\int_\gamma \phi_i(x)\psi_j(x)\omega(x)dx\right]_{i,j=1}^N,\label{dB.1}\end{aligned}$$ one can write the Casorati determinant as a matrix integral form and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\det\limits_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\Big[\int_\gamma t^{n+i+j-2}e^{\eta(x,y,t)}dt\Big]=\frac{1}{N!}\int_{\gamma^n}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N}|t_i-t_j|^2\prod_{i=1}^Nt_i^n \exp[\eta(x,y,t_i)]dt_i,\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta(x,y,t)=yt-xt^{-2}+\eta_0(t)$. Thus we conclude that the partition function of the Hermitian matrix model with unitary invariance gives the tau function of Leznov lattice equation with dispersion relations given in the weight.
Matrix integral solution to the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in $y$-direction
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
The semi-discrete version of the Leznov lattice in the $y$-direction is given as [@GHX]
$$\begin{aligned}
& D_ze^{D_m}f(n,m)\cdot f(n,m)=(2e^{D_m+D_n}-2e^{D_m})f(n,m)\cdot f(n,m),\label{ey.1}\\
& (D_xe^{D_m}-2D_ze^{D_m+D_n})f(n,m)\cdot f(n,m)=0,\label{ey.2}\end{aligned}$$
\[ey\] where we denote $f(n,m)=f(n,x,m,z)$ for simplicity and $m$ takes the place of $y$ as a discrete variable. By using the bilinear identity $$\begin{aligned}
\sinh (D_m)(D_ze^{D_m+D_n}a\cdot a)\cdot(e^{D_m+D_n}a\cdot
a)=\sinh(D_n+D_m)(D_ze^{D_m}a\cdot a)\cdot (e^{D_m}a\cdot
a),\end{aligned}$$ we can derive the multi-linear equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12\sinh (D_m)[D_xe^{D_m}f\cdot f]\cdot [e^{D_n+D_m}f\cdot
f]=2\sinh (D_n+D_m)[e^{D_m+D_n}f\cdot f]\cdot [e^{D_m}f\cdot
f]\end{aligned}$$ from bilinear equations -. Moreover, this quadric linear equation could be regarded as the discrete version of the multi-linear equation . In [@GHX], the following Casorati determinant solution was obtained $$\begin{aligned}
f(n,m)=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi_1(n,m)&\phi_1(n+1,m)&\dots& \phi_1(n+N-1,m)\\
\phi_2(n,m)&\phi_2(n+1,m)&\dots& \phi_2(n+N-1,m)\\
\vdots& \vdots& \ddots& \vdots \\
\phi_N(n,m)&\phi_N(n+1,m)&\dots& \phi_N(n+N-1,m)\\
\end{array}
\right|,\label{ca.y}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\phi_{i}(k,m):=\phi_i(k,x,m,z),\,k=n,\,n+1,\,\dots,\,n+N-1\}$ satisfy the dispersion relations
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_x\phi_i(k,m)&= -4\phi_i(k-2,m)+4\phi_i(k-1,m),\label{dry.1}\\
\partial_z\phi_i(k,m)&=-2\phi_i(k-1,m), \label{dry.2}\\
\phi_i(k,m)&=\phi_i(k,m+2)-\phi_i(k+1,m+2). \label{dry.3}\end{aligned}$$
To seek for the solitons, one can consider the seed functions $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_i(n,x,m,z)&=c_ip_i^n(1-p_i)^{-\frac{m}{2}}\exp\left(-2p_i^{-1}z+(-4p_i^{-2}+4p_i^{-1})x\right)\notag\\
&+d_iq_i^n(1-q_i)^{-\frac{m}{2}}\exp({-2q_i^{-1}z+(-4q_i^{-2}+4q_i^{-1})x})\end{aligned}$$ motivated by the dispersion relations - and $p_i,\,q_i,\,c_i,\,d_i$ can be taken as arbitrary constants, which usually correspond to the wave numbers and phase parameters of the $i-$th soliton, respectively. In what follows, we’d like to show the partition function of Jacobi unitary ensemble (JUE) can act as the tau function of the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in the $y$-direction. The approach is to obtain a particular case of the Casorati determinant solution (\[ca.y\]), and show it is equivalent to the partition function of JUE. It is easy to check that the $ \phi_i(n,m) $ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_i(n,x,m,z)=\int_0^{1}(1-t)^{-\frac{m}{2}}t^{n+i-1}e^{\eta_1(x,z,t)}dt\end{aligned}$$ satisfy the dispersion relation (\[dry.1\])-(\[dry.3\]). Here $\eta_1(x,z,t)=-2zt^{-1}+(-4t^{-2}+4t^{-1})x+\eta_0(t)$ with $\eta_0(t)$ taken to ensure the convergence of the integral. Noting that $z$ is an auxiliary variable and it is not essential in the quadric form, we ignore this parameter in the following formula. Again, by making use of Andreiéf formula , one can see $$\begin{aligned}
\det\limits_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left[\int_0^1(1-t)^{-\frac{m}{2}}t^{n+i+j-2}e^{\eta_1(x,t)}dt\right]
=\frac{1}{N!}\int_{[0,1]^N}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N}|t_i-t_j|^2\prod_{i=1}^N (1-t_i)^{-\frac{m}{2}}t_i^n e^{\eta_1(x,t_i)}dt_i,\label{jue}\end{aligned}$$ which is the partition function of JUE with correspondence to the weight function $(1-t)^{-m/2}t^n$.
Matrix integral solutions to the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in $x$-direction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
The bilinear semi-discrete version of the Leznov lattice in the $x$-direction is
\[ex\] $$\begin{aligned}
& D_yD_zf\cdot f=(2e^{D_n}-2)f\cdot f,\label{ex.1}\\
& (D_ye^{D_k}-2D_ze^{D_k+D_n})f\cdot f=0.\label{ex.2}\end{aligned}$$
By use of the bilinear identity $$\sinh (D_n+D_k)(D_yD_za\cdot a)\cdot a^2=D_y(D_ze^{D_n+D_k}a\cdot
a)\cdot (e^{D_n+D_k}a\cdot a),$$ we get the multi-linear equation $$\label{dxx}
\frac 12D_y[D_ye^{D_k}f\cdot f]\cdot [e^{D_n+D_k}f\cdot f]=2\sinh
(D_n+D_k)[e^{D_n}f\cdot f]\cdot f^2,$$ that is an $x-$direction discrete version of . The solution of the semi-discrete version of the Leznov lattice (\[ex.1\])-(\[ex.2\]) can be written as the Casorati determinant [@GHX] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sol1}
f(n,l)=\left|
\begin{array}{cccc}
\psi_1(n,l)&\psi_1(n+1,l)&\dots& \psi_1(n+N-1,l)\\
\psi_2(n,l)&\psi_2(n+1,l)&\dots& \psi_2(n+N-1,l)\\
\vdots& \vdots& \ddots& \vdots \\
\psi_N(n,l)&\psi_N(n+1,l)&\dots& \psi_N(n+N-1,l)\\
\end{array}
\right|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\psi(k,l):=\psi_i(k,l,y,z),\,k=n,\,n+1,\,\dots,\,n+N-1\} $ satisfy the dispersion relations
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_y\psi_i(k,l)&=-\psi_i(k-1,l),\label{drx.1}\\
\partial_z\psi_i(k,l)&=\psi_i(k+1,l),\label{drx.2}\\
\psi_i(k,l)&=-2\psi_i(k+2,l+2)+\psi_i(k,l+2).\label{drx.3}\end{aligned}$$
The substitution the Casorati determinants into bilinear equations - leads to the Plücker identity and therefore is a solution of semi-discrete Leznov lattice in $x$-direction. A special choice of the seed function $$\psi_i(n,l,y)=\int_{0}^{\sqrt{2}/2}(1-2t^2)^{-\frac{l}{2}}t^{n+i-1}e^{\eta_2(t,y)}dt,\quad \eta_2(t,y)=-yt^{-1}+\eta_0(t),$$ solves dispersion relations - with ignorance of the auxiliary variable $z$. In the case that $1-2t^2>0$, we can put this term into the exponential term and express the seed functions as the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_i(n,l,y)=\int_0^{\sqrt{2}/2}t^{n+i-1}e^{\tilde{\eta}_2(t,l,y)}dt,\quad \tilde{\eta}_2(t,l,y)=-\frac{l}{2}\log(1-2t^2)-yt^{-1}+\eta_0(t).\end{aligned}$$ The Andreiéf formula is used to show a matrix integral solution to the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in $x$-direction $$\begin{aligned}
f(n,l,y)=\det\limits_{1\leq i,j\leq N}\left[
\int_{0}^{\sqrt{2}/2} t^{n+i+j-2}e^{\tilde{\eta}_2(t,l,y)}dt
\right]=\frac{1}{N!}\int_{[0,\sqrt{2}/2]^N}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N}|t_i-t_j|^2\prod_{i=1}^N t_i^{n}e^{\tilde{\eta}_2(t_i,l,y)}dt_i,\end{aligned}$$ which solves semi-discrete equation .
Matrix integral solution to the full-discrete Leznov lattice
------------------------------------------------------------
\
The full-discrete version of the Leznov lattice is
\[efqn\] $$\begin{aligned}
& D_ze^{D_{m}}f\cdot f=(2e^{D_m+D_n}-2e^{D_m})f\cdot f,\label{ef.1}\\
&[\sinh(D_m)\sinh(D_k)-2D_ze^{D_n+D_m+D_k}]f\cdot f=0.\label{ef.2}\end{aligned}$$
Based on the bilinear operator identity $$\sinh (D_m+D_n+D_k)(D_ze^{D_m}a\cdot a)\cdot(e^{D_m}a\cdot
a)=\sinh(D_m)(D_ze^{D_m+D_n+D_k}a\cdot a)\cdot
(e^{D_m+D_n+D_k}a\cdot a),$$ we approach the full-discrete multi-linear equation $$\frac 12\sinh (D_m)[\sinh (D_m)\sinh (D_k)f\cdot f]\cdot
[e^{D_m+D_n+D_k}f\cdot f]=2\sinh (D_m+D_n+D_k)(e^{D_m+D_n}f\cdot
f)\cdot (e^{D_m}f\cdot f).$$ Thus we view the continuous variable $z$ in as an auxiliary variable. The Casorati determinant solution of the full-discrete Leznov lattice is expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
f_{m,n,k}=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi_1(m,k,n,z)&\phi_1(m,k,n+1,z)&\dots& \phi_1(m,k,n+N-1,z)\\
\phi_2(m,k,n,z)&\phi_2(m,k,n+1,z)&\dots& \phi_2(m,k,n+N-1,z)\\
\vdots& \vdots& \ddots& \vdots \\
\phi_N(m,k,n,z)&\phi_N(m,k,n+1,z)&\dots& \phi_N(m,k,n+N-1,z)\\
\end{array}
\right|,\label{ca.f}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\phi_i(m,k,n,z),\, i=n,\,n+1,\,\dots,\,n+N-1\}$ satisfy the following dispersion relations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi_i(m-2,k,n,z)&=\phi_i(m,k,n,z)+\phi_i(m,k,n+1,z),\label{drf.1}\\
\partial_z\phi_i(m,k,n,z)&=2\phi_i(m,k,n-1,z),\label{drf.2}\\
\phi_i(m,k+2,n,z)&=\phi_i(m,k,n,z)-8\phi_i(m,k,n-1,z)-8\phi_i(m,k,n-2,z).\label{drf.3}\end{aligned}$$
We take a special choice of the seed function as $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi_i(m,n,k)=\int_{-1}^{0} (1+t)^{-\frac{m}{2}}t^{n+i-1}\Big(1-\frac{8}{t} -\frac{8}{t^2}\Big)^{\frac{k}{2}}\,\exp(\eta_3 (t,z))dt,\notag\\
&\eta_3 (t,z)=\frac{2z}{t}+\eta_0(t).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\eta_0(t)$ is an arbitrary function to ensure the convergence of the integral. It is easy to verify that $ \phi_i(m,n,k) $ above satisfies the dispersion relations (\[drf.1\])-(\[drf.3\]). Then, using the identity (\[dB.1\]) and factoring the integrand as the multiplication of two determinants, we get $$\begin{aligned}
f_{m,n,k}&=\det\left[\int_{-1}^{0} (1+t)^{-\frac{m}{2}}t^{n+i+j-2}(1-\frac{8}{t} -\frac{8}{t^2})^{\frac{k}{2}}\exp{(\eta_3 (t))}dt\right]_{i,j=1\dots N}\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{N!} \int_{[-1,0]^N}\det[t_j^{i-1}]_{i,j=1}^N\cdot \det\Big[t_j^{n+i-1}(1+t_j)^{-\frac{m}{2}}
\Big(1-\frac{8}{t_j}-\frac{8}{t_j^2}\Big)^{\frac{k}{2}}\exp[\eta_3(t_j)]\Big]_{i,j=1}^Ndt_j\notag\\
&=\frac{1}{N!} \int_{[-1,0]^N} \prod_{i=1}^N t_i^n(1+t_i)^{-\frac{m}{2}}\left(1-\frac{8}{t_i}-\frac{8}{t_i^2}\right)^{\frac{k}{2}} \prod_{1\le i<j\le N} |t_i-t_j|^{2}\prod_{i=1}^N\exp\left[\eta_3(t_i,z)\right]dt_i.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we obtain the matrix integral solution to the full-discrete Leznov lattice.
Matrix integral solutions to the Pfaffianized version of the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in the $y$-direction
==============================================================================================================
In this section, we will show that the partition functions of the orthogonal and symplectic ensemble can be regarded as the tau solution of the Pfaffianized version of the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in the $y$-direction (\[ey.1\])-(\[ey.2\]). We start from recalling some facts about Pfaffians.
As known in [@H2 §2], a Pfaffian ${\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots ,2N)$ is defined recursively by $${\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,2N)= \sum_{j=2}^{2N}(-1)^{j}{\mbox{pf}}(1,j){\mbox{pf}}(2,3,\dots,\hat{j},\dots,2N),$$ where ${\mbox{pf}}(i,j) = -{\mbox{pf}}(j,i)$ and $ \hat{j} $ means that the index $j$ is omitted. For any given $ 2N\times 2N $ antisymmetric matrix $ A_{2N} = (a_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq 2N} $, the Pfaffian associated with $ A_{2N} $ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Pf}}[A_{2N}]= {\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,2N),\end{aligned}$$ with ${\mbox{pf}}(i,j) = -{\mbox{pf}}(j,i) = a_{ij}$. In fact, Pfaffian is closely related to determinant. A determinant of $ n- $th degree $ \det|b(j,k)|_{1\leq j,k\leq n} $ can be expressed by means of a Pfaffian of $ 2n- $th degree ${\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,n,n^*,\dots,2^*,1^*)$ as [@H2] $$\det|b(j,k)|_{1\leq j,k\leq n}={\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,n,n^*,\dots,2^*,1^*)$$ with entries defined by $${\mbox{pf}}(j,k)= {\mbox{pf}}(j^*,k^*)=0,\quad {\mbox{pf}}(j,k^*)=b(j,k).$$
matrix integral solutions of the Pfaffianized semi-discrete Leznov lattice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pfaffianized version of the semi-discrete Leznov lattice in the $y$-direction was obtained in [@GHX] by using the procedure of Pfaffianization proposed by Hirota and Ohta [@RH]. It takes the form of the following four coupled equations
$$\begin{aligned}
&D_zf^n_m\cdot f^n_{m-2}+2f^n_mf^n_{m-2}-2f^{n+1}_mf^{n-1}_{m-2}+g^n_{m-2}h_m^n=0,\label{pfLS-1}\\
&D_xf^n_m\cdot f^n_{m-2}-2f^{n+1}_{m,z}f^{n-1}_{m-2}+2f^{n+1}_mf^{n-1}_{m-2,z}=-2D_zg^n_{m-2}h^n_m+8g^n_{m-2}h^n_m,\\
&D_zf^n_m\cdot g^{n-1}_{m-2}+2f^n_mg^{n-1}_{m=2}+2f^{n-1}_mg^n_{m-2}-2f^{n-1}_{m-2}f^n_m=0,\\
&D_zh^n_m\cdot f^{n-1}_{m-2}+2h^n_mf^{n-1}_{m-2}+2h^{n-1}_mf^n_{m-2}-2h^{n-1}_mf^n_m=0. \label{pfLS-4}\end{aligned}$$
It is remarkable the system above has the Pfaffian solutions $$\begin{aligned}
&&f^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,N)^n_m,\\
&&g_m^n={\mbox{pf}}(2,\dots,N-1)^n_m,\\
&&h_m^n={\mbox{pf}}(0,1,\dots,N,N+1)^n_m\end{aligned}$$ supposed that $N$ is an even integer larger than $0$ and the entries of the Pfaffians are chosen to satisfy relations
$$\begin{aligned}
&{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)^n_m-{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)^n_{m-2}={\mbox{pf}}(i+1,j)^n_m+{\mbox{pf}}(i,j+1)^n_m-{\mbox{pf}}(i+1,j+1)^n_m,\label{drpf1}\\
&\frac{\partial}{\partial x}{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)^n_m=-4{\mbox{pf}}(i-2,j)^n_m-4{\mbox{pf}}(i,j-2)^n_m+4{\mbox{pf}}(i,j-1)^n_m+4{\mbox{pf}}(i-1,j)^n_m,\\
&\frac{\partial}{\partial z}{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)^n_m=-2{\mbox{pf}}(i-1,j)^n_m-2{\mbox{pf}}(i,j-1)^n_m.\label{drpf3}\end{aligned}$$
In the following, we’d like to present two different kinds matrix integral solutions to the coupled Leznov lattice -.
### Matrix integral solutions (I)
First, we consider the matrix integral related to the orthogonal ensemble with even size $N$, which is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{Z}_{N}^{(\beta=1)}=\frac{1}{N!}\int_{\gamma^{N}}
\prod_{1\le i<j\le N}|t_i-t_j|\prod_{i=1}^{N}\omega(t_i)dt_i.\end{aligned}$$ It is well know the above equation can be written as a Pfaffian in the virtue of the de Bruijn integral formula [@dB] $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{N!}\int_{\gamma^n} \left|\det\limits_{1\leq i,j\leq N}[\phi_i(t_j)]\right|\prod_{i=1}^N\omega(t_i)dt_i=\mathrm{Pf}\left[\int_{\gamma^2}\text{sgn}(s-t)(\phi_i(t)\phi_j(s)-\phi_i(s)\phi_j(t))\omega(s)\omega(t)dsdt\right]_{i,j=1}^{N}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore one can consider the Pfaffian elements $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)=\int_0^{1} \int_s^{1} (s^{i-1}t^{j-1}-s^{j-1}t^{i-1})\omega(s)\omega(t)dtds.\end{aligned}$$ By considering that the weight function is parameter dependent, i.e. $\omega(s):=\omega(s;x,z,m,n)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(s;x,z,m,n)=s^n(1-s)^{-m/2}\exp(\eta_1(x,z,s)),\quad \eta_1(x,z,s)=-2zs^{-1}+(-4s^{-2}+4s^{-1})x+\eta_0(s)\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_0(s)$ is taken to ensure the convergence. Obviously, the Pfaffian entry defined above satisfies the dispersion relation -(\[drpf3\]). Therefore, by using the de Bruijn formula backwards, we can check that $$\begin{aligned}
& f^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,N)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_N^{(\beta=1)}(x,z,m,n),\\
&g^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(2,\dots,N-1)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_{N-2}^{(\beta=1)}(x,z,m,n+1),\\
& h^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(0,1,\dots,N,N+1)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_{N+2}^{(\beta=1)}(x,z,m,n-1).\end{aligned}$$ Noting that the partition function expression of $f_m^n$ could be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{Z}_N^{(\beta=1)}(x,z,m,n)=\frac{1}{N!}\int_{\gamma^N}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N}|t_i-t_j|\prod_{i=1}^N t_i^n (1-t_i)^{-m/2}\exp(\eta_1(x,z,t_i))dt_i,\end{aligned}$$ and this is the parameter dependent partition function of Jacobi Orthogonal Ensemble (JOE) with contour $\gamma:=[0,1]$.
### Matrix integral solutions (II)
As was shown in [@kakei00; @HZL], the partition function of the symplectic ensemble can also play a role as the tau function of the Pfaffianized system. Therefore, let’s consider the case $\beta=4$ with regarding to the equation . The form of the partition function is $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{Z}_{N}^{(\beta=4)}=\frac{1}{N!}\int_{\gamma^{N}}
\prod_{1\le i<j\le N}(t_i-t_j)^4\prod_{i=1}^{N}\omega^2(t_i)dt_i\end{aligned}$$ without any constraint on $N$. By making the use of two-fold Vandermonde determinant $$\prod_{1\leq j<k\leq N}(x_j-x_k)^4=\det[x^j_k,(j-1)x_k^j]_{j=1,\dots,2N,k=1,\dots,N}$$ as well as the de Bruijn formula, the partition function above can be written in terms of Pfaffian as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{Pf}}\left((j-i)\int_\gamma t^{i+j-2}\omega(t)dt
\right)_{i,j=1}^{2N}.\end{aligned}$$ The parameter dependent Pfaffian elements can be chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)=(j-i)\int_\gamma t^{i+j-2}\omega(t;x,z,m,n)dt,\end{aligned}$$ where the weight function should solve the conditions -. A suitable choice of the weight function is $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(t;x,z,m,n)=t^{n}(1-t)^{-m/2}\exp(\eta_1(x,z,t)),\quad \eta_1(x,z,s)=-2zs^{-1}+(-4s^{-2}+4s^{-1})x+\eta_0(s)\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_0(s)$ is taken to ensure the convergence. Obviously, the choice of the weight (dispersion relation) in the $\beta=4$ case is the same as the choice in $\beta=1$ case. Moreover, we can check that $$\begin{aligned}
& f^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,2N)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_N^{(\beta=4)}(x,z,m,n),\\
& g^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(2,\dots,2N-1)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_{N-1}^{(\beta=4)}(x,z,m,n+1),\\
& h^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(0,1,\dots,2N,2N+1)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_{N+1}^{(\beta=4)}(x,z,m,n-1).\end{aligned}$$ It’s also interesting to point out that the tau function $f_m^n$ in this case is related to the partition function of the Jacobi Symplectic Ensemble (JSE) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{Z}_N^{(\beta=4)}(x,z,m,n)=\frac{1}{N!}\int_{\gamma^N}\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq N}(t_i-t_j)^4\prod_{i=1}^N t_i^{2n} (1-t_i)^{-m}\exp(2\eta_1(x,z,t_i))dt_i,\end{aligned}$$ with contour $\gamma:=[0,1]$.
matrix integral solutions of the Pfaffianized Leznov lattice
------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we consider the matrix integral representation for solutions of the Pfaffianized Leznov lattice. The Pfaffianized Leznov lattice $$\begin{aligned}
& (D_yD_z-2(e^{D_n}-1))f_n\cdot f_n=-2g_n\hat{g}_n,\\
& (D_xD_y-2D_ze^{D_n})f_n\cdot f_n=2D_z g_n\cdot \hat{g}_n,\\
& D_ye^{D_n/2}g_n\cdot f_n=-D_ze^{D_n}g_n\cdot f_n,\\
& D_ye^{D_n/2}f_n\cdot \hat{g}_n=-D_ze^{D_n}f_n\cdot \hat{g}_n.\end{aligned}$$ was derived in [@zhao]. The solution was presented in Pfaffian form $$\begin{aligned}
& f_n={\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\cdots,N),\\
& g_n={\mbox{pf}}(0,1,\cdots,N+1),\\
& \hat{g}_n={\mbox{pf}}(2,3,\cdots,N-1),\end{aligned}$$ where the Pfaffian entries satisfy the relation $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial}{\partial y}{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)={\mbox{pf}}(i+1,j)+{\mbox{pf}}(i,j+1),\quad \frac{\partial}{\partial z}{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)=-{\mbox{pf}}(i-1,j)-{\mbox{pf}}(i,j-1),\\
& \frac{\partial}{\partial x}{\mbox{pf}}(i,j)=-{\mbox{pf}}(i-2,j)-{\mbox{pf}}(i,j-2),\quad (i,j)_{n+1}={\mbox{pf}}(i+1,j)+{\mbox{pf}}(i,j+1).\end{aligned}$$
### Matrix integral solutions (I)
Similar to the semi-discrete case, we first consider the matrix integral related to the orthogonal ensemble with even size $N$, which is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{Z}_N^{(\beta=1)}(x,y,z,n)&=
\frac{1}{N!}\int_0^{\infty}\dots \int_0^{\infty} \prod_{i=1}^N t_i^n \prod_{1\le i<j\le N}|t_i-t_j|\exp[\sum_{i=1}^N \eta_1(x,y,z,t_i)]dt_1 \dots dt_N \notag \\
&={\mbox{Pf}}\Big[\int_0^{\infty} \int_s^{\infty} (s^{n+i-1}t^{n+j-1}-s^{n+j-1}t^{n+i-1})\exp[\eta_1(x,y,z,s)+\eta_1(x,y,z,t)]dsdt\Big]_{i,j=1,\dots,N}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_1 (x,y,z,t)=-zt^{-1}-xt^{-2}+ty+ \eta_0(t)$. By using the de Bruijn formula backwards, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
& f^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\dots,N)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_N^{(\beta=1)}(x,z,t,n),\\
& g^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(0,1,2,\dots,N+1)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_{N+2}^{(\beta=1)}(x,z,t,n-1),\\
& h^n_m={\mbox{pf}}(2,\dots,N,N-1)^n_m=\mathbb{Z}_{N-2}^{(\beta=1)}(x,z,t,n+1).\end{aligned}$$
### Matrix integral solutions (II)
By using the two-fold Vandermonde determinant and the de Bruijn formula, we can check that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{Z}_N^{(\beta=4)}(x,y,z,n)&=
\frac{1}{N!}\int_0^{\infty}\dots \int_0^{\infty} \prod_{i=1}^N t_i^n \prod_{1\le i<j\le N}|t_i-t_j|^4
\exp[\sum_{i=1}^N 2\eta_1(x,y,z,t_i)]dt_1 \dots dt_N \notag\\
&={\mbox{Pf}}\Big[\int^{\infty}_0(i-j)t^{n+i+j-2}\exp[\eta_1(x,y,z,t)]dt\Big]_{i,j=1}^{2N}
\end{aligned}$$ gives Pfaffian solutions $$\begin{aligned}
& f_n={\mbox{pf}}(1,2,\cdots,2N)=\mathbb{Z}_N^{\beta=4}(x,y,z,n), \\
& g_n={\mbox{pf}}(0,1,2,\cdots,2N+1)=\mathbb{Z}_{N+1}^{\beta=4}(x,y,z,n-1),\\
& h_n={\mbox{pf}}(2,3,\cdots,2N-1)=\mathbb{Z}_{N-1}^{\beta=4}(x,y,z,n+1).\end{aligned}$$ Here we take the weight function as $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(x,y,z,t)=t^n\exp(\eta_1 (x,y,z,t)),\quad \eta_1(x,y,z,t)=-zt^{-1}-xt^{-2}+ty+ \eta_0(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_0(t)$ is taken to ensure the convergence.
Conclusion and discussion
=========================
In this paper, we demonstrated that the Leznov equation, as a generalized $2+1$ dimensional integrable system, admits a matrix integral solution. As is known, there are not many results about the matrix integral solution to the $2+1$ dimensional lattice equation as well as the discrete versions of the lattice equation, therefore, we give more examples to connect the $2+1$ dimensional lattice equation with random matrix theory. In particular, the Jacobi $\beta$-ensemble seems to be fundamental when we discuss about the discretization in the $x$-direction. Moreover, we consider the tau functions of discrete Leznov equation in $x/y$-direction respectively and a full-discrete lattice. The matrix integral solution of full discrete lattice is also rare to see but we have given some hints to see this kind of structure. Orthogonal polynomials with three type deformed weights, the Jacobi type, the Laguerre type and the weights deformed by the interval indicator function, are investigated in [@Yang], especially the relation with Heun equations when degree $n$ is large. It is natural to find the related orthogonal polynomials associated with the deformed weights in the obtained matrix integrals here.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Authors would like to thank Dr. Shi-Hao Li for helpful discussion and suggestion. The work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no.11871336).
.3cm
[99]{}
. , 357 (1991) 565-618
Yu. Makeenko, . , 356 (1991) 574-628
M. Adler and P. van Moerbeke, , 80 (1995) 863-911
M. Adler and P. van Moerbeke, 149 (1999) 921-976
M. Jimbo and T. Miwa. , 19 (1983) 943-1001.
X.B. Hu and S.H. Li, , 50 (2017) 285201.
A. Yu. Orlov, T. Shiota and K. Takasaki. 1611. 02244, 2016.
M. Adler, T. Shiota and P. van Moerbeke. , , 322 (2002) 423-476.
J. van de Leur. . 8 (2001) 288-310.
S. Kakei. . 68 (1999) 2875-2877.
C.X. Li, S.H. Li, , 29 (2019), 3-27.
X.B. Hu, J.X. Zhao and C.X. Li, 75(2006) 054003
S. Lafortune and C. Li, . 49 (2016) 475202.
A.N. Leznov, 122(2) (2000), 211-228.
M.Blaszak, K.Marciniak, 35 (1994)4661
X.B.Hu, Z.N.Zhu, 39 (1998) 4766
Hu X-B and Tam H-W. 276 (2000) 65-72
R. Hirota, ,
R. Hirota Ryogo, I. Masataka. (Sabaudia, 1998), 217–229, CRM Proc. Lecture Notes, 25, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000
X.B. Hu and G.F. Yu, 15 (2009) 233-252
G.F. Yu, H.W. Tam and X.B. Hu, 335(2007) 337-338
R. Hirota and Y. Ohta, 60(1991) 798-809
C. R. Gilson and J. J. C. Nimmo, , 128(2001) 870-882.
C.R.Gilson, J.J.C. Nimmo, S. Tsujimoto, 34 (2001) 10569-10575
Y. Ohta, J. J. C.Nimmo, C. R. Gilson, 43A (2001), 99-108.
2 (1883) 1-4
de Bruijn N G 19 (1955) 133-51
J. Zhao, X. Hu and H. Tam, 144 (2005), 1288-1295
R. Hirota, Y. Ohta, 60 (1991), 798-809
Y. Chen, G. Filipuk, L. Zhan, Orthogonal Polynomials, Asymptotics and Heun Equations, arXiv: 1905.04869 2019
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
$^1$, Dieter Engels$^1$, Hiroshi Imai$^2$, Joanne Dawson$^3$, Simon Ellingsen$^4$, Lorant Sjouwerman$^5$, Huib van Langevelde$^{6,7}$\
$^1$Hamburger Sternwarte, $^2$Kagoshima University, $^3$Macquarie University, $^4$University of Tasmania, $^5$National Radio Astronomy Observatory, $^6$Joint Institute for VLBI in Europe, $^7$Sterrewacht Leiden\
E-mail:
title: OH masers in the Milky Way and Local Group galaxies in the SKA era
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
In the Milky Way, maser emission is often observed in the circumstellar shells of red giant stars and in the surroundings of young stellar objects (YSOs). These are environments which are cool enough to form molecules and provide sufficient velocity coherence and density, so that the masers are naturally excited. The strongest stellar masers are those of oxygen-bearing molecules like hydroxyl (OH), water ([H$_2$O]{}) and silicon-monoxide (SiO). In addition, methanol ([CH$_3$OH]{}) and to lesser extent, ammonia (NH$_3$) and formaldehyde (H$_2$CO) masers are detected close to star-formation regions (SFRs). The major maser transitions accessible with the SKA during Phase 1 will be from OH at frequencies of 1612, 1665 and 1667 MHz in band 2 and 1720 MHz in band 3.
Known OH masers in the Galaxy are typically located in the plane at distances 2-8 kpc. The evolved-star and star-forming-region origin can be differentiated from their spectral shapes and the ratio of intensities between the transitions.
Evolved stars are generally strongest in the 1612-MHz transition and have a spectral shape dominated by two peaks with a separation of $30\pm10$ [kms$^{-1}$]{} (e.g. Fig. \[oh\_spectra\] left panel). The shape is due to the origin of the masers in an expanding circumstellar shell where the strongest amplification occurs radially. The two strong peaks then come from the front and the back sides of the shell, and the radial velocity of the star and the expansion velocity of the shell can be determined directly from the central velocity of the double-peaked profile and the velocity interval covered by the emission. The evolved-star masers vary in phase with the stellar luminosity variations. Superposed on this are peculiar variations due to flares or intervals of generally low emission levels.
All 4 ground-state lines can be observed towards SFRs, though the main-lines (1665 and 1667 MHz) are the most commonly observed. Typically, SFR maser spectra are composed of narrow spectral components ($\leq$1-2 km s$^{-1}$) which can spread over a wide range of velocity depending on the complexity of the SFR. The intensity of the individual components can vary by up to four orders of magnitude within the same SFR complex (e.g. Fig. \[oh\_spectra\] right panel showing the rich 1665-MHz spectrum towards the Orion-KL SFR complex). Often, these spectra show substantial polarisation (including Zeeman pattern signatures) as well as substantial temporal variability (including flares) and periodic behaviours have also even been recorded towards class II 6.7-GHz methanol masers (e.g. Goedhart, Gaylard & van der Walt 2004).
Masers originating from SFRs and supernova remnants (SNRs) are commonly referred to as “interstellar masers”. This term shall be used hereafter, bearing in mind that we are focusing here on the evolved-star and SFR populations. The differentiation between SFRs and SNRs will be made to remove any ambiguity when appropriate.
SKA survey framework {#SKA Phase 1}
====================
Luminosity distributions of galactic OH masers {#Galactic OH masers}
----------------------------------------------
Currently >2000 stellar (Engels & Bunzel, 2014; hereafter EB14) and several hundred interstellar OH masers are known in the Milky Way. Most were discovered by surveys with single-dish radiotelescopes with typical survey limits of several hundred mJy. The most comprehensive survey for stellar OH masers so far, is the ATCA/VLA OH 1612-MHz survey (Sevenster et al. 2001), covering the Galactic plane at $\mid l \mid \le 45^\circ$ and $\mid b \mid \le 3^\circ$. From this survey, we know that the number of detections is still increasing with increasing sensitivity.
A series of surveys for interstellar masers were made by Caswell, Haynes & Goss (1980); Caswell & Haynes (1983a&b and 1987), Caswell (1998) and Caswell, Green & Phillips (2013, 2014). They cover the Galactic plane to within 1 degree, in the range $233^\circ \le l \le 60^\circ$, and extend to masers slightly weaker than 1 Jy for the 1980s series of survey and $\sim$0.2 Jy for the more recent series. The ongoing Southern Parkes Large-Area Survey (SPLASH) for OH masers, which has a mean 5-sigma flux limit of 0.3 Jy, has already doubled the number of known masers for the area in common with previous surveys (Dawson et al. 2014).
To estimate the yields of more sensitive surveys, we have constructed distributions of specific OH luminosities $L_\nu = f_{peak } \cdot 4
\pi D^2$, with $f_{peak }$ the peak flux density of the strongest feature in the maser spectrum and $D$ the kinematic distance. The distribution of flux densities and specific luminosities for stellar sources, taken from EB14, are shown in the first row of Fig. \[lable\_ohdistri\]. For the interstellar masers we used the flux densities from the survey of Caswell and collaborators, and calculated specific luminosities using the kinematic distances provided by them. In case of ambiguity we used the distance quoted as ’more likely’. The distributions obtained for the interstellar sources are shown in the second row of Fig. \[lable\_ohdistri\].
The flux distributions are peaking at $\sim0.5$ Jy (1612 MHz) for stellar and at $\sim4$ Jy (1665/67 MHz) for interstellar masers, reflecting the different sensitivities of the contributing surveys. The luminosity distributions peak at $2 \times 10^{15}$ Watt Hz$^{-1}$ and $\sim 10^{16}$ WattHz$^{-1}$ for the two different maser origins. The decrease in number at lower luminosities is very likely due to incompleteness, and this will be probed by future surveys.
Implications of maser variability on surveys {#Variability}
--------------------------------------------
Due to the variability of the masers, single epoch surveys detect only a fraction of the full population. Detection rates less than 50% are common for targeted surveys toward infrared selected samples of red giants. The missing detections cannot be explained by sensitivity limitations alone, but most likely are due to variability on a range of timescales. On timescales of years, the stellar masers vary in response to the luminosity variations of the parent star. Repeated observations usually produce detections for such cases. Part of the O-rich population however are persistently not detected, although ’maser’ and ’non-maser’ AGB stars show no differences in their optical or infrared properties. The fraction $\eta$ of ’maser’ AGB stars is dependent on infrared colour (e.g. mass-loss rates) and ranges between 10 and 60% for a flux density limit of $\approx$50 mJy (Lewis, 1992).
Either these ’non-maser’ stars possess only low-luminosity masers or the distribution of maser sites in their circumstellar shells is not spherically symmetric, so that only those stars are detected in which the OH maser emission is beamed toward Earth. Such issues are also valid for interstellar masers. For stellar masers, the beaming directions may change on timescales related to the crossing time through the shell ($\sim1000$ years). Therefore, we predict that the coming OH maser surveys, which will be separated $\sim30$ years from the historical ones, are also expected to discover new bright ($\gg1$ Jy) masers. The rate of new discoveries in stars not detected previously are a direct test of the timescales on which reconfigurations in the expanding circumstellar shells may occur.
The Galactic OH maser population {#GalOH}
--------------------------------
A rough estimate of the yield of future surveys for stellar OH masers can be made for 1612 MHz using the model of Jackson et al. (2002) for the Galactic distribution of AGB stars. This model is based on the analysis of the Galactic distribution of $\approx10000$ IRAS sources with colours appropriate for mass-losing AGB stars. It predicts $\approx200\,000$ AGB stars in the Milky Way. 1612-MHz OH flux densities can be estimated on the basis of dust mass-loss rates $\dot{M}_{dust}$ (in [$M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$]{}) from the relation $f_{OH} = 3.15\times10^{9} \, \dot{M}_{dust} \, (v_{exp} \, D^2)^{-1}$ (Zijlstra et al. 1996, taking into account the factor 2 needed for a better fit of the LMC data as predicated by Marshall et al. 2004), where $f_{OH}$ is the peak flux density in Jy, $v_{exp}$ the expansion velocity in km/s, and $D$ the distance in kpc. For a given volume in the Galaxy, the space density of AGB stars was obtained from the Jackson et al. model, and it was assumed that the stars have a fixed IRAS colour distribution. The IRAS colours were converted to $\dot{M}_{dust}$ using the pure silicate models of Groenewegen (2006), which predict infrared colours for a range of gas mass-loss rates for fixed bolometric luminosity $L = 3000$ [$L_{\odot}$]{}, $v_{exp} = 10$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}, and a gas-to-dust ratio $\Psi = 200$. From the dust mass-loss rates, OH flux densities were obtained as described above.
The actual numbers of OH masers predicted depend critically on the distribution of the mass-loss rates (or IR colours) among the AGB star population and also on the fraction $\eta$ of AGB stars actually showing a maser with the predicted luminosity. The observed IRAS colour distributions are biased towards higher mass-loss rates, because these stars emit most of their energy in the mid-infrared. Corrections have to be estimated therefore for low $\dot{M}_{dust}$. The range of possible $\dot{M}_{dust}$ distributions and the fraction $\eta$ of OH emitting AGB stars was constrained by the requirement that the model reproduces the results of the survey of Sevenster et al. (2001), e.g. the number of detections down to the survey limit of $\approx 150$ mJy and the flux distribution.
The result for $\eta = 0.1$ is shown in Fig. \[flux\_histo\_jackson\_model\] (left panel), giving $\approx11\,000$ stellar OH 1612-MHz maser with $F_{OH} \ge 10$ mJy in the Galactic plane ($\mid b \mid <3$ deg). This value of $\eta$ is at the lower end of the range observed by Lewis (1992), but includes also by default ’non-maser’ carbon-rich AGB stars in the population. Higher estimates can be created by adopting a steeper colour distribution, demanding $\eta > 0.1$ to reproduce the observed high-luminosity masers. Accordingly, the prediction of the number of fainter masers will be scaled up.
In addition to the predicted number of stellar masers, an unknown number of interstellar masers will be present in the Galactic plane. Some of these masers will be detected prior to the SKA by surveys such as GASKAP. This survey aims to reach an rms for point sources of 1 mJy in the Galactic plane and of 0.5 mJy in the Magellanic Clouds. However, the angular resolution will only be $\sim$20 arcsec (Dickey et al. 2013), and thus the masers at the lowest flux limits may not be distinguishable from thermal extended emission. From a simple extrapolation of the number of identified maser sources in the pilot SPLASH region ($\sim$200 sources within an area 10$^\circ$ width in Galactic Longitude), it is expected that at the SPLASH 5-sigma flux limit of 0.3 Jy several thousand maser sources are detectable. The number of interstellar masers detectable down to $F_{OH} \ge 10$ mJy is therefore at least as large as that predicted for the stellar masers, yielding a total number of detectable masers in the Galactic plane of $\ge 20000$.
The impact of OH maser surveys with SKA1 {#Early Science survey}
========================================
Adopting the specific luminosity distributions from Fig. \[lable\_ohdistri\] as representative for the stellar and interstellar maser luminosity distributions in the Galaxy, sensitivity limits for an SKA survey to detect a major part of these maser populations at different distances can be estimated. Adopting $3
\times 10^{14}$ Watt Hz$^{-1}$ (at 1612 MHz for stellar and 1665/1667 MHz for interstellar masers) as the lower limit for the maser population to study, and a detection threshold of S/N=10, sensitivity limits $F_{lim} =$ 4, 1, and 0.1 mJy are required to probe the population at distances of 8, 16 and 50 kpc respectively. These correspond to the Galactic center, the anti-solar, and the Large Magellanic Cloud distances.\
Most of the ground-state OH maser surveys undertaken in the Milky Way have been made with an angular resolution of typically 20 arcsec and GASKAP will deliver a similar resolution. A new SKA1 survey, with a resolving power 20 times that of GASKAP, will allow a direct comparison of the other side of the Galaxy, LMC & SMC stellar and interstellar maser populations at resolution roughly similar to Galactic surveys.\
The 3 ground-states lines at 1612, 1665 and 1667 MHz are simultanously covered by Band 2 with SKA1-MID and SKA1-SUR and the 4$^{th}$ OH ground-state line at 1720 MHz can be accessed with Band 3. While SKA1-SUR will offer an unprecedented survey speed, SKA1-MID, with a SEFD 4 times better than SKA1-SUR as well as an increase by a factor of 4 in the power of resolution (0.22 compared to 0.9 arcsec respectively), will be better suited for investigating the structure of the maser emission to the same resolution as e.g. eMERLIN. SKA1-MID Band 5 would offer the ability of accessing the 6-GHz excited-OH maser transitions, as well as the class-II 6.7-GHz methanol maser transition associated exclusively with the formation process of high-mass stars.
In the following sections, OH maser surveys rendered possible with SKA1-MID and SKA1-SUR capabilities are discussed. They are summarised in Table \[Table: SKA maser surveys\].
------------- ------------- -------------- --------------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------------------
SKA1 Survey Sensitivity Int. per$^1$ Coverage Pointing Total$^{1,2}$ Aim
Name (mJy) pointing Nb time
(hours) (hours)
SUR–All-Sky 4 0.11 21000 deg$^2$ 1300 143 All-Sky shallow survey
SUR–Shallow 1.0 1.75 $-60^\circ \le l \le +60^\circ$ 30 52.5 Anti-solar Galactic
$ b \le 4^\circ$ hemisphere maser pop.
SUR–Deep 0.3 19 $-60^\circ \le l \le +60^\circ$ 30 570 Seach for low
$ b \le 4^\circ$ luminosity pop.
SUR–LMC 0.1 175 11$\times$10 deg$^{2,3}$ 9 1575 LMC survey (3-sigma)
SUR–SMC 0.1 175 5.5$\times$3.5 deg$^{2,3}$ 4 700 SMC survey (3-sigma)
MID–MC 0.05 40 100 4000 LMC+SMC confirmation
targeted survey (6-sigma)
MID–GAL 0.05 40 1 deg$^2$ 4 160 Triangulum Survey
------------- ------------- -------------- --------------------------------- ---------- --------------- ---------------------------
: SKA1 maser surveys[]{data-label="Table: SKA maser surveys"}
\
[**1**]{}: for a channel width of 5 kHz $\Leftrightarrow$ $\sim$0.9 km/s; SEFD$_{\rm MID}$=1.7 (cf. Table 1 of SKA–TEL–SKO–DD–001 (Dewdney et al. 2013); corresponding to “combined”: 190 antennas + Meerkat); SEFD$_{\rm SUR}$=7.1\
[**2**]{}: FOV$_{\rm MID}$=0.5 deg$^2$; FOV$_{\rm SUR}$=18 deg$^2$\
[**3**]{}: from the NED (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/)\
OH masers in the anti-solar Galactic hemisphere {#anti-solar hemisphere}
-----------------------------------------------
To estimate the likely range of flux densities of stellar OH masers in the Milky Way located beyond the Galactic center (hereafter the anti-solar Galactic hemisphere), we used all stellar masers with kinematic distance estimates from EB14 with $D \cdot cos(l) \le$ 8.0 kpc, e.g., the population of stellar masers in the solar Galactic hemisphere. We assumed that the population in the anti-solar Galactic hemisphere is a mirror of the front part population and calculated their flux densities as if observed from the Sun. The result is shown in Fig. \[flux\_histo\_jackson\_model\] (right panel), where the open bins represent the observed population and the shaded bins represent the predicted population in the anti-solar Galactic hemisphere. The bulk of the predicted population has flux densities between 10 and 500 mJy in good agreement with the maximum of the flux density distribution obtained from the prediction presented in Sect. \[GalOH\]. This population can be detected in $\sim$50 hours with SKA1-SUR (cf. SUR-Shallow in Table \[Table: SKA maser surveys\]).
Low-luminosity masers {#Low-luminosity}
---------------------
Surveys of increasing sensitivity in the Galaxy will not only extend the distances out to which masers will be detected, but will also extend the maser luminosity range towards lower levels than before. It is unknown whether the specific luminosities of masers have lower limits. A plausible assumption is that there is no such limit. A good illustration of this issue is the OH flaring Mira population (Etoka & Le Squeren 1997). $o$ Ceti is an ideal example amongst these stars, as it shows absence of detectable OH maser emission for decades followed by long-lasting OH flaring events (Etoka et al. 2010a). The mean intensity of the OH flaring emission towards $o$ Ceti is $\sim$2 Jy, corresponding to a luminosity of $\sim 2 \times 10^{12}$ Watt Hz$^{-1}$, which can be taken as a typical threshold for this type of stellar maser population. The dichotomy ’maser’ and ’non-maser’ O-rich AGB stars would then vanish with increasingly sensitive surveys. In addition, it seems also plausible that OH maser emission will be discovered in classes of objects, which do not, or rarely possess high-luminosity masers. One example are Planetary Nebulae (PNe). There are only six sources in which the presence of (1612 MHz) OH maser emission has been confirmed (Uscanga et al. 2012). Another example is the so far unique detection of 1720-MHz maser emission from an evolved star (made towards the post-AGB star OH9.097-0.392 by Sevenster & Chapman 2001). In post-AGB stars and PNe, the maser emission is probably related to shock-excitation in the interface between a fast post-AGB wind with a remnant slow AGB wind (Etoka et al. 2009). These excitation events might be short-lived, might lead to beamed emission or produce only low-luminosity maser emission. It seems likely, that new sensitive surveys will discover many new masers in stars already evolved away from the AGB, allowing us to study the bipolar outflows emerging in this phase in more detail. Towards SFRs, faint ground-state 1665/1667 MHz OH maser from young stars which will not ionize their environment has been found (e.g. the Turner-Welch object detected in the W3(OH) SFR complex by Argon, Reid & Menten 2003). A $\sim$140-hours survey over the complete sky accessible by SKA1-SUR (cf. SUR-All-Sky in Table \[Table: SKA maser surveys\]) with a flux limit of 4 mJy will probe the presence of a population of low-luminosity masers (e.g. L$_{\rm OH} < 3 \times 10^{14}$ WHz$^{-1}$) among evolved stars and SFRs in the solar vicinity, which previous surveys have only investigated for higher luminosity masers. A deeper blind search for such low-luminosity masers in the inner Galactic disk could be achieved within $\sim$570 hours (cf. SUR-Deep in Table \[Table: SKA maser surveys\]).\
Galactic analog OH masers in galaxies of the Local Group {#Galactic analog in the Local Group}
--------------------------------------------------------
Late-type star evolution and the star formation process may differ in galaxies with other metallicity environments. The extension of the Galactic maser research to galaxies in the Local Group will provide another tool to study these differences. Due to their proximity, the Magellanic Clouds with their low-metallicity environment are the first galaxies to address.
Only a small number of maser sources with luminosities similar to their Galactic analogs are known outside the Milky Way. In the LMC, ten 1612-MHz OH masers with peak-flux densities 17-600 mJy are known in evolved stars (Marshall et al. 2004). These low-metallicity, high-mass LMC stars have contributed significantly to our understanding of the expansion velocities as indicators of metallicity. A few searches for ground-state OH maser of interstellar origin have been made in the 1980’s and 1990’s. A handful of 1665-MHz maser sources (sometimes accompanied with fainter 1667 MHz) have been detected towards the LMC (Brooks & Whiteoak 1997). A similar number of detections of 1720-MHz maser emission originating from SNRs have also been found towards the LMC (Brogan et al. 2004). Regarding the SMC, to date, OH masers have not been detected. Furthermore, maser emission of evolved-star origin has not been detected so far, and the number of maser sources of SFR origin detected is very low (in total 6 H$_2$O masers of SFR origin: Scalise & Braz 1982; Breen et al. 2013; also, the systematic survey done by Green et al. (2008) failed to detect any class II 6.7-GHz methanol masers).
With the sensitivities provided by SKA1, the options for maser research in the Magellanic Clouds may dramatically increase. To verify our ideas about Galactic structure evolution, it would be of great importance to compare the populations of stellar masers in the Galaxy with those in other galactic environments. Currently known stellar masers in the LMC were discovered by targeted searches towards luminous and mid-infrared bright sources. Their specific luminosities $L_{OH}$ cover the range $15.50 < \log L_{OH} < 17.50$, which corresponds to the bright tail of the luminosity distribution in the Galaxy (cf. Fig. \[lumino histo 1612 lmc\]). An inventory of evolved stars in the LMC ($\sim50$ deg$^2$) and the SMC ($\sim30$ deg$^2$) has been provided by the SAGE-Spitzer survey (Meixner et al. 2006, Gordon et al. 2011) in the infrared. In the LMC, depending on the photometric classification according to chemistry, 20000–25000 of them are expected to be oxygen-rich (Riebel et al. 2012). For most stars, the dust mass-loss rates given by Riebel et al. are low ($\dot{M}_{dust}<5\times10^{-10}$ [$M_{\odot}$yr$^{-1}$]{}) and their circumstellar shells do not qualify as OH maser hosts. To estimate the OH maser luminosities of the $\sim1300$ stars with higher dust mass-loss rates we used the relation from Sect. \[GalOH\] relating $\dot{M}_{dust}$ with 1612-MHz OH maser flux densities $f_{OH}$. Assuming $v_{exp} = 14$ [kms$^{-1}$]{} and D = 50 kpc, the luminosity distribution shown in Fig. \[lumino histo 1612 lmc\] is obtained. The result indicates that most bright masers in the LMC are already known, and the luminosities of the masers to be discovered will be lower than that of the bulk of the known Galactic masers. The reason for this is the classification of almost all stars with high mass-loss rates (“extreme AGB stars”) as C-stars by the SAGE-Spitzer survey. The validity of this photometric classification will be directly probed by an OH maser survey of the LMC covering the full AGB population.
As expected, the number of masers in Fig. \[lumino histo 1612 lmc\] increases for lower luminosities, following the increase of the number of AGB stars with decreasing mass-loss rates. With a survey limit of 0.1 mJy and S/N=3, $\approx200$ new stellar 1612-MHz OH masers with $L_{OH} > 10^{14}$ Watt Hz$^{-1}$ will be detected. These numbers should be seen as upper limits, if detection rates as in the Galaxy apply. On the other hand, more 1612-MHz OH masers might be found if there are more O-rich AGB stars among the “extreme AGB stars” than expected. Furthermore, since (preferentially main-line) masers are commonly present in the vicinity of Galactic YSOs, they are probably present around their LMC analogs. A mid-IR photometry search for high- and intermediate-mass YSOs in the LMC has been made by Gruendl & Chu (2009) yielding $>1000$ sources. The number of OH masers detectable in the LMC with a 0.1 mJy survey limit is therefore well above 200.
The number of O-rich evolved stars qualifying as potential OH maser hosts in the SMC is $>$2000 (Boyer et al., 2011), about 10% of the LMC. Assuming, that the number of YSOs is also 10% of the corresponding number in the LMC, and allowing for the larger distance (D = 60 kpc), about two dozen new OH masers might be found, adopting the same survey limit as in the LMC. They will be the first ever detected in this galaxy. Both Magellanic Clouds can be surveyed in $\sim$2300 hours for the 0.1 mJy flux limit required (SUR-LMC, SUR-SMC in Table \[Table: SKA maser surveys\]). Follow-up observations to improve the spatial resolution and the signal-to-noise ratio of the most interesting new discoveries are foreseen using SKA1-MID, adopting 100 pointings as a figure of merit (MID-MC in Table \[Table: SKA maser surveys\]).
The recent interest in the evolved stellar population and in the mass-loss and age-metallicity relation in the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal (Lagadec et al. 2008 & 2009), located at only 25 kpc midway between the Galaxy and the LMC, has prompted searches for OH masers in this dwarf galaxy. However, the current sensitivity limits are barely sufficient to perform statistical comparisons with evolved stars in the Galaxy and other nearby different metallicity systems. Such studies clearly have to wait for SKA.
Triangulum (M33) is the third largest member of the local group, and with $\delta = 30.6^\circ$ is accessible with the SKA. Three H$_2$O masers are known in this galaxy (Brunthaler et al. 2006), while searches for methanol masers (Goldsmith et al. 2008) and OH masers (Fix & Mutel 1985; Baan, Haschick & Henkel 1992) have to date been unsuccessful. The limiting sensitivity of the OH observations was $\approx15$ mJy ($5\sigma$), which sets an upper limit of $1.5\times10^{18}$ Watt Hz$^{-1}$ on the luminosity of potential M33 OH masers, adopting a distance of $\approx880$ kpc. The non-detection of OH masers in previous observations is not surprising, as only a small number of Galactic OH masers have luminosities in excess of this limit. We expect however that the brightest interstellar and the bright stellar OH masers, with $L_{OH} > 5 \times 10^{15}$ Watt Hz$^{-1}$, among the more than 10000 AGB stars identified by Cioni et al. (2008) in M33 will be detectable with a survey (MID-GAL in Table \[Table: SKA maser surveys\]), having the same sensitivity to that proposed for the LMC+SMC follow-up observations.\
The study of OH masers with SKA in galaxies beyond the Local Group will focus on OH megamaser emission. This emission is 10$^8$ times more luminous than Galactic analog OH masers, and is observed towards luminous and ultra-luminous infrared galaxies. These megamaser-hosting galaxies are either mergers or show evidence of interaction with other galaxies and are associated with a burst of star formation. Hence, megamasers are useful probes of the conditions where star formation is taking place in such galaxies as well as allowing extragalactic magnetic field measurements (McBride, Heiles & Elitzur 2013, Robishaw, Quartaert & Heiles 2008, cf. also Beswick et al. & Robishaw et al. in these proceedings).
Survey applications {#Survey applications}
===================
Polarisation & magnetic fields {#Polarisation and Magnetic fields}
------------------------------
OH masers, characterised by their spectral narrowness and their high sensitivity to magnetic fields, can be strongly polarised and commonly exhibit Zeeman splitting. Hence, they are a particularly useful tool for polarisation properties studies and retrieving the magnetic field structure and strength of the medium they are probing. They can be used for this purpose towards both evolved-stars (Amiri, Vlemmings & van Langevelde 2011; Etoka & Diamond 2010b) and SFRs (Caswell, Hutawarakorn & Reynolds 2011a,b; Asanok et al. 2010; Wright, Gray & Diamond 2004a,b; Hutawarakorn et al. 2002). Not only can the Zeeman splitting be used to explore the magnetic fields from individual objects, but also as a whole throughout the Milky Way and the galaxies of the Local Group (Green et al. 2012, cf. also Robishaw et al. in these proceedings).
Stellar kinematics {#Stellar kinematics}
------------------
Similar to SiO masers, a large variety of stellar populations host OH masers: evolved stars in the Galactic thick disk, bulge, and globular clusters in the halo as well as young stellar clusters in the Galactic thin disk (Deguchi et al. 2004). A large sample of OH masers will reveal the velocity fields of these Galactic components. The high luminosity of the masers together with the radial velocity information provided, allow the study of the stellar kinematics in the various Galactic components (yielding for example evidence for a bar in the Milky Way: Habing et al. 2006). The information on the kinematics, supplemented with the age and metallicity of the stars, will point to common origins and clues for Galactic evolution models. These studies will be greatly enhanced by increasing numbers of southern sources.
VLBI & astrometry {#VLBI and Astrometry}
-----------------
Among evolved stars, OH/IR stars are sizeable objects of typically 10000 AU when mapped in the ground-state OH (Etoka & Diamond 2004, 2010b), and so are SFR complexes (Cohen et al. 2006). This typical size corresponds to 1.25 arcsec at 8 kpc and 0.2 arcsec at 50 kpc. With an achievable resolution of 0.22 arcsec, SKA-MID will be able to map a good fraction of the OH/IR stars and SFR complexes detected at Galactic-center distances and beyond, as well as the strongest and most extended objects in the LMC. To derive distances, VLBI-Astrometry (Vlemmings & van Langevelde 2007) or the “phase-lag technique” can be used (Engels et al. 2014). Since OH/IR stars can be found in all the Galactic components (cf. the previous subsection \[Stellar kinematics\]), as opposed to SFRs, and provided that the OH circumstellar shell is extended, the distances of these various components (and hence a better presentation of the galactic structure) can potentially be inferred using this method.
Admittedly, extended OH/IR stars can be significantly resolved out with baselines longer than 1000 km (Imai et al. 2013). Since the resolving power increases with frequency, higher frequency masers (i.e. in Band 5) in VLBI in-beam mode will allow high resolution astrometry and hence distance determinations with the possibility of a 3D mapping of the structure of our Galaxy but also that of the LMC and SMC (cf. Green et al. in these proceedings).
SNR & the Galactic center circumnuclear Disk {#SNR GCN disk}
--------------------------------------------
Whereas the 1612-MHz OH masers are predominantly seen in circumstellar environments and the mainline 1665- and 1667-MHz OH masers are signposts for SFRs, the collisionally pumped 1720-MHz OH maser is typically seen as the only OH transition outlining shocked environments. Small shocks, like in the formation of massive stars and in post-AGB outflows are currently difficult to detect and thus limit our understanding of these stellar evolutionary phases. However, the more energetic shocks generated by SNRs plowing into dense (molecular) clouds are readily recognised by bright 1720-MHz maser emission observed at the interaction regions (Claussen et al. 1997, Frail et al. 1996). With more sensitive observations available, less bright masers appear and make it possible to probe shocks in different evolutionary stages of stars. The construction of 3-dimensional velocity models of expanding SNRs and of dynamical structures like the circumnuclear disk in the Galactic center will be possible (Sjouwerman & Pihlstrom 2008).
Synergy between HI and OH surveys {#Synergy HI - OH}
---------------------------------
Recent studies have revealed weak extended HI shells around evolved stars (Libert, Gérard, & Le Bertre 2007). While GASKAP will be able to provide a catalogue of such shells, the SKA higher angular resolution and sensitivity is needed for the study of these HI shells in greater detail. This will provide extra information on the mass-loss history and on the way stellar matter, enriched in elements produced in the stellar interior, is re-injected into the interstellar medium.
Since SFRs are converging and dispersing points of matter in the interstellar space, combining the OH maser distribution and the map of HI emission will provide a panoramic view of the life-cycle of matter in the Galaxy. GASKAP will pioneer this aspect through simultaneous surveys of OH and HI emission. SKA1 will allow a better correlation between OH masers and HI clumps by resolving the smaller structures of HI directly associated with the OH maser sources.
Prospects of research with the full SKA enhanced capabilities {#SKA Phase 2}
=============================================================
Because of the complex non-linear nature of maser pumping, there is no simple means of inferring the physical conditions from observations from the maser intensity itself. Nonetheless, maser transitions are inverted for a range of physical conditions. Thus, combining various maser species and within the same species different transitions to study SFR regions is quite powerful as a probe of e.g. local density and temperature variations down to a few hundreds of AU (Etoka, Cohen & Gray 2005). Hence the combined information can give us access to the different physical components structure (i.e., outflows or disks) around a given YSO (Etoka, Gray & Fuller 2012).
As mentioned in section \[Early Science survey\], Band 2, 3 & 5 will allow access to a wide range of maser transitions. Since different maser transitions have different sensivities, or dependencies on the physical conditions, the presence or absence of the various transitions is expected to change as the star formation region evolves. These relationships can only be determined through statistical population studies of the different maser transitions (e.g. Breen et al. 2010). The ability of the SKA and its pathfinder instruments to make rapid, sensitive surveys of the Galactic Plane will open up new opportunities to undertake such studies on scales which have not previously been possible.
OH masers are already known to be present towards a handful of PPNe-PNe in the Galaxy, but it could be that faint OH masers (e.g., from AGB OH-shell remnants) towards these objects have not been detected in previous surveys due to sensitivity. Similarly, excited OH maser has also been found towards a handful of evolved objects (Desmurs et al. 2010).
The sensitivity and frequency range covered by the full SKA, will allow us to increase the statistics on these “rare events” through a systematic survey, and identify when in the evolutionary stage this occurs and probe for other possible “new classes of masers”.
This Chapter is dedicated to the late Jim Caswell, whose review helped to improve the text considerably. His extensive and systematic research on masers in star-forming regions was invaluable to evaluate the prospects of SKA for maser research.
[99]{} Amiri N., Vlemmings W. & van Langevelde H.J., 2011, A&A, 532, 149 Argon A., Reid M.J. & Menten K.M., 2003, ApJ, 593, 925 Asanok K., Etoka S., Gray M.D. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 120 Baan W.A., Haschick A. & Henkel C., 1992, AJ, 103, 728 Beswick et al. “SKA studies of nearby galaxies: star-formation & accretion processes across all environments”, in proceedings of “Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array”, PoS(AASKA14)070 Boyer et al., 2011, AJ, 142, 103 Breen S.L., Ellingsen S.P., Caswell J.L. & Lewis B.E., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2219 Breen S.L., Lovell J.E.J., Ellingsen S.P. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 1382 Brogan C.L., Goss W.M., Lazendic J.S. & Green A.J., 2004, ApJ, 128, 700 Brooks K.J. & Whiteoak J.B., 1997, MNRAS, 291, 395 Brunthaler A., Henkel C., de Blok W.J.G. et al., 2006, A&A, 457, 109 Caswell J.L., Haynes R.F. & Goss M.W., 1980, Aust. J. Phys., 33, 639 Caswell J.L. & Haynes R.F., 1983a, Aust. J. Phys., 36, 361 Caswell J.L. & Haynes R.F., 1983b, Aust. J. Phys., 36, 417 Caswell J.L. & Haynes R.F., 1987, Aust. J. Phys., 40, 215 Caswell J.L., 1998, MNRAS, 439, 1680 Caswell J.L., Kramer B.-Hutawarakorn & Reynolds J.E., 2011a, MNRAS, 414, 1914 Caswell J.L., Kramer B.-Hutawarakorn & Reynolds J.E., 2011b, MNRAS, 415, 3872 Caswell J.L., Green J.A. & Phillips C.J., 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1180 Caswell J.L., Green J.A. & Phillips C.J., 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1680 Cioni M.-R.L., Irwin M., Ferguson A.M.N. et al., 2008, A&A, 487, 131 Cohen R.J., Gasiprong N., Meaburn J. & Graham M.F., 2006, MNRAS, 367, 541 Claussen et al., 1997, ApJ, 489, 143 Dawson et al., 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1596 Deguchi S., Fujii T., Glass, I. et al., 2004, PASJ, 56, 765 Desmurs J.-F., Baudry A., Sivagnanam P., Henkel C., Richards A.M.S.& Bains I., 2010, A&A, 520, A45 Dewdney P., Turner W., Millenaar R., McCool R., Lazio J., Cornwell T., 2013, “SKA1 System Baseline Design”, Document number SKA–TEL–SKO–DD–001, Revision 1 Dickey et al., 2013, PASA, 30, 3 Engels D. & Bunzel F., 2014, A&A, [*submitted*]{}; Database of Circumstellar Masers v2.4, http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/maserdb Engels D., Etoka S., Gérard E. & Richards A.M.S., 2014, Proc. of the conference “Why galaxies care about AGB stars III”, Eds. F.Kerschbaum, J. Hron & B. Wing [*(in press)*]{} Etoka S. & Le Squeren A.M., 1997, A&A, 321, 877 Etoka S. & Diamond P.J., 2004, MNRAS, 348, 34 Etoka S., Cohen R.J. & Gray M.D., 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1162 Etoka S., Zijlstra A., Richards A.M.S., Matsuura M. & Lagadec E., 2009, ASPC, 404, 311 Etoka S., Gérard E., Richards A.M.S. et al., 2010a, evn conf, 6 Etoka S. & Diamond P.J., 2010b, MNRAS, 406, 2218 Etoka S., Gray M.D. & Fuller G.A., 2012, MNRAS, 423, 647 Fix J.D. & Mutel R.L, 1985, AJ, 90, 736 Frail et al., 1996, AJ, 111, 1651 Goedhart S., Gaylard M.J. & van der Walt D.J., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 553 Goldsmith P.F., Pandian J,D. & Deshpande A.A., 2008, ApJ, 680,1132 Gordon et al., 2011, AJ, 142, 102 Green et al., 2008, MNRAS, 385, 948 Green J.A., McClure-Griffiths N.M., Caswell J.L., Robishaw T. & Harvey-Smith L., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2530 Green et al., “Maser Astrometry with VLBI and the SKA”, in proceedings of “Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array”, PoS(AASKA14)119 Groenewegen M., 2006, A&A, 448, 181 Gruendl R.A. & Chu Y.-H., 2009, ApJS, 184, 172 Habing H.J., Sevenster M.N., Messineo M., van de Ven G. & Kuijken K., 2006, A&A, 458, 151 Hutawarakorn B., Cohen R.J. & Brebner G.C., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 349 Imai H., Deguchi S., Nakashima J.-I., Kwok S., & Diamond P.J., 2013, ApJ, 773, 182 Jackson T., Ivezic Z. & Knapp G.R., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 749 Lagadec et al., 2008, MNRAS, 383, 399 Lagadec et al., 2009, MNRAS 396, 598 Lewis B.M., 1992, ApJ, 396, 251 Libert Y., Gérard E. & Le Bertre T., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1161 McBride J., Heiles C. & Elitzur M., 2013, ApJ, 774, 35 Marshall J.R., van Loon J.T., Matsuura M. et al., 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1348 Meixner et al., 2006, AJ, 132, 2268 Riebel D., Srinivasan S., Sargent B. & Meixner M., 2012, ApJ, 753, 71 Robishaw T., Quartaert E. & Heiles C., 2008, ApJ, 680, 981 Robishaw et al., “Measuring Magnetic Fields Near and Far with the SKA via the Zeeman Effect”, in proceedings of “Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array”, PoS(AASKA14)110 Scalise E. Jr. & Braz M.A., 1982, ApJ, 87, 528 Sevenster M.N. & Chapman J.M., 2001, ApJ, 546L, 119 Sevenster M.N., van Langevelde H.J., Moody R.A. et al., 2001, A&A, 366, 481 Sjouwerman L. & Pihlstrom Y., 2008, ApJ, 681, 1287 Uscanga L., Gómez J.F., Suárez O. & Miranda L.F., 2012, A&A, 547, A40 Vlemmings W.H.T. & van Langevelde H.J., 2007, A&A, 472, 547 Wright M.M., Gray M.D. & Diamond P.J., 2004a, MNRAS, 350, 1253 Wright M.M., Gray M.D. & Diamond P.J., 2004b, MNRAS, 350, 1272 Zijlstra et al., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 32
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a mosaic image of the 1.4 GHz radio continuum emission from the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) observed with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) and the Parkes Telescope. The mosaic covers 10.8[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 12.3[$^\circ$]{} with an angular resolution of 40, corresponding to a spatial scale of $\sim10$ pc in the LMC. The final image is suitable for studying emission on all scales between 40 and the surveyed area. In this paper, we discuss i) the characteristics of the LMC’s diffuse and compact radio continuum emission, ii) the fraction of the emission produced by thermal processes and the implied star formation rate in the LMC, and iii) variations in the radio spectral index across the LMC. Two non-standard reduction techniques that we used to process the ATCA visibility data may be of interest for future wide-field radio continuum surveys. The data are open to the astronomical community and should be a rich resource for studies of individual objects such as supernova remnants (SNRs), regions and planetary nebulae (PNe), as well as extended features such as the diffuse emission from synchrotron radiation.'
author:
- |
A. Hughes$^{1,2}$[^1], L. Staveley-Smith$^{3}$, S. Kim$^{4}$, M. Wolleben$^{5,6}$, M. Filipović$^{7}$\
$^1$ Centre for Supercomputing and Astrophysics, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia\
$^2$ CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility, PO Box 76, Epping NSW 1710, Australia\
$^3$ School of Physics M013, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009, Australia\
$^4$ Department of Astronomy and Space Science, Sejong University, KwangJin-gu, KunJa-dong 98, Seoul 143-747, Korea\
$^{5}$ Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2V4, Canada\
$^{6}$ National Research Council Canada, Herzberg Insitute of Astrophysics, Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory,\
Penticton, BV V2A 6J9, Canada\
$^7$ University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South, DC, NSW 1797, Australia\
bibliography:
- 'radiofir.bib'
- 'lmc.bib'
- 'obstools.bib'
- 'mnemonic.bib'
- 'software.bib'
- 'sf.bib'
- 'rc.bib'
- 'ir.bib'
date: 'Typeset ; Received / Accepted'
title: An ATCA 20cm Radio Continuum Study of the Large Magellanic Cloud
---
=1
\[firstpage\]
INTRODUCTION {#sect:introduction}
============
Radio continuum emission is a useful tool for studying star formation processes in galaxies. The two main components of the emission are thermal free-free radiation from ionized gas in regions and synchrotron radiation emitted by relativistic electrons accelerated in magnetic fields [@condon92]. Both processes are thought to be related to the evolution of massive stars, but they provide information about different periods in the galaxy’s star formation history. Thermal radio emission arises directly from the ionized gas surrounding young massive stars. The intensity of the emission is proportional to the total number of Lyman continuum photons, and in the optically thin regime the spectrum is nearly flat ($\alpha=-0.1$, where we adopt the convention $S_{\nu} \propto
\nu^{\alpha}$). For an isolated star-forming region, the thermal radio emission should persist over time-scales similar to the average lifetime of an region ($\sim$10 Myr), suggesting that the thermal component of a galaxy’s radio continuum emission should be a good tracer of the current star formation rate [e.g. @kennicutt98]. The nonthermal emission, on the other hand, originates in the supernova explosions and supernova remnants (SNRs) that occur at the end of a massive star’s life. If discrete SNRs were solely responsible for accelerating the relativistic electrons that emit synchrotron radiation, then the time-scale of the nonthermal radio emission would also be relatively short and the emission would provide another tracer of the galaxy’s current star formation activity. However, observations of normal spiral galaxies suggest that only $\sim$10% of a galaxy’s synchrotron emission is due to electrons accelerated in the magnetic field of discrete SNRs; the remainder is from electrons accelerated in the widespread galactic field over time-scales of 10 to 100 Myr [@heloubicay93]. For a galaxy with a single isolated star forming region, the emission from discrete SNRs might still be expected to dominate the nonthermal component at early times (before the relativistic electrons have had time to diffuse away from their production sites), while very young starbursts ($\leq$3 Myr) should show almost no synchrotron radiation since the massive stars have not yet evolved into supernovae. These general considerations about the time-scales of the thermal and nonthermal radio continuum emission have prompted several groups to explore whether the radio spectral index might prove to be a useful method to chronicle the star formation activity of starburst activity in simple systems [e.g @bressanetal02; @cannonskillman04; @hirashitahunt06].\
In this paper, we present a new, high-resolution survey of the 1.4 GHz radio continuum emission from the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). The LMC is a gas-rich, irregular dwarf galaxy that exhibits clear signs of active star formation. Reddening and extinction due to dust in the LMC are low [$E_{B-V}\sim0.13$, @masseyetal95], and the LMC’s declination is such that our view of the galaxy is mostly uncontaminated by foreground emission from the Milky Way. The inclination of the LMC is also reasonably slight [$i\sim35$[$^\circ$]{}, @vandermarelcioni01], minimizing line-of-sight confusion. The LMC thus presents a unique opportunity to study an entire galaxy at high angular resolution. At an assumed distance of 50.1 kpc [@alves04], 1 corresponds to 15 pc, making the LMC an excellent laboratory to investigate the relationship between different phases of the interstellar medium (ISM), the interaction of the ISM with individual objects, and the influence of galactic-scale processes on the properties of interstellar material. Recently completed surveys such as the Magellanic Cloud Emission Line Survey [MCELS, @smithetal98], the ATCA+Parkes HI 21cm survey [@kimetal98; @kimetal03], the Spitzer SAGE project in the far-infrared [@meixneretal06] and the survey by NANTEN [@fukuietal01] have the potential to provide a comprehensive view of the dust and gas phases in the LMC’s interstellar medium, along with a complete inventory of stars and proto-stars. A high angular resolution survey of the radio continuum emission in the LMC is a timely and important complement to these datasets. In addition to the total intensity images that we present here, new studies of the polarisation and Faraday rotation of background sources in the ATCA+Parkes radio continuum data have begun to reveal the strength and detailed structure of the LMC’s magnetic field [@gaensleretal05b; @gaensleretal05].\
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sect:observations\] we present the observing strategy of our survey. The methods that we used to reduce and combine the interferometer and single-dish data are described in Section \[sect:data\]. In Section \[sect:results\], we present the final 1.4 GHz image of the LMC and examine spatial variations in the LMC’s radio spectral index. We estimate the thermal fraction of the radio continuum emission, and compare the radio-derived star formation rate for the LMC to estimates determined via other star formation rate calibrations. Section \[sect:summary\] contains a summary of our conclusions and outlines some potential future uses for the radio continuum data.
OBSERVATIONS {#sect:observations}
============
These observations of the LMC were conducted at the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) at the time of the HI survey by @kimetal98 [@kimetal03] in a second IF band centred on 1384 MHz. The ATCA is an east-west interferometer located at the Paul Wild Observatory in Narrabri, Australia. The latitude of the ATCA is -30[$^\circ$]{}18. The interferometer consists of five 22 m antennae positioned along a 3 km track, with a sixth antenna located 3 km from the western end of the track. Observations of the LMC were made with four 750 m arrays between October 1994 and February 1996. The observing log is presented in Table \[tbl:obslog\]. Across the four array configurations, there are a total of 40 independent baselines ranging from 30 to 750 m. The ATCA antenna stations are regularly spaced, with the consequence that all possible baselines are incremented by multiples of 15.3 m.\
Date Array Configuration
---------------------- ---------------------
1994 Oct 26 - Nov 9 750D
1995 Feb 23 - Mar 11 750A
1995 Jun 02 - Jun 07 750B
1995 Oct 15 - Oct 31 750B
1996 Jan 27 - Feb 8 750C
: Summary of observing dates and array configurations.[]{data-label="tbl:obslog"}
For our survey, we mapped a 10.8[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 12.3[$^\circ$]{} field covering the LMC, centred on (05h20m,-68d44m)$_{J2000}$. We divided the total survey area into 12 regions, each containing 112 pointing centres. The array was cycled around the 112 pointing centres within each region according to a hexagonal grid pattern determined by Nyquist’s theorem. In this case, the angular separation of the pointing centres is given by $$\theta=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{\lambda}{2D}$$ where $\lambda$ is observing wavelength and $D$ is the diameter of the antenna. For our observations, $\lambda = 21$ cm and $D = 22$ m, giving a pointing centre separation of $\theta=19$ arcmin. Each pointing was observed between 95 and 140 times during the entire survey, which corresponds to between 18 and 26 minutes of total integration time per pointing. A map of the pointing centres and scanning direction for the ATCA mosaic is shown in Fig. \[fig:scan\]. The $u-v$ coverage for a single pointing centre within the mosaic is shown in Fig. \[fig:pctrs\].\
![The scanning strategy and individual pointing centres of the ATCA LMC mosaic. []{data-label="fig:scan"}](fig1.png){width="12cm"}
![$u-v$ coverage of a single pointing within the ATCA LMC mosaic.[]{data-label="fig:pctrs"}](fig2.png){width="10cm"}
All our observations were recorded in wideband continuum mode with 32 4 MHz channels across a total bandwidth of 128 MHz. The centre frequency was 1.384 GHz. The ATCA feeds receive two orthogonal linear polarisations, X and Y. For the continuum observations, we measured the four polarisation products XX, YY, XY, and YX. Here we only discuss the total intensity data; a preliminary analysis of the polarised emission has already been presented [@gaensleretal05b]. The emission from neutral hydrogen in the LMC was recorded simultaneously in the second frequency chain. The processing and analysis of the data have been described elsewhere [@kimetal98; @kimetal03].\
Previous studies that have made use of the radio continuum data that we present here include @cohenetal03 and @hughesetal06. The data used in these publications were processed according to the procedure outlined in Section \[sect:data\], except that the peeling technique (described in Section \[sect:peeling\]) was not applied.\
DATA REDUCTION {#sect:data}
==============
The ATCA data were flagged, calibrated and imaged using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MIRIAD</span> software package [@saultetal85]. We used the source PKS B1934-638 for bandpass and absolute flux density calibration (the flux density of PKS B1934-638 at 1.377 GHz is 14.95 Jy). One of either PKS B0407-658 or PKS B0454-810 was observed every 30 minutes in order to calibrate the time variation in the complex antenna gains. PKS B1934-638 has no detectable linear polarization and can thus be used to solve for polarization leakages. We had sufficient parallactic angle coverage of the two secondary calibrators to disentangle their intrinsic and instrumental polarization, allowing us to calibrate Stokes U and Q as well as total intensity.\
The individual pointings were linearly combined and imaged using a standard grid-and-FFT scheme with superuniform weighting. Like uniform weighting, superuniform weighting minimizes sidelobe levels to improve the dynamic range and sensitivity to extended structure of the final mosaicked image. Uniform weighting reduces to natural weighting, however, if the total field-of-view of the mosaic is much larger than the primary beam. Superuniform weighting overcomes this limitation by decoupling the weighting from the size of the field. It attempts to minimize sidelobe contributions from strong sources over a region smaller than the total image and is typically more successful than uniform weighting for large mosaics [@saultetal96].
Image Deconvolution {#sect:deconv}
-------------------
We developed a two-step Fourier deconvolution strategy for the our LMC data. After inverting the mosaic visibilities, we constructed a preliminary CLEAN model of our data by using 1.2 million iterations of the Steer-Dewdney-Ito (SDI) CLEAN algorithm on our dirty map [@steeretal84]. The residuals of the CLEAN model, mainly corresponding to diffuse emission, were deconvolved using maximum entropy. The CLEAN model and the maximum entropy model were linearly combined and restored with a 40 Gaussian beam in order to form the final image.
Peeling {#sect:peeling}
-------
The deconvolved ATCA image exhibits ring-like artefacts at the $\sim$0.5% level. These become significant close to bright compact sources such as 30 Doradus, limiting the sensitivity that can be achieved in these regions. These artefacts are mainly due to errors in the calibration of off-axis sources. There are number of possible causes for off-axis calibration errors, including pointing errors, small differences between individual antenna dishes, errors in the primary beam model, and the rotation of the primary beam diffraction lobes through off-axis sources. In order to improve the dynamic range of the ATCA image, we applied a “peeling” technique that has been described by Tom Oosterloo ([*priv. comm.*]{}). Contrary to the usual assumption that one set of antenna gain solutions is adequate across the field of a single pointing, peeling explicitly solves for the antenna gains at the position of off-axis sources, so that different calibration solutions can be applied to different regions within the field of each pointing.\
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}{width="7cm"}
In order to determine which pointings were badly affected by errors from off-axis sources, we deconvolved and imaged the visibility data for each of the 1344 pointings. Peeling was attempted if the following criteria were satisfied: i) the flux density of the off-axis source was greater than 10 mJy beam$^{-1}$ ii) the off-axis source was located more than 1.5 times the primary beam FWHM from the pointing centre and iii) errors due to the off-axis source were evident within the primary beam. If these criteria were not satisfied, no corrections to the visibility data were made. If off-axis errors were deemed significant, we constructed a simple model of the on-axis sources using 10000 iterations of the SDI CLEAN algorithm, and subtracted the model of the on-axis sources from the visibility data. The resulting visibility data (the “model data”) represent the off-axis source and its associated errors. The model data were imaged, and a model of the off-axis source was constructed using 10000 iterations of the SDI CLEAN algorithm. We then performed an amplitude and phase self-calibration on the model data in order to obtain a good set of antenna gain solutions for the off-axis source (the “model gains”). The model gains were applied to the original visibility data for the pointing, and then the model of the off-axis source was subtracted. Next, the model gains were “un-applied” to the model-subtracted visibility data, i.e. having multiplied the original visibility data by the antenna gain solutions for the off-axis source, we multiplied the model-subtracted visibility data by the inverse of these model gains. At the end of this process, we are left with visibility data that are identical to the original visibility data for the pointing, except that the off-axis source and its errors have been removed. As an example, Fig. \[fig:lmc0812\] illustrates the main stages of the peeling process for a single pointing in the ATCA mosaic.\
{width="15cm"}
For a number of pointings, additional corrections to the basic antenna gain solutions were required due to calibration errors for sources located within the primary beam. To improve the antenna gain solutions for these pointings, amplitude and phase self-calibration was applied. In total, the peeling technique was applied to 269 of the 1344 pointings. On-axis self-calibration was applied to a further 78 pointings. The final set of corrected visibility data were combined, deconvolved, imaged according to the strategy described in Section \[sect:deconv\] above. The final ATCA-only mosaic is shown in Fig. \[fig:ATCAmap\]. To highlight the improvement achieved by applying the peeling process, we present a expanded view of the 30 Doradus region in Fig. \[fig:ring\].
![1.4 GHz emission in the 30 Doradus region of the LMC. The two panels illustrate the final ATCA+Parkes image of this region with ([*top*]{}) and without ([*bottom*]{}) applying peeling corrections to the visibility data.[]{data-label="fig:ring"}](fig5a.png "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![1.4 GHz emission in the 30 Doradus region of the LMC. The two panels illustrate the final ATCA+Parkes image of this region with ([*top*]{}) and without ([*bottom*]{}) applying peeling corrections to the visibility data.[]{data-label="fig:ring"}](fig5b.png "fig:"){width="8cm"}
Combination of Inteferometer and Single Dish Data {#sect:combination}
-------------------------------------------------
Although mosaicing recovers angular scales larger than normal interferometric observations by reducing the effective shortest projected baseline, our observations are still limited to angular scales smaller than $\theta = \lambda/(d - D/2)$, where $d=30.6$ m is the shortest baseline of the ATCA, and $D=22$ m is the diameter of a single antenna. In our case, the ATCA data is limited to angular scales smaller than $\sim34$ arcmin. To recover information on larger scales, the ATCA mosaic data was combined with single-dish data from the Parkes Telescope. Here we only provide information about the Parkes data that is relevant for the combination process; a detailed description of the single-dish observations and data reduction was presented in @haynesetal86.\
Single-dish and interferometer data may be combined in the Fourier domain after deconvolution of the individual pointings or in the $u-v$ plane prior to deconvolution. @stanimirovic02 showed that comparable results are achieved using either method but combining the data after deconvolution typically produced results that were more consistent with other methods. We chose to combine the data in the Fourier plane after deconvolution. In this method, the ATCA continuum data are imaged and deconvolved, the single-dish data are imaged, and the clean interferometric and single-dish images are then Fourier transformed and combined. The method is implemented in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MIRIAD</span> task [immerge]{}.\
Slight differences in calibration of the interferometer and single-dish data can necessitate a relative flux correction factor. This correction factor is determined by comparing the data sets in the Fourier plane at every pixel and frequency in the range of overlapping spatial frequencies. To calculate the calibration factor, both images must be deconvolved, a step which requires a good knowledge of the single-dish beam. Using a two-dimensional Gaussian with FWHM=16.6 for the Parkes beam and by comparing the flux densities of strong, compact sources in the Parkes and ATCA data, we calculated a relative calibration factor of 1.07. The final ATCA+Parkes combined image is shown in Fig. \[fig:map\].
Characteristics of the Final Image {#sect:characteristics}
----------------------------------
The final combined image shown in Fig. \[fig:map\] is sensitive to all angular scales from the synthesized beam size (40) up to the final image size. In order to estimate the map sensitivity, we measured the average rms of blank regions of sky, finding 0.3 mJy per 40 beam for the ATCA data, 30 mJy per 16.6 beam for the Parkes data, and 0.3 mJy per 40 beam for the combined data. The measured value for the sensitivity of the ATCA data is in excellent agreement with the theoretical noise estimate of 0.3 mJy per 40 beam for our selected observing strategy and deconvolution scheme. Measuring the sensitivity of the ATCA and ATCA+Parkes data is somewhat complicated by the large number of point sources in the sky at 1.4 GHz, limiting the size of blank regions where a noise estimate can be reliably measured. To verify our sensitivity estimate, we produced a median filtered version of the ATCA+Parkes image. The filtering operation, implemented in the GIPSY routine [mfilter]{}, moves a 2.5$\times$2.5 window across the map, replacing the central pixel value ($S_{cpix}$) with the median value of the window ($S_{med}$) if $|S_{cpix}-S_{med}| > S_{med}$ + 1 mJy [@vanderhulstetal92]. The 1 mJy offset prevents unnecessary filtering in noisy regions where the median is close to zero. Repeating the sensitivity measurements using the median filtered version of the ATCA+Parkes map - where it was possible to measure the noise over much larger blank regions of sky - indicated rms values between 0.25 and 0.35 mJy per 40 beam, giving us confidence in our original sensitivity estimate for the data. The total flux density of the median filtered map is 329 Jy, i.e. the filtering operation removed $\sim$27% of the total emission in the original 1.4 GHz map. Note that the filtering operation makes no distinction between background point sources and point sources that are intrinsic to the LMC, so this difference in flux density should not be interpreted as the contribution of background radio galaxies to the measured LMC flux density. We address the contribution from background galaxies in Section \[sect:bgsrc\] below.
Total flux density of the LMC {#sect:totflux}
-----------------------------
For our final combined ATCA+Parkes map, we measure a total flux density of 443 Jy within a 10.8[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 12.3[$^\circ$]{} field centred on (05h20m,-68d44m)$_{J2000}$. The total flux density in the Parkes map over this same region is 413 Jy. The difference in flux density between the final merged map and the Parkes data is due to the relative calibration factor of 1.07 that we derived by comparing strong point sources in the Parkes and ATCA datasets. We note that the flux density of our Parkes 1.4 GHz map is $\sim20\%$ less than the flux density quoted for the same map by @kleinetal89. This discrepancy can mostly be traced to the larger beam size that we have adopted for the Parkes data. Rather than the nominal HPBW of 15, we determined an effective beam width of 16.55 by fitting point sources in the Parkes 1.4 GHz map with 2-dimensional Gaussians. We believe that the effective beam width provides a more reliable estimate of the beam size of the Parkes data, since the gridding and scanning process used during observations and data reduction is known to slightly broaden the HPBW [e.g. @filipovicetal95]. Re-calculating the total flux density in the Parkes map using the nominal beam size of 15.0 gives 503 Jy. We believe that the remaining discrepancy of $\sim20$ Jy between this value and the value determined by @kleinetal89 is due to methodological differences for measuring the LMC’s integrated flux density. While we simply sum all the emission within the rectangular 10.8[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 12.3[$^\circ$]{} map area, @kleinetal89 performed an integration in elliptical rings, including a correction for non-zero baselines. Towards the map edges, the Parkes data exhibits a small negative offset. By blanking pixels with negative values in the Parkes data and recalculating the integrated flux density over the remaining unmasked area, we find that the pixels at the map edges make an overall negative contribution of $\sim -20$ Jy to the measured flux density. For all further discussion in this paper, we confine our analysis to the central 7[$^\circ$]{}.5 $\times$ 7[$^\circ$]{}.5 region of our map, an area that comfortably encloses the LMC.
{width="15cm"}
----------- ---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------------
Frequency Beam Flux Density Flux Density Flux Density Sensitivity
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3
(GHz) (arcsec) (Jy) (Jy) (Jy)
1.4 40 426 390 309 0.3 mJy per 40 beam
1.4-mf 40 367 350 277 0.3 mJy per 40 beam
4.8 288 296 291 250 9 mJy per 4.8 beam
----------- ---------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------------
RESULTS {#sect:results}
=======
Radio continuum morphology {#sect:morphology}
--------------------------
At 1.4 GHz, the radio continuum emission in the LMC is clearly dominated by the emission associated with the 30 Doradus region (see Figs. \[fig:map\] and \[fig:shassa\]). Across the LMC disk, there are numerous peaks of radio emission associated with individual regions and supernova remnants, but the distribution of the diffuse emission is quite asymmetric, showing a steep decline along the eastern edge of the LMC and a more gradual decrease with increasing distance from 30 Doradus in other directions. Fig. \[fig:profs\] presents N-S and E-W intensity profiles through 30 Doradus. As well as the abrupt eastern edge of the LMC’s radio continuum emission, the profiles reveal that the intensity of the diffuse emission declines more slowly towards the south of 30 Doradus than to the north or west. There is minimal diffuse emission along the western edge of the LMC, even surrounding active star-forming complexes such as N11 and N87. We discuss a possible explanation for the asymmetric distribution of the diffuse radio emission in the LMC, and for the slower decline in emission’s intensity south of 30 Doradus, in Section \[sect:spatialvariation\].
![E-W ([*top*]{}) and N-S ([*bottom*]{}) intensity profiles through 30 Doradus. The profiles are shown with a logarithmic intensity scale to emphasise the behaviour of the diffuse emission.[]{data-label="fig:profs"}](fig7a.png "fig:"){width="12cm"}![E-W ([*top*]{}) and N-S ([*bottom*]{}) intensity profiles through 30 Doradus. The profiles are shown with a logarithmic intensity scale to emphasise the behaviour of the diffuse emission.[]{data-label="fig:profs"}](fig7b.png "fig:"){width="12cm"}
Contribution from background point sources {#sect:bgsrc}
------------------------------------------
Since the LMC subtends a large area on the sky, it is possible that background radio galaxies make a non-negligible contribution to the total 1.4 GHz flux density that we measure for the LMC. We have attempted to estimate this contribution using a direct and an indirect method. In the direct method, we used a smooth-and-mask technique to measure the point source flux in sixteen 1[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 1[$^\circ$]{} control fields around the edges of our 1.4 GHz ATCA+Parkes map. We first convolved the ATCA+Parkes data with a 1 Gaussian kernel, and masked all pixels in the 4 control fields where the flux density of the smoothed map was less than 0.8 mJy beam$^{-1}$. We measured the total flux density of the unmasked pixels in each of the control fields, and then calculated the mean flux density per square degree. Multiplying this by the area of the LMC yields an estimate of the flux density due to background sources. Assuming that the LMC has an angular size of 7.5[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 7.5[$^\circ$]{}, this method indicates that the 1.4 GHz flux density of sources behind the LMC is $46\pm10$ Jy, approximately 10% of the LMC’s measured total flux density.\
We made a second, indirect estimate of the flux density due to background sources using the differential 1.4 GHz source count distributions of the FIRST and NVSS surveys determined by @blakewall02. We fitted a curve to the data presented in their fig. 5, and calculated the total flux density expected for sources in the flux density range \[0.001,1\] Jy within an area of 7.5[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 7.5[$^\circ$]{}. The predicted 1.4 GHz flux density of background sources is $52\pm3$ Jy from the FIRST source count distribution, and $55\pm3$ Jy from the NVSS data. These values are in reasonable agreement with our direct estimate from the ATCA+Parkes map, given the potential sources of uncertainty in our direct estimate.\
Thermal fraction of radio emission at 1.4 GHz {#sect:thermalfraction}
---------------------------------------------
Many of the brightest features in the 1.4 GHz radio map are also observed to be bright sources of emission (see Fig. \[fig:shassa\]). This suggest that a significant fraction of the total 1.4 GHz radio continuum flux density may be produced by a few very bright star-forming regions, e.g. 30 Doradus, N11 and N44. We used the Southern Sky Survey Atlas (SHASSA) map of emission in the LMC to obtain a rough estimate for the fraction of the LMC’s 1.4 GHz flux density that is of thermal origin [@gaustadetal01].[^2] Our 1.4 GHz ATCA+Parkes map and the SHASSA map were regridded to a common pixel scale of 20, and a common 7.5[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 7.5[$^\circ$]{}field of view. We measured the total flux density in the 1.4 GHz map for pixels with emission above brightness thresholds of 100 and 500 R. The 1.4 GHz flux densities corresponding to these brightness thresholds are 140 and 81 Jy, suggesting that the thermal fraction is of the LMC’s 1.4 GHz radio continuum emission is likely to be greater than 20%. Note that this estimate should be understood as providing only a general indication that the thermal fraction of the LMC’s radio continuum emission is higher than for normal spiral galaxies, a phenomenon that appears to be relatively common amongst dwarf galaxies [e.g. @kleinetal84]. We have not accounted for extinction of the emission, nor for the fact that most evolved regions will contain a mixture of nonthermal and thermal radio emission. We note that the flux density contained within a 0[$^\circ$]{}.5 $\times$ 0[$^\circ$]{}.5 box centred on 30 Doradus is 56 Jy, suggesting that 30 Doradus alone accounts for a significant fraction of the LMC’s total and thermal radio flux density.
![SHASSA map of emission from the LMC [@gaustadetal01]. The black contours indicate an brightness of 50 R. A square-root intensity scale has been used to emphasise the characteristics of the diffuse emission. Note that while the bright features in the and 1.4 GHz radio continuum maps show good correspondence, the diffuse emission is brighter and more extended at radio wavelengths, particularly in the south-east of the LMC and in a central region around (5h20m,-68d30m)$_{J2000}$ (compare Fig. \[fig:map\]).[]{data-label="fig:shassa"}](fig8.png){width="15cm"}
Star formation in the LMC {#sect:sfr}
-------------------------
Since radio emission is unaffected by extinction, developing a reliable calibration for a galaxy’s star formation rate (SFR) based on its integrated radio flux density would be a valuable tool for studies of star formation at high redshift. However, the calibrations derived from local samples typically reflect the characteristic thermal/nonthermal emission ratio observed for normal galaxies [$\sim$10%, e.g. @condon92], and generally do not hold for young starbursts or dwarf galaxies [e.g. @rousseletal03; @huntbianchimaiolino05]. Recently, @bell03 compared radio-derived SFRs to measurements determined from far-ultraviolet, infrared (IR) and optical data for a sample of 249 normal and irregular galaxies, and presented new radio and IR SFR calibrations that take account of the low dust opacity and lower fraction of nonthermal radio emission in dwarf galaxies. We used Equation 6 from @bell03 to estimate the LMC’s star formation rate from its total radio continuum flux density, finding SFR$_{RC}
\sim$0.2 yr$^{-1}$. This value agrees very well with the SFRs derived from the LMC’s total infrared (TIR) and luminosities. To estimate SFR$_{TIR}$, we used the SED models presented in @dalehelou02 to translate the Improved Reprocessing of the IRAS Survey (IRIS) 60- and 100$\mu$m integrated fluxes of the LMC into an estimate of the TIR flux, and Equation 5 from @bell03 to calculate the SFR$_{TIR}$, finding SFR$_{TIR} \sim$0.2 yr$^{-1}$.[^3] The LMC’s total luminosity, corrected for an average extinction of $A_{V}$ = 1 across the LMC, is $4.1 \times 10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ [@kennicutthodge86]. Applying the SFR calibration for emission recently published by @calzettietal07 also results in SFR$_{H\alpha} \sim$0.2 yr$^{-1}$. While the SFRs derived using these three tracers are in excellent agreement, the supernova rate that they predict is $\sim0.0016$ yr$^{-1}$, assuming a Salpeter initial mass function between 0.1 and 100 . If the LMC followed the standard relation observed for normal spiral galaxies [@condon92], this supernova rate should generate a nonthermal radio flux density of $\sim$530 Jy at 1.4 GHz, $\sim$20% greater than the LMC’s total observed 1.4 GHz flux density. It thus appears that while the LMC follows the radio-FIR correlation for normal galaxies [@hughesetal06], it does not conform to the usual scaling relations between star formation and radio emission.
The radio spectral index {#sect:spectralindex}
------------------------
We used the Parkes map of the LMC at 4.8 GHz published by @haynesetal91 in combination with our 1.4 GHz map to verify the LMC’s total radio spectral index, and to investigate spatial variations of the radio spectral index within the LMC. We calculated the global spectral index using i) the total flux densities measured over the commonly observed area at both frequencies, ii) the total flux densities measured for a region where the 60$\mu$m emission in the IRIS map of the LMC is greater than 0.9 MJy sr$^{-1}$ [@mivilledescheneslagache05], and iii) the total flux densities measured over a smaller region where the 4.8 GHz emission was brighter than 40 mJy beam$^{-1}$. The flux density of the LMC at 1.4 and 4.8 GHz within each of these three regions is listed in Table \[tbl:totflux\]. The boundaries of each region are indicated on the map of the LMC in Fig. \[fig:spdxmap\].\
Our three estimates for the LMC’s global radio spectral index are quite similar, ranging from $\alpha=-0.29$ for the measurement across the common 7.5[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 7.5[$^\circ$]{} field, to $\alpha=-0.17$ for the more restricted region where the 4.8 GHz emission is brighter than 40 mJy beam$^{-1}$. All three estimates are much flatter than the typical spectral index of normal spiral galaxies at these frequencies [$\alpha \sim
-0.74\pm0.12$, @gioiaetal82], suggesting that the thermal fraction of the LMC’s radio continuum emission at 1.4 GHz is indeed relatively large. We note that our estimate is flatter than the spectral index between 20 MHz and 2.3 GHz determined for the LMC by @kleinetal89, but consistent with the spectral index at higher frequencies, $\alpha = -0.3\pm0.1$, indicated by the @haynesetal91 data.\
Spatial variation of the radial spectral index {#sect:spatialvariation}
----------------------------------------------
To investigate spatial variations of the radio spectral index, we also produced a spectral index map. The map was constructed by smoothing the ATCA+Parkes 1.4 GHz image to the resolution of the Parkes data (4.8), blanking pixels below a certain brightness threshold, and calculating the spectral index of the remaining high signal-to-noise pixels. For both maps, we blanked pixels with a flux density less than 40 mJy beam$^{-1}$ in the 4.8 GHz data; it was not necessary to perform additional masking based on the 1.4 GHz map since the 1.4 GHz data are more sensitive than the Parkes 4.8 GHz data. The resulting spectral index map is shown in Fig. \[fig:spdxmap\]. We note that our masking technique is biased against faint emission with a steep nonthermal spectral index, since pixels lacking high signal-to-noise 4.8 GHz emission are excluded, even if 1.4 GHz emission at that position is well-detected. The significance of this effect can be gauged by comparing our estimates of the global spectral index calculated over the three different fields of view. The common 7.5[$^\circ$]{}$\times$ 7.5[$^\circ$]{} field encloses approximately four times the number of unmasked pixels as our spectral index map, but the global radio spectral index determined for these two regions only varies by $\Delta \alpha \sim 0.1$. This suggests that the average spectral index in regions of the LMC excluded by the 40 mJy beam$^{-1}$ brightness threshold in the 4.8 GHz map is only slightly steeper than for the regions that are included in our spectral index map.\
The dominant feature of the spectral index map is the emission associated with 30 Doradus. The spectral index appears to become more negative with increasing distance from 30 Doradus, suggesting an increasing nonthermal fraction at larger radii. This transition is asymmetric however: to the south-east of 30 Doradus, the spectral index decreases much more abruptly than in the north-west direction. Several of the LMC’s well-known star-forming regions can also be identified in the spectral index map (e.g. N11, N87), and these exhibit a variegated pattern of positive and negative spectral indices. Overall, spectral indices across the LMC are relatively flat, and very few regions have spectral indices more negative than $\alpha\sim-0.7$. The most negative spectral indices, moreover, are associated with compact sources that are probably SNRs or background radio galaxies. A notable exception is an extended region of radio continuum emission with $\alpha\sim-0.4$ located at the interface of the LMC4 and LMC5 superbubbles, at an approximate position of (05h25m -66d15m)$_{J2000}$. The , radio continuum and 8.3$\mu$m emission from this region were studied in detail by @cohenetal03, who identified the region as a site of triggered secondary star formation, containing a mixture of young massive stars and recently exploded supernova remnants.\
![The spectral index map calculated from a smoothed version of the 1.4 GHz ATCA+Parkes map and the 4.8 GHz Parkes map of @haynesetal91. The black line indicates the 40 mJy beam$^{-1}$ brightness threshold of the 4.8 GHz map. The grey line reproduces the 0.9 MJy sr$^{-1}$ contour of the IRIS $60\mu$m map of @mivilledescheneslagache05, which approximately marks the boundary of the LMC’s disk. []{data-label="fig:spdxmap"}](fig9.png){width="15cm"}
In order to quantify the behaviour of the spectral index with increasing distance from 30 Doradus, we measured the average spectral index in circular annuli centred on (05h38m42s,-69d06m03s)$_{J2000}$. The width of each annulus was 7.2 to ensure that our measurements of the spectral index were statistically independent. We determined the average spectral index using two methods: i) using the spectral index map shown in Fig. \[fig:spdxmap\] directly, and ii) calculating the spectral index from the average 1.4 GHz and 4.8 GHz flux density in each annulus. The average spectral indices determined by the two methods are in good agreement. A plot showing the behaviour of the spectral index as a function of distance from 30 Doradus is shown in Fig. \[fig:spdxcmp\].\
![Variation in the radio flux density and spectral index, $\alpha$, as a function of distance from 30 Doradus. The top panel shows the radial variation in the 1.4 (grey squares) and 4.8 GHz (open circles) flux density. The bottom panel shows the variation of the spectral index, as determined from the spectral index map (grey squares) and derived from the average 1.4 and 4.8 GHz flux density in each annulus (open circles). The error bars indicate the standard deviation of the pixel values in each annulus. The horizontal dotted line indicates the LMC’s global spectral index that we measure, $\alpha=-0.23$.[]{data-label="fig:spdxcmp"}](fig10.png){width="12cm"}
The plots in Fig. \[fig:spdxcmp\] show that the radio spectral index departs from the average LMC value close to 30 Doradus. Within $R\sim0.5$ kpc of 30 Doradus, the spectral index is more positive than the average value for the LMC, showing a pronounced bump that increases to positive values ($\alpha \sim 0.1$) at $R\sim0.2$ kpc and then falls back to $\alpha \sim -0.2$ at $R\sim0.5$ kpc. These positive spectral index values are visible in the spectral index map, particularly to the north-west of 30 Doradus. Clearly a high fraction of the radio continuum emission close to 30 Doradus is of thermal origin, but it is not clear why the spectral index should increase and then decline over these spatial scales. Positive values of the radio spectral index can indicate regions where there is signicant free-free absorption, which have been identified with extremely young ($\leq 1$ Myr), dense, heavily embedded star clusters [e.g. @johnsonkobulnicky03]. However these “ultradense regions” are typically very compact ($R\sim2$ to 4 pc) and should be associated with extremely dense molecular gas [@elmegreen02]: neither condition appears to be satisfied here. Based on a spectral analysis of OB stars in 30 Doradus, @walbornblades97 have suggested that the most recent star formation activity in 30 Doradus is occurring to the north-west of the central R136 cluster, but their observations are again on much smaller spatial scales than those indicated here. At present, we have no good explanation for this feature. We note, however, that the feature is also present in a spectral index map constructed from Parkes data alone, which seems to rule out the possibility that it is an artefact of the ATCA 1.4 GHz data.\
Beyond $R\sim0.5$ kpc, the average spectral index exhibits a shallow decline with increasing distance from 30 Doradus, although the dispersion within each annulus is quite large. This steepening of the spectral index with increasing radius might indicate that the 30 Doradus region is the primary site of cosmic ray electron production in the LMC, and that synchrotron and inverse Compton losses are occurring as the relativistic electrons propagate away from the central star-forming region. Inspection of the spectral index map shows that this steepening of the spectral index is somewhat asymmetric: the spectral index remains relatively flat ($\alpha \sim
-0.1$) to the north and west of 30 Doradus, but decreases more sharply towards the south and east to values approaching $\alpha \sim
-0.4$. The south-eastern region of the LMC is characterised by very high column densities [e.g. @staveleysmithetal03], and radio continuum emission that is strongly polarised [e.g. @kleinetal93; @gaensleretal05b]. The NANTEN survey of $^{12}$CO emission in the LMC shows that there is a long filament of molecular gas at this location, but the star-forming activity of this massive molecular cloud is relatively low [@fukuietal01; @kawamuraetal05]. A plausible physical scenario to explain both the relatively strong diffuse radio emission and the rapid steepening of the spectral index in this region would be an increased magnetic energy density. For a population of cosmic rays with relativistic energy spectrum $dN/dE \propto E^{-2}$, corresponding to a radio spectral index of $\alpha=-0.5$ at 1 GHz, the synchrotron emissivity scales as $B^{1.5}$. An amplified magnetic field, combined with the high gas densities and the intense radiation field surrounding 30 Doradus, would shorten the cooling time-scale of the electrons in this region, causing the radio spectral index to steepen. A stronger magnetic field is consistent with the unusually low star-forming activity of the molecular clouds in this region, since higher magnetic pressures should also impede cloud collapse.\
SUMMARY AND FINAL REMARKS {#sect:summary}
=========================
We present a sensitive ATCA+Parkes mosaic image of the 1.4 GHz radio continuum emission from the LMC that is suitable for studying emission on all scales greater than 40. The reduction of this data involved a two-step deconvolution procedure that is able to recover both extended and point-like emission features, and a peeling technique that succesfully removed calibration errors from bright off-axis sources. Our analysis of this data has shown:\
1. The diffuse radio continuum emission in the LMC has an asymmetric morphology, showing a steep decline along the eastern edge of the LMC and a more gradual decrease with increasing distance from 30 Doradus elsewhere. The intensity of the diffuse emission surrounding 30 Doradus remains stronger towards the south than in other directions, and is apparently correlated with the high column densities in this region. A similar asymmetric morphology is seen in the 1.4-4.8 GHz spectral index map of the LMC. We suggest that a plausible explanation for these features is the amplification of the magnetic field in this region, perhaps due to field compression resulting from the motion of the LMC through the Milky Way’s halo.\
2. The total radio flux density of the LMC at 1.4 GHz is 426 Jy, of which $\geq$20% probably has a thermal origin. The star formation rate implied by the LMC’s total 1.4 GHz emission is 0.2 yr$^{-1}$, in good agreement with star formation rates derived from its infrared and luminosity [@bell03; @calzettietal07]. This level of star formation significantly overpredicts the nonthermal flux density that should be generated by supernovae however, suggesting that the LMC does not exhibit the same relationship between star formation and radio emission as normal spiral galaxies [e.g @condon92].\
Finally, we note that these radio continuum data are available for use by the wider astronomical community. Our group is currently undertaking a study of the LMC’s magnetic field, preparing a catalogue of 1.4 GHz point sources in the LMC, and comparing the LMC’s 1.4 GHz radio continuum and far-infrared dust emission. However, the data should also be very useful for studies of individual objects such as supernova remnants, regions and planetary nebulae, and for detailed, galaxy-wide comparisons between the radio continuum emission and other tracers of star formation. The data may be retrieved from the website http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/lmc\_ctm/.\
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#sect:thanks}
===============
AH would like to thank Tim Cornwall, Urvashi Rau and Enno Middelberg for useful discussions regarding peeling and synthesis imaging techniques. We also thank John Dickel, Marc-Antoine Miville-Deschênes and Guilaine Lagache for access to the Parkes 4.8 GHz and IRIS 60 and 100 $\mu$m images that were used in this paper.\
\[sect:bibliography\]
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: The Southern Sky Survey Atlas (SHASSA) is supported by the National Science Foundation.
[^3]: http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/$\sim$mamd/IRIS/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'C. Adami'
- 'F. Sarron'
- 'N. Martinet'
- 'F. Durret'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: 'Accepted . Received ; Draft printed: '
title: 'Candidate fossil groups in the CFHTLS: a probabilistic approach [^1]'
---
[Fossil groups (FGs) have been discovered 25 years ago, and are now defined as galaxy groups with an X-ray luminosity higher than $10^{42}\
h_{50}^{-2}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and a brightest group galaxy brighter than the other group members by at least two magnitudes. However, the scenario of their formation remains controversial.]{} [We propose here a probabilistic analysis of FGs, extracted from the large catalog of candidate groups and clusters previously detected in the CFHTLS survey based on photometric redshifts to investigate their position in the cosmic web and probe their environment. ]{} [Based on spectroscopic and photometric redshifts, we estimated the probability of galaxies to belong to a galaxy structure, and by imposing the condition that the brightest group galaxy is at least brighter than the others by two magnitudes, we computed the probability for a given galaxy structure to be a FG. We analyzed the mass distribution of these candidate FGs, and estimated their distance to the filaments and nodes of the cosmic web in which they are embedded.]{} [We find that structures with masses lower than $2.4\times 10^{14}$ M$_\odot$ have the highest probabilities of being fossil groups (PFG). Overall, structures with PFG$\geq$50$\%$ are located close to the cosmic web filaments (87% are located closer than 1 Mpc to their nearest filament). They are preferentially four times more distant from their nearest node than from their nearest filament.]{} [We confirm that FGs have low masses and are rare. They seem to reside closely to cosmic filaments and do not survive in nodes. Being in a poor environment might therefore be the driver of FG formation because the number of nearby galaxies is not sufficient to compensate for the cannibalism of the central group galaxy.]{}
Introduction
============
Fossil groups (FGs) are puzzling large-scale structures which present high X-ray luminosities but fewer bright optical galaxies than groups or clusters of galaxies. @Ponman+94 reported the first observation of such an object. @Jones+03 later defined FGs as extended X-ray sources with an X-ray luminosity of at least $L_{\rm X}=10^{42}\ h_{50}^{-2} {\rm erg~s}^{-1}$, and a brightest group galaxy (BGG) at least two magnitudes brighter than all other group members. An open question is the formation of these peculiar objects and why they present such a low amount of optically emitting matter.
An early explanation that has been proposed by @Jones+03 is that FGs are the remnants of early mergers, and that they are cool-core structures which a long time ago accreted most of the large galaxies in their environment. Although this scenario was supported by some hydrodynamical simulations by @D'Onghia+05, some clues also exist that FGs might be a temporary stage of group evolution before they capture more galaxies in their vicinity, as reported for instance by @vonBenda-Beckmann+08 [based on N-body simulations].
The situation is not simpler on the observational side, partly because we lack large samples of FGs, and partly because selection criteria differ. Fossil groups can be studied through their X-ray [e.g., @Adami+18] or optical properties [e.g., @Santos+07]. @Girardi+14 found identical behaviors for regular groups and FGs when they considered the relation between their X-ray and optical luminosities, which suggests that FGs contain the same amount of optical material than traditional groups, but that it is concentrated in a giant elliptical galaxy that has cannibalized most surrounding bright galaxies early on. @LaBarbera+09 also found that the optical properties of BGGs in FGs are identical to those of giant isolated field galaxies. Both analyses support the scenario that FGs are the result of a large dynamical activity at high redshift, but in an environment that is too poor for them to evolve into a cluster of galaxies through the hierarchical growth of structures. Based on Chandra X-ray observations, @Bharadwaj+16 found that FGs are mostly cool-core systems, which adds to the other indications that these structures are now dynamically dead.
The most recent observations, however, tend to contradict these results. @Kim+18 reported that NGC 1132 is a FG with an asymmetrical disturbed X-ray profile, and suggested that it is not dynamically passive, as expected. Similarly, @LimaNeto+20 discovered shells around the BGG of NGC 4104. Based on N-body simulations, they showed that this FG experienced a recent merger between its BGG and another bright galaxy with a mass of about 40% of that of the BGG. These two examples show exceptions to the FG nomenclature that might indicate more complex evolutionary scenarii.
One option to better understand the evolution of these systems is to perform a probabilistic analysis of FGs. We follow this approach here by making use of the large candidate cluster and group sample of @Sarron+18. These authors identified a large number of structures in the 154 deg$^2$ of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) by applying an adaptive Gaussian filtering in photometric redshift slices. This provided us with a large sample of groups from which it was possible to isolate FGs in a probabilistic way instead of studying particular objects, as is usually done in the case of FGs.
In the present analysis we also make use of the network of filaments of galaxies defined through topological criteria after the same Gaussian filtering as obtained by @Sarron+19 to investigate the position of FGs in the cosmic web. This allows us to probe the direct vicinity of FG candidates in observational data for the first time.
The paper is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 we describe our data set. In Sect. 3 we derive the probabilities of the group candidates to be FGs. We measure the properties of the FGs, in particular their positions in the cosmic web in Sect. 4, and we conclude in Sect. 5.
Throughout the paper we adopt a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m}$ = 0.30, $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.70, and H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, and all cosmological distances are given in comoving Mpc.
Data
====
CFHTLS
------
Photometric redshifts are taken from the CFHTLS T0007 data release (https://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Science/CFHTLS/T0007/), which covers 154 deg$^{2}$ across four Wide fields (W1, W2, W3, and W4), observed in the $u^{*}g'r'i'z'$ filters with the MegaCam at the CFHT. The photo-$z$s are computed using the LePhare software [@Arnouts+99; @Ilbert+06] following the method presented in @Coupon+09. LePhare computes photo-$z$s by fitting spectral energy distributions (SEDs) to the five-band magnitude measurements. In the present case, 62 SED galaxy templates were used. They were obtained through a linear interpolation between four templates from @Coleman+80 and two starburst templates from @Kinney+96 using the VIMOS-VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) spectroscopic sample [e.g., @LeFevre+05]. This interpolation allows us to accurately sample the color-redshift space.
Following the definition of @Ilbert+06 and @Coupon+09, the photo-$z$ dispersion was estimated using the normalized median absolute deviation (NMAD) estimator, $$\label{eq:1}
\sigma _{\Delta z / (1 + z_{\rm s})} = 1.48 \times \mathrm{median} \,
\left ( \frac{\left | \Delta z \right |}{(1+z_{\rm s})} \right),$$ where $\Delta z =
z_{\rm phot} - z_{\rm s}$, where $z_{\rm phot}$ and $z_{\rm s}$ correspond to the photometric and spectroscopic redshifts, respectively. We also define the catastrophic failure rate $\eta$ as the percentage of objects satisfying the criterion $\left | \Delta z \right | \geq 0.15 \times (1+z_{\rm s})$.
For our analysis, we discarded any galaxy that falls into the mask of the CFHTLS T0007 data release. These masks correspond to areas with bright stars or artifacts, for which magnitude measurements are inaccurate. We thus avoid including objects with poor photo-$z$ quality that would degrade our sample.
To further improve the redshift estimates of the CFHTLS Wide catalog, we correlated it with known spectroscopic redshifts from the Six-degree Field (6dF) galaxy survey [@Jones+09], the VVDS [@LeFevre+13], the VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift (VIPERS) Survey [@Scodeggio+18], the VIMOS Ultra Deep (VUDS) Survey [@Tasca+17], the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey [@Baldry+18], and the spectroscopic part of the Cosmic Evolution Survey (zCOSMOS) [@Lilly+09]. These data were extracted through the ASPIC public database (<http://cesam.lam.fr/aspic/>). We additionally used the NED to complement this database and extracted all available spectroscopic redshifts in the W1, W2, W3, and W4 CFHTLS regions. We performed the cross-correlation in RA,DEC coordinates within a 1 arcsec research box and retained the highest confidence spectroscopic redshift in case of multiple identifications. This led to the addition of $\sim$ 73,000 spectroscopic redshifts to the photometric catalogs. We also used these new spectroscopic redshifts to refine the quality check of the photo-$z$ catalog. Using Eq. \[eq:1\], we estimated a statistical uncertainty of 0.07 after 3$\sigma$ clipping. We verified that the number of photo-$z$ catastrophic failures (computed before the 3$\sigma$ clipping) is small: only 1.6$\%$ of the galaxies present a difference between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts larger than our 3$\sigma$ clipping level. We also know that photometric redshift precision is sometimes degraded when cluster galaxies are considered [@Guennou+10; @Martinet+15], especially in massive clusters. Considering only galaxies within one Virial radius from the XXL-detected X-ray massive structures in the W1 field [@Adami+18] and within the z=\[0.15;0.70\] range, we still have a precision of 0.07. This does not affect our detection rate or purity too strongly, as was shown by @Sarron+18.
Finally, we investigated the photometric redshift precision as a function of the parent cluster mass in order to verify that low-mass structures do not have particularly degraded photometric redshifts. This is not expected to be the case because the galaxy populations of these low-mass structures are more similar to the field populations than the ones of massive structures and are less affected by environmental effects. To do this, we also considered the previous XXL cluster sample and computed the photometric redshift precision as a function of the cluster X-ray temperature. Clusters colder than 4 keV (relatively massive structures) exhibit a precision of $\sigma _{\Delta z / (1 + z_{\rm s})}$ = 0.069. This value decreases to 0.061 for clusters colder than 1 keV, that is, within the group regime. Photometric redshift precision therefore does not affect low-mass cluster detection more than high-mass cluster detection.
CFHTLS AMASCFI group catalog
----------------------------
The original group catalog was obtained by running the Adami, MAzure and Sarron Cluster FInder ([AMASCFI]{}) algorithm on the CFHTLS T0007 data. Details on the cluster and group candidate catalog and on the detection algorithm can be found in @Sarron+18 and @Adami+99. Here, we report the salient points of the analysis and the few modifications we applied to the original catalog.
First, we cut the galaxy catalog into redshift slices of width typical of the photo-$z$ uncertainty and offset from each other by $\Delta z = 0.05$. We then applied a kernel smoothing with an adaptive smoothing scale to each slice and identified the peaks in these two-dimensional density maps using Sextractor [@Bertin+96]. A minimal spanning tree [MST, see, e.g., @Adami+99] was then applied to merge individual detections with a projected separation smaller than 1 Mpc and a redshift difference smaller than $\Delta z =
0.06$. Finally, we provided a mass estimate (Virial mass $M_{200}$) by considering a scaling relation between mass and richness, where the richness is defined as the number of passive galaxies brighter than $M^*+1.75$, where $M^*$ is the characteristic magnitude of the cluster. Here, passive galaxies are defined according to their best-fit template computed by $LePhare$ when the redshift of the galaxy is fixed at the cluster redshift [see @Sarron+18 for details]. This scaling relation was obtained by cross-matching our detections with the X-ray catalogs of @Gozaliasl+14 and @Mirkazemi+15. We estimated the typical $M_{200}$ uncertainty to be $\sim 0.20-0.25 \ {\rm dex}$ in @Sarron+18. Cluster redshifts were computed as the mean photometric redshift over individual detections linked by the MST, weighted by their mean galaxy densities [see @Sarron+18 for details], and present an uncertainty of $\sigma_z = 0.025 \times (1+z)$.
A mass-richness scaling relation might bias the mass of FGs toward lower values because they exhibit lower galaxy counts at the bright end of the galaxy luminosity function than regular groups (see, e.g., @Zarattini+16). We tested this hypothesis by computing the scaling relation between the richness of each structure and its total luminosity by summing the individual luminosities of cluster members with the same magnitude cut as for the richness definition (M\*+1.75). This richness-luminosity function follows a power law, and no statistical difference can be found between samples with different PFGs (higher than 15% and 50% and lower than 10%), showing that our mass-richness relation is unlikely to bias the mass of the candidate FGs compared to other structures.
@Sarron+18 computed the selection function for clusters with mass $M_{200} > 10^{14} M_\odot$. The completeness and purity of this cluster candidate sample are overall about 80$\%$ and 90$\%,$ respectively, for z$\leq$0.7. However, these values are lower when very low mass structures are considered. Our best FG candidates (PFG$\geq$50$\%$: 15 structures, see below) are mostly at z$\leq$0.4 and have masses between 1.1$\times$10$^{13}$ and 2.4$\times$$10^{14}$ M$_\odot$. Figure 1 of @Sarron+18 rather suggests a completeness of $\leq$60$\%$ and a purity of $\leq$80$\%$ in this redshift-mass regime.
To compute the cluster probability membership of individual galaxies, we computed a photometric redshift probability distribution function (PDF hereafter) for each group in the AMASCFI catalog. This was made by summing the photometric redshift PDFs of individual galaxies that lie at a distance $d < 0.5 \ {\rm Mpc}$ (at the group redshift) of the group center. The resulting distribution was then cut off at $z_{\rm inf} = z_{\rm min,MST}$ and $z_{\rm sup} = z_{\rm max,MST}$, the lower and upper redshifts of the individual two-dimensional detections linked by the MST. This was done to retain only the contribution of the group in the redshift PDF. We then computed the field contribution by summing the redshift PDFs of field galaxies and removed that contribution from our first estimates, thus forming the group photometric redshift PDF.
When multiple significant peaks separated by more than $0.05 \times (1+z)$ were found, we separated them, assigning the individual two-dimensional detections in the MST accordingly to each peak. We chose the most prominent peak to be that of the group and thus that defining its redshift PDF, while the other peaks were ignored. We also changed the group position and redshift accordingly, considering only the individual detections in the MST corresponding to the retained peak. We note that this refining process was marginal and only concerned a few percent of our original detections.
Cosmic filament catalog {#sec:Filcat}
-----------------------
When the spatial distribution of FGs was investigated relative to the cosmic web, we used the catalog of cosmic filaments and nodes detected by @Sarron+19 in the CFHTLS. The skeleton (filament, nodes, and saddle points) reconstruction was performed as in @Laigle+18, applying the DISPERSE algorithm of @Sousbie11 to the two-dimensional galaxy distribution in photometric redshift slices. Details about the catalog we used can be found in @Sarron+19. Briefly, given the uncertainty on the photo-$z$, slices were chosen to be $300\ {\rm Mpc}$ thick. This is orders of magnitude larger that the typical radius of filaments ($\sim 1$ Mpc), thus leading to projection effects in the slices that may result in false detections of filaments. An important part of the work by @Sarron+19 therefore was to test the method performance.
We consider here what @Sarron+19 called the ’global reconstruction’, where cosmic filaments and nodes are reconstructed in the entire field of view of each CFHTLS Wide field. Based on mock data, they showed that in the $0.15
\leq z < 0.7$ redshift range this reconstruction is $\sim 70\%$ complete and $\sim 90\%$ pure. We refer to their work for details on the selection function computation.
In each two-dimensional slice, DISPERSE traces the filaments of the cosmic web as a set of segments joining what it identified in the discrete galaxy distribution as nodes (local maximum of the distribution) and saddle points. In the theory of structure formation, galaxy groups and clusters are expected to be found at the nodes of the cosmic web. In our case, considering the thickness of our two-dimensional slices, we note, however, that some apparent nodes might instead be due to the projection of filaments in two dimensions.
For each structure in the catalog of @Sarron+18, we thus matched its position with that of the nodes of the two-dimensional skeleton reconstructed at the best redshift of the structure. When a node fell within a circle of one Virial radius ($R_{200}$) of the group, it was considered a match and the structure was considered as indeed being at a node of the cosmic web.
Probabilistic approach for detecting fossil groups
==================================================
Estimating the structure membership probability for a given galaxy
------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to @Adami+18, for example, where the cluster redshifts were known with a very high precision (spectroscopic redshifts), we here relied only on photometric redshift estimates. The best we can do to estimate the cluster membership of a galaxy is to compute the probability for the given galaxy to be part of the cluster. We describe the two possible cases below.
\(1) The galaxy only has a photometric redshift. We chose here to consider full probability distribution functions from the official CFHTLS T0007 data release (see <http://cesam.lam.fr/cfhtls-zphots/index/download>);
\(2) The galaxy has a spectroscopic redshift. In this case, we only kept the spectroscopic redshift even when a photometric redshift was available. We assumed for the spectroscopic redshifts a Gaussian presence PDF with a full width at half-maximum (FWHM) of 150 km.s$^{-1}$, typical of the redshift uncertainties of spectroscopic surveys within the CFHTLS W1 [see @Adami+18].
Knowing the position on the sky, magnitude in the $r$-band, error on the magnitude and photometric redshift PDF for a galaxy, as well as the cluster position on the sky and the photometric redshift PDF, we implemented the method presented in @CB16 (CB16 hereafter) to obtain the probability $P_{\rm mem}$ for the galaxy ${\rm gal}$ to belong to a group $G$. We refer to the original paper presenting the method for details (CB16) and provide here a brief outline of the method and of our choice of parameters.
In the framework developed by CB16, the probability membership is obtained using the Bayes theorem,
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
P_{\rm mem} \equiv P({\rm gal} \in G \ \vert \ \mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z), m_{\rm gal}^r,({\rm RA},{\rm Dec})_{\rm gal},
\\
\mathcal{P}_G(z), z_G,({\rm RA},{\rm Dec})_{G}),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
$$P_{\rm mem} \propto P(\mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z) \vert {\rm gal} \in G) \ P({\rm gal} \in G),$$
where $P(\mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z) \vert {\rm gal} \in G)$ is the likelihood of observing the galaxy photometric redshift PDF $\mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z)$ knowing that the galaxy belongs to the group $G$, and $P({\rm gal} \in G)$ is the prior probability that the galaxy belongs to the group.
Following CB16, the likelihood is taken to be
$$P(\mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z) \vert {\rm gal} \in G) = \int \mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z) \ \mathcal{P}_G(z) \ dz.$$
We have written convolutions as indefinite integrals. We note that in practice, they are discrete sums sampled at the redshift intervals $dz=0.02$ and taken in the range $0 < z < 6$ for which the photometric redshift PDF has been calculated.
The prior is computed using the relative number density of group and background galaxies in cylindrical shells around the group. Number densities $n$ are computed as a function of magnitude $m$ and redshift $z$ using the magnitude and photometric redshift PDFs,
$$n(m,z)= \frac{1}{A(z)} \sum_{\rm gal} \mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z) \ \mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(m),$$
where $A(z)$ is the area of the shell in deg$^2$ at redshift $z$ and the magnitude and photometric redshift PDFs are sampled in bins of magnitude $dm=0.1$ and redshift $dz=0.02$.
To mitigate errors due to low number counts in small volumes, we proceeded as in CB16 and used means within a running window of $\pm 5 dm$ and $\pm \sigma_{z,95}(m,z)$, which is the median $95\%$ confidence limit on individual photo-$z$ in the CFHTLS in bins of magnitude and redshift. We refer to CB16 for more details. Following their formalism and notations, the prior probability for a galaxy ${\rm gal}$ of magnitude $m_{\rm gal}^r$ at a projected distance $r_{{\rm gal}-G}$ from the group center to be a member of group $G$ located at $z_G$ is taken to be $$P({\rm gal} \in G) = 1 - \frac{\langle n_{\rm{bkg}}^{\rm loc}(m_{\rm gal}^r,z_G)\rangle}{\langle n_{\rm tot}(m_{\rm gal}^r,z_G,r_{{\rm gal}-G})\rangle},$$
where $n_{\rm{bkg}}^{\rm loc}$ is the background number density computed in an annulus between $3$ and $5\ {\rm Mpc}$ and $n_{\rm tot}$ is the number density in the considered shell.
The total number density as a function of distance to the cluster was averaged in annuli (shells) around the cluster center offset from each other by $50\ {\rm kpc}$ and with area of a disk of radius $r = 350\ {\rm kpc}$ at the cluster redshift. This value differs from that of CB16 ($r = 450\
{\rm kpc}$). We chose this because the lowest-mass groups in our sample have $R_{200} \sim 350 {\rm kpc}$. This average on shells has the advantage of minimizing the centering error on AMASCFI clusters.\
The final estimate of the probability membership was obtained by applying a rescaling inspired by that of CB16, that is, normalizing by the maximum probability that would be reached if the galaxy photometric redshift PDF $\mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z)$ were centered at the group redshift $z_G$, $$P_{\rm mem} = \frac{P(\mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z) \vert {\rm gal} \in G) \ P({\rm gal} \in G)}{P(\mathcal{P}_{\rm gal}(z - z_G) \vert {\rm gal} \in G)}
.$$
Estimating the probability for a structure to be a fossil group {#sec:proba}
---------------------------------------------------------------
The canonical definition of a FG can be found in @Jones+03. This includes a two-magnitude gap between the BGG and the second brightest galaxy within half a Virial radius, and conditions on the X-ray luminosity of the structure. We here consider the magnitude criterion within half a Virial radius. We therefore computed the probability for a given structure of galaxies to be a FG. This was done knowing the previous membership probabilities and computing the probability of the BGG to be two magnitudes brighter than the second brightest galaxy. This calculation is complicated by the fact that each galaxy has a certain probability of belonging to the group. We define the following events:\
$F$: the group is fossil,
$Y_i$: galaxy $i$ is brighter than all other group galaxies by at least two magnitudes,
$Z_i$: galaxy $i$ belongs to the group,
$m_{ij}(2)$: galaxy $j$ has a magnitude brighter than that of galaxy $i$ by two magnitudes, and their associated probabilities, $P(F)$, $P(Y_{i})$, $P(Z_{i})$ (computed in the previous subsection), and $P(m_{ij}(2))$. The last probability is easily computed by comparing the magnitudes of galaxies $i$ and $j$,
$$P(m_{ij}(2))=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
0 &\mbox{if $m_i+2<m_j$} \\
1 &\mbox{if $m_i+2>m_j$}
\end{array}\right.
.$$
The probability $P(Y_i)$ corresponds to the probability that galaxy $i$ belongs to the group ** that every galaxy $j$ satisfying $m_i+2>m_j$ does not belong to the same group,
$$P(Y_i) = P(Z_i) \times \prod_{j} \left(1-P(Z_j)P(m_{ij}(2))\right)
.$$
We note that a galaxy $i$ verifying $Y_i$ is also the BGG because the magnitude criterion of the FG definition is more restrictive than that of being the BGG (by two magnitudes).
The probability of the group to be fossil is the probability that ** of the galaxies $i$ is brighter than all other group galaxies by at least two magnitudes, or equivalently, that ** of the $Y_i$ is true,
$$P(F) = \sum_{i} P(Y_i)
.$$
Is our estimated spatial density of fossil groups realistic?
------------------------------------------------------------
@Jones+03 found about 3 to 8$\times$10$^{-7}$ fossil groups per Mpc$^3$ (with h$_{70}$) for the most massive groups. The precision on the FG density in our analysis is affected by several caveats. The mass estimates of @Sarron+18 come from a scaling relation between richness and X-ray luminosity and therefore have a significant uncertainty that is due to the calibration. This caveat is reasonable, however, because we only applied a cut in mass to select the fossil group sample according to @Jones+03. Second, given our probabilistic approach, we cannot be certain that a given FG candidate is actually a fossil group. The average sample of high-probability FGs should nonetheless be representative of the true FG sample.
We therefore made an attempt to compute the spatial density of our FG. Linearly extrapolating the Figure 1 of @Sarron+18 down to low masses, we should have a $\leq$60$\%$ detection rate for typical fossil groups (and a purity $\leq$80$\%$). When we sum all the percentages of being a fossil group that we computed for all the structures within the catalog of @Sarron+18, this gives the statistical number of real FGs in this catalog. This computation gives 28.9 FGs within the catalog. Assuming a $\leq$60$\%$ detection rate and a purity of $\leq$80$\%$, we therefore predict about 38.6 fossil groups within the CFHTLS Wide survey. The CFHTLS Wide sampled volume is about 2.43$\times$10$^8$ Mpc$^3$, leading to a density of $\sim$1.6$\times$10$^{-7}$ FGs per Mpc$^3$. This is of the same order as the estimates from @Jones+03.
BCG/BGG contribution None 20$\%$
---------------------- ------ --------
PFG$\geq$50$\%$ 15 25
PFG$\geq$15$\%$ 62 85
PFG$\leq$10$\%$ 2535 2510
: \[tab:liste\]Number of structures for different levels of probability to be a fossil group, assuming or not assuming a 20$\%$ contribution by the dominant galaxy.
Caveats
-------
A possible source of uncertainties in our study is related to the structure of the Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCG hereafter) themselves. These peculiar galaxies often have very weak and extended halos that are very difficult to detect and separate from the intrastructure diffuse light. When classical flux measurement tools such as Sextractor are applied to the CFHTLS data, part of this contribution might sometimes be missed and is not included in the galaxy CFHTLS magnitude measurements. We may therefore underestimate the luminosity of the BCGs. This strongly depends on the considered BCG (or BGG) and on the history of its parent structure, but @Martizzi+14, for instance, estimated the BCG-related Intra Cluster Light (ICL hereafter) contribution to values higher than 20$\%$ of the total BCG luminosity. All this contribution is not missed when magnitudes are measured in the CFHTLS survey, but even when only 20$\%$ are missed, this may disfavor the FG probability estimate because the value of the BCG magnitude is overestimated. In order to test this effect, we reran our codes assuming this 20$\%$ missing luminosity. This resulted in diminishing the considered two-magnitude gap by $\sim$0.2 magnitude within the PFG computation.
This 20$\%$ contribution will increase the number of potential FGs, reaching 25 structures with a PFG value higher than 50$\%$ (15 structures without the 20$\%$ increase). However, this does not change the fact that such structures have masses preferentially lower than 2.4$\times$10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$ (see figure \[fig:PercMasstop\]).
As a summary, we present in Table \[tab:liste\] the different numbers of structures for different levels of probability to be a FG. We also list the numbers when a 20$\%$ contribution by the dominant galaxy is assumed.
General structure properties versus PFG value
=============================================
PFG versus M$_{200}$
--------------------
![\[fig:PercMasstop\] PFG probability for the structures to be FGs as a function of their estimated M$_{200}$ [@Sarron+18]. The vertical blue arrows show the PFG increase when a 20$\%$ ICL additional contribution to the BCG (or BGG) magnitude is allowed. Blue dots are galaxy structures less massive than 2.4$\times$10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$ , and red dots are more massive than 2.4$\times$10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$. The horizontal black line shows the 50$\%$ level for PFG.](fig3_3103.png){width="9cm"}
![\[fig:mass\] Arbitrarily normalized counts of the estimated M$_{200}$ masses (in M$_\odot$ units) of the AMASCFI candidate structures. Red dots represent the whole sample, and blue dots show structures with a probability higher than 50$\%$ to be a FG. Both samples are normalized. Error bars are Poissonian.](fig4_2303.png){width="9.5cm"}
We test in this subsection the general behavior of the structures detected in the CFHTLS Wide survey [@Sarron+18] in terms of variation of their M$_{200}$ as a function of their probability PFG to be a fossil group. Figure \[fig:PercMasstop\] shows that the more massive a structure, the less likely it is a FG, in the sense that the PFG versus M$_{200}$ space is basically empty above M$_{200}$$\sim$2.4$\times$10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$. Adding a 20$\%$ ICL contribution to the BCG or BGG magnitude does not change this separation strongly. When we limit our analysis to structures with PFG$\geq$50$\%$, we also see that these are low-mass structures (see Fig. \[fig:mass\]), mainly lower than 1.5$\times$10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$.
This value of 50$\%$ is a good compromise between the highest possible probability to be a FG and the sample size. We detected 15 structures with such a probability, which are described in Table \[tab:first15\].
Spatial distribution relative to the nodes and filaments
--------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:distfilnode\] Distributions of comoving distance (in Mpc) to the nearest filament (red dots) or node (blue dots) of the candidate FGs with PFG$\geq$50$\%$.](fig5_3103.png){width="9.0cm"}
![\[fig:MassvsPFG\]Upper panel: Arbitrarily normalized counts of the ratios NtoF between the distance to the nearest node and to the nearest filament for different structure masses. Structures more massive than 2.4$\times$10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$ are shown in green, and structures less massive than 2.4$\times$10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$ are plotted in blue. Structures less massive than 5$\times$10$^{13}$ M$_\odot$ are shown in magenta. Lower panel: Arbitrarily normalized counts of the ratios NtoF between the distance to the nearest node and to the nearest filament for different PFG values. A PFG lower than 10$\%$ is plotted with filled red symbols, a PFG higher than 15$\%$ with open blue symbols, and a PFG higher than 50$\%$ with filled cyan symbols. Error bars are Poissonian and smaller than the point size in the upper panel.](test.png){width="9cm"}
One of the key questions when fossil groups are studied is to know where they reside relative to the cosmic web. They might be located in completely isolated regions, as suggested, for example, by @Adami+12, or they might have a distribution similar to that of other galaxy structures. The answer to these questions is a key driver of the building mechanisms of these peculiar structures. The question is how the large magnitude gap between the first and second brightest galaxies can be explained. They might just lack infalling galaxies, which would mean that merging events dominate infalling events. Alternatively, these infalling galaxies might have peculiar impact parameters, which would complicate a possible capture by the structure.
Figure \[fig:distfilnode\] shows that the structures with the PFG values higher than 50$\%$ are preferentially closer to the filaments than to the nodes. While their distribution relative to the nodes is more or less uniform, they exhibit a clear tendency to be located closer than 1 Mpc to their nearest filament. More precisely, 87$\%$ are closer than 1 Mpc to the filaments, while 67$\%$ of them are farther away than 1 Mpc from the nodes. Moreover, we recall than the filament detection completeness is about 70$\%$, which means that structures with PFG values higher than 50$\%$ may all be close to filaments.
We are aware that our statistics are weak (only 15 structures with PFG$\geq$50$\%$), in good agreement with the paucity of this class of objects. Being $\geq$10 times more extended than the CFHTLS, the Kilo-Degree (KiDS) survey [@deJong+15] and later the EUropean Cosmic aLl sky Investigator of the Dark universe (EUCLID) surveys [@Laureijs+11] will be much better adapted to detect large populations of FGs when the filaments and nodes will be detected in these areas.
Structure distribution within the cosmic web as a function of PFG and mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous part seems to show that structures with a PFG value higher than 50$\%$ preferentially reside close to the filaments and relatively far from the cosmic web nodes. We investigated whether this is related to the mass of the considered structures. To determine this, we split the whole structure sample into masses higher than $2.4\times10^{14}$ M$_\odot$, lower than $2.4\times10^{14}$ M$_\odot$, and lower than 5$\times$10$^{13}$ M$_\odot$. We also computed the ratio between the distance to the nearest node and to the nearest filament (NtoF hereafter). A high value of NtoF indicates that the considered structure is closer to its nearest filament than to its nearest node. Figure \[fig:MassvsPFG\] (upper part) shows the general behavior of the NtoF ratio. NtoF is close to 1 for the majority of the structures (as seen in the figure, where the dominant contribution occurs slightly above NtoF$\sim$1). Such structures are equally distant from nodes or filaments. The figure also exhibits a tail of structures closer to filaments than to nodes (NtoF$\geq$1). This is an expected behavior because filaments cover a larger cosmic volume than nodes. We see no significant effect as a function of mass: a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows that the probability is lower than 0.1$\%$ for the three distributions to differ.
Figure \[fig:MassvsPFG\] (lower part) is similar, but focuses on the PFG value effect rather than on the mass effect. The structures that are the most different from the FG status (PFG lower than 10$\%$) have a similar behavior as in Fig. \[fig:MassvsPFG\] (upper part), with a peak around a NtoF$\sim$1. This means that they are not significantly more distant from the nodes than from the filaments. Intermediate structures (PFG higher than 15$\%$) may be more distant from the nodes, with a larger number of them exhibiting higher NtoF values. The difference between structures with PFG lower than 10$\%$ and PFG higher than 15$\%$ is not very significant, however: a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test predicts a probability of only 7$\%$ for the two distributions to be different. For the structures with the highest PFG value (higher than 50$\%$), the situation is different. These structures exhibit a preferential NtoF value of $\sim$4, which is significantly different from the abundances of the other samples at the same NtoF value. They are statistically about four times less distant from a filament than from a node. Another peak is present around NtoF $\sim$6.5, but is only barely significant because of its large error bar. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test predicts a probability of 93$\%$ for the distribution with PFG values higher than 50$\%$ to be different from the distribution with PFG values lower than 10$\%$. To summarize, the higher the probability of being a FG, the closer these structures appear to be to the filaments.
Conclusion
==========
The two main conclusions of this study have been reached by probabilistic arguments and can be summarized as follows:
1\) Only the less massive of our candidate clusters (M$_{200}\le 2.4\times
10^{14}$ M$_\odot$) can have a high probability of being FGs.
2\) Structures with the highest probabilities of being FGs are preferentially close to their nearest cosmic filament ($\leq$1 Mpc), and their NtoF ratio is preferentially of $\sim$4.
It is therefore tempting to say that fossil groups reside in cosmological filaments but do not survive in cosmic nodes. This can be explained because in the nodes, the merging rate of structures and/or the galaxy infalling rate are too high and are not compensated for by the intragroup galaxy-galaxy merging rate to maintain the two-magnitude gap observed in FGs. In the filaments, the density (both in terms of field galaxies and other structures) is lower than in the nodes. Fossil groups can therefore empty their vicinity, and their mass evolution is eventually stopped by a lack of accretable material. Another explanation would be that the relative velocities of the group-infalling galaxies are high enough in the filaments to prevent galaxies from being captured by such low-mass galaxy structures. In both cases, the galaxy-galaxy intragroup mergers depopulate the group and create the two-magnitude gap in the group galaxy population.
We are aware that these conclusions are based on probabilistic arguments. Only intensive spectroscopic surveys will allow placing these results on firmer grounds.
The authors thank the referee. The authors thank Clotilde Laigle for useful discussions. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) for many years. NM acknowledges support by a CNES fellowship.
Based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA. Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla and Paranal Observatories under programmes ID 191.A-0268 and 60.A-9302. Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/IRFU, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. This work is based in part on data products produced at Terapix available at the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre as part of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, a collaborative project of NRC and CNRS. This research has made use of the VizieR catalogue access tool, CDS, Strasbourg, France. This research has also made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This research has made use of the ASPIC database, operated at CeSAM/LAM, Marseille, France. This paper uses data from the VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS). VIPERS has been performed using the ESO Very Large Telescope, under the “Large Programme” 182.A-0886. The participating institutions and funding agencies are listed at http://vipers.inaf.it. Based on data obtained with the European Southern Observatory Very Large Telescope, Paranal, Chile, under Large Program 185.A-0791, and made available by the VUDS team at the CESAM data center, Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, France. This research uses data from the VIMOS VLT Deep Survey, obtained from the VVDS database operated by Cesam, Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, France. GAMA is a joint European-Australasian project based around a spectroscopic campaign using the Anglo-Australian Telescope. The GAMA input catalogue is based on data taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey. Complementary imaging of the GAMA regions is being obtained by a number of independent survey programmes including GALEX MIS, VST KiDS, VISTA VIKING, WISE, Herschel-ATLAS, GMRT and ASKAP providing UV to radio coverage. GAMA is funded by the STFC (UK), the ARC (Australia), the AAO, and the participating institutions. The GAMA website is http://www.gama-survey.org/. This paper uses data from the XXL survey, an international project based around an XMM Very Large Programme surveying two 25 deg2 extragalactic fields at a depth of $~6\times10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the \[0.5-2\] keV band for point-like sources. The XXL website is http://irfu.cea.fr/xxl. Multi-band information and spectroscopic follow-up of the X-ray sources are obtained through a number of survey programmes, summarised at http://xxlmultiwave.pbworks.com/.
List of the 15 galaxy structures with PFG$\geq$50$\%$
=====================================================
-------------- -------- ---------------- ------- ----------------- ----- ---------- ------------- ----------- ------- ------- ------
CFHTLS field RA RA uncertainty DEC DEC uncertainty S/N redshift M$_{200}$ R$_{200}$ dnode dfil PFG
(deg) (deg) (deg) (deg) M$_{\odot}$ Mpc Mpc Mpc $\%$
W1 34.72 0.05 -9.27 0.05 6 0.22 4.20E13 0.78 1.77 0.51 50
W1 36.76 0.03 -9.27 0.03 4 0.32 1.20E14 1.15 3.42 0.64 51
W1 35.89 0.05 -8.69 0.05 6 0.26 1.39E13 0.56 2.59 0.17 52
W1 32.20 0.05 -6.60 0.05 3 0.20 3.97E13 0.77 2.10 0.50 65
W1 30.80 0.01 -9.80 0.01 4 0.66 1.30E14 1.35 0.83 0.19 65
W1 36.82 0.02 -4.55 0.02 10 0.28 2.38E14 1.47 0.81 0.21 69
W1 38.18 0.03 -9.77 0.03 3 0.36 6.92E13 1.00 2.07 0.32 71
W1 38.69 0.03 -5.64 0.03 6 0.30 1.13E14 1.15 1.69 0.26 78
W1 37.14 0.03 -5.84 0.04 4 0.30 1.15E13 0.55 0.51 0.57 91
W2 136.19 0.02 -4.65 0.02 6 0.68 8.06E13 1.17 0.39 0.10 53
W2 135.46 0.04 -4.33 0.04 4 0.22 1.97E13 0.61 2.41 0.19 60
W3 213.46 0.01 54.78 0.01 6 0.56 4.75E13 0.94 1.92 0.80 50
W3 212.57 0.06 57.69 0.03 6 0.36 3.63E13 0.77 3.15 2.31 56
W3 219.40 0.07 56.55 0.04 5 0.26 4.18E13 0.79 35.54 35.64 66
W4 334.64 0.02 -0.76 0.02 7 0.36 5.48E13 0.93 0.16 0.09 59
-------------- -------- ---------------- ------- ----------------- ----- ---------- ------------- ----------- ------- ------- ------
[^1]: Based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, ESO Telescopes at the La Silla and Paranal Observatories, and MegaPrime/MegaCam at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (see acknowledgements for more details).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an overview of the notions of exact sequences of Hopf algebras and tensor categories and their connections. We also present some examples illustrating their main features; these include simple fusion categories and a natural question regarding composition series of finite tensor categories.'
address: 'Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computaci'' on. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. CIEM – CONICET. Ciudad Universitaria. (5000) Córdoba, Argentina'
author:
- Sonia Natale
title: 'ON THE NOTION OF EXACT SEQUENCE: FROM HOPF ALGEBRAS TO TENSOR CATEGORIES'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Perhaps the most natural way to understand or attempt a classification of a given algebraic structure is by decomposing it into ’simpler’ structures. A fundamental example of this principle is provided by the theory of finite groups. Every finite simple group $G$ has a composition series whose factors are finite simple groups uniquely determined by $G$, up to permutations. In particular, $G$ can be built up by means of a number of successive extensions of finite simple groups. In this context, both the classification of the simple structures -finite simple groups- and the classification of the possible extensions -governed by suitable cohomology theories- are hard questions that involve deep mathematical techniques.
In this paper we aim to present an overview of an analogous approach to the study of structures that generalize that of groups, namely, Hopf algebras and tensor categories. We discuss the notion of extension in each of these contexts and some of their main features. More precisely, we focus on extensions arising from exact sequences: these do not include certain extensions arising from group gradings on tensor categories which play an important role in the classification of certain classes of fusion categories [@ENO2].
Very little is known about a possible approach to classify simple structures in these cases. We discuss several simple examples that show some contrast with the theory of finite groups.
We start by recalling the notion of exact sequence of Hopf algebras in Section \[exact-hopf\]. The main contributions towards this notion appeared in the work of G. I. Kac [@kac], M. Takeuchi [@takeuchi], W. Singer [@singer], B. Parshall and J. P. Wang [@PW], H.-J. Schneider [@schneider], S. Majid [@majid], N. Andruskiewitsch and J. Devoto [@AD], [@andrus-ext], Hofstetter [@hofstetter] and others.
Exact sequences of Hopf algebras generalize exact sequences of groups. In a similar vein, the notion of normal subgroup and simple group have generalizations to the notions of normal Hopf subalgebra and simple Hopf algebra, that we discuss in Subsections \[nhs\] and \[subs-simple\].
As in the case of finite groups, every finite dimensional Hopf algebra $H$ has a *composition series*: these are sequences of simple Hopf algebras ${\mathfrak{H}}_1, \dots, {\mathfrak{H}}_n$, called the *factors* of the series, defined as follows [@AM]: If $H$ is simple, then $n = 1$ and ${\mathfrak{H}}_1 = H$; if on the other hand, $H$ contains a proper normal Hopf subalgebra $A$, and ${\mathfrak A}_1,
\dots, {\mathfrak A}_m$, ${{\mathfrak B}}_1, \dots,$ ${{\mathfrak B}}_\ell$, are composition series of $A$ and of the quotient Hopf algebra $B = H/HA^+$, respectively, then $n = m+\ell$ and $${\mathfrak{H}}_i = {\mathfrak A}_i, \quad \textrm{if } 1\leq i \leq m, \quad {\mathfrak{H}}_i = {{\mathfrak B}}_{i-m},
\quad \textrm{if } m < i \leq m+\ell.$$ Furthermore, a Jordan-H" older theorem holds in the context of finite dimensional Hopf algebras [@jh-hopf]. This and related facts are discussed in Subsections \[subs-jh\] and \[subs-semis\].
In Section \[exact-rk1\] we review the notion of exact sequence of tensor categories developed with A. Brugui\` eres in [@tensor-exact], [@indp-exact] and its relation with Hopf monads and commutative central algebras. We also discuss in this section a family of examples arising from so-called crossed actions of a matched pair of finite groups [@crossed-action] and recent classification results for extensions of a fusion category by the category of representations of a finite group obtained in [@char-crossed-action].
The notion of exact sequence of tensor categories discussed in Section \[exact-rk1\] was extended to the notion of exact sequence with respect to a module category by P. Etingof and S. Gelaki [@eg-emc]: In this sense, an exact sequence of (finite) tensor categories becomes an exact sequence with respect to a rank-one module category. We overview the definition of [@eg-emc] in Section \[s-emc\] as well as its connection with exact factorizations of tensor categories from [@gelaki], [@mn], [@schauenburg-kac].
We end the paper by presenting some examples that answer a number of natural questions regarding the behaviour of exact sequences of tensor categories. This is done in Section \[examples-questions\]. In contrast with the properties enjoyed by groups and Hopf algebras, these examples show in particular that:
- Fusion subcategories of index 2 need not be normal with respect to a module category (Subsection \[indice2\]);
- There exist fusion categories of Frobenius-Perron dimension $p^aq^b$, where $p$ and $q$ are prime numbers, which are simple with respect to any module category (Subsection \[simple-paqb\]).
Regarding the question of formulating a Jordan-Hölder theorem for finite tensor categories (see [@icm Question 4.7]), we consider a natural generalization of the notion of composition series of finite dimensional Hopf algebra to the context of finite tensor categories: namely, we call a sequence of finite tensor categories ${{\mathcal C}}_1, \dots, {{\mathcal C}}_n$ -the factors of the series- a composition series of a finite tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ if, as before, $n = 1$ and ${{\mathcal C}}_1 = {{\mathcal C}}$ if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is does not fit into any exact sequence with respect to a module category, while if ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is an exact sequence with respect to some ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category ${\mathcal{M}}$ such that ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}', {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'' > 1$, then $n = m+\ell$ and ${{\mathcal C}}_i = {{\mathcal C}}'_i$, $1\leq i \leq m$, ${{\mathcal C}}_i = {{\mathcal C}}''_{i-m}$, $m < i \leq m+\ell$, where ${{\mathcal C}}'_1, \dots, {{\mathcal C}}'_m$, ${{\mathcal C}}''_1, \dots,$ ${{\mathcal C}}''_\ell$, are composition series of ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$, respectively.
One of the main new contributions of this paper is a negative answer to the following question:
\[jh-mc\] Is it true that two composition series of a finite tensor category thus defined have the same factors up to a permutation?
Indeed we show that the answer to Question \[jh-mc\] is negative even in the context of (braided non-degenerate) fusion categories. Hence composition series of fusion categories thus defined fail to satisfy a Jordan-Hölder theorem. This is done in Subsection \[subs-jh\]; see Corollary \[cs-a6\] and Remark \[bd-cs-a6\].
In spite of this fact, we mention that an analogue of the Jordan-H" older theorem does hold for weakly group-theoretical fusion categories introduced in [@ENO2]. The definition of a composition series for this kind of category is given in terms of group equivariantizations and group graded extensions and the composition factors, which are Morita invariants, are finite simple groups [@jh-wgt].
Finally, we include in Subsection \[preguntas\] some questions that we believe are interesting in relation with the notions discussed previously.
Preliminaries on Hopf algebras and tensor categories
====================================================
We shall work over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic zero. A *tensor category* over $k$ is a $k$-linear abelian category with finite dimensional ${\operatorname{Hom}}$ spaces and objects of finite length, endowed with a rigid monoidal category structure, such that the monoidal product is $k$-linear in each variable and the unit object is simple.
A tensor category over $k$ is called *finite* if it is equivalent as a $k$-linear category to the category of finite dimensional left modules over a finite dimensional $k$-algebra. A *fusion category over $k$* is a semisimple finite tensor category. We refer the reader to [@EGNO] for a systematic study of tensor categories.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ be tensor categories over $k$. A *tensor functor* $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is a $k$-linear exact (strong) monoidal functor $F$.
Let $G$ be a group. We shall denote by ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{G}$ the tensor category of finite dimensional $G$-graded vector spaces and by ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$ the tensor category of finite dimensional $k$-linear representations of $G$.
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra over $k$. We shall indicate by $H^+$ the *augmentation ideal* of $H$, defined as $H^+=\{x \in H:\, \varepsilon(x)=0\}$. Except for Section \[exact-hopf\], all Hopf algebras we consider in this paper are assumed to have a bijective antipode (this is automatically true if the Hopf algebra is finite dimensional). Thus the categories $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$ of finite dimensional (left) $H$-modules and ${\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}$ of finite dimensional (right) $H$-comodules are tensor categories over $k$.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a tensor category. A *left module category* over ${{\mathcal C}}$, or *${{\mathcal C}}$-module category*, is a $k$-linear abelian category $\mathcal{M}$ together with a $k$-linear bi-exact functor $${\overline{\otimes}}:\mathcal{C}\times\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{M},$$ and natural isomorphisms $m_{X,Y,M}:(X\otimes Y){\overline{\otimes}}M\rightarrow X{\overline{\otimes}}(Y{\overline{\otimes}}M)$, $u_M:\textbf{1}{\overline{\otimes}}M\rightarrow M$, $X, Y \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $M \in \mathcal M$, satisfying natural associativity and unitary conditions.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ and ${\mathcal{N}}$ be ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories. A ${{\mathcal C}}$-*module functor* ${\mathcal{M}}\to {\mathcal{N}}$ is a $k$-linear functor $F:{\mathcal{M}}\to {\mathcal{N}}$ endowed with natural isomorphisms $$F (X {\overline{\otimes}}M) \to X {\overline{\otimes}}F(M),$$ for all $X \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $M \in {\mathcal{M}}$, satisfying appropriate conditions. A ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor is called an equivalence of ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories if it is an equivalence of categories. A module category ${\mathcal{M}}$ is called *indecomposable* if it is not equivalent as a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category to the direct sum of two nontrivial module categories.
Suppose ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a finite tensor category. A finite left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category ${\mathcal{M}}$ is *exact* if for every projective object $P\in {{\mathcal C}}$ and for every $M\in{\mathcal{M}}$, $P\otimes M$ is a projective object of ${\mathcal{M}}$. Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be an indecomposable exact ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category. Then the category ${\operatorname{End}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\mathcal{M}})$ of right exact ${{\mathcal C}}$-module endofunctors of $\mathcal{M}$ is a finite tensor category. A tensor category $\mathcal{D}$ is *(categorically) Morita equivalent* to $\mathcal{C}$ if $\mathcal{D}\cong {\operatorname{End}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\mathcal{M}})^{\text{op}}$ for some exact indecomposable $\mathcal{C}$-module category $\mathcal{M}$.
Exact sequences of Hopf algebras {#exact-hopf}
================================
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra over $k$. The aim of this section is to give an account of some of the main features regarding the notion of exact sequences of Hopf algebras and present some examples.
Let $\pi: H \to B$ be a Hopf algebra map. The subalgebras ${}^{co \pi}H$ and $H^{co \pi}$ of left and right $B$-coinvariants of $H$ are defined, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{co \pi}H & = \{ h \in H:\, (\pi \otimes {\operatorname{id}})\Delta(h) = 1
\otimes h\}, \\
H^{co \pi} & = \{ h \in H:\, ({\operatorname{id}}\otimes \pi)\Delta(h) = h \otimes
1\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[def-exacta-hopf\]([@AD].) An *exact sequence of Hopf algebras* is a sequence of Hopf algebra maps $$\label{exacta} k \longrightarrow H' \overset{i}\longrightarrow H
\overset{\pi}\longrightarrow H'' \longrightarrow k,$$ satisfying the following conditions:
- $i$ is injective and $\pi$ is surjective,
- $\ker \pi = Hi(H')^+$,
- $i(H') = {}^{co \pi}\!H$.
A Hopf algebra $H$ fitting into an exact sequence is called an *extension* of $H''$ by $H'$.
Note that either of the conditions (b) or (c) in Definition \[def-exacta-hopf\] implies that $\pi i = \epsilon 1: H' \to H''$. If $H$ is faithfully flat over $H'$, then (a) and (b) imply (c). Dually, if $H$ is faithfully coflat over $H''$, then (a) and (c) imply (b).
We refer the reader to [@AD], [@schneider], [@takeuchi] for further details on the notion of an exact sequence.
Let be an exact sequence of finite dimensional Hopf algebras. Then, as a consequence of the Nichols-Zoeller freeness theorem, it is *cleft*, that is, the map $\pi:H \to B$ admits a convolution invertible $B$-colinear and $A$-linear section $B \to H$. This implies that $H$ isomorphic as a Hopf algebra to a bicrossed product $A\# B$ with respect to suitable compatible data. See [@schneider-nb], [@AD]. In particular $$\dim H = \dim H' \dim H''.$$
In addition, $H$ is semisimple if and only if $H'$ and $H''$ are semisimple.
We shall say that a Hopf algebra $H$ is *simple* if it does not fit into any exact sequence of Hopf algebras with $H' \ncong k$ and $H'' \ncong k$.
Normality of Hopf subalgebras and Hopf algebra maps {#nhs}
---------------------------------------------------
Consider the left and right adjoint actions of $H$ on itself defined, respectively, by $$\label{adj-act}
h. a = h_{(1)}a\mathcal S(h_{(2)}), \qquad a.h= \mathcal S(h_{(1)})ah_{(2)},$$ for all $a, h \in H$.
Formulas generalize those defining the adjoint actions of a group. In this vein, the notion of a normal subgroup can be generalized to that of a normal Hopf subalgebra; that is, a Hopf subalgebra $K$ of $H$ is called *normal* if it is stable under both action actions .
Dually, the left and right adjoint coactions of $H$ are defined, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho_\ell: H \to H \otimes H, \quad \rho_\ell(h) = h_{(1)}\mathcal S(h_{(3)}) \otimes h_{(2)},\\
&\rho_r: H \to H \otimes H, \quad \rho_r(h) = h_{(2)} \otimes h_{(1)}\mathcal S(h_{(3)}).\end{aligned}$$
Let $\pi: H \to H''$ be a Hopf algebra map. The map $\pi$ is called *normal* if the kernel $I$ of $\pi$ is a subcomodule for both adjoint coactions of $H$.
Let $H' \subseteq H$ be a normal Hopf subalgebra. Then $H(H')^+ = (H')^+H$ is a Hopf ideal of $H$ and the canonical map $H \to H/H(H')^+$ is a Hopf algebra map. If $H$ is faithfully flat over $H'$, then there is an exact sequence of Hopf algebras $$k \longrightarrow H' \longrightarrow H
\longrightarrow H/H(H')^+ \longrightarrow
k.$$ Similarly, if $\pi: H \to H''$ is a surjective normal Hopf algebra map, then ${}^{co \pi}H = H^{co \pi}$ is a Hopf subalgebra and if $H$ is faithfully coflat over $H''$, there is an exact sequence of Hopf algebras $$k \longrightarrow {}^{co \pi}H
\longrightarrow H \overset{\pi}{\longrightarrow} H'' \longrightarrow k.$$
Suppose $H$ is a finite dimensional Hopf algebra. Then $H$ is simple if and only if $H$ contains no proper normal Hopf subalgebra if and only if it admits no proper normal quotient Hopf algebra.
Furthermore, a sequence of Hopf algebra maps $$k \longrightarrow H'
\overset{i}\longrightarrow H
\overset{\pi}\longrightarrow H'' \longrightarrow k$$ is an exact sequence if and only if the dual sequence $$k \longrightarrow (H'')^* \overset{\pi^*}\longrightarrow H^*
\overset{i^*}\longrightarrow (H')^* \longrightarrow k$$ is exact. Therefore the notion of simplicity of a finite dimensional Hopf algebra is self-dual, that is, $H$ is simple if and only if $H^*$ is simple.
Example: Abelian exact sequences and matched pairs of groups
------------------------------------------------------------
A celebrated source of examples of Hopf algebra extensions arises from matched pairs of groups: these are called *abelian extensions* and were introduced in the early work of G. I. Kac, W. Singer, S. Majid and M. Takeuchi [@kac], [@singer], [@majid], [@takeuchi-mp]. We refer the reader to [@mk-ext], [@ma-newdir] for a detailed study of the cohomology theory underlying an abelian exact sequence.
An exact sequence of finite dimensional Hopf algebras $$\label{abel-hopf}
k \longrightarrow H'
\overset{i}\longrightarrow H
\overset{\pi}\longrightarrow H'' \longrightarrow k$$ is called an *abelian exact sequence* if $H'$ is commutative and $H''$ is cocommutative.
Since our base field $k$ is algebraically closed of characteristic zero, this means that $H' \cong k^\Gamma$ and $H'' \cong kG$, for some finite groups $\Gamma, G$.
The exactness of the sequence allows to endow the pair $(G, \Gamma)$ with the structure of a *matched pair* of groups. That is, gives rise to actions by permutations $\Gamma \overset{\vartriangleleft}\longleftarrow \Gamma \times G
\overset{\vartriangleright}\longrightarrow G$ such that $$\label{matched}
s \vartriangleright xy = (s \vartriangleright x) ((s
\vartriangleleft x) \vartriangleright y), \quad st
\vartriangleleft x = (s \vartriangleleft (t \vartriangleright x))
(t \vartriangleleft x),$$ for all $s, t \in \Gamma$, $x, y \in G$.
Given groups $G$ and $\Gamma$, the data of a pair of compatible actions making $(G, \Gamma)$ into a matched pair of groups is equivalent to the data of a group $E$ together with an *exact factorization* into subgroups (isomorphic to) $G$ and $\Gamma$: that is, a group $E$ such that $E = G \Gamma$ and $G \cap \Gamma = \{e\}$. In such situation, the relevant actions $\vartriangleright$ and $\vartriangleleft$ are determined by the relations $$gx = (g \vartriangleright
x)(g \vartriangleleft x),$$ for every $x \in G$, $g \in \Gamma$.
Fix a matched pair of finite groups $(G, \Gamma)$. Consider the left action of $G$ on $k^\Gamma$ defined by $(x.
f)(g) = f(g \vartriangleleft x)$, $f \in k^\Gamma$, and let $\sigma: G \times G \to (k^*)^\Gamma$ be a normalized 2-cocycle. Dually, consider the right action of $\Gamma$ on $k^G$ given by $(w.g)(x) = w(x \vartriangleright g)$, $w \in k^G$, and let $\tau: \Gamma \times \Gamma \to (k^*)^G$ be a normalized 2-cocycle.
Under appropriate compatibility conditions between $\sigma$ and $\tau$, the vector space $H = k^\Gamma \otimes k G$ becomes a (semisimple) Hopf algebra, denoted $H = k^\Gamma \,
{}^{\tau}\#_{\sigma}kG$, with the crossed product algebra structure and the crossed coproduct coalgebra structure; see [@mk-ext],[@ma-newdir]. For all $g,h\in \Gamma$, $x, y\in G$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mult} (e_g \# x)(e_h \# y) & = \delta_{g \vartriangleleft x, h}\, \sigma_g(x,
y) e_g \# xy, \\
\label{delta} \Delta(e_g \# x) & = \sum_{st=g} \tau_x(s, t)\, e_s
\# (t \vartriangleright x) \otimes e_{t}\# x,\end{aligned}$$where $\sigma_s(x, y) = \sigma(x, y)(s)$ and $\tau_x(s, t) = \tau(s, t)(x)$, $s, t\in \Gamma$, $x, y\in G$.
Let $i: k^\Gamma \to H = k^\Gamma \,
{}^{\tau}\#_{\sigma}kG$ and $\pi: H = k^\Gamma \,
{}^{\tau}\#_{\sigma}kG \to kF$ be the Hopf algebra maps defined by $i(f) = f \# e$, $\pi(f \# g) = \varepsilon(f) g$, $f \in k^\Gamma$, $g \in G$. The Hopf algebra $H$ fits into an abelian exact sequence $$k {\longrightarrow}k^\Gamma \overset{i}{\longrightarrow}H \overset{\pi}{\longrightarrow}kG {\longrightarrow}k.$$
Moreover, every Hopf algebra $H$ fitting into an abelian exact sequence is isomorphic to a bicrossed product $k^\Gamma \, {}^{\tau}\#_{\sigma}kF$ for an appropriate matched pair $(G, \Gamma)$ and compatible actions and cocycles $\sigma$ and $\tau$. Equivalence classes of such extensions associated to a fixed matched pair $(G, \Gamma)$ form an abelian group ${\operatorname{Opext}}(k^\Gamma, kG)$, whose unit element is the class of the *split* extension $k^\Gamma \# kG$.
An example of an abelian extensions is given by the Drinfeld double $D(G)$ of a finite group $G$: the Hopf algebra $D(G)$ fits into an exact sequence $$k \longrightarrow k^G \longrightarrow D(G) \longrightarrow kG \longrightarrow k.$$ In the associated matched pair $(G, G)$, $\triangleleft: G \times G \to G$ is the adjoint action of $G$ on itself, while $\triangleright: G\times G \to G$ is the trivial action.
Jordan-H" older theorem for finite dimensional Hopf algebras {#subs-jh}
------------------------------------------------------------
The question of establishing an analogue of the Jordan-H" older theorem of group theory for finite dimensional Hopf algebras was raised by N. Andruskiewitsch in [@andrus Question 2.1] and answered in [@jh-hopf].
We start by recalling the followig definition given in [@AM].
\[def-compser\] Let $H$ be a finite dimensional Hopf algebra over a field $k$. A *composition series* of $H$ is a sequence of finite dimensional simple Hopf algebras ${\mathfrak{H}}_1, \dots, {\mathfrak{H}}_n$ defined recursively as follows: If $H$ is simple, we let $n = 1$ and ${\mathfrak{H}}_1 = H$. If $k \subsetneq A \subsetneq H$ is a normal Hopf subalgebra, and ${\mathfrak A}_1,
\dots, {\mathfrak A}_m$, ${{\mathfrak B}}_1, \dots,$ ${{\mathfrak B}}_\ell$, are composition series of $A$ and $B =
H/HA^+$, respectively, then we let $n = m+\ell$ and $${\mathfrak{H}}_i = {\mathfrak A}_i, \quad \textrm{if } 1\leq i \leq m, \quad {\mathfrak{H}}_i = {{\mathfrak B}}_{i-m},
\quad \textrm{if } m < i \leq m+\ell.$$ The Hopf algebras ${\mathfrak{H}}_1, \dots, {\mathfrak{H}}_n$ are called the *factors* of the series. The number $n$ is called the *length* of the series.
Every finite dimensional Hopf algebra admits a composition series. The following is an analogue of the Jordan-H" older theorem for finite dimensional Hopf algebras:
*([@jh-hopf Theorem 1.2].)* Let ${\mathfrak{H}}_1, \dots, {\mathfrak{H}}_n$ and ${\mathfrak{H}}'_1, \dots, {\mathfrak{H}}'_m$ be two composition series of $H$. Then there exists a bijection $f: \{1, \dots, n\} \to \{1, \dots, m\}$ such that ${\mathfrak{H}}_i \cong {\mathfrak{H}}'_{f(i)}$ as Hopf algebras.
Let $H$ be a finite dimensional Hopf algebra and let ${\mathfrak{H}}_1, \dots,$ ${\mathfrak{H}}_n$ be a composition series of $H$. The simple Hopf algebras ${\mathfrak{H}}_i$, $1\leq i\leq
n$, are called the *composition factors of $H$*. The number $n$ is called the *length of $H$*.
Let us consider for instance the case of abelian extensions. Let $G$ and $\Gamma$ be finite groups and let $H$ be an abelian extension of $k^\Gamma$ by $kG$. Then the composition factors of $H$ are the group algebras of the composition factors of $G$ and the dual group algebras of the composition factors of $\Gamma$. See [@jh-hopf Example 4.7].
In particular, if $G_1, \dots, G_n$ are the composition factors of the finite group $G$, then the composition factors of its Drinfeld double $D(G)$ are the Hopf algebras $k^{G_1}, \dots, k^{G_n}, kG_1, \dots, kG_n$.
Semisolvability and related questions {#subs-semis}
-------------------------------------
A *lower subnormal series* of a Hopf algebra $H$ is a series of Hopf subalgebras $$\label{lowerseries}k = H_{n} \subseteq H_{n-1}
\subseteq \dots
\subseteq H_1 \subseteq H_0 = H,$$ such that $H_{i+1}$ is a normal Hopf subalgebra of $H_i$, for all $i$. The *factors* of the series are the quotient Hopf algebras $H_i/H_iH_{i+1}^+$, $i = 0, \dots, n-1$.
Dually, an *upper subnormal series* of $H$ is a series of surjective Hopf algebra maps $$\label{upperseries}H = H_{(0)} \to H_{(1)}
\to \dots \to H_{(n)} = k,$$ such that $H_{(i+1)}$ is a normal quotient Hopf algebra of $H_{(i)}$, for all $i = 0, \dots, n-1$. The *factors* of are the Hopf algebras ${}^{co \,
H_{(i+1)}}H_{(i)} \subseteq H_{(i)}$, $i = 0, \dots, n-1$.
A *lower* (respectively *upper*) *composition series* of $H$ is a lower (respectively, upper) subnormal series which does not admit any proper refinement. See [@jh-hopf Section 5].
A Hopf algebra $H$ is called *lower-semisolvable* (respectively, *upper-semisolvable*) if it admits a lower (respectively, upper) subnormal series whose factors are commutative or cocommutative [@MW]. We shall say that $H$ is *semisolvable* if it is either lower or upper semisolvable.
Every semisolvable finite dimensional Hopf algebra is semisimple and cosemisimple. On the other hand, every semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension $p^n$, $p$ a prime number, is semisolvable [@masuoka], [@MW]. Moreover, if the group $G$ is nilpotent then any twisting of the group Hopf algebra $kG$ is semisolvable [@GN].
In [@jh-hopf] we proved analogues of the Zassenhaus’ butterfly lemma and the Schreier’s refinement theorem for finite dimensional Hopf algebras and, following the lines of the classical proof in group theory, applied them to prove an analogue of the Jordan-H" older theorem for lower and upper composition series of $H$.
Thus the lower and upper composition factors of $H$ and its lower and upper lengths, which are also well-defined invariants of $H$, were introduced. In contrast with the case of the composition factors, the lower or upper composition factors are not necessarily simple as Hopf algebras. This motivates the question of deciding if there is an intrinsic characterization of the Hopf algebras that can arise as lower composition factors [@jh-hopf Question 5.7].
Some properties of lower and upper composition factors and their relation with the composition factors were studied in [@jh-hopf]. Unlike for the case of the length, the lower and upper lengths are not additive with respect to exact sequences and they are not invariant under duality in general.
Neither the composition factors nor the upper or lower composition factors of a finite dimensional Hopf algebra $H$ are categorical invariants of $H$. In other words, they are not invariant under twisting deformations of $H$. In fact, there exists a (semisimple) Hopf algebra $H$ such that $H$ is simple as a Hopf algebra and $H$ is twist equivalent to the group algebra of a solvable group $G$ (see Theorem \[twist-solv\] below). In particular, the categories of finite dimensional representations of $H$ and $G$ are equivalent fusion categories.
Simple Hopf algebras {#subs-simple}
--------------------
Recall that a finite dimensional Hopf algebra is simple if it contains no proper normal Hopf subalgebras. For instance, if $G$ is a finite simple group, then the group algebra $kG$ and its dual $k^G$ are simple Hopf algebras. Furthermore, in this case, any twisting deformation of $kG$ is simple [@nik]. However, there are examples of solvable groups that admit simple twisting deformations.
Finite dimensional Hopf algebras with tensor equivalent categories of representations are obtained from one another by a twisting deformation. Properties of $H$ invariant under twisting are of special interest because they depend only on the tensor category $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$.
In the paper [@GN] we presented examples showing that the notions of simplicity and (semi)solvability of a Hopf algebra are *not* twist invariants; that is, they are not categorical notions.
Let $p$, $r$ and $q$ be prime numbers such that $q$ divides $p-1$ and $r-1$. There is a family of supersolvable groups $G$ of order $prq^2$ that can be deformed through a twist into nontrivial simple Hopf algebras.
Let us recall this construction. Let $G_1 = \mathbb Z_p \rtimes \mathbb Z_q$ and $G_2 = \mathbb Z_r \rtimes \mathbb Z_q$ be the only nonabelian groups of orders $pq$ and $rq$, respectively. Let $G = G_1 \times G_2$ and let $S \cong \mathbb Z_q \times \mathbb Z_q$ be a subgroup of $G$ order $q^2$. In particular, $G$ is supersolvable and $Z(G) = 1$.
Let $1\neq \omega \in H^2(\widehat S, k^*)$, $J\in kG
\otimes kG$ the twist lifted from $S$ corresponding to $\omega$. Let also $H = (kG)^J$. Note that the cocycle $\omega$ is nondegenerate. Also, $H$ is a noncommutative noncocommutative Hopf algebra of dimension $prq^2$.
\[twist-solv\]*([@GN Theorem 4.5].)* The Hopf algebra $H$ is simple.
The proof relied on the comparison of the (co)representation theory of the given twistings [@eg-reptriang] with that of an extension [@MW].
Certain twists of the symmetric group $\mathbb S_{n}$ on $n$ letters, $n \geq 5$, were also shown to be simple as Hopf algebras in [@GN].
As a consequence of Theorem \[twist-solv\] the analogue of Burnside’s $p^aq^b$-Theorem for finite groups does not hold for semisimple Hopf algebras.
Theorem \[twist-solv\] provides the smallest example of a noncommutative noncocommutative semisimple Hopf algebra which is simple: this appears in dimension $36$ as a twisting of $D_3\times D_3$. This turns out to be the only simple example in dimension $< 60$:
*([@ss-lowdim Theorem 1].)* Every semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension less than 60 is semisolvable up to a cocycle twist.
The previously mentioned results on simplicity of twisting deformations provide us with three examples of non-commutative non-cocommutative semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension 60 which are simple as Hopf algebras. The first two are the Hopf algebras ${{\mathcal A}}_0$ and ${{\mathcal A}}_1 \simeq {{\mathcal A}}_0^*$ constructed by D. Nikshych [@nik]. We have ${{\mathcal A}}_0 = (k\mathbb
A_5)^J$, where $J \in k\mathbb A_5 \otimes k\mathbb A_5$ is an invertible twist lifted from a nondegenerate $2$-cocycle in a subgroup of $\mathbb A_5$ isomorphic to ${{\mathbb Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$.
The third example is the self-dual Hopf algebra ${{\mathcal B}}$ constructed in [@GN]. In this case ${{\mathcal B}}= (kD_3\otimes kD_5)^J$, where $J$ is an invertible twist also lifted from a nondegenerate $2$-cocycle in a subgroup of $D_3\times D_5$ isomorphic to ${{\mathbb Z}}_2
\times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$.
As coalgebras, these examples are isomorphic to direct sums of full matric coalgebras, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coalg-a1}
{{\mathcal A}}_1 & \simeq k \oplus M_3(k)^{(2)}\oplus M_4(k)\oplus M_5(k),
\\ \label{coalg-a0} {{\mathcal A}}_0 & \simeq k^{(12)}\oplus M_4(k)^{(3)}, \\ \label{coalg-b} {{\mathcal B}}& \simeq
k^{(4)}\oplus M_2(k)^{(6)}\oplus M_4(k)^{(2)}. \end{aligned}$$ As for the group-like elements, we have $G({{\mathcal A}}_0) \simeq \mathbb A_4$ and $G({{\mathcal B}}) \simeq {{\mathbb Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$.
It was shown in [@ENO2 Theorem 9.12] that ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathcal A}}_0 \simeq {\operatorname{Rep}}\mathbb A_5$ is the only fusion category of dimension $60$ which contains no proper fusion subcategories.
The following theorem was shown in [@sixty], answering Question 2.4 in [@andrus].
*([@sixty Theorem 1.4].)* Let $H$ be a nontrivial semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension $60$. Suppose $H$ is simple. Then $H$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal A}}_0$ or to ${{\mathcal A}}_1$ or to ${{\mathcal B}}$.
Exact sequences of tensor categories {#exact-rk1}
====================================
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ be tensor categories over $k$. A tensor functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ is called *dominant* (or *surjective*) if every object of ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is a subobject of $F(X)$ for some object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$. If ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is a finite tensor category, then $F$ is dominant if and only if every object of ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is a subquotient of $F(X)$ for some object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$; see [@eg-emc Lemma 2.3].
A tensor functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ is called *normal* if for every object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$, there exists a subobject $X_0 \subset X$ such that $F(X_0)$ is the largest trivial subobject of $F(X)$.
For a tensor functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$, let ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$ denote the tensor subcategory $F^{-1}(\langle { \mathbf{1}}\rangle) \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}$ of objects $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ such that $F(X)$ is a trivial object of ${{\mathcal C}}''$. If the functor $F$ has a right adjoint $R$, then $F$ is normal if and only if $R({ \mathbf{1}})$ belongs to ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$ [@tensor-exact Proposition 3.5].
\[exact-rk1\]Let ${{\mathcal C}}', {{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal C}}''$ be tensor categories over $k$. An *exact sequence of tensor categories* is a sequence of tensor functors $$\label{exacta-fusion}{{\mathcal C}}' \overset{f}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}\overset{F}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'',$$ such that the tensor functor $F$ is dominant and normal and the tensor functor $f$ is a full embedding whose essential image is ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$ [@tensor-exact].
If ${{\mathcal C}}$ fits into an exact sequence , we say that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is an *extension of ${{\mathcal C}}''$ by ${{\mathcal C}}'$*.
Every exact sequence of tensor categories defines a fiber functor on the kernel ${{\mathcal C}}'$: $$\omega={\operatorname{Hom}}({\textbf{1}},Ff) : {{\mathcal C}}' \to {\operatorname{Vec}}.$$
The *induced Hopf algebra* $H$ of the exact sequence is defined as $$H = {\operatorname{coend}}(\omega);$$ see [@tensor-exact Subsection 3.3]. Thus there is an equivalence of tensor categories ${{\mathcal C}}' \cong {\operatorname{comod}\!-\!}H$ such that the following diagram of tensor functors is commutative: $$\xymatrix{{{\mathcal C}}' \ar[r]^{\cong \quad } \ar[rd]_{\omega} & {\operatorname{comod}\!-\!}H \ar[d]^{U}\\ & {\operatorname{Vec}}.}$$
The induced Hopf algebra $H$ of is finite-dimensional if and only if the tensor functor $F$ admits adjoints [@tensor-exact Proposition 2.15]. Hence if ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ are finite tensor categories, then so is ${{\mathcal C}}$.
The fiber functor $\omega$ corresponds to a (rank one) ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category structure on ${\operatorname{Vec}}$, that we shall denote by ${\mathcal{M}}$ (see [@ostrik Proposition 4.1]). Assume that $H$ is finite dimensional. As a consequence of [@ostrik Theorem 4.2] we obtain the following relation between ${\mathcal{M}}$ and the induced Hopf algebra: $$({{\mathcal C}}')^*_{\mathcal{M}}\cong H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}.$$
Examples from exact sequences of Hopf algebras {#subs-exactahopf}
----------------------------------------------
All Hopf algebras considered in this subsection are assumed to have a bijective antipode.
Let $f : H_1 \to H_2$ be a Hopf algebra map. Then $f$ induces by restriction tensor functors $$f_* : {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H_1} \to {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H_2}, \qquad f^* : H_2{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}\to H_1{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}.$$
The functor $f_* : {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H_1} \to {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H_2}$ is dominant if and only if the functor $\underline{\quad} \square_{H_2}H_1 : \operatorname{Comod}\!\mbox{-}{H_2} \to \operatorname{Comod}\!\mbox{-}{H_1}$ is faithful. On the other hand, if $f$ is injective and $H_2$ is finite-dimensional, then $f^* : H_2{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}\to H_1{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$ is dominant. See [@tensor-exact Lemma 2.11].
Recall that the map $f$ has a kernel and a cokernel in the category of Hopf algebras, called the *categorical kernel* and the *categorical cokernel* of $f$, and defined, respectively, in the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Hker}}(f)&=\{h \in H_1 \mid h_{(1)} \otimes f(h_{(2)}) \otimes h_{(3)} = h_{(1)} \otimes 1 \otimes h_{(2)} \}\\
{\operatorname{Hcoker}}(f)&=H_2/H_2 f(H_1^+)H_2.\end{aligned}$$
The following proposition describes the kernels of the tensor functors induced by a Hopf algebra map.
*([@tensor-exact Lemma 2.10].)* Let $f : H \to H'$ be a morphism of Hopf algebras over a field, and let $$f_*: {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}\to {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H'}, \qquad f^* : H'{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}\to H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$$ be the tensor functors induced by $f$. Then the following hold:
1. ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_{f_*}= {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} {\operatorname{Hker}}(f)}$. Moreover the tensor functor $f_*$ is normal if and only if $H^{co H'}=\,^{co H'}\!\!H$, and in this case ${\operatorname{Hker}}(f)=H^{co H'}$.
2. ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_{f^*}= {\operatorname{Hcoker}}(f){\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$. Moreover the tensor functor $f^*$ is normal if $f(H)$ is a normal Hopf subalgebra of $H'$, and in this case ${\operatorname{Hcoker}}(f)={H'/H'f(H^+)}$.
We shall say that an exact sequence of Hopf algebras $$\label{st-exact}
k {\longrightarrow}H' \overset{i}{\longrightarrow}H \overset{\pi}{\longrightarrow}H'' {\longrightarrow}k,$$ is *strictly exact* if $H$ is faithfully coflat over $H''$.
\[rmk-st-exact\] Notice that, since the antipode of $H$ is bijective, $H$ is right faithfully coflat over $H''$ if and only if it is left faithfully coflat over $H''$. Moreover, if this is the case, then $\pi$ is normal if and only if $^{co \pi}H = H^{co \pi}$. See [@takeuchi]. Observe in addition that the antipode of $H$ induces an anti-isomorphism of algebras $\mathcal S: {}^{co \pi}H \to H^{co \pi}$ with inverse $\mathcal S^{-1}: H^{co \pi} \to {}^{co \pi}H$. In particular, if $i(H') = {}^{co \pi}H$, then ${}^{co \pi}H$ (being a Hopf subalgebra) is stable under the antipode and therefore $^{co \pi}H = H^{co \pi}$.
Assume that the sequence is strictly exact. Then, as can be seen from the facts recalled in Remark \[rmk-st-exact\], it is a *strictly exact sequence of Hopf algebras* in the sense of [@schneider], that is, the following condiditions hold:
(a) $\pi$ is a normal Hopf algebra map,
(b) $H$ is right faithfully coflat over $H''$,
(c) $i(H') = {\operatorname{Hker}}\pi$.
These conditions are furthermore equivalent to the following:
1. $H'$ is a normal Hopf subalgebra of $H$,
2. $H$ is right faithfully flat over $H'$,
3. $H'' = {\operatorname{Hcoker}}i$.
In this way we obtain:
*([@tensor-exact Proposition 3.9].)* Every strictly exact sequence of Hopf algebras gives rise to an exact sequence of tensor categories $${\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H'} \overset{i_*}{\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H} \overset{\pi_*}{\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H''}.$$ If in addition $H$ is finite-dimensional, it also gives rise to an exact sequence of tensor categories: $$H''{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}\overset{\pi^*}{\longrightarrow}H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}\overset{i^*}{\longrightarrow}H'{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}.$$
For instance, an exact sequence of groups $1{\longrightarrow}G' {\longrightarrow}G {\longrightarrow}G''{\longrightarrow}1$ gives rise to an exact sequence of tensor categories $${\operatorname{Vec}}_{G'} {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{G} {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{G''},$$ and if $G$ is finite, to an exact sequence $${\operatorname{Rep}}G'' {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Rep}}G'.$$
Extensions and normal Hopf monads
---------------------------------
We refer the reader to [@BV], [@BLV] for the notion of Hopf monad on a monoidal category.
Let $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ be a tensor functor between tensor categories and *assume that $F$ admits a left adjoint $G$*. Then the composition $FG: {{\mathcal C}}'' \to {{\mathcal C}}''$ is a $k$-linear right exact Hopf monad on ${{\mathcal C}}''$, and ${{\mathcal C}}$ is tensor equivalent to the category $({{\mathcal C}}'')^T$ of $T$-modules in ${{\mathcal C}}''$.
The functor $F$ is dominant if and only if $T$ is faithful [@tensor-exact Proposition 4.1].
A Hopf monad $T$ on a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is called *normal* if $T({\textbf{1}})$ is a trivial object of ${{\mathcal C}}''$. When $T$ is the Hopf monad corresponding to $F$ as above, the normality of $T$ is equivalent to the normality of $F$ [@tensor-exact Proposition 4.6].
Normal faithful Hopf monads classify extensions of tensor categories in view of the following theorem:
*([@tensor-exact Theorem 4.8].)*\[thm-ex-nhm\] Let ${{\mathcal C}}'$, ${{\mathcal C}}''$ be tensor categories and assume that ${{\mathcal C}}'$ is finite. Then the following data are equivalent:
1. A normal faithful $k$-linear right exact Hopf monad $T$ on ${{\mathcal C}}''$, with induced Hopf algebra $H$, endowed with a tensor equivalence $K :{{\mathcal C}}' \cong {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}$;
2. An extension ${{\mathcal C}}' \to {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ of ${{\mathcal C}}''$ by ${{\mathcal C}}'$.
Under the correspondence established by Theorem \[thm-ex-nhm\], the induced Hopf algebra of the exact sequence ${{\mathcal C}}' \to {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ is identified with the Hopf monad of the restriction of $T$ to the trivial subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}''$.
Perfect exact sequences and central commutative algebras {#pft-exact}
--------------------------------------------------------
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ be tensor categories. A tensor functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ is called *perfect* if it admits an exact right adjoint [@indp-exact Subsection 2.1].
Every tensor functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ between finite tensor categories ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is perfect [@char-crossed-action Lemma 2.1].
Let $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}''$ be a dominant perfect tensor functor and let $R: {{\mathcal C}}'' \to {{\mathcal C}}$ be a right adjoint of $F$ and let $A = R({\textbf{1}})$. Then there exists a half-braiding $\sigma$ on $A$ such that $(A, \sigma)$ is a commutative algebra in the Drinfeld center ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$, which satisfies ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\textbf{1}}, A) \cong k$. The algebra $(A, \sigma)$ is called the *induced central algebra of $F$* [@tensor-exact Section 6].
The category ${{\mathcal C}}_A$ or right $A$-modules in ${{\mathcal C}}$ becomes a tensor category with tensor product $\otimes_A$ and unit object $A$, equipped with a tensor functor $F_A = ? \otimes A: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}_A$. Furthermore, there is an equivalence of tensor categories $\kappa: {{\mathcal C}}'' \to {{\mathcal C}}_A$ such that the following diagram of tensor functors is commutative up to a monoidal natural isomorphism $$\xymatrix{{{\mathcal C}}\ar[r]^{F} \ar[rd]_{F_A} & {{\mathcal C}}'' \ar[d]^{\kappa}\\ & {{\mathcal C}}_A.}$$
For instance, let $H$ be a finite dimensional Hopf algebra. Then the induced central algebra $(A,\sigma)$ of the forgetful functor ${\operatorname{comod}\!-\!}H \to {\operatorname{Vec}}_k$ can be described as follows: As an algebra in ${\operatorname{comod}\!-\!}H$, $A=H$ with the right regular coaction $\Delta: A \to A \otimes H$. For any right $H$-comodule $V$, the half-braiding $\sigma_V: A \otimes V \to V \otimes A$ is determined by the right adjoint action of $H$ in the form $$\sigma_{V}(h \otimes v) = v_{(0)} \otimes S(v_{(1)})\, h\, v_{(2)}, \quad h \in H, v \in V.$$ See [@tensor-exact Example 6.3].
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a tensor category. We shall say that an algebra $(A, \sigma)$ in the center ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ is a *central algebra of* ${{\mathcal C}}$ if $(A, \sigma)$ is the induced central algebra of some dominant perfect tensor functor. Thus a central algebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a commutative algebra $(A, \sigma) \in {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal C}}({\textbf{1}}, A)$ is one-dimensional. The dominant tensor functor corresponding to $(A, \sigma)$ is the functor $- \otimes A: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}_A$, whose right adjoint is the forgetful functor ${{\mathcal C}}_A \to {{\mathcal C}}$.
An exact sequence sequence of tensor categories ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}\overset{F}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}''$ is called a *perfect exact sequence* if $F$ is a perfect tensor functor.
Every exact sequence of finite tensor categories is a perfect exact sequence. In addition, in every perfect exact sequence ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}\overset{F}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}''$, the kernel ${{\mathcal C}}'$ is a finite tensor category; see [@tensor-exact Proposition 3.15]. Thus the induced Hopf algebra of a perfect exact sequence is always finite dimensional.
Let $({{\mathcal E}}): \; {{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}''$ be a perfect exact sequence and let $(A, \sigma) \in {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ be the induced central algebra of $F$. Then $(A, \sigma)$ is *self-trivializing*, that is, $A \otimes A$ is a trivial object of ${{\mathcal C}}_A$. Let $\langle A \rangle$ be the smallest abelian subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ containing $A$ and stable under direct sums, subobjects and quotients. Then $F_A: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}_A$ is a normal dominant tensor functor with ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_{F_A} = \langle A \rangle$. Moreover, $({{\mathcal E}})$ is equivalent to the exact sequence $$\langle A \rangle {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}\overset{F_A}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}_A.$$ See [@tensor-exact Subsection 6.2].
Examples from finite groups: equivariantization and crossed extensions by matched pairs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $G$ be a finite group and let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a tensor category. A monoidal functor $\rho: \underline G^{{\operatorname{op}}} \to {\operatorname{Aut}}_k({{\mathcal C}})$ is called a right action of $G$ on ${{\mathcal C}}$ by $k$-linear autoequivalences.
The *equivariantization* of ${{\mathcal C}}$ under the action $\rho$ is the $k$-linear abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}^G$ whose objects are pairs $(X, r)$, where $X$ is an object of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and $r = (r^g)_{g \in G}$ is a collection of isomorphisms $r^g:\rho^g(X)
\to X$, $g \in G$, such that for all $g, h \in G$, $$\label{deltau} r^g \rho^g(r^h) = r^{hg} (\rho^{g,
h}_2)_X,$$ where $\rho_2^{g, h}:\rho^g\rho^h \to \rho^{hg}$ is the monoidal structure of $\rho$, and $r^e{\rho_0}_X={\operatorname{id}}_X$. A morphism $f: (X, r) \to
(Y, r')$ is a morphism $f: X \to Y$ in ${{\mathcal C}}$ such that $fr^g = {r'}^g\rho^g(f)$, for all $g \in G$.
The forgetful functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}^G \to {{\mathcal C}}$ gives rise to a perfect exact sequence of tensor categories $$\label{equiv-exact}
{\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}^G \overset{F}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}},$$ with induced Hopf algebra $H \cong k^G$ [@tensor-exact Subsection 5.3]. An exact sequence of tensor categories equivalent to is called an *equivantization exact sequence*.
A *$G$-grading* of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a decomposition ${{\mathcal C}}= \bigoplus_{g \in G}{{\mathcal C}}_g$ into abelian subcategories ${{\mathcal C}}_g$, called the *homogeneous components* of the grading, such that $${{\mathcal C}}_g \otimes {{\mathcal C}}_h \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}_{gh},$$ for all $g, h \in G$. The neutral homogeneous component ${{\mathcal C}}_e$ is a tensor subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$. A $G$-grading ${{\mathcal C}}= \bigoplus_{g \in G}{{\mathcal C}}_g$ is faithful if ${{\mathcal C}}_g \neq 0$, for all $g \in G$.
Every finite tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ has a faithful universal grading ${{\mathcal C}}= \bigoplus_{u \in U({{\mathcal C}})}{{\mathcal C}}_u$, with neutral homogeneous component ${{\mathcal C}}_e$ equal to the adjoint subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}_{ad}$, that is, the smallest tensor Serre subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ containing the objects $X \otimes X^*$, where $X$ runs over the simple objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$. The group $U({{\mathcal C}})$ is called the *universal grading group* of ${{\mathcal C}}$.
The upper central series of ${{\mathcal C}}$, $\dots \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}^{(n+1)} \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}^{(n)} \subseteq \dots \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}^{(0)} = {{\mathcal C}}$, is defined as ${{\mathcal C}}^{(0)} = {{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}^{(n+1)} = ({{\mathcal C}}^{(n)})_{ad}$, for all $n \geq 0$. A tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called *nilpotent* if there exists some $n \geq 0$ such that ${{\mathcal C}}^{(n)} \cong {\operatorname{Vec}}$. See [@EGNO Section 3.5 and 4.14], [@gel-nik].
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a tensor category and let $(G, \Gamma)$ be a matched pair of groups. A $(G, \Gamma)$-*crossed action* on ${{\mathcal C}}$ consists of the following data:
- A $\Gamma$-grading ${{\mathcal C}}= \bigoplus_{s \in \Gamma}
{{\mathcal C}}_s$.
- A right action of $G$ by $k$-linear autoequivalences $\rho:
\underline{G}^{{\operatorname{op}}} \to {\operatorname{Aut}}_k({{\mathcal C}})$ such that $$\label{rho-partial} \rho^g({{\mathcal C}}_s) = {{\mathcal C}}_{s \lhd g},\quad \forall
g\in G, \, s\in \Gamma,$$
- A collection of natural isomorphisms $\gamma = (\gamma^g)_{g\in G}$: $$\label{gamma}\gamma^g_{X, Y}: \rho^g(X \otimes Y) \to
\rho^{t\rhd g}(X) \otimes \rho^g(Y), \quad X \in {{\mathcal C}}, \, t\in \Gamma,\, Y \in
{{\mathcal C}}_t,$$
- A collection of isomorphisms $\gamma^g_0: \rho^g({ \mathbf{1}}) \to { \mathbf{1}}$, $g \in
G$.
These data are subject to the commutativity of the following diagrams:
- For all $g \in G$, $X \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $s, t \in \Gamma$, $Y
\in {{\mathcal C}}_s$, $Z
\in {{\mathcal C}}_t$, $$\xymatrix @C=0.6in @R=0.45in{
\rho^g(X \otimes Y \otimes Z) \ar[rr]^{\gamma^g_{X\otimes Y, Z}}
\ar[d]_{\gamma^g_{X, Y \otimes Z}} & & \rho^{t \rhd g}(X \otimes Y) \otimes
\rho^g(Z) \ar[d]^{\gamma^{t\rhd g}_{X, Y} \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_{\rho^g(Z)}} \\
\rho^{st \rhd g}(X) \otimes \rho^g(Y \otimes Z)\ar[rr]_{{\operatorname{id}}_{\rho^{st \rhd
g}(X)}
\otimes \gamma^g_{Y, Z} \qquad }&& \rho^{s \rhd (t \rhd g)}(X) \otimes \rho^{t
\rhd g}(Y) \otimes \rho^g(Z)}$$
- For all $g \in G$, $X \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $$\xymatrix @C=0.6in @R=0.45in{
\rho^g(X) \otimes \rho^g({ \mathbf{1}}) \ar[dr]_{{\operatorname{id}}_{\rho^g(X)} \otimes \gamma^g_0
\quad } & \ar[l]_{\quad \gamma^g_{X, { \mathbf{1}}}} \rho^g(X) \ar[d]^=
\ar[r]^{\gamma^g_{{ \mathbf{1}}, X} \quad } & \rho^g({ \mathbf{1}}) \otimes \rho^g(X)
\ar[dl]^{\gamma^g_0 \otimes {\operatorname{id}}_{\rho^g(X)}} \\
& \rho^g(X) }$$
- For all $g, h \in G$, $X \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $s\in \Gamma$, $Y \in {{\mathcal C}}_s$, $$\xymatrix@C=0.6in @R=0.45in{
\rho^g\rho^h(X\otimes Y) \ar[dd]_{\rho^g(\gamma^h_{X, Y})} \ar[r]^{{\rho_2}_{X
\otimes Y}^{g, h}} & \rho^{hg}(X \otimes Y) \ar[d]^{\gamma^{hg}_{X, Y}} \\
& \rho^{s \rhd hg}(X) \otimes \rho^{hg}(Y) \\
\rho^g(\rho^{s\rhd h}(X) \otimes \rho^h(Y)) \ar[r]_{\gamma^g_{\rho^{s\rhd h}(X),
\rho^h(Y)}} & \rho^{(s\lhd h)\rhd g}\rho^{s\rhd h}(X) \otimes \rho^g\rho^h(Y)
\ar[u]_{{\rho_2}_X^{(s\lhd h) \rhd g, s \rhd h} \otimes
{\rho_2}_Y^{g, h}} }$$
- For all $g, h \in G$, $$\xymatrix@C=0.6in @R=0.45in{
\rho^g\rho^h({ \mathbf{1}}) \ar[d]_{\rho^{g}(\gamma^h_0)} \ar[r]^{(\rho_2^{g, h})_{{ \mathbf{1}}}}
& \rho^{hg}({ \mathbf{1}}) \ar[d]^{\gamma^{hg}_0} \\
\rho^g({ \mathbf{1}}) \ar[r]_{\gamma^{g}_0} & { \mathbf{1}}}$$
- For all $X \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $s \in \Gamma$, $Y \in {{\mathcal C}}_s$, $$\xymatrix@C=0.6in @R=0.45in{
X\otimes Y \ar[dr]_{{\rho_0}_X \otimes {\rho_0}_Y} \ar[r]^{{\rho_0}_{X\otimes
Y}} & \rho^e(X\otimes Y) \ar[d]^{\gamma^{e}_{X, Y}} \\
& \rho^e(X)\otimes \rho^e(Y)}
\xymatrix@C=0.6in @R=0.45in{
{ \mathbf{1}}\ar[dr]_= \ar[r]^{{\rho_0}_{ \mathbf{1}}} & \rho^e({\textbf{1}}) \ar[d]^{\gamma^e_0}
\\
& { \mathbf{1}}}$$
We say that a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a *$(G, \Gamma)$-crossed tensor category* if it is equipped with a $(G, \Gamma)$-crossed action. In this case there is a canonical exact sequence of tensor categories $$\label{c-abelian}{\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}^{(G, \Gamma)} \overset{F}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}},$$ where ${{\mathcal C}}^{(G, \Gamma)}$ is the tensor category defined as follows: As a $k$-linear category, it is the equivariantization ${{\mathcal C}}^G$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ under the action $\rho$, while the tensor product is defined in the form $(X, r) \otimes (Y, r') = (X \otimes Y, \tilde
r)$, where ${\tilde r}^g$, $g \in G$, is the composition $$\bigoplus_{s \in \Gamma} \rho^g(X \otimes Y_s)
\overset{\oplus_s\gamma^g_{X, Y_s}}{\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{s \in \Gamma} \rho^{s \rhd
g}(X) \otimes \rho^g(Y_s) \overset{\oplus_s r^{s \rhd g} \otimes {r'}^g_s}{\longrightarrow}\bigoplus_{s \in \Gamma} X \otimes Y_{s\lhd g} = X \otimes Y,$$ for $Y = \bigoplus_{s \in \Gamma}Y_s$, $Y_s \in {{\mathcal C}}_s$. The functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}^{(G, \Gamma)} \to {{\mathcal C}}$ is the forgetful functor $F(V, (r^g)_{g \in G}) = V$. See [@crossed-action Theorem 6.1].
We call ${{\mathcal C}}^{(G, \Gamma)}$ a *$(G, \Gamma)$-crossed extension of ${{\mathcal C}}_e$*. Thus, a $(G, \Gamma)$-crossed extension is a unified formulation of equivariantizations and group graded extensions. In fact, suppose that $\rho: \underline{G}^{op} \to {\operatorname{Aut}}_{\otimes}({{\mathcal C}})$ is an action by tensor auto-equivalences of a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$. Then the equivariantization ${{\mathcal C}}^G$ is a $(G, \{e\})$-crossed extension of ${{\mathcal C}}$, where $\{e\}$ is the trivial group endowed with the trivial actions $\lhd: \{e\} \times G \to G$ and $\rhd: \{e\} \times G \to \{e\}$. On the other hand, if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a tensor category graded by a group $\Gamma$, then ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a $(\{e\}, \Gamma)$-crossed extension of ${{\mathcal C}}_e$ in a similar way.
Further examples of $(G, \Gamma)$-crossed extensions are the categories of representations of abelian extensions of Hopf algebras. Indeed for abelian every exact sequence $k {\longrightarrow}k^\Gamma {\longrightarrow}H {\longrightarrow}kG {\longrightarrow}k$, the category $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$ is a $(G, \Gamma)$-crossed extension of ${\operatorname{Vec}}$. See [@crossed-action Subsection 8.2].
There exist $(G, \Gamma)$-crossed extensions that cannot be built up by means of equivariantizations or group graded extensions. For instance, let $n \geq 5$ be an odd integer and let $H = k^{{\mathbb A}_{n-1}} \# kC_n$, $n \geq 5$, be the bicrossed product associated to the matched pair $(C_n, {\mathbb A}_{n-1})$ arising from the exact factorization ${\mathbb A}_{n} = {\mathbb A}_{n-1} C_n$ of the alternating group ${\mathbb A}_n$, where $C_n = \langle (12\dots n)\rangle$ [@mk-ext Section 8].
As shown in [@char-crossed-action Example 4.3], if $G$ is a nontrivial finite group, then $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$ is not equivalent to a $G$-equivariantization or to a $G$-graded extension of any fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}$.
Abelian exact sequences of tensor categories and matched pairs of groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
([@char-crossed-action Definition 5.1].) An exact sequence of tensor categories is an *abelian exact sequence* if its induced Hopf algebra $H$ is finite dimensional and commutative.
Equivalently, an abelian exact sequence is an exact sequence of the form $${\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'',$$ such that the induced tensor functor $\omega: {\operatorname{Rep}}G \to {\operatorname{Vec}}$ is monoidally isomorphic to the forgetful functor or, in other words, such that the corresponding rank-one module category ${\mathcal{M}}$ is equivalent to the trivial rank-one module category of ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$.
Examples of abelian exact sequences of tensor categories arise from equivariantization under the action of a finite group on a tensor category and also from Hopf algebra extensions of the form $$k {\longrightarrow}k^G {\longrightarrow}H {\longrightarrow}H'' {\longrightarrow}k,$$ where $G$ is a finite group.
Let $(G, \Gamma)$ be a matched pair of finite groups and let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a $(G, \Gamma)$-crossed tensor category. The induced Hopf algebra of the associated exact sequence of tensor categories $${\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}^{(G, \Gamma)} \overset{F}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}$$ is $H \cong k^G$, so that is an abelian exact sequence. The main result of [@char-crossed-action] says that crossed extensions by matched pairs do in fact exhaust the class of abelian exact sequences of finite tensor categories:
*([@char-crossed-action Theorem 1.1].)* Let $G$ be a finite group and let $$({{\mathcal E}}): \; {\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}$$ be an abelian exact sequence of finite tensor categories. Then there exists a finite group $\Gamma$ endowed with mutual actions by permutations $\rhd: \Gamma \times G \to G$, $\lhd: \Gamma \times G \to \Gamma$ and a $(G, \Gamma)$-crossed action on ${{\mathcal D}}$ such that $({{\mathcal E}})$ is equivalent to the exact sequence ${\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}^{(G, \Gamma)} {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}$.
Exact sequences of finite tensor categories with respect to a module category {#s-emc}
=============================================================================
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ be finite $k$-linear abelian categories. Their *Deligne tensor product* is a finite tensor category denoted ${{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal D}}$ endowed with a functor $\boxtimes: {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal D}}$ exact in both variables such that for any $k$-bilinear right exact functor $F : {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal A}}$, where ${{\mathcal A}}$ is a $k$-linear abelian category, there exists a unique right exact functor $\tilde F : {{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal D}}\to {{\mathcal A}}$ such that $\tilde F \circ \boxtimes = F$. Such a category exists and it is unique up to equivalence. In fact, if ${{\mathcal C}}\cong A\textrm{-mod}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}\cong B\textrm{-mod}$, for some finite dimensional $k$-algebras $A$ and $B$, then ${{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal D}}\cong (A\otimes
B)\textrm{-mod}$. See [@deligne-t]. The tensor product of two finite (multi-)tensor categories ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ is again a finite tensor category and if ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ are (multi-)fusion categories, then so is ${{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal D}}$.
Let $Y, Z$ be objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$, respectively, and let us denote $Y \boxtimes Z = \boxtimes(Y, Z)$. Then ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal D}}}(Y_1 \boxtimes Z_1, Y_2 \boxtimes Z_2) \cong {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}(Y_1, Y_2) \otimes {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathcal D}}}(Z_1, Z_2)$, for all $Y_1, Y_2 \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $Z_1, Z_2 \in {{\mathcal D}}$. The simple objects of ${{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal D}}$ are exactly those of the form $Y \boxtimes Z$, where $Y$ is a simple object of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and $Z$ is a simple object of ${{\mathcal D}}$.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}' \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ be finite tensor categories and let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be an exact indecomposable left ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category. In particular, ${\mathcal{M}}$ is finite. Let ${\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ denote the category of $k$-linear right exact endofunctors of ${\mathcal{M}}$, which is a monoidal category with tensor product given by composition of functors and unit object $1_{\mathcal{M}}:{\mathcal{M}}\to {\mathcal{M}}$. Let also $i: {{\mathcal C}}'
\to {{\mathcal C}}$ denote the inclusion functor.
An exact sequence of tensor categories *with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$* is a sequence of exact monoidal functors $$\label{exact-m} \quad {{\mathcal C}}' \overset{i}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal C}}\overset{F}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}}),$$ such that $F$ is dominant, ${{\mathcal C}}' = {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$ coincides with the subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ mapped to ${\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ under $F$ and, $F$ is normal in the sense that for every object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$, there exists a subobject $X_0$ of $X$ such that $F(X_0)$ is the largest subobject of $F(X)$ contained in ${\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$.
A tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ fitting into an exact sequence \[exact-m\] with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$ is called an *extension of ${{\mathcal C}}''$ by ${{\mathcal C}}'$ with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$*.
The notion of exact sequence with respect to a module category was introduced in [@eg-emc] and it generalizes the notion of exact sequence of [@tensor-exact]. Indeed, suppose that is an exact sequence of finite tensor categories with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$. Then ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}= {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}' {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}''$. Moreover this condition characterizes the exactness of under the assumptions that $F$ is dominant and ${{\mathcal C}}' \subseteq {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$ [@eg-emc Theorem 3.6].
Consider an exact sequence of finite tensor categories $$\label{wrt-rk1}
{{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'',$$ as introduced in Section \[exact-rk1\]. Then induces a fiber functor $\omega: {{\mathcal C}}' \to {\operatorname{Vec}}$, thus making ${\mathcal{M}}= {\operatorname{Vec}}$ into a rank-one ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category. In this way becomes an exact module category *with respect to the rank-one module category ${\mathcal{M}}$*.
The Deligne tensor product ${{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {{\mathcal C}}'$ of two finite tensor categories gives rise to an exact sequence with respect to any exact indecomposable ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category ${\mathcal{M}}$, where $F: {{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {{\mathcal C}}' \to {{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is the natural dominant monoidal functor. [@eg-emc].
The notion of exact sequence with respect to a module category is self-dual in the following sense: Let ${\mathcal{N}}$ be an indecomposable exact ${{\mathcal C}}''$-module category. Then induces an exact sequence with respect to ${\mathcal{N}}$: $$\label{exact-n} \quad ({{\mathcal C}}'')^*_{\mathcal{N}}\overset{F^*}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal C}}^*_{{\mathcal{N}}\boxtimes {\mathcal{M}}}
\overset{i^*}\longrightarrow ({{\mathcal C}}')^*_{\mathcal{M}}\boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{N}}).$$
Suppose that is an exact sequence with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$. Observe that if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a fusion category, then ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ are fusion categories and ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a finite semisimple ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category.
Assume conversely that ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ are fusion categories. In particular ${\mathcal{M}}$ is a finite semisimple module category over ${{\mathcal C}}'$. By [@eg-emc Theorem 3.8] ${{\mathcal C}}$ is also a fusion category. In this case the monoidal category ${\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}}) \cong \leftidx{^\vee}{\!}{}{\mathcal{M}}\boxtimes {\mathcal{M}}$ is a multifusion category. Here, $\leftidx{^\vee}{\!}{}{\mathcal{M}}$ is the right ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category such that $\leftidx{^\vee}{\!}{}{\mathcal{M}}= {\mathcal{M}}$ and $M \bar\otimes X = {}^*X \otimes M$, $X \in {{\mathcal C}}'$, $M \in {\mathcal{M}}$; that is, if ${\mathcal{M}}\cong {{\mathcal C}}'_A$ is the category of right $A$-modules in ${{\mathcal C}}'$ for some indecomposable algebra $A \in {{\mathcal C}}'$, then $\leftidx{^\vee}{\!}{}{\mathcal{M}}\cong {}_A{{\mathcal C}}'$.
\[quotient-pt\] Let ${{\mathcal C}}' \overset{i}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal C}}\overset{F}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ be an exact sequence with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$. If ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a pointed fusion category, then so is ${{\mathcal C}}''$.
By assumption every simple object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is invertible, that is, $X \otimes X^* \cong {\textbf{1}}$. Let $1_{\mathcal{M}}= \bigoplus_{i\in I} 1_i$ be a decomposition of the unit object $1_{\mathcal{M}}$ of ${\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ into a direct sum of simple subobjects $1_i$, $i \in I$. Then $1_i \otimes 1_j \cong \delta_{i, j} 1_i$, and $1_i^* \cong {}^*1_i \cong 1_i$, for all $i, j \in I$; see [@EGNO Section 4.3].
Let $Y$ be a simple object of ${{\mathcal C}}''$. For each fixed $i \in I$, $Y \boxtimes 1_i$ is a simple object of ${{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$. Since the functor $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is dominant, then $Y \boxtimes 1_i$ is a direct summand of $F(X)$ for some simple object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$. Therefore $(Y \boxtimes 1_i) \boxtimes (Y \boxtimes 1_i)^* \cong (Y\otimes Y^*) \boxtimes 1_i$ is a direct summand of $F(X) \otimes F(X)^*$. On the other hand, $$F(X \otimes X^*) \cong F({\textbf{1}}) \cong {\textbf{1}}_{{{\mathcal C}}\boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})} \cong {\textbf{1}}\boxtimes 1_{\mathcal{M}}\cong \bigoplus_{i\in I} {\textbf{1}}\boxtimes 1_i.$$ Therefore the only simple constituent of $Y \otimes Y^*$ is the trivial object ${\textbf{1}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}''$. This implies that $Y \otimes Y^* \cong {\textbf{1}}$, that is, $Y$ is invertible. Since the simple object $Y$ was arbitrary, this shows that ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is pointed, as claimed.
Exact sequences and exact factorizations
----------------------------------------
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a fusion category. Recall from [@gelaki] that an ${{\mathcal C}}$ is endowed with an *exact factorization* into a product of two fusion subcategories ${{\mathcal A}}$ and ${{\mathcal B}}$ if the following conditions hold:
- ${{\mathcal C}}$ coincides with the full abelian subcategory spanned by direct summands of $X \otimes Y$, $X \in {{\mathcal A}}$, $Y \in {{\mathcal B}}$,
- ${{\mathcal A}}\cap {{\mathcal B}}= \langle {\textbf{1}}\rangle$.
If this holds, we write ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal A}}\bullet {{\mathcal B}}$.
By [@gelaki Theorem 3.8], ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal A}}\bullet {{\mathcal B}}$ if and only if every simple object $Z$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ admits a decomposition $Z \cong X \otimes Y$, for unique (up to isomorphism) simple objects $X \in {{\mathcal A}}$, $Y \in {{\mathcal B}}$.
Thus the notion of an exact factorization can be formulated as a category equivalence as follows: ${{\mathcal C}}$ has an exact factorization ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal A}}\bullet {{\mathcal B}}$ if and only if the tensor product of ${{\mathcal C}}$ induces an equivalence of $k$-linear categories $$\otimes : {{\mathcal A}}\boxtimes {{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal C}}.$$
For example, let $E$ be a finite group. Exact factorizations of $E$ correspond exactly to exact factorizations of the category ${\operatorname{Vec}}_E$. In fact, if $\Gamma$ and $G$ are subgroups of $E$, then $E = \Gamma G$ is an exact factorization of $E$ if and only if ${\operatorname{Vec}}_E = {\operatorname{Vec}}_\Gamma \bullet {\operatorname{Vec}}_G$ is an exact factorization of ${\operatorname{Vec}}_E$.
Exact factorizations and extensions are related as follows: Every exact sequence ${{\mathcal C}}' \overset{i}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal C}}\overset{F}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$ induces an exact factorization of the dual fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\mathcal{M}}}$: $${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\mathcal{M}}} = {{\mathcal C}}'' \bullet ({{\mathcal C}}')^*_{\mathcal{M}}.$$
Conversely, every exact factorization ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal A}}\bullet {{\mathcal B}}$ of a fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}$ induces an exact sequence, with respect to any indecomposable ${{\mathcal A}}$-module category ${\mathcal{N}}$ $${{\mathcal A}}^*_{{\mathcal{N}}} {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}^*_{{{\mathcal B}}\boxtimes {\mathcal{N}}} {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal B}}\boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{N}}).$$ In particular, ${{\mathcal C}}$ fits into an exact sequence with respect to ${\mathcal{N}}= {{\mathcal A}}$: $${{\mathcal A}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal B}}\boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({{\mathcal A}}).$$ See [@gelaki Theorem 4.1].
Exact factorizations arising from exact sequences of finite tensor categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider an exact sequence of Hopf algebras $$\label{e-hopf}
k {\longrightarrow}H' {\longrightarrow}H {\longrightarrow}H'' {\longrightarrow}k,$$ such that $H'$ is finite dimensional. Then $H$ is free as a left (or right) module over $H'$ and in particular the sequence is cleft [@schneider Theorem 2.1 (2)]. By [@tensor-exact Proposition 3.9] the exact sequence gives rise to an exact sequence of tensor categories $$\label{sec-comod} {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}' \to {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H} \to {\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}''.$$
Observe that $H'$ is naturally an algebra in ${\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}$. By a result of [@schauenburg-kac], the tensor category ${}_{H'}({\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H})_{H'}$ is equivalent to the category of comodules over a certain coquasibialgebra $((H')^* \bowtie H'', \varphi)$, where $\varphi$ is a so-called *Kac 3-cocycle* associated to the exact sequence (see [@schauenburg-kac Section 6]). The coquasibialgebra $((H')^* \bowtie H'', \varphi)$, termed a *generalized product coquasibialgebra* in [@schauenburg-kac], has an exact factorization into its sub-coquasibialgebras $(H')^*$ and $H''$.
A generalization of this feature to the context of exact sequences of finite tensor categories appeared in [@mn]. Let $({{\mathcal E}}): {{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}''$ be an exact sequence of finite tensor categories and let $(A, \sigma) \in {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ be its induced central algebra. So that ${{\mathcal C}}'' \cong {{\mathcal C}}_A$ and the exact sequence $({{\mathcal E}})$ is equivalent to the exact sequence $\langle A \rangle {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}\overset{F_A}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}_A$. See Subsection \[pft-exact\].
Let $_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$ be the tensor category of $A$-bimodules in ${{\mathcal C}}$. The category ${{\mathcal C}}'' \cong {{\mathcal C}}_A$ is an indecomposable exact ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category and there are equivalences of tensor categories $${{\mathcal C}}_{{{\mathcal C}}''}^* \cong {}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A, \qquad H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}\cong {}_A({\operatorname{comod}\!-\!}H)_A \cong {}_A{{{\mathcal C}}'}_{\!\!A},$$ where $H$ is the induced Hopf algebra of $({{\mathcal E}})$.
It was shown in [@mn Proposition 7.3] that there is an equivalence of $k$-linear categories $$\label{ef-bn} {{\mathcal C}}_{{{\mathcal C}}''}^* \cong (H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}) \boxtimes {{\mathcal C}}'',$$ thus, in the sense of the formulation explained at the beginning of this section, an exact factorization of ${{\mathcal C}}_{{{\mathcal C}}''}^*$.
More precisely, under the identifications $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}\cong {}_A({\operatorname{comod}\!-\!}H)_A \cong {}_A{{{\mathcal C}}'}_{\!\!A} \subseteq {}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$ and ${{\mathcal C}}'' \cong {{\mathcal C}}_A \subseteq {}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$, the tensor product functor $\otimes_A :{}_A{{{\mathcal C}}'\!}_A \boxtimes {{\mathcal C}}_A \to {}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$ induces an equivalence of $k$-linear categories $$\label{f-gral} (H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}) \boxtimes {{\mathcal C}}_A {\longrightarrow}{}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A.$$
Notice that in the situation of the exact sequence , there is an equivalence of tensor categories $$({\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H})_{{\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}''}^* \cong {}_{H'}({\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H})_{H'}.$$ See [@mn Example 7.4].
Examples and open questions {#examples-questions}
===========================
We begin this section by discussing some examples that answer a number of natural questions regarding the behaviour of exact sequences in relation with known facts about exact sequences of groups and Hopf algebras.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a finite tensor category. Let also ${{\mathcal C}}'$ be a tensor subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}$ an indecomposable exact ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category. We shall say that ${{\mathcal C}}'$ is *normal in ${{\mathcal C}}$ with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$* if there exist a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}''$ and an exact sequence of tensor categories with respect to ${\mathcal{M}}$: $${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}''\boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}}).$$
A tensor subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}'$ will be called *normal in ${{\mathcal C}}$* if it is normal with respect to a rank-one module category, that is, if there exist a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}''$ and an exact sequence of tensor categories in the sense of Definition \[exact-rk1\]: $${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}''.$$
A tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ will be called *simple* if it has no normal tensor subcategories with respect to a module category. If ${{\mathcal C}}$ has no normal tensor subcategories it will be called *simple with respect to rank-one module categories*.
Fusion subcategories of index 2 need not be normal {#indice2}
--------------------------------------------------
It is a well-known fact that if $G$ is a finite group, every subgroup of $G$ whose index is the smallest prime number dividing the order of $G$ is normal in $G$. More generally, if $H$ is a semisimple Hopf algebra and $H'$ is a Hopf subalgebra of $H$ such that $\dim H = p \dim H'$, where $p$ is the smallest prime number dividing the dimension of $H$, then $H'$ is normal in $H$ [@KM]. The next theorem gives a generalization of this result in the context of fusion categories.
Let $F:{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a dominant tensor functor between finite tensor categories. The *Frobenius-Perron index of $F$* is defined as the ratio ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}/ {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}$. The Frobenius-Perron index of a dominant tensor functor is an algebraic integer, by [@ENO Corollary 8.11]. In addition, if $G$ is a left (or right) adjoint of $F$, then the Frobenius-Perron index of $F$ coincides with ${\operatorname{FPdim}}G({\textbf{1}})$. See [@tensor-exact Section 4].
\[index2\]*([@tensor-exact Proposition 4.13], [@indp-exact Theorem 6.2]).* Let $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ be a dominant tensor functor between fusion categories ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$. Then the following hold:
\(i) If the Frobenius-Perron index of $F$ is 2, then $F$ is normal.
\(ii) If ${{\mathcal C}}$ has integer Frobenius-Perron dimension and the Frobenius-Perron index of $F$ is the smallest prime number dividing ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}$, then $F$ is normal.
Furthermore, the exact sequences arising from (i) and (ii) are equivariantization exact sequences.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a finite tensor category and let ${{\mathcal C}}' \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}$ be a tensor subcategory. The ratio ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}/{\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'$ will be called the *index of ${{\mathcal C}}'$* (in ${{\mathcal C}}$). This is also an algebraic integer [@ENO].
The dual statement of Theorem \[index2\] is not true, that is, there exist fusion subcategories of index 2 which are not normal. These examples are Tambara-Yamagami fusion categories $\mathcal{TY}(\mathbb Z_p, \chi, \tau)$ of Frobenius-Perron dimension $2p$, where $p$ is a prime number. In this case the pointed subcategory of $\mathcal{TY}(\mathbb Z_p, \chi, \tau)$, which is the unique fusion subcategory of Frobenius-Perron dimension $p$, is not normal [@indp-exact Proposition 6.3].
In fact, Tambara-Yamagami categories $\mathcal{TY}(\mathbb Z_p, \chi, \tau)$ provide examples of fusion categories of dimension $2p$ which are simple. The next proposition generalizes [@indp-exact Proposition 6.5] to the context of exact sequences with respect to a module category.
\[ty-simple\] The fusion category $\mathcal{TY}(\mathbb Z_p, \chi, \tau)$ is simple.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}= \mathcal{TY}(\mathbb Z_p, \chi, \tau)$. Suppose on the contrary that there is an exact sequence ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$, for some proper fusion subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and some indecomposable ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category ${\mathcal{M}}$. Then ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}= {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}' {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}''$ and therefore ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}, {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}' \in \{2, p\}$.
Consider the associated exact factorization ${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\mathcal{M}}} = {{\mathcal C}}'' \bullet ({{\mathcal C}}')^*_{\mathcal{M}}$. Since every fusion category of prime Frobenius-Perron dimension is pointed [@ENO], then ${{\mathcal C}}''$, $({{\mathcal C}}')^*_{\mathcal{M}}$ are pointed and therefore so is ${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\mathcal{M}}}$. Thus ${{\mathcal C}}$ is group-theoretical. This is impossible because ${{\mathcal C}}$ is not integral (in fact the unique non-invertible simple object of ${{\mathcal C}}$ has Frobenius-Perron dimension $\sqrt{p}$). This contradiction shows that such an exact sequence cannot exist and therefore ${{\mathcal C}}$ is simple, as claimed.
Further examples of simple fusion categories of dimension $p^aq^b$ {#simple-paqb}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition \[ty-simple\] implies that Burnside’s $p^aq^b$-theorem does not extend to fusion categories in terms of exact sequences with respect to module categories. Further examples of this situation are provided by the non-group-theoretical fusion categories constructed in [@jl].
Let $p < q$ be prime numbers such that $p$ is odd and divides $q + 1$. Let also $\zeta_1 \neq \zeta_2 \in \mathbb F_{q^2}$ such that $\zeta_1^p = \zeta_2^p = 1$ but $\zeta_1\zeta_2 \neq 1$, and let $\xi \in H^3(\mathbb Z_p, k^\times) \cong \mathbb Z_p$. Consider the non-group-theoretical fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}(p, q, \{\zeta_1, \zeta_2\}, \xi)$ constructed in [@jl]. The fusion categories ${{\mathcal C}}(p, q, \{\zeta_1, \zeta_2\}, \xi)$ are ${{\mathbb Z}}_p$-extensions of ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_q\times {{\mathbb Z}}_q}$ and they fall into $(p^2 - p)/2$ equivalence classes.
We have ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}(p, q, \{\zeta_1, \zeta_2\}, \xi) = pq^2$.
The fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}(p, q, \{\zeta_1, \zeta_2\}, \xi)$ is simple.
As in the proof of Proposition \[ty-simple\], let us assume on the contrary that there is an exact sequence ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$, for some proper fusion subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and some indecomposable ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category ${\mathcal{M}}$. So that ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}''$ can be either $p$, $q$, $q^2$ or $pq$ and similarly for ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'$. Therefore both ${{\mathcal C}}''$ and $({{\mathcal C}}')^*_{\mathcal{M}}$ are pointed: this follows from [@ENO Corollaries 8.30 and 8.31] if the Frobenius-Perron dimensions are $p$, $q$ or $q^2$, and by the classification of fusion categories of dimension $pq$ in [@ego Theorem 6.3], since $p$ is odd (and thus it cannot divide $q-1$).
This implies that ${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\mathcal{M}}} = {{\mathcal C}}'' \bullet ({{\mathcal C}}')^*_{\mathcal{M}}$ is pointed and then ${{\mathcal C}}$ is group-theoretical. This contradicts the choice of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and shows that such an exact sequence cannot exist. Thus ${{\mathcal C}}$ is simple, as claimed.
Group-theoretical fusion categories and exact sequences
-------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned before, the category of representations of a finite simple group is a simple fusion category.
Notice, however, that there exist simple Hopf algebras $H$ such that the tensor category $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$ is not simple; see Subsection \[subs-simple\].
Recall that a fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called [*group-theoretical*]{} if it is categorically Morita equivalent to a pointed fusion category. Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a pointed fusion category, so that there exist a finite group $G$ and a 3-cocycle $\omega:G \times G \times G \to k^{\times}$ such that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is equivalent to the category ${\operatorname{Vec}}_G^\omega$ of $G$-graded vector spaces with associativity determined by $\omega$.
Every indecomposable module category over ${\operatorname{Vec}}_G^\omega$ arises from a pair $(\Gamma, \alpha)$, where $\Gamma$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $\alpha: \Gamma \times \Gamma \to k^{\times}$ is a 2-cochain on $\Gamma$ such that $d\alpha=\omega|_{\Gamma\times \Gamma\times \Gamma}$. Thus, the restriction $\omega\vert_\Gamma$ represents the trivial cohomology class in $H^3(\Gamma, k^\times)$. Given such a pair $(\Gamma, \alpha)$, the twisted group algebra $A(\Gamma, \alpha) = k_\alpha \Gamma$ is an indecomposable algebra in ${\operatorname{Vec}}_G^\omega$. The (left) module category associated to such pair $(\Gamma, \alpha)$ is the category $${\mathcal{M}}(\Gamma, \alpha) = ({\operatorname{Vec}}_G^\omega)_{A(\Gamma, \alpha)}$$ of (right) $A(\Gamma, \alpha)$-modules in ${\operatorname{Vec}}_G^\omega$.
The group-theoretical category $({\operatorname{Vec}}_G^\omega)^*_{{\mathcal{M}}_0(\Gamma, \alpha)}$ is denoted ${{\mathcal C}}(G, \omega, \Gamma, \alpha)$.
Let $G$ be a finite group and let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of $G$. There is a canonical embedding of tensor categories ${\operatorname{Rep}}\Gamma {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}(G, \omega, \Gamma, \alpha)$. The next proposition implies that ${\operatorname{Rep}}\Gamma$ is not necessarily a normal tensor subcategory of ${{\mathcal C}}(G, \omega, \Gamma, \alpha)$.
Let $G$ be the alternating group ${\mathbb A}_6$ of order $60$ and let $\Gamma$ be a subgroup of $G$ such that $G \cong {\mathbb A}_5$. Then $\Gamma$ is a maximal subgroup of ${\mathbb A}_6$. There are 12 such subgroups and they constitute 2 conjugacy classes, represented by the subgroups $\langle (12345), (123)\rangle$ and $\langle (1,2,3,4,5), (1,4)(5,6) \rangle$.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, \Gamma, 1)$, so that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a group-theoretical fusion category of dimension $360$ which is categorically Morita equivalent to ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$. In addition, ${{\mathcal C}}$ contains a fusion subcategory ${{\mathcal C}}'\cong {\operatorname{Rep}}{\mathbb A}_5$.
Observe that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is not a graded extension of any fusion category: this follows from the characterization of graded extensions in [@ENO2 Proposition 2.9], since ${\operatorname{Rep}}{\mathbb A}_6$ is the unique Tannakian subcategory of ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ (c.f. [@core-wgt Example 3.3]) and ${{\mathcal C}}$ cannot be an ${\mathbb A}_6$-graded extension of a fusion subcategory, since it is not pointed.
We have $\widehat \Gamma = 1$ and $\Gamma = N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(\Gamma)$ (by maximality of $\Gamma$). Hence, by [@gel-nai Theorem 5.2], the group of invertible objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is trivial.
\[a5-notnormal\] The category ${{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, \Gamma, 1)$ is simple with respect to rank-one module categories.
Suppose that $F: {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$ is a normal dominant tensor functor such that $F$ is not an equivalence. Then the restriction of $F$ to ${{\mathcal C}}' \cong {\operatorname{Rep}}{\mathbb A}_5$ is also a normal tensor functor with kernel ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_F \cap {{\mathcal C}}'$. Therefore either ${{\mathcal C}}' \cap {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F \cong {\operatorname{Vec}}$ or ${{\mathcal C}}' \subseteq {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$. Suppose first that ${{\mathcal C}}' \cap {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F \cong {\operatorname{Vec}}$. Then the restriction of $F$ to ${{\mathcal C}}'$ is a full embedding, whence the dimension of ${{\mathcal D}}$ is divisible by $60$. Then the dimension of ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$ can equal $6$, $2$ or $3$. But this contradicts the fact that ${{\mathcal C}}$ has no nontrivial invertible objects. Hence ${{\mathcal C}}' \subseteq {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$.
The Grothendieck ring $\operatorname{Gr} ({{\mathcal C}})$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$ is faithfully graded by the double coset ring $\Gamma \backslash {\mathbb A}_6 / \Gamma$. In addition the fusion subcategory ${\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$ determines a based subring of $\operatorname{Gr} ({{\mathcal C}})$. Since ${{\mathcal C}}' \subseteq {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$, this based subring corresponds to a subgroup of ${\mathbb A}_6$ containing $\Gamma$, see [@gel-nai Theorem 4.1 and Lemma 3.6]. The maximality of $\Gamma$ implies that ${{\mathcal C}}' = {\mathfrak{Ker}}_F$. Then ${{\mathcal C}}$ fits into an exact sequence ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}$, where ${{\mathcal D}}$ is a fusion category of dimension $6$. Moreover, by [@tensor-exact Proposition 4.9], ${{\mathcal D}}$ is integral.
Assume that the exact sequence ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}$ is *abelian*. In other words the sequence is exact with respect to the trivial ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category ${\operatorname{Vec}}$ in the sense of [@eg-emc]. Let $(A, \sigma) \in {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ be the induced central algebra of $F$. Then ${}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$ has a factorization into fusion subcategories equivalent, respectively, to ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{\Gamma}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$. If ${{\mathcal D}}$ is pointed of dimension $6$, then ${{\mathcal D}}\cong {\operatorname{Vec}}^\omega_{S}$, where $S$ is a group of order $6$. Hence, ${}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A \cong {\operatorname{Vec}}^{\omega'}_L$, where $L$ is a group of order $360$ that has an exact factorization $L = \Gamma . H$ [@mn Proposition 7.3]. In particular the pointed fusion category ${\operatorname{Vec}}^{\omega'}_L$ is categorically Morita equivalent to ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$. By [@naidu Theorem 5.8], this implies that $L \cong {\mathbb A}_6$. This leads to a contradiction, because the group ${\mathbb A}_6$ admits no exact factorization into proper subgroups [@miller].
If, on the other hand, ${{\mathcal D}}$ is not pointed, then ${{\mathcal D}}$ must contain two distinct invertible objects and a simple object of dimension $2$. Then the group of invertible objects of ${}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$ is of order $120$. Since ${}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$ is Morita equivalent to ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$, then there exists a subgroup $T$ of ${\mathbb A}_6$ and a 2-cocycle $\psi$ on $T$ such that ${}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A \cong {{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, T, \psi)$. By [@gel-nai Theorem 5.2], the group of invertible objects of ${}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A$ has order $|K| |\widehat T|$, where $K$ is a certain subgroup of $N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T$. A direct inspection on the possible subgroups $T$ of ${\mathbb A}_6$ (see Table \[sps-a6\]) shows that $|N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T| |\widehat T| \leq 36$, which is again a contradiction.
We have thus shown that the group-theoretical fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, G, 1)$ does not fit into any *abelian* exact sequence of tensor categories.
Therefore, if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is not simple, then ${{\mathcal C}}$ fits into a non-abelian exact sequence $$\label{ex-a6}{{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}},$$ where ${{\mathcal C}}' \cong {\operatorname{Rep}}{\mathbb A}_5$ and ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}= 6$. By the previous part, the induced Hopf algebra $H$ of is not commutative. Hence $H \cong (k{\mathbb A}_5)^J$, where the twist $J$ is not trivial. Then $H\textrm{-mod}$ is of type $(1, 12; 4, 3)$, see [@sixty].
Consider the associated exact factorization ${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{\mathcal D}}\cong H\textrm{-mod} \bullet {{\mathcal D}}$. As before, the fusion category ${{\mathcal D}}$ is either pointed or of type $(1, 2; 2, 1)$. Hence the possible types for ${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{\mathcal D}}$ are $$\textrm{(i) } \; (1, 72; 4, 18), \qquad \textrm{(ii) } \; (1, 24; 2, 12; 4, 6; 8, 3).$$
Write, as before, ${}_A{{\mathcal C}}_A \cong {{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, T, \psi)$, where $T$ is a subgroup of ${\mathbb A}_6$ and $\psi$ is a 2-cocycle on $T$. As pointed out before, the group of invertible objects of ${{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, T, \psi)$ is at most 36, hence possibility (i) is discarded.
If possibility (ii) holds, then $T$ must be a Klein four group (Table \[sps-a6\]). Observe that, for every simple object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$, ${\operatorname{FPdim}}X$ divides $|T|$; see [@pjm Proposition 5.5]. This contradicts the fact that ${{\mathcal C}}^*_{{\mathcal D}}$ has simple objects of dimension 8 as in case (ii). This shows that ${\operatorname{Rep}}\Gamma$ is not normal in ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, \Gamma, 1)$ and therefore ${{\mathcal C}}$ is simple, as was to be shown.
Dominant images of normal fusion subcategories need not be normal {#dom-img}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition \[a5-notnormal\] provides examples of images of normal fusion subcategories under dominant tensor functors which are not normal.
Let $G \cong {\mathbb A}_6$ and ${\mathbb A}_5 \cong \Gamma \subseteq {\mathbb A}_6$ as in the previous subsection. Let also ${{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal C}}(G, 1, \Gamma, 1)$.
The canonical braiding of ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$ gives rise to an embedding of braided tensor categories ${\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal Z}}(G)$ that fits into an equivariantization exact sequence of tensor categories $${\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal Z}}(G) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_G.$$
On the other hand, since ${{\mathcal C}}$ is Morita equivalent to ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$, there is an equivalence of braided tensor categories ${{\mathcal Z}}(G) \cong {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}})$ [@schauenburg]. This equivalence induces a dominant tensor functor $$U_\Gamma: {{\mathcal Z}}(G) {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}},$$ such that $U_\Gamma(V) = k\Gamma \otimes V$. In particular $U_\Gamma ({\operatorname{Rep}}G) = {\operatorname{Rep}}\Gamma$. Since, by Proposition \[a5-notnormal\], ${{\mathcal C}}$ is simple this implies:
The image of the normal fusion subcategory ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$ of ${{\mathcal Z}}(G)$ under the dominant tensor functor $U_\Gamma: {{\mathcal Z}}(G) \to {{\mathcal C}}$ is not normal in ${{\mathcal C}}$.
Composition series and composition factors {#jh-wrtm}
------------------------------------------
The definition of a composition series of a finite dimensional Hopf algebra (Definition \[def-compser\]) has an obvious extension to the context of exact sequences of finite tensor categories with respect to module categories.
Let a *composition series* of a finite tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ be defined as a sequence of finite tensor categories ${{\mathcal C}}_1, \dots, {{\mathcal C}}_n$ defined, as before, as $n = 1$ and ${{\mathcal C}}_1 = {{\mathcal C}}$, if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is simple, while if ${{\mathcal C}}' {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})$ is an exact sequence with respect to the ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category ${\mathcal{M}}$ such that ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}', {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'' > 1$, and ${{\mathcal C}}'_1,
\dots, {{\mathcal C}}'_m$, ${{\mathcal C}}''_1, \dots,$ ${{\mathcal C}}''_\ell$, are composition series of ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$, respectively, then $n = m+\ell$ and $${{\mathcal C}}_i = \begin{cases} {{\mathcal C}}'_i, \qquad 1\leq i \leq m, \\
{{\mathcal C}}''_{i-m}, \quad m < i \leq m+\ell.\end{cases}$$ As before, the *factors* and the *length* of the series are, respectively, the finite tensor categories ${{\mathcal C}}_1, \dots, {{\mathcal C}}_n$ and the number $n$.
It is clear that every finite tensor category admits such a composition series.
Let $G$ be a finite simple group. Then the fusion category ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$ is simple: in fact, ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$ has no proper fusion subcategories when $G$ is simple. Observe that this is not true for the category ${\operatorname{Vec}}_G$, since the finite simple group $G$ might have non-trivial exact factorizations into proper subgroups. In particular the condition on a fusion category being simple is not self-dual.
On the other hand, if $H$ is a normal subgroup of $G$, then the restriction functor gives rise to an exact sequence in the sense of [@tensor-exact]: $${\operatorname{Rep}}G/H {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Rep}}H.$$ Inductively, we find that if $G_1, \dots, G_n$ are the composition factors of $G$, then the fusion categories $${\operatorname{Rep}}G_1, \dots, {\operatorname{Rep}}G_n,$$ are composition factors of ${\operatorname{Rep}}G$.
In what follows we show that composition series of fusion categories thus defined fail to satisfy a Jordan-Hölder theorem.
Let $n \in \mathbb{N}$. We shall denote by ${\mathbb S}_n$ and ${\mathbb A}_n$ the symmetric and alternating groups of degree $n$, respectively.
The proof of the following theorem relies on a result of Miller [@miller] that asserts that the alternating group ${\mathbb A}_6$ does not admit any exact factorization into proper subgroups. We summarize in Tables \[sps-a6\] and \[sps-a5\] the information about the subgroups of ${\mathbb A}_6$ and ${\mathbb A}_5$ used along the proof.
\[a6-simple\] The fusion category ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$ is simple.
Suppose on the contrary that there exists an exact sequence with respect to an indecomposable ${{\mathcal C}}'$-module category ${\mathcal{M}}$: $$\label{exact-a6}{{\mathcal C}}'{\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6} \overset{F}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}}),$$ such that ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}', {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'' > 1$.
Then ${{\mathcal C}}'$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ are fusion categories. Since the functor $F$ is dominant then ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is pointed, by Lemma \[quotient-pt\]. Also ${{\mathcal C}}'$ is pointed; moreover, ${{\mathcal C}}' = {\operatorname{Vec}}_{H}$, for some subgroup $H$ of ${\mathbb A}_6$ such that $1 \subsetneq H \subsetneq {\mathbb A}_6$. Hence ${\mathcal{M}}= {\mathcal{M}}(T, \psi) = {{\mathcal C}}'_{A(T, c)}$, for some subgroup $T$ of $H$ and some 2-cocycle $\psi$ on $T$. In addition, $360 = {\operatorname{FPdim}}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6} = {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}' {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'' = |H| {\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}''$.
Consider the associated exact factorization of the dual fusion category ${{\mathcal D}}= ({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6})^*_{{{\mathcal C}}'' \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\mathcal{M}})} \cong {}_{A(T, \psi)}({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6})_{A(T, \psi)} \cong {{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, T, \psi)$: $${{\mathcal D}}= {{\mathcal C}}({\mathbb A}_6, 1, T, \psi) = {{\mathcal C}}(H, 1, T, \psi) \bullet {{\mathcal C}}''.$$
Since ${\mathbb A}_6$ admits no exact factorizations, then [@naidu Theorem 3.4] implies that ${{\mathcal D}}$ is not pointed. Also, since ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'' > 1$, then ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt} > 1$. Moreover ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is contained in ${{\mathcal D}}_{pt}$ and ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'' = [{\mathbb A}_6: H]$. Also $[{\mathbb A}_6: H]$ divides $[{\mathbb A}_6:T]$ because $T$ is a subgroup of $H$.
By [@gel-nai Theorem 5.2], the group of invertible objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$ is an extension of $\widehat T$ by a certain subgroup $K$ of $N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T$.
Then ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt}$ divides $|N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T| |\widehat T|$, and therefore $[{\mathbb A}_6: H] | |N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T| |\widehat T|$. Thus $[{\mathbb A}_6: H]$ divides $\textrm{gcd} ([{\mathbb A}_6:T], |N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T| |\widehat T|)$. A direct inspection on the possible subgroups $T$ in Table \[sps-a6\], combined with the fact that ${\mathbb A}_6$ has no subgroups of index $2$, $3$ or $4$, implies that $[{\mathbb A}_6: H] = 6$ and $H \cong {\mathbb A}_5$.
In addition the subgroup $T \cong {{\mathbb Z}}_2\times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$ is a Klein four group, or $T \cong {{\mathbb Z}}_3$, or $T \cong {\mathbb A}_4$.
Suppose first that $T \cong {{\mathbb Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$. Then ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt}$ divides $|N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T| |\widehat T| = 24$. In addition $|\widehat T|$ divides ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}(H, 1, T, \psi)_{pt}$ and therefore $24$ divides ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt}$. Hence ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt} = 24 = |N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T| |\widehat T|$. This implies that the subgroup $K$ in [@gel-nai Theorem 5.2] coincides with $N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T$.
From the definition of $K$ in [@gel-nai], we find that for every $g \in N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)$, the class of the 2-cocycle $\psi^g: T \times T \to k^\times$, defined by $$\psi^g(h_1, h_2) = \psi(h_1, h_2) \, \psi(g^{-1}h_2^{-1}g, g^{-1}h_1^{-1}g), \quad h_1, h_2 \in T,$$ is trivial. Hence the cocycle $\psi^g$ is also trivial for all $g \in N_H(T)$ and therefore ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}(H, 1, T, \psi)_{pt} = |N_{H}(T)/T| |\widehat T| = 12$, since the group $N_{H}(T)/T$ is cyclic of order 3 (see Table \[sps-a5\]).
Combined with the fact that ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}'' = 6$ and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is pointed, this implies that ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt} = 72$, and we arrive to a contradiction. Thus we have discarded this possibility for $T$.
Assume next that $T \cong {{\mathbb Z}}_3$. In this case the class of $\psi$ is trivial and $N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T$ is of order $6$. Thus the subgroup $K$ in [@gel-nai Theorem 5.2] coincides with $N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T$ and ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt} = 18$. On the other hand, $N_{H}(T)/T$ is of order $2$ (Table \[sps-a5\]) and therefore ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}(H, 1, T, \psi)_{pt} = 6$. The exact factorization then implies that ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt} = 36$, which is a contradiction. Then this possibility is also discarded.
Finally suppose that $T \cong {\mathbb A}_4$. In this case $\widehat T$ is of order $3$ and $N_{{\mathbb A}_6}(T)/T$ is of order $2$. Thus ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt}$ divides $6$. But since $|\widehat T|$ also divides ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}(H, 1, T, \psi)_{pt}$, and ${{\mathcal C}}''$ is pointed then $9$ divides ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal D}}_{pt}$, which is impossible. This discards this possibility as well. Thus we have shown that such an exact factorization cannot exist and therefore ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$ is a simple fusion category, as claimed.
\[cs-a6\] The composition factors of a fusion category may be non-unique up to permutation. Moreover, a fusion category may admit composition series with different length.
The group ${\mathbb S}_6$ has an exact factorization ${\mathbb S}_6 = {\mathbb A}_6 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_2$. This induces an exact factorization ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6} = {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6} \bullet {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$. Therefore, from [@gelaki Theorem 4.1], there is an exact sequence with respect to ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$: $$\label{first}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6} {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6} {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2} \boxtimes {\operatorname{End}}({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}).$$
By Theorem \[a6-simple\], ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$ is simple. Then gives a composition series for ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6}$ with factors ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}$, ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$.
On the other hand, the exact factorizations $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb S}_6 & = {\mathbb S}_5 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_6 \\
& = {\mathbb S}_4 \bullet{{\mathbb Z}}_5 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_3 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_2 \\
& = {\mathbb S}_3 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_4 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_5 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_3 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_2 \\
& = {{\mathbb Z}}_3 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_2 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_4 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_5 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_3 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_2\\
& = {{\mathbb Z}}_3 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_2 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_4 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_5 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_3 \bullet {{\mathbb Z}}_2,
\end{aligned}$$ induce exact factorizations of the corresponding pointed fusion categories. An iterated application of [@gelaki Theorem 4.1] implies that ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6}$ has a composition series with factors ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_3}$, ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$, ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$, ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$, ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_5}$, ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_3}$, ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$. Then we see that the factors, and also the length, of these composition series are not unique.
\[bd-cs-a6\] The statement of Corollary \[cs-a6\] remains valid when restricted to the class of non-degenerate braided fusion categories, namely, also in this case the compositions factors may be non-unique up to permutation and composition series may have different lengths.
As an example, consider the Drinfeld center ${{\mathcal Z}}({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6})$. Thus ${{\mathcal Z}}({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6})$ coincides with the representation category of the Drinfeld double $D(k^{{\mathbb S}_6})$ and there is an exact sequence of finite dimensional Hopf algebras $$k {\longrightarrow}k^{{\mathbb S}_6} {\longrightarrow}D(k^{{\mathbb S}_6}) {\longrightarrow}k{{\mathbb S}_6} {\longrightarrow}k.$$ Therefore the non-degenerate braided fusion category ${{\mathcal Z}}({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6})$ fits into an exact sequence in the sense of [@tensor-exact]: $${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb S}_6} {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal Z}}({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6}) {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6}.$$ In addition we have an exact sequence $${\operatorname{Rep}}{{{\mathbb Z}}_2} {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb S}_6} {\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb A}_6},$$ and since ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb A}_6}$ is a simple fusion category, the composition factors of ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb S}_6}$ are ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$ and ${\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb A}_6}$.
The proof of Corollary \[cs-a6\] gives two composition series of ${\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6}$ that give rise to two composition series of ${{\mathcal Z}}({\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb S}_6})$ with factors $${\operatorname{Rep}}{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}, {\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb A}_6}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{\mathbb A}_6}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2},$$ on the one hand, and $${\operatorname{Rep}}{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}, {\operatorname{Rep}}{{\mathbb A}_6}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_3}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_5}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_3}, {\operatorname{Vec}}_{{{\mathbb Z}}_2}$$ on the other hand. Then the series have different length and the factors are not unique also in this case.
[**Automorphism class representative**]{} [**Isomorphism class of $T$** ]{} [**$|T|$** ]{} [**$|\widehat{T}|$** ]{} [**$[N_G(T):T]$** ]{}
----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- -------------------------- -----------------------
{e} Trivial 1 1 360
$\langle (12)(34) \rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ 2 2 4
$\langle (12)(34), (13)(24) \rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$ 4 4 6
$\langle (12)(34), (12)(56) \rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$ 4 4 6
$\langle (1234)(56) \rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_4$ 4 4 2
$\langle (1234)(56), (13)(56) \rangle$ $D_4$ 8 4 1
$\langle (123)\rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_3$ 3 3 6
$\langle (123)(456)\rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_3$ 3 3 6
$\langle (123), (456)\rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_3 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_3$ 9 9 4
$\langle (123)(456), (12)(45)\rangle$ ${\mathbb S}_3$ 6 2 1
$\langle (123), (12)(45)\rangle$ ${\mathbb S}_3$ 6 2 1
$\langle (12)(34), (123)\rangle$ ${\mathbb A}_4$ 12 3 2 –
$\langle (123)(456), (14)(25), (14)(36)\rangle$ ${\mathbb A}_4$ 12 3 2
$\langle (1234)(56), (12)(56)\rangle$ ${\mathbb S}_4$ 24 2 1
$\langle (34)(56), (12)(56), (135)(246), (35)(46)\rangle$ ${\mathbb S}_4$ 24 2 1
$\langle (123), (456), (12)(45)\rangle$ $({{\mathbb Z}}_3\times{{\mathbb Z}}_3)\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}_2$ 18 2 2
$\langle (123), (456), (23)(56), (14)(2536)\rangle$ $({{\mathbb Z}}_3\times{{\mathbb Z}}_3)\rtimes {{\mathbb Z}}_4$ 36 4 1
$\langle (12345)\rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_5$ 5 5 2
$\langle (12345), (25)(34)\rangle$ $D_5$ 10 2 1
$\langle (12345), (123)\rangle$ ${\mathbb A}_5$ 60 1 1
$\langle (12345), (14)(56)\rangle$ ${\mathbb A}_5$ 60 1 1
Whole group ${\mathbb A}_6$ 360 1 1
: Subgroups $T$ of the alternating group ${\mathbb A}_6$[]{data-label="sps-a6"}
[**Automorphism class representative**]{} [**Isomorphism class of $T$** ]{} [**$[N_G(T):T]$** ]{}
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ -----------------------
{e} Trivial 60
$\langle (12) \rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ 2
$\langle (12)(34) \rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb Z}}_2$ 3
$\langle (123)\rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_3$ 2
$\langle (123), (12)(45) \rangle$ ${\mathbb S}_3$ 1
$\langle (12)(34), (123)\rangle$ ${\mathbb A}_4$ 1
$\langle (12345)\rangle$ ${{\mathbb Z}}_5$ 2
$\langle (12345), (25)(34)\rangle$ $D_5$ 1
Whole group ${\mathbb A}_5$ 1
: Subgroups $T$ of the alternating group ${\mathbb A}_5$[]{data-label="sps-a5"}
Questions {#preguntas}
---------
We think it is interesting to determine classes of finite tensor categories which are closed under extensions. For instance, the class of fusion categories is closed under extensions and so is the class of weakly integral and integral finite tensor categories.
On the other hand, it is known that the class of group-theoretical fusion categories is not closed under extensions: Indeed, let $p$ be an odd prime number and let $H$ be one of the non-group-theoretical semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension $4p^2$ constructed by D. Nikshych in [@nik]. Then $H$ fits into an exact sequence of Hopf algebras $$k {\longrightarrow}k^{{{\mathbb Z}}_2} {\longrightarrow}H {\longrightarrow}A_p {\longrightarrow}k,$$ where $A_p$ is a certain abelian extension of ${{\mathbb Z}}_2$ by ${{\mathbb Z}}_p \times {{\mathbb Z}}_p$.
Since every abelian extension is group-theoretical[^2] [@gp-ttic], then the Hopf algebra $A_p$ is group-theoretical. Then $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$ is a non-group-theoretical fusion category that fits into an exact sequence of group-theoretical fusion categories $$A_p{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}{\longrightarrow}H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}{\longrightarrow}{\operatorname{Vec}}_{ {{\mathbb Z}}_2}.$$ This exact sequence is in fact an equivariantization exact sequence, by construction of $H$. See [@nik Section 5].
A fusion category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called weakly group-theoretical if it is Morita equivalent to a nilpotent fusion category [@ENO2]. The class of weakly group-theoretical fusion categories is known to be closed under a number of operations, like taking a fusion subcategory or dominant image, taking Deligne tensor product and Drinfeld center. It is not known if it closed under extensions:
*([@gelaki Question 4.9].)* Is the class of weakly group-theoretical fusion categories closed under extensions?
It is known that the class of weakly group-theoretical fusion categories is closed under equivariantizations and group graded extensions [@ENO2 Proposition 4.1]. Furthermore, it also closed under matched pair crossed extensions [@char-crossed-action Corollary 4.6].
Let $G$ be a finite group. In [@char-crossed-action] we showed that if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a fusion category fitting into an abelian exact sequence ${\operatorname{Rep}}G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}$ or into an exact sequence ${\operatorname{Vec}}_G {\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}$, then ${{\mathcal C}}$ is weakly group-theoretical if and only if ${{\mathcal D}}$ is weakly group-theoretical. As a consequence, every semisolvable semisimple Hopf algebra, as introduced in [@MW], is weakly group-theoretical.
Recall that a fusion category is said to satisfy the *Frobenius property* if the ratio ${\operatorname{FPdim}}{{\mathcal C}}/ {\operatorname{FPdim}}X$ is an algebraic integer, for every simple object $X$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$. It is known that every pre-modular fusion category satisfies the Frobenius property [@ENO2].
\[q-frobppty\] Is the class of fusion categories with the Frobenius property closed under extensions?
It follows from [@ENO2 Theorem 1.5] that the class of fusion categories with the Frobenius property is closed under equivariantizations and group graded extensions, and every weakly group-theoretical fusion category satisfies the Frobenius property. The answer to Question \[q-frobppty\] is not known in general even in the context of Hopf algebra extensions.
Another interesting class of tensor categories is that of *Frobenius tensor categories*: these are tensor categories in which every simple object has an injective hull (equivalently, a projective cover) [@AEC Subsection 2.3]. For instance, finite tensor categories and semisimple tensor categories are Frobenius categories.
Examples of Frobenius categories are provided by the categories of finite dimensional comodules over co-Frobenius Hopf algebras: that is, Hopf algebras $H$ endowed with a nonzero integral $H \to k$.
It is known that every Hopf algebra $H$ fitting into a strictly exact sequence of Hopf algebras $k {\longrightarrow}H' {\longrightarrow}H {\longrightarrow}H'' {\longrightarrow}k$, such that $H'$ and $H''$ are co-Frobenius Hopf, is co-Frobenius [@AC Theorem 2.10]. This result allows to construct examples of this kind of Hopf algebras from smaller examples. We do not known the answer to the corresponding question for tensor categories:
Is the class of Frobenius tensor categories closed under extensions?
Regarding the notion of simplicity of a finite tensor category, the following is a natural question, about which very little is known:
Is it possible to classify simple (finite) tensor categories?
Finally, motivated by the examples of Subsection \[jh-wrtm\], we ask:
Can the definition of a composition series be reformulated in order that the Jordan-H" older theorem holds for finite tensor categories?
An analogue of the Jordan-H" older theorem was proved in [@jh-wgt] for weakly group-theoretical fusion categories. The definition of a composition series for this kind of category is given in terms of group equivariantizations and group graded extensions and the composition factors, which are Morita invariants, are simple finite groups.
[AAAA]{} N. Andruskiewitsch, *Notes on extensions of Hopf algebras*, Can. J. Math. **48**, 3–42 (1996).
N. Andruskiewitsch, *About finite dimensional Hopf algebras*, Contemp. Math. **294**, 1–57 (2002).
N. Andruskiewitsch, J. Cuadra, *On the structure of (co-Frobenius) Hopf algebras*, J. Noncommut. Geom. **7**, 83–104 (2013).
N. Andruskiewitsch, J. Cuadra, P. Etingof, *On two finiteness conditions for Hopf algebras with nonzero integral*, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa, Cl. Sci. (5) **14**, 401–440 (2015).
N. Andruskiewitsch, J. Devoto, *Extensions of Hopf algebras*, Algebra Anal. **7**, 22–61 (1995).
N. Andruskiewitsch, M. M" uller, *Examples of extensions of Hopf algebras*, Rev. Col. Mat. **49** (2015), 193–211.
A. Brugui\` eres, S. Lack, A. Virelizier, *Hopf monads on monoidal categories*, Adv. Math. **227**, 745–800 (2011).
A. Bruguières, S. Natale, *Exact sequences of tensor categories*, Int. Math. Res. Not. **2011** (24), 5644–5705 (2011).
A. Bruguières, S. Natale, *Central exact sequences of tensor categories, equivariantization and applications*, J. Math. Soc. Japan **66**, 257–287 (2014).
A. Brugui\` eres, A. Virelizier, *Hopf monads*, Adv. Math. **215**, 679–733 (2007).
P. Deligne, *Cat' egories tannakiennes*, In: The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. II, Progr. Math. **87**, 111–195 (1990).
V. Drinfeld, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych and V. Ostrik, *On braided fusion categories I*, Sel. Math. New Ser. **16**, 1–119 (2010).
P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, *The representation theory of cotriangular semisimple Hopf algebras*, Int. Math. Res. Not. **1999**, 387–394 (1999).
P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, *Exact sequences of tensor categories with respect to a module category*, Adv. Math. **308**, 1187–1208 (2017).
P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, V. Ostrik, , *Classification of fusion categories of dimension $pq$*, Int. Math. Res. Not. **2004** (57), 3041–3056 (2004).
P. Etingof, S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, V. Ostrik, *Tensor categories*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs **205**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015.
P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, V. Ostrik, *On fusion categories*, Annals of Math (2) **162**, 581–642 (2005).
P. Etingof, D. Nikshych, V. Ostrik, *Weakly group-theoretical and solvable fusion categories*, Adv. Math **226**, 176–205 (2011).
C. Galindo, S. Natale, *Simple Hopf algebras and deformations of finite groups*, Math. Res. Lett. **14** (5-6), 943–954 (2007).
S. Gelaki, *Exact factorizations and extensions of fusion categories*, J. Algebra **480**, 505–518 (2017).
S. Gelaki, D. Nikshych, *Nilpotent fusion categories*, Adv. Math. **217**, 1053–1071 (2008).
S. Gelaki, D. Naidu, *Some properties of group-theoretical categories*, J. Algebra **322**, 2631–2641 (2009).
I. Hofstetter, *Extensions of Hopf algebras and their cohomological description*, J. Algebra **164**, 264–298 (1994).
D. Jordan, E. Larson, *On the classification of certain fusion categories*, J. Noncommut. Geom. **3**, 481–499 (2009).
G. I. Kac, *Extensions of groups to ring groups*, Math. USSR Sbornik **5** (1968), 451–474.
G. Karpilovsky, *Proyective Representation of Finite Groups*, Pure and Applied Mathematics **94**, Marcel Dekker, New York-Basel (1985).
T. Kobayashi, A. Masuoka, *A result extended from groups to Hopf algebras*, Commun. Algebra **25**, 1169–1197 (1997).
S. Majid, *Physics for algebraists: Non-commutative and non-cocommutative Hopf algebras by a bicrossproduct construction*, J. Algebra **130**, 17–64 (1990).
A. Masuoka, *On Hopf algebras with cocommutative coradicals*, J. Algebra **144**, 415–466 (1991).
A. Masuoka, *The $p^n$-th Theorem for Hopf algebras*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**124**]{}, 187–195 (1996).
A. Masuoka, *Extensions of Hopf algebras*, Trab. Mat. **41/99**, FaMAF., Univ. Nac. de C' ordoba, 1999.
A. Masuoka, *Hopf algebra extensions and cohomology*, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. **43**, 167-209 (2002).
G. A. Miller, *Groups which are the products of two permutable proper subgroups*, Proc. Acad. USA **21**, 469–472 (1935).
M. Mombelli, S. Natale, *Module categories over equivariantized tensor categories*, Mosc. Math. J. **17** (1), 97–128 (2017).
S. Montgomery, Classifying finite dimensional semisimple Hopf algebras, Contemp. Math. **229**, 265–279 (1998).
S. Montgomery, S. J. Witherspoon, *Irreducible representations of crossed products*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **129**, 315–326 (1998).
D. Naidu, *Categorical Morita equivalence for group-theoretical categories*, Comm. Algebra **35**, 3544–3565 (2007).
S. Natale, *On group theoretical Hopf algebras and exact factorizations of finite groups*, J. Algebra **270**, 199–211 (2003).
S. Natale, *Frobenius-Schur indicators for a class of fusion categories*, Pacific J. Math. **221** (2), 353–378 (2005).
S. Natale, *Semisolvability of semisimple Hopf algebras of low dimension*, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 186, viii+123 pp. (2007).
S. Natale, *Semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension 60*, J. Algebra **324**, 3017–3034 (2010).
S. Natale, *Jordan-H" older theorem for finite dimensional Hopf algebras*, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. **143**, 5195–5211 (2015).
S. Natale, *Crossed actions of matched pairs of groups on tensor categories*, Tohoku Math. J. **68** (3), 377–405 (2016).
S. Natale, *A Jordan-Hölder theorem for weakly group-theoretical fusion categories*, Math. Z. **283**, 367–379 (2016).
S. Natale, *The core of a weakly group-theoretical fusion category*, Int. J. Math. **29**, No. 2, Article ID 1850012, 23 p. (2018).
S. Natale, *On the classification of fusion categories*, Proc. ICM 2018, World Scientific, Vol **2**, 191–218 (2018).
S. Natale, *Extensions of tensor categories by finite group fusion categories*, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phyl. Soc. to appear. Preprint `arXiv:1808.09581`.
D. Nikshych, *$K_0$-rings and twisting of finite-dimensional semisimple Hopf algebras*, Commun. Algebra [**26**]{} (1998), 321–342.
V. Ostrik, *Module categories, weak Hopf algebras and modular invariants*, Transform. Groups **8**, 177–206 (2003).
B. Parshall, J. P. Wang, *Quantum linear groups*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. **439**, 1991.
P. Schauenburg, *Hopf bimodules, coquasibialgebras, and an exact sequence of Kac*, Adv. Math. **165**, 194–263 (2002).
P. Schauenburg, *The monoidal center construction and bimodules*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **158**, 325–346 (2001).
H. -J. Schneider, *Some remarks on exact sequences of quantum groups*, Commun. Alg. **21**, 3337–3357 (1993).
W. Singer, *Extension theory for connected Hopf algebras*, J. Algebra **21**, 1–16 (1972).
M. Takeuchi, *A correspondence between Hopf ideals and sub-Hopf algebras*, Manuscripta Math. **7**, 251–270 (1972).
M. Takeuchi, *Matched pairs of groups and bismash products of Hopf algebras*, Commun. Algebra **9**, 841–882 (1981).
M. Takeuchi, *Quotient spaces for Hopf algebras*, Commun. Alg. **22**, 2503–2523 (1994).
[^1]: Partially supported by CONICET and SeCYT–UNC
[^2]: A Hopf algebra $H$ is called group-theoretical if the category $H{\mbox{-}\!\operatorname{mod}}$ (or equivalently, the category ${\operatorname{comod}\!\mbox{-} H}$) is group-theoretical.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present optical and near-infrared (NIR) photometry of 28 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) detected by the *Swift* satellite and rapidly observed by the Reionization and Transients Infrared/Optical (RATIR) camera. We compare the optical flux at fiducial times of 5.5 and 11 hours after the high-energy trigger to that in the X-ray regime to quantify optical darkness. 46$\pm$9 per cent (13/28) of all bursts in our sample and 55$\pm$10 per cent (13/26) of long GRBs are optically dark, which is statistically consistently with previous studies. Fitting RATIR optical and NIR spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of 19 GRBs, most (6/7) optically dark GRBs either occur at high-redshift ($z>4.5$) or have a high dust content in their host galaxies ($A_{\rm
V} > 0.3$). Performing K-S tests, we compare the RATIR sample to those previously presented in the literature, finding our distributions of redshift, optical darkness, host dust extinction and X-ray derived column density to be consistent. The one reported discrepancy is with host galaxy dust content in the BAT6 sample, which appears inconsistent with our sample and other previous literature. Comparing X-ray derived host galaxy hydrogen column densities to host galaxy dust extinction, we find that GRBs tend to occur in host galaxies with a higher metal-to-dust ratio than our own Galaxy, more akin to the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Finally, to mitigate time evolution of optical darkness, we measure $\beta_{\rm
OX,rest}$ at a fixed rest frame time, $t_{\rm rest}=1.5$ hours and fixed rest frame energies in the X-ray and optical regimes. Choosing to evaluate optical flux at $\lambda_{\rm rest}=0.25~\mu$m, we remove high-redshift as a source of optical darkness, demonstrating that optical darkness must result from either high-redshift, dust content in the host galaxy along the GRB sight line, or a combination of the two.
author:
- 'O. M. Littlejohns$^{1}$,[^1] N. R. Butler$^{1}$, A. Cucchiara$^{2}$, A. M. Watson$^{3}$, O. D. Fox$^{4}$,'
- 'W. H. Lee$^{3}$, A. S. Kutyrev$^{5}$, M. G. Richer$^{6}$, C. R. Klein$^{4}$, J. X. Prochaska$^{7}$,'
- 'J. S. Bloom$^{4}$, E. Troja$^{5}$, E. Ramirez-Ruiz$^{7}$, J. A. de Diego$^{3}$, L. Georgiev$^{3}$,'
- |
J. González$^{3}$, C. G. Román-Zúñiga$^{6}$, N. Gehrels$^{5}$, H. Moseley$^{5}$\
\
$^{1}$ School of Earth & Space Exploration, Arizona State University, AZ 85287, USA\
$^{2}$ NASA Postdoctoral Program Fellow, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA\
$^{3}$ Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70-264, 04510 México, D. F., México\
$^{4}$ Astronomy Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7450, USA\
$^{5}$ NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA\
$^{6}$ Instituto de Astronomía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 106, 22800 Ensenada, Baja California, México\
$^{7}$ Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA\
title: 'A detailed study of the optical attenuation of gamma-ray bursts in the *Swift* era'
---
\[firstpage\]
gamma-rays: bursts.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are powerful explosions likely to be the outcome of the collapse of massive stars or of the merger of compact objects in binaries or dense stellar systems [@2006NatPh...2..116G; @2007PhR...442..166N; @2007NJPh....9...17L; @2010ApJ...720..953L]. The central engine, accreting in the hypercritical neutrino-cooled regime, produces a collimated ultra-relativistic outflow [@1999ApJ...525..737R; @2002ApJ...571..779P], which converts energy to radiation through internal shocks [@1994ApJ...430L..93R], and external shocks with the surrounding medium (see e.g.; @2004RvMP...76.1143P and references therein), producing bright fluxes across the electromagnetic spectrum. As such they allow us to probe the Universe at a wide range of redshifts [@2009Natur.461.1254T; @2009Natur.461.1258S; @2011ApJ...736....7C] and explore the properties of host galaxies and intervening matter along the GRB line of sight.
The intrinsic emission from GRBs is attributed to synchrotron radiation during both the prompt [@2014IJMPD..2330002Z] and afterglow [@2002ApJ...568..820G] phases. Broadband observations across the electromagnetic spectrum are required to confirm this mechanism (e.g.; @2014ApJ...781...37P). Along the line of sight to the observer photons must pass through the host galaxy interstellar medium [@2009ApJ...691..182S], the intergalactic medium (IGM; @1965ApJ...142.1633G) and the Milky Way (MW; @1998ApJ...500..525S). Each of these environments affect the observed spectral energy distribution (SED) of the burst, potentially leading to the GRB being fainter in some wavelength regimes than expected under the standard GRB paradigm.
Broadband, multiwavelength observations of GRBs require rapid and precise localisations, which are now routinely provided by the *Swift* satellite [@2004ApJ...611.1005G]. Extensive ground-based follow-up of GRBs is enabled by arcsecond precision measurements made by the on-board X-ray Telescope (XRT; @2005SSRv..120..165B) and Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT; @2005SSRv..120...95R). Included in the numerous facilities now routinely observing GRBs is the Reionization and Transients Infrared/Optical (RATIR) camera [@2012SPIE.8446E..10B]. RATIR has an automatic response to *Swift* triggers, allowing it to observe a given field of view within minutes of an alert notice of a new gamma-ray burst [@2012SPIE.8444E..5LW; @2012SPIE.8453E..2SK]. With almost simultaneous coverage in six filters in the optical to near infrared (NIR) regimes (from 5600 to 16000 Å; *riZYJH*), RATIR enables the modelling of SEDs using templates for the IGM and different extinction models for the host galaxy [@2014AJ....148....2L]. Such modelling allows us to quantify host galaxy dust extinction and estimate a photometric redshift .
The *Swift*/XRT detects emission associated with approximately 90 per cent of the GRBs detected by the *Swift* Burst Alert Telescope (BAT; @2005SSRv..120..143B) [@2009MNRAS.397.1177E; @2013ApJS..209...20G]. However, observations with the *Swift*/UVOT and ground-based telescopes detect only about 40–60 per cent in the optical regime . Some of the optical non-detections are consistent with an extrapolation from the X-ray emission using a standard unreddened synchrotron power-law spectrum. However, approximately 25–50 per cent require a steeper spectrum , and these are called “optically dark” GRBs [@2004ApJ...617L..21J; @2005ApJ...624..868R; @2009ApJ...699.1087V].
There are two explanations attributed to such optical darkness; attenuation by material in the host galaxy [@2009ApJ...691..182S] or suppression by Ly-$\alpha$ absorption in the IGM [@2000ApJ...536....1L]. For the latter effect to reduce flux in the optical regime, a GRB must lie at high redshift ($z \gtrsim 5$). Quantifying both of these effects is important, as they allow us to study galaxy evolution as well as that of the star formation rate (SFR) and metallicity of galaxies as a function of redshift [@2012MNRAS.420..627S; @2014arXiv1408.3578C].
In this work we first describe the data obtained from both the *Swift*/XRT and RATIR. We then briefly present the success RATIR has had in rapid follow-up of *Swift* GRB triggers. In § \[sec:anal\] we define optical darkness, and identify those bursts which are considered under-luminous in the optical regime when compared to the X-ray observations. We present our optical and NIR SED fitting results in § \[sec:sed\_fit\]. With SED templates in hand, we comment upon how many GRBs may occur at high redshift and upon the dust content of these GRB host galaxies. Finally, we attempt to mitigate any temporal evolution in optical darkness by taking a rest frame defined measure, which is presented and discussed in § \[sec:rest\_frame\].
Data {#sec:obs}
====
X-ray data {#sec:xraydata}
----------
*Swift*/XRT count rate light curves were obtained from the *Swift*/XRT light curve repository hosted at the UK *Swift* Science Data Centre (UKSSDC)[^2]. Spectral information for the Windowed Timing (WT) and Photon Counting (PC) modes was obtained from the pipeline detailed in @2007ApJ...663..407B. We first convert the *Swift*/XRT count rate light curves to flux light curves across the entire 0.3–10.0 keV energy band. Then, using the spectral models of @2007ApJ...663..407B, we convert this full band flux to a flux density at 1 keV.
As *Swift*/XRT and RATIR observations were not always simultaneous, we fitted the XRT light curves using the morphological model of @2007ApJ...662.1093W. To do so, we first identified epochs of flaring within the XRT light curve using the methodology described in the updated documentation[^3] of the UKSSDC burst analyser , which is outlined below.
Each light curve was initially fitted with the @2007ApJ...662.1093W model. If XRT observations began within 2 ks of the initial *Swift*/BAT trigger, then two @2007ApJ...662.1093W components were used. Otherwise, the light curve was fitted using only a single component.
In cases where the rapid decay phase (RDP) [@2006ApJ...647.1213O; @2006ApJ...642..389N] was observed, this was used to constrain the power-law index and plateau time of the prompt emission tail component. This prompt component was fitted to data prior to the end of the RDP. A second afterglow component was initially fitted to the data after the end of the RDP. A combined fit was then performed using both components and the values derived from the preliminary modelling of each component individually. In cases where observations began at least 2 ks after the *Swift*/BAT trigger time the single component was fitted to the entire range of data.
Once a model for the data set had been produced, our algorithm searched the data for points where the model significantly under-predicted the observed flux. The condition for significance within 3 ks of the trigger time was 8$\sigma$ whilst bins after this time required 10$\sigma$ significance to be marked as a candidate flare.
If any candidate flares were found, the most significant was removed from the data set and the data were re-fitted. This process was repeated iteratively until no new significant flares were found. In cases where 5 or more consecutive bins were designated a flare, the significance threshold was reduced to 6$\sigma$ and 8$\sigma$ for flares peaking before and after 3 ks, respectively.
For the majority of GRBs, the rise of the X-ray afterglow was unobserved. This is primarily due to the light curve being dominated by the RDP at this epoch. We therefore fixed the afterglow rise time to $T_{\rm rise}=100$ s, with the exception of three bursts (GRB 130514B, GRB 130603B and GRB 130606A), in which $T_{\rm rise}$ was allowed to float to ensure a good fit was obtained.
RATIR data {#sec:ratirdata}
----------
RATIR is a six band simultaneous optical and NIR imager mounted on the autonomous 1.5 m Harold L. Johnson Telescope at the Observatorio Astronómico Nacional on Sierra San Pedro Mártir in Baja California, Mexico. Since commencing full operations in 2012 December, RATIR has been responding to GRB triggers from the *Swift* satellite, obtaining simultaneous photometry in the *r*, *i*, *Z*, *Y*, *J* and *H* bands [@2012SPIE.8446E..10B; @2012SPIE.8444E..5LW; @2012SPIE.8453E..2SK; @2012SPIE.8453E..1OF].
RATIR has four detectors, two optical and two infrared cameras, allowing four images of a source to be taken simultaneously, either in *riZJ* or *riYH*. Both of the infrared detectors have split filters so that, by dithering sources across the field of view, they can be observed in all six RATIR filters. Individual frames from the optical cameras have exposure times of 80 s, whilst those from the NIR cameras are 67 s due to additional overheads.
The images are reduced in near real-time using an automatic pipeline. Bias subtraction and twilight flat division are performed using algorithms written in [python]{}, image alignment is conducted by astrometry.net [@2010AJ....139.1782L] and image co-addition is achieved using [swarp]{} [@2010ascl.soft10068B].
We use [sextractor]{} to calculate photometry for individual science frames and mosaics with apertures ranging from 2 to 30 pixels in diameter, with an optical and NIR pixel scales of 0.32$^{\prime \prime}$.pixel$^{-1}$ and 0.3$^{\prime
\prime}$.pixel$^{-1}$, respectively. Taking a weighted average of the flux in these apertures for all stars in a field, we construct an annular point-spread-function (PSF). Point source photometry is then optimised by fitting this PSF to the annular flux values of each source.
To calibrate our field photometry, we compare our values to existing catalogues, including the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 9 (SDSS DR9; @2012ApJS..203...21A). The RATIR and SDSS *r*, *i* and *Z* bands agree to within $\lesssim$3 per cent [@2014Butlerprep]. The *J* and *H* bands are calibrated relative to the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS; @2006AJ....131.1163S). We use an empirical relation for *Y* in terms of *J* and *H* magnitudes derived from the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) Wide Field Camera observations (WFCAM; ). For fields of view without SDSS observations we use the United States Naval Observatory (USNO)-B1[^4] catalogue [@2003AJ....125..984M] to calibrate the *r* and *i* band photometry. In these instances we use an empirical relation from WFCAM to calculate *Z* band magnitudes.
We initially considered all GRBs observed by RATIR from 2013 January 1 to 2014 July 11 inclusive. In this time RATIR observed the fields of 80 GRBs. 64 of these were from *Swift* on-board triggers, with the other 16 being from *Swift* Target of Opportunity (ToO) requests. A breakdown of the response time for RATIR to *Swift*/BAT on-board triggers is shown in Table \[tab:response\_times\].
------------ --------------------- ------------
Time delay GRBs Percentage
(hours) (detected/observed) of total
$<$ 0.5 5 / 10 (50%) 15.6%
0.5 – 4 9 / 12 (75%) 18.8%
4 – 8 4 / 7 (57%) 10.9%
8 – 16 6 / 19 (32%) 29.7%
16 – 24 0 / 10 (0%) 15.6%
$>$ 24 2 / 6 (33%) 9.4%
------------ --------------------- ------------
: Delay between onset of RATIR observations and *Swift*/BAT trigger time for on-board *Swift*/BAT triggers. The middle column shows the fraction of GRBs within the time interval that are detected, whilst the last column is the percentage of all on-board *Swift*/BAT triggers that were responded to within the indicated time interval.[]{data-label="tab:response_times"}
In this study, we only consider those GRBs observed by RATIR within 10 hours of the initial high-energy trigger. We analysed the completeness of the RATIR sample as a function of delay between the initial GRB trigger time and the beginning of RATIR observations. For bursts responded to within 10 hours of the *Swift* trigger, the RATIR sample has a detection rate of approximately 50 per cent. After 10 hours this fraction rapidly reduces (5/31), showing that at times greater than 10 hours the RATIR sample is significantly less complete. This is illustrated, to some extent, in Table \[tab:response\_times\]. GRBs with early epoch observations also provide a better data set for later modelling of the optical light curve. This limits our sample to only 33 bursts, all of which are *Swift*/BAT on-board triggers. Three of these GRBs do not have XRT observations (GRB 130626A, GRB 140118A and GRB 130215A), one burst occurred during cloudy weather at the observatory (GRB 130122A), and a further GRB was observed by RATIR in only the *Z* and *Y* bands (GRB 130504A). These five GRBs were therefore removed from the sample.
To obtain light curves for each of the GRBs in our sample, we first concatenated all epochs of observation for each burst. We then removed the effects of Galactic foreground extinction using the dust maps of @2011ApJ...737..103S. For those bursts with sufficient data (14/28), we modelled the optical light curve with both a power-law and broken power-law [@2008ApJ...675..528L; @2009MNRAS.395..490O; @2009ApJ...693.1484C] using [mpfit]{} [@2009ASPC..411..251M]. An F-test was used to determine if the temporal break was warranted, finding such a break to be statistically significant at the 3$\sigma$ level for only 2 GRBs (GRB 130427A & GRB 131030A).
Analysis {#sec:anal}
========
{width="8.5cm" height="8.5cm"} {width="8.5cm" height="8.5cm"}
--------- -------- ---------- ------- ----- -------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------------
GRB Delay Duration RATIR XRT $z$ $\beta_{\rm X}$ $\beta_{\rm OX}$ $\beta_{\rm OX}$ $N_{\rm H,rest}$ Notes
(mins) (mins) (11 hours) (5.5 hours) (10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$)
130122A 483.7 35 ... Y ... 0.84$_{-0.22}^{+0.30}$ ... ... ... Clouds
130215A 96.8 27 M N 0.597$^{1}$ ... ... ... ... ...
130327A 71.0 49 D Y ... 1.00$_{-0.30}^{+0.34}$ 0.64$\pm$0.13 0.66$\pm$0.13 ... ...
130418A 494.9 184 M Y 1.218$^{2}$ 0.59$_{-0.18}^{+0.30}$ 1.01$\pm$0.09 1.07$\pm$0.08 0.0$_{-0.0}^{+5.5}$ ...
130420A 136.7 21 M Y 1.297$^{3}$ 1.28$_{-0.11}^{+0.12}$ 0.65$\pm$0.06 0.68$\pm$0.06 3.9$_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$ ...
130427A 16.9 64 M Y 0.340$^{4}$ 0.82$_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ 0.60$\pm$0.03 0.61$\pm$0.02 1.0$_{-0.1}^{+0.1}$ ...
130502A 569.4 43 UL Y ... 1.12$_{-0.32}^{+0.59}$ $<$0.50 $<$0.51 ... ...
130504A 90.3 207 D Y ... 1.91$_{-0.28}^{+0.29}$ ... ... ... ...
130514A 5.4 149 UL Y 3.6$^{5}$ 1.34$_{-0.32}^{+0.36}$ $<$0.22 $<$0.20 37.4$_{-30.3}^{+36.9}$ Photometric redshift
130606A 443.0 265 M Y 5.913$^{6}$ 0.87$_{-0.14}^{+0.15}$ 0.29$\pm$0.41 0.33$\pm$0.40 8.4$_{-8.4}^{+24.8}$ ...
130609A 702.0 85 UL Y ... 1.95$_{-0.71}^{+0.80}$ $<$0.14 $<$0.15 ... ...
130610A 52.5 175 M Y 2.092$^{7}$ 1.08$_{-0.21}^{+0.24}$ 0.85$\pm$0.07 0.81$\pm$0.07 3.3$_{-3.3}^{+6.5}$ ...
130612A 24.1 319 M Y ... 1.07$_{-0.26}^{+0.27}$ 0.89$\pm$5.93 0.90$\pm$2.29 ... ...
130626A 3.0 13 ... N ... ... ... ... ... $T_{\rm 90}=0.16\pm0.03$s
130701A 300.3 21 D Y 1.155$^{8}$ 1.08$_{-0.17}^{+0.19}$ 0.75$\pm$0.02 0.72$\pm$0.01 4.3$_{-2.4}^{+2.8}$ ...
130907A 334.4 21 M Y 1.238$^{9}$ 0.96$_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ 0.33$\pm$0.05 0.25$\pm$0.05 7.5$_{-0.6}^{+0.6}$ ...
130925A 138.0 233 M Y 0.347$^{10}$ 2.44$_{-0.08}^{+0.08}$ $-$0.02$\pm$0.06 $-$0.16$\pm$0.06 19.6$_{-0.8}^{+0.9}$ ...
131004A 307.1 144 UL Y 0.717$^{11}$ 0.94$_{-0.25}^{+0.28}$ $<$1.08 $<$0.90 5.1$_{-3.2}^{+3.7}$ $T_{\rm 90}=1.54\pm0.33$s
131030A 294.4 260 M Y 1.293$^{12}$ 1.19$_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$ 0.73$\pm$0.02 0.71$\pm$0.02 4.6$_{-1.3}^{+1.5}$ ...
140114A 9.4 43 D Y ... 0.99$_{-0.20}^{+0.41}$ 0.26$\pm$0.06 0.27$\pm$0.05 ... ...
140118A 39.6 4 ... N ... ... ... ... ... ...
140129A 12.4 56 M Y ... 1.00$_{-0.14}^{+0.15}$ 0.66$\pm$0.06 0.66$\pm$0.05 ... ...
140215A 38.7 64 M Y ... 0.97$_{-0.13}^{+0.14}$ 0.91$\pm$0.04 0.91$\pm$0.04 ... ...
140311A 524.8 125 D Y 4.954$^{13}$ 0.72$_{-0.15}^{+0.21}$ 0.57$\pm$0.25 0.53$\pm$0.24 0.0$_{-0.0}^{+37.0}$ ...
140318A 294.6 211 D Y 1.02$^{14}$ 1.43$_{-0.59}^{+0.65}$ 0.79$\pm$0.55 0.82$\pm$0.47 8.0$_{-6.6}^{+7.3}$ ...
140331A 21.2 91 UL Y ... 1.09$_{-0.15}^{+0.17}$ $<$0.18 $<$0.18 ... ...
140419A 8.8 97 M Y 3.956$^{15}$ 1.05$_{-0.07}^{+0.07}$ 0.61$\pm$0.01 0.58$\pm$0.01 11.2$_{-4.5}^{+4.9}$ ...
140518A 36.3 43 M Y 4.707$^{16}$ 0.94$_{-0.12}^{+0.12}$ 0.34$\pm$0.11 0.22$\pm$0.10 0.0$_{-0.0}^{+60.5}$ ...
140614B 6.5 43 UL Y ... 0.46$_{-0.18}^{+0.19}$ $<$2.41 $<$2.05 ... ...
140622A 1.3 64 UL Y 0.959$^{17}$ 1.60$_{-0.30}^{+0.60}$ $<$1.55 $<$1.51 0.0$_{-0.0}^{+1.2}$ $T_{\rm 90}=0.13\pm0.04$s
140703A 584.2 43 M Y 3.14$^{18}$ 0.98$_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$ 0.70$\pm$1.16 0.61$\pm$1.12 11.6$_{-6.9}^{+7.7}$ ...
140709A 165.8 299 D Y ... 1.09$_{-0.15}^{+0.16}$ 0.11$\pm$0.03 0.10$\pm$0.03 ... ...
140710A 3.5 43 D Y 0.558$^{19}$ 0.92$_{-0.17}^{+0.29}$ 0.34$\pm$0.07 0.35$\pm$0.06 0.0$_{-0.0}^{+3.2}$ ...
--------- -------- ---------- ------- ----- -------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------------
\
*References*: $^{1}[email protected], $^{2}[email protected], $^{3}[email protected], $^{4}[email protected], $^{5}[email protected], $^{6}[email protected], $^{7}[email protected], $^{8}[email protected], $^{9}$ @2013GCN..15187...1D, $^{10}[email protected], $^{11}[email protected], $^{12}[email protected], $^{13}[email protected], $^{14}[email protected], $^{15}[email protected], $^{16}[email protected], $^{17}[email protected], $^{18}[email protected] and $^{19}[email protected].
Identifying dark GRBs {#sec:darkgrbs}
---------------------
Two criteria for dark GRBs are traditionally used. The first is based solely on the X-ray to optical spectral index, $\beta_{\rm
OX}$. @2004ApJ...617L..21J proposed that a dark burst could be classified as one where $\beta_{\rm OX} < 0.5$. Following this, @2009ApJ...699.1087V used a large sample of 41 GRBs from @2008ApJ...689.1161G to suggest that any optical darkness criterion placed on $\beta_{\rm OX}$ should also account for the X-ray spectral index, $\beta_{X}$. In this alternative scenario, a dark GRB is one that meets the condition that $\beta_{\rm OX} < \beta_{\rm X} -
0.5$.
The latter criterion, as proposed by @2009ApJ...699.1087V is motivated by a specific theory of GRB emission. As both internal and external shocks are expected to emit via synchrotron radiation [@2002ApJ...568..820G; @2004IJMPA..19.2385Z], there are two expected scenarios for the nature of a GRB SED between the optical and X-ray regimes during late afterglow observations. The first is that the optical emission is on the same power-law segment of the synchrotron SED as the X-rays. In this case, $\beta_{\rm OX} =
\beta_{\rm X}$, giving an expected upper bound to $\beta_{\rm OX}$. Alternatively, the cooling break, $\nu_{c}$, an expected feature of synchrotron emission, may be present between the two regimes. Such a spectral break is characterised by a steepening of power-law slope in the SED above the break frequency by $\Delta \beta = 0.5$. $\beta_{\rm OX}$ is an average spectral index over the intervening range, however the largest value $\nu_{c}$ can adopt is just below the measured X-ray regime. As such, $\beta_{\rm OX}$ therefore has a lower limit of $\beta_{\rm OX} \geqslant \beta_{\rm X} - 0.5$, which leads to the condition for optical darkness discussed in @2009ApJ...699.1087V.
In Figure \[fig:example\_lcs\] we show flux density light curves obtained from both *Swift*/XRT and RATIR for two bursts within our sample. The grey scale points are the X-ray data, while the colour points denote RATIR data, both being described in the key of the figures. The dotted lines show the bounds in which the *r* band flux is expected. To calculate these limits we extrapolated the X-ray flux assuming either $\beta_{\rm OX} = \beta_{\rm X}$ or $\beta_{\rm
OX} = \beta_{X}-0.5$. The former condition corresponds to the optical regime lying on the same power-law segment as the X-ray, whilst the latter assumes a cooling break at 0.3 keV. This second condition predicts the minimum flux from the intrinsic synchrotron spectrum assuming there is no attenuation in the optical band.
To estimate the optical darkness, we take a measure of optical and X-ray flux at 11 hours . At such a time the emission is expected to be in an external shock dominated phase of the afterglow [@2001ApJ...560L.167P; @2003ApJ...590..379B; @2007ApJ...668..400B], with the prompt emission and later X-ray flaring having ended and the afterglow remaining significantly brighter than any host galaxy.
Half of our rapidly observed sample (14/28) had sufficient data to allow for the modelling of the optical light curves with either a power-law or broken power-law. In these instances, we interpolate the optical flux, $F_{\rm opt}$, at 11 hours from the fitted model. For those other GRBs with few single detections or upper limits, we take the average temporal power-law decay index from those modelled in our sample and extrapolate from the available data to our fiducial time of 11 hours after the initial high-energy trigger to calculate $F_{\rm
opt}$. @2007ApJ...668..400B investigated the hardness evolution of GRB X-ray afterglows to understand when the internal and external shocks mechanisms dominate the observed emission. In that work, it was found that X-ray afterglows were well modelled by synchrotron external shock emission at times greater than $2\times10^{4}$ s ($\approx$ 5.5 hours) after the initial trigger time. With this in mind we also estimated the optical and X-ray fluxes for each GRB in our sample at 5.5 hours. This allows us to consider the time evolution of $\beta_{\rm OX}$ (e.g.; @2012MNRAS.421.1265M).
There are seven GRBs for which there are only upper limits in the RATIR *r* band observations. As such it is only possible to determine upper limits in $\beta_{\rm OX}$ for these GRBs, once extrapolating the optical upper limit to the fiducial time. While we use the mean fitted RATIR value of temporal decay index to evolve the upper limit to constrain the optical flux at this time, there is an inherent uncertainty in this process. Three of these limits require an optically dark GRB event. The remaining three (GRB 131004A, GRB 140614B and GRB 140622A) do not allow us to classify the bursts as dark, however, the calculated upper limits in $\beta_{\rm OX}$ do not preclude optical brightness.
In Table \[tab:fast\_sample\] we show the full sample of GRBs with RATIR observations beginning within 10 hours of the initial high-energy trigger. In this table we indicate whether the optical RATIR light curve data were sufficient to enable modelling with a power-law or broken power-law. We also present whether *Swift*/XRT data were available, reported redshifts and, where measurable, the calculated value of $\beta_{\rm OX}$ at both 11 and 5.5 hours. The reported X-ray derived column densities in the rest frame, $N_{\rm H,rest}$, are determined by an automated pipeline[^5] which is described in detail in @2007ApJ...663..407B. Each *Swift*/XRT photon counting (PC) mode spectrum is fitted with a power-law spectrum and two absorption components, corresponding to a Galactic and extragalactic column. We assume solar metallicities according to the abundances from @1989GeCoA..53..197A, we utilise the photoelectric cross-section of @1992ApJ...400..699B and the He cross-section based on @1998ApJ...496.1044Y.
We note a large value of error in $\beta_{\rm OX}$ for GRB 130612A. This is due to a large uncertainty in $F_{\rm X}$ as calculated from the fitted light curve at 5.5 and 11 hours after the *Swift*/BAT trigger. Fundamentally this is a result of large error bars in the X-ray flux density light curve once converted to a flux at 1 keV, which results in greater uncertainty in the fit parameters used to derive $F_{\rm X}$. GRB 130504A was detected by RATIR, but was not observed in the *r* band, and so $\beta_{\rm
OX}$ was not calculated.
In Figure \[fig:fopt\_vs\_fx\], we show the optical flux, $F_{\rm
opt}$, as a function of X-ray flux, $F_{\rm X}$, at the fiducial time of 11 hours after the initial *Swift*/BAT trigger. Those bursts with fully modelled optical light curves are plotted with black points and error bars. Those with few data extrapolated to the fiducial time are plotted in grey. Also plotted on Figure \[fig:fopt\_vs\_fx\] are lines denoting $\beta_{\rm OX} = 0.5$ and $\beta_{\rm OX}=0$. Any GRB in the grey region of the parameter space below and to the right of $\beta_{\rm OX} = 0.5$ is considered to be a dark GRB by the condition of @2004ApJ...617L..21J.
As well as the RATIR sample, we plot the data from several samples available from the literature . Of the five samples shown with ours, that of has the most similar selection criteria to ours. In this work GRBs detected by the Gamma-Ray burst Optical/Near-infrared Detector (GROND; @2008PASP..120..405G), a seven channel optical and NIR imager, within four hours of the high-energy trigger are included. Also, we note that the sample of @2008ApJ...689.1161G is that with which @2009ApJ...699.1087V define their optical darkness criterion. @2009ApJS..185..526F define their measurements of optical darkness at earlier epochs than the 11 hour fiducial time selected in this work. We also show results from the BAT6 sample [@2012ApJ...749...68S], taken from @2012MNRAS.421.1265M. GRBs in this sample are selected contingent on being bright enough in the hard X-ray regime (15–350 keV), as measured by the *Swift*/BAT, to be detected if they were six times fainter.
From Figure \[fig:fopt\_vs\_fx\] it can be seen that the majority of optically dark bursts are generally also at the faint end of the total distribution of optical fluxes at 11 hours. There is also a hint of a bifurcation in the population separated by $\Delta \beta_{\rm OX}
\approx 0.5$, which would be the expected split in the distribution between those GRBs with or without a cooling break between the optical and X-ray regimes at 11 hours.
![Optical *r* band flux, $F_{\rm opt}$, as a function of 1 keV X-ray flux, $F_{\rm X}$, at a fiducial time of 11 hours. Black points correspond to $F_{\rm opt}$ values calculated from fitted optical models, grey points with error bars have $F_{\rm opt}$ extrapolated from optical detections, using the mean temporal decay index of the fitted RATIR sample, while grey upper limits are extrapolations from optical upper limits as measured by RATIR. The light grey region denotes the parameter space where bursts are considered to be optically dark. Also plotted are values of $F_{\rm opt}$ and $F_{\rm X}$ available from the literature. Plot symbols and colours corresponding to each sample are denoted in the key in the bottom right corner of the panel.[]{data-label="fig:fopt_vs_fx"}](super_Fopt_vs_Fx.eps){width="8.5cm" height="8.2cm"}
In Figure \[fig:betaox\_vs\_betax\] we plot $\beta_{\rm OX}$ as a function of $\beta_{\rm X}$, again for our sample and for those values available from the literature [@2004ApJ...617L..21J; @2008ApJ...689.1161G; @2008ApJ...686.1209M; @2009ApJ...693.1484C; @2009ApJS..185..526F; @2012MNRAS.421.1265M]. The majority of bursts in our sample with well fitted optical and X-ray light curves populate the same region of parameter space as those analysed in previous samples. The two dashed lines on the panel denote the range in which GRBs well described in both the optical and X-ray regimes purely by synchrotron emission should inhabit. We find only one GRB with a detected optical flux suggesting that $\beta_{\rm
OX}>\beta_{\rm X}$, GRB 130418A. This burst has one of the softest measured X-ray spectral indices, and is discussed in further detail in § \[sec:rest\_frame\]. GRB 140614B and GRB 140622A both have optical upper limits that correspond to upper limits in $\beta_{\rm
OX}$, which do not preclude this possibility. The position of GRB 140622A lies approximately 40$^{\prime \prime}$ from the 12$^{\rm
th}$ magnitude star TYC 5783-1382-1, meaning that the photometry for GRB 140622A could suffer from contamination from this bright object.
![$\beta_{\rm OX}$ as a function of $\beta_{\rm X}$ at a fiducial time of 11 hours. Black points correspond to $F_{\rm
opt}$ values interpolated from fitted optical models. Grey points with error bars have $F_{\rm opt}$ extrapolated from optical detections, using the mean temporal decay index of the fitted RATIR sample, while grey upper limits are extrapolations from optical upper limits as measured by RATIR. The light grey region denotes the parameter space where bursts are considered to be optically dark. Also plotted are values of $\beta_{\rm
OX}$ and $\beta_{\rm X}$ available from the literature. Plot symbols and colours corresponding to each sample are denoted in the key in the top right corner of the panel.[]{data-label="fig:betaox_vs_betax"}](super_betaox_vs_betax.eps){width="8.5cm" height="8.2cm"}
Figure \[fig:betaox\_vs\_betax\] shows that the majority of GRBs in the RATIR sample inhabit regions of the parameter space also well populated by other samples. We find 39$\pm$9 per cent (11/28) of GRBs in our sample are identified as optically dark using the @2004ApJ...617L..21J criterion, whilst 46$\pm$9 per cent (13/28) are dark as defined by @2009ApJ...699.1087V. All GRBs identified as dark by the @2004ApJ...617L..21J criterion are also identified by that of @2009ApJ...699.1087V. GRB 130420A and GRB 140318A qualify as optically dark when accounting for the value of $\beta_{\rm X}$. Both $\beta_{\rm OX}$ and $\beta_{\rm X}$ are reported in Table \[tab:fast\_sample\].
We adopt the @2009ApJ...699.1087V definition of optical darkness. As such, we find that 46$\pm$9 per cent (13/28) of the rapidly observed RATIR GRB sample are optically dark (GRB 130420A, GRB 130502A, GRB 130514A, GRB 130606A, GRB 130609A, GRB 130907A, GRB 130925A, GRB 140114A, GRB 140318A, GRB 140331A, GRB 140518A, GRB 140709A & GRB 140710A). This selection remains identical when considering $\beta_{\rm OX}$ as calculated at either 11 or 5.5 hours. Comparing the $\beta_{\rm OX}$ values calculated at both epochs reveals only four GRBs that have $\beta_{\rm OX}$ that are inconsistent at the 1$\sigma$ level (GRB 130701A, GRB 130907A, GRB 130925A & GRB 140419A). In each case, there is a small increase in $\beta_{\rm OX}$, indicating that the optical flux becomes slightly less attenuated with time. This is somewhat expected, as the average optical decay power-law index is shallower than that of the X-ray afterglows.
This fraction of optically dark GRBs is comparable to previous studies such as and @2009ApJS..185..526F who find the dark fraction of bursts in their samples to be 25– 40 per cent and 25–42 per cent, respectively. @2009ApJ...693.1484C and @2008ApJ...686.1209M both estimate a dark burst fraction of 50 per cent, although it must be noted that these studies use the @2004ApJ...617L..21J definition of optical darkness. Most recently, work on the gamma-ray selected BAT6 sample suggests the dark fraction in their sample is also 25–35 per cent [@2012MNRAS.421.1265M].
If we restrict our sample to only long GRBs ($T_{\rm 90} > 2$s; @1993ApJ...413L.101K), this fraction increases to 50$\pm$10 per cent (13/26). Those bursts identified as short GRBs have their reported $T_{\rm 90}$ values as measured by the *Swift*/BAT in the 15–350 keV range in Table \[tab:fast\_sample\]. The two short GRBs with estimates of $\beta_{\rm OX}$ (GRB 131004A & GRB 140622A) have optical upper limits that do not provide rigorous constraints on $\beta_{\rm OX}$.
Typically, GRBs with spectroscopic redshifts also have RATIR *r* band detections. The two exceptions to this are GRB 131004A and GRB 140622A, both of which are short GRBs. To measure a spectroscopic redshift requires a GRB to remain bright for the typical response time of large spectrograph facilities, thus increasing the likelihood of a RATIR optical detection. By limiting our sample only based on the condition of rapid RATIR observation we have presented a homogeneous sample, which limits any brightness bias introduced by requiring a spectroscopic redshift. Considering only those GRBs with a sufficient optical data to allow light curve modelling and a spectroscopic redshift, we find 55$\pm$15 per cent (6/11) are optically dark, which is consistent with the full sample. Interestingly, we find that GRB 140311A is not classified as optically dark, despite having a spectroscopic redshift of $z=4.954$ [@2014GCN..16301...1C]. This is discussed further in § \[sec:sed\_fit\].
To statistically assess the similarity between the RATIR and previous distributions of $\beta_{\rm OX}$ and the dark burst fractions, we performed Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) tests. This tests two samples of data under the null hypothesis that the two derive from the same parent population with significant low probabilities indicating this null hypothesis to be inaccurate. A K-S test compares the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the two samples, measuring the maximum distance between the two CDFs, $D_{\rm KS}$, which is the K-S statistic. Larger values of $D_{\rm KS}$ are indicative of the CDFs have a larger maximum separation. Performing this K-S test yields a probability $p_{\rm KS}=0.15$, indicating that the two populations are not significantly different. Results from these K-S tests are shown in Table \[tab:ks\_test\_results\], which also details similar statistical comparisons between parameters calculated from RATIR SED fitting. From these results, we can see that the distributions of redshift, $\beta_{\rm X}$ and $\beta_{\rm OX}$ for our sample are not statistically significantly different from any other individual sample. We also compiled a total sample of all previous literature, taking care to only include each GRB once if present in multiple samples, finding once more that our distributions of redshift, $\beta_{\rm X}$ and $\beta_{\rm OX}$ are consistent with the largest possible sample of previous literature values.
RATIR SED fitting {#sec:sed_fit}
-----------------
In order to understand why GRBs within the RATIR-*Swift*/XRT sample might appear under-luminous in the optical regime, we fitted the RATIR optical and NIR SEDs. We did so for all of the bursts listed in Table \[tab:fast\_sample\] that had photometry in a minimum of four filters, with a minimum of three detections. This allowed us to model 19 GRBs.
The expected shape of an optical and NIR GRB SED is a power-law with potential perturbations from either absorption from the intergalactic medium (IGM) or dust within the host galaxy of the burst. To maximise signal-to-noise ratio, we therefore used SEDs obtained when coadding all observations made during the first night of observations. The RATIR photometry obtained during the first night of observations for those bursts in Table \[tab:fast\_sample\] is shown in Table \[tab:first\_night\_phot\].
GRB *r* *i* *Z* *Y* *J* *H*
--------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
130215A 17.47$\pm$0.06 17.22$\pm$0.05 16.94$\pm$0.06 16.80$\pm$0.14 16.72$\pm$0.06 ...
130327A 21.01$\pm$0.10 20.66$\pm$0.09 20.20$\pm$0.12 20.02$\pm$0.15 19.89$\pm$0.18 20.56$\pm$0.41
130418A 19.02$\pm$0.01 18.77$\pm$0.01 18.49$\pm$0.02 18.28$\pm$0.02 18.17$\pm$0.02 17.73$\pm$0.02
130420A 19.76$\pm$0.02 19.56$\pm$0.02 19.39$\pm$0.05 19.10$\pm$0.09 19.04$\pm$0.06 18.81$\pm$0.12
130427A ... 13.88$\pm$0.04 13.78$\pm$0.04 13.67$\pm$0.04 13.69$\pm$0.04 13.73$\pm$0.04
130502A $>$22.43 $>$23.04 $>$22.11 $>$21.35 $>$21.04 $>$20.64
130504A ... ... $>$22.59 ... $>$20.49 ...
130514A $>$23.17 $>$22.87 $>$22.46 $>$21.89 $>$21.67 $>$21.22
130606A 24.49$\pm$0.34 21.83$\pm$0.28 19.32$\pm$0.04 19.06$\pm$0.03 18.97$\pm$0.03 18.58$\pm$0.03
130609A $>$23.65 $>$23.37 $>$22.54 $>$21.88 $>$21.54 $>$21.07
130610A 20.48$\pm$0.09 21.01$\pm$0.18 20.24$\pm$0.13 20.61$\pm$0.17 ... $>$15.99
130612A 22.41$\pm$0.08 22.05$\pm$0.08 ... ... ... ...
130701A 19.61$\pm$0.50 20.45$\pm$1.08 19.91$\pm$0.09 19.36$\pm$0.11 ... ...
130907A 20.01$\pm$0.03 19.31$\pm$0.02 18.82$\pm$0.05 18.45$\pm$0.06 18.16$\pm$0.06 17.62$\pm$0.06
130925A 20.92$\pm$0.17 21.31$\pm$0.18 20.67$\pm$0.11 20.80$\pm$0.17 20.02$\pm$0.09 19.74$\pm$0.11
131004A $>$23.90 $>$23.37 $>$22.61 $>$21.97 $>$21.73 $>$21.22
131030A 19.15$\pm$0.05 18.92$\pm$0.04 18.77$\pm$0.04 18.55$\pm$0.04 18.62$\pm$0.04 18.37$\pm$0.04
140114A 21.81$\pm$0.10 21.24$\pm$0.07 ... ... ... ...
140129A 19.11$\pm$0.02 18.98$\pm$0.02 18.87$\pm$0.05 18.69$\pm$0.04 18.80$\pm$0.06 18.57$\pm$0.07
140215A 17.92$\pm$0.28 17.56$\pm$0.21 17.24$\pm$0.16 16.99$\pm$0.13 16.80$\pm$0.12 16.55$\pm$0.09
140311A 22.34$\pm$0.13 21.57$\pm$0.08 20.59$\pm$0.08 20.07$\pm$0.08 ... ...
140318A 21.94$\pm$0.18 21.48$\pm$0.14 20.83$\pm$0.16 20.80$\pm$0.21 20.91$\pm$0.21 20.25$\pm$0.13
140331A $>$23.65 $>$23.49 $>$22.34 $>$21.80 $>$21.59 $>$21.00
140419A 17.65$\pm$0.17 17.30$\pm$0.12 16.91$\pm$0.09 16.76$\pm$0.08 17.19$\pm$0.11 16.57$\pm$0.07
140518A 20.52$\pm$0.32 19.00$\pm$0.08 18.60$\pm$0.06 18.20$\pm$0.05 18.12$\pm$0.04 17.80$\pm$0.03
140614B $>$22.71 $>$22.56 $>$21.66 $>$21.09 $>$21.05 $>$20.52
140622A $>$23.58 $>$23.43 $>$19.31 $>$19.75 ... ...
140703A 20.32$\pm$0.04 19.72$\pm$0.03 18.53$\pm$0.05 18.31$\pm$0.05 19.60$\pm$0.17 19.98$\pm$0.09
140709A $>$24.10 $>$23.70 $>$22.92 $>$22.41 $>$22.31 $>$21.94
140710A 21.35$\pm$0.08 21.09$\pm$0.07 20.76$\pm$0.14 20.41$\pm$0.16 20.29$\pm$0.14 19.74$\pm$0.13
We used the SED template-fitting routine outlined in @2014AJ....148....2L to estimate the amount of host galaxy dust extinction. This algorithm accounts for the intrinsic GRB spectrum, Galactic dust extinction, the absorption from the IGM due to the redshift of the host galaxy and the dust absorption from the host galaxy along the GRB sight line by fitting the optical spectral index, $\beta_{\rm opt}$, redshift, $z$, and dust extinction $A_{\rm V}$. As the exact nature of the dust extinction law is not known, we apply templates of Milky Way (MW), Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) dust extinction laws [@1992ApJ...395..130P], allowing the algorithm to choose between the model that best describes any dust present in the SED. While we note that these three templates are likely not accurate representations of all galaxies at all redshifts, they do allow for the best comparisons with other studies.
For GRBs with a measured redshift we fixed $z$ in our fitting algorithm to the value reported in Table \[tab:fast\_sample\]. The SEDs with the resulting fitted models are shown in Figures \[fig:seds\_fig1\], \[fig:seds\_fig2\] and \[fig:seds\_fig3\]. The values of $A_{\rm V}$ obtained from each of the three template dust laws are reported in Table \[tab:av\_model\], along with the $\chi^{2}$ fit statistic and degrees of freedom associated with these models. In each instance, the preferred dust model is quoted. We report two measures of $\chi^{2}$ for each fitted model, the first is the traditional value, which is a measure of goodness of fit. The second, $\chi_{\rm eff}^{2}$, is the prior weighted fit statistic as described in @2014AJ....148....2L. This value also includes an additional Bayesian prior that compares the local optical and NIR spectral index, $\beta_{\rm opt}$, to that measured in the X-ray regime, $\beta_{\rm X}$. Assuming a synchrotron emission mechanism, we expect the optical SED to have either the same intrinsic spectral index as measured with in the X-ray spectrum, or to have a cooling break between the two regimes. If a cooling break is present between the optical and X-ray regimes, the spectral index changes by a well defined amount, dependent on the nature of the circumburst medium [@2002ApJ...568..820G].
In the three instances where a previous spectroscopic measure of redshift was not available from another facility (GRB 130327A, GRB 140129A and GRB 140215A), the redshift was left as a free parameter using the @2014AJ....148....2L algorithm. For all three cases we were only able to provide upper limits on the photometric redshift, that $z_{\rm phot}\lesssim 4$.
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
{width="7.5cm"}\
--------- ----------- ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------
GRB Preferred $A_{\rm V, MW}$ $\chi_{\rm MW}^{2}/\nu$ $\chi_{\rm eff, MW}^{2}/\nu$ $A_{\rm V, LMC}$ $\chi_{\rm LMC}^{2}/\nu$ $\chi_{\rm eff, LMC}^{2}/\nu$ $A_{\rm V, SMC}$ $\chi_{\rm SMC}^{2}/\nu$ $\chi_{\rm eff,SMC}^{2}/\nu$
Model
130215A LMC 0.19$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ 0.65/2 $-$0.57/2 0.27$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ 0.61/2 $-$0.74/2 0.21$_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ 0.59/2 $-$0.73/2
130327A MW 0.12$_{-0.43}^{+0.19}$ 2.52/2 1.26/2 0.20$_{-0.81}^{+0.41}$ 2.54/2 2.20/2 0.01$_{-0.92}^{+0.89}$ 2.78/2 1.45/2
130418A LMC 0.37$_{-0.05}^{+0.07}$ 0.48/3 $-$0.84/3 0.68$_{-0.11}^{+0.11}$ 0.32/3 $-$1.00/3 0.28$_{-0.04}^{+0.06}$ 0.58/3 $-$0.72/3
130420A SMC 0.00$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ 4.74/3 4.89/3 0.00$_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ 4.51/3 4.89/3 0.09$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ 0.50/3 0.49/3
130427A MW 0.00$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ 3.15/2 3.23/2 0.03$_{-0.10}^{+0.04}$ 3.40/2 3.40/2 0.07$_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$ 4.15/2 4.16/2
130606A LMC 0.05$_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ 2.51/3 2.60/3 0.02$_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ 2.19/3 2.22/3 0.03$_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ 2.25/3 2.28/3
130610A SMC 0.04$_{-0.18}^{+0.05}$ 3.27/2 2.09/2 0.01$_{-0.07}^{+0.05}$ 3.07/2 1.84/2 0.01$_{-0.07}^{+0.05}$ 3.05/3 1.80/2
130701A LMC 0.15$_{-0.10}^{+0.16}$ 1.08/1 1.10/1 1.60$_{-0.15}^{+0.11}$ 0.54/1 0.50/1 0.15$_{-0.10}^{+0.16}$ 1.08/1 1.08/1
130907A SMC 1.07$_{-0.00}^{+0.00}$ 5.49/3 3.58/3 1.10$_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ 3.10/3 3.15/3 1.10$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ 3.00/3 3.00/3
130925A MW 1.46$_{-0.22}^{+0.23}$ 2.10/3 2.10/3 1.32$_{-0.13}^{+0.26}$ 2.67/3 2.70/3 1.47$_{-0.16}^{+0.23}$ 2.77/3 2.77/3
131030A MW 0.01$_{-0.05}^{+0.03}$ 3.41/3 3.40/3 0.17$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ 3.86/3 3.79/3 0.00$_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ 3.50/3 3.62/3
140129A LMC 0.00$_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ 1.76/2 0.38/2 0.00$_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$ 1.76/2 0.38/2 0.00$_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$ 1.77/2 0.39/2
140215A SMC 0.05$_{-0.25}^{+0.15}$ 0.19/2 0.19/2 0.11$_{-0.36}^{+0.14}$ 0.18/2 0.20/2 0.04$_{-0.14}^{+0.07}$ 0.17/2 0.18/2
140311A SMC 0.07$_{-0.06}^{+0.07}$ 0.50/1 0.20/1 0.01$_{-0.09}^{+0.07}$ 0.56/1 0.06/1 0.45$_{-0.06}^{+0.08}$ 0.17/1 $-$0.33/1
140318A LMC 0.31$_{-0.14}^{+0.13}$ 1.22/3 $-$0.03/3 0.36$_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$ 1.20/3 $-$0.09/3 0.32$_{-0.12}^{+0.14}$ 1.20/3 $-$0.06/3
140419A LMC 0.00$_{-0.09}^{+0.08}$ 5.65/3 5.37/3 0.00$_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ 4.12/3 3.03/3 0.11$_{-0.05}^{+0.06}$ 4.42/3 3.33/3
140518A MW 0.03$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ 1.51/3 1.52/3 0.04$_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ 1.55/3 1.55/3 0.04$_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ 1.54/3 1.72/3
140703A MW 0.02$_{-0.23}^{+0.20}$ 3.39/3 2.02/3 0.01$_{-0.23}^{+0.21}$ 3.95/3 4.01/3 0.02$_{-0.25}^{+0.21}$ 3.97/3 4.04/3
140710A MW 0.49$_{-0.10}^{+0.08}$ 0.47/3 0.24/3 0.60$_{-0.10}^{+0.09}$ 0.44/3 0.31/3 0.56$_{-0.09}^{+0.10}$ 0.42/3 0.30/3
Average SMC 0.23$_{-0.04}^{+0.02}$ 44.09/47 32.73/47 0.36$_{-0.05}^{+0.03}$ 40.57/47 32.40/47 0.26$_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$ 37.91/47 28.77/47
--------- ----------- ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------- ------------------------------
Of the 13 bursts identified as dark using the @2009ApJ...699.1087V criterion, we were able to model the SED of seven. This yielded two GRBs of high redshift ($z>3.5$; GRB 130606A & GRB 140518A), two with a high quantity of dust extinction ($A_{\rm V}>1$; GRB 130907A & GRB 130925A) and 2 with a moderate quantity of dust extinction ($0.25<A_{\rm V}<1$; GRB 140318A & GRB 140710A). Curiously, whilst dark, GRB 130420A has both a low redshift ($z = 1.297$) and a low amount of modelled dust extinction ($A_{\rm V} = 0.09\pm0.02$).
We considered two alternative scenarios to explain the modelled optical attenuation of GRB 130420A. First, we looked at the @2009ApJ...699.1087V condition of optical darkness, for which GRB 130420A has $\beta_{\rm OX}-\beta_{\rm X}=-0.63\pm0.13$. A value of $\beta_{\rm OX}-\beta_{\rm X}=-0.5$ would indicate a GRB with a cooling break immediately below the measured X-ray spectrum, and therefore consistent with an intrinsic synchrotron spectrum with no optical attenuation. Such a scenario is at the upper limit of the error bounds of $\beta_{\rm OX}-\beta_{\rm X}$ for GRB 130420A. An alternative explanation can be considered by looking at the SED of GRB 130420A shown in Figure \[fig:seds\_fig1\]. This reveals a large error in the *H* band flux measurement. It is this filter that is least well represented by the MW and LMC dust profile templates, as the large error weights the fitted templates away from the *H* band. It is possible that this value is accurate, while not precise. As such if the errors were smaller the template would be constrained into a shallower local spectral index, and therefore would require a larger value of $A_{\rm V}$ to produce the lower fluxes in the *r*, *i* and *Z* bands.
Six optically dark GRBs do not have sufficient photometry for SED modelling (GRB 130502A, GRB 130514A, GRB 130609A, GRB 140114A, GRB 140331A & GRB 140710A). GRB 130514A has a photometric redshift from the GROND instrument of $z \sim 3.6$, suggesting this may contribute to the under-luminous nature of the *r* band, however RATIR did not detect the GRB in any of the six filters in which it was observed. GRB 140331A has a measured redshift of $z=1.09$, ruling it out as a high-redshift event. The remaining four GRBs do not have a measured redshift.
GRB 140311A has a measured spectroscopic redshift of $z=4.954$ [@2014GCN..16301...1C], at which it is expected that optical attenuation should be observed in the *r* band. Despite this, GRB 140311A is not classified as optical dark using either the @2009ApJ...699.1087V or @2004ApJ...617L..21J criteria. The measured X-ray spectral index for this GRB was $\beta_{\rm X} = 0.75_{-0.15}^{+0.21}$, while the best fit template obtained from the @2014AJ....148....2L SED fitting routine found the local optical and NIR spectral index $\beta_{\rm
opt}\approx0.68$. As such it is possible that the optical and X-ray regimes both lie on the same power-law segment of the intrinsic GRB synchrotron spectrum. If this is the case, then the attenuation from high redshift does not reduce the optical flux to a level below the minimum allowable flux resulting from the presence of a cooling break between the two regimes. Unfortunately, GRB 140311A was only observed in the four bluest RATIR filters, thus giving only a loose constraint on $\beta_{\rm opt}$.
The normalised cumulative distribution of fitted values of $A_{\rm V}$ for the 19 GRBs in Table \[tab:av\_model\] are shown in Figure \[fig:av\_hist\], along with those of an extensive selection of previous samples from the literature. We also display the total distribution of all previous literature, with and without the RATIR sample. Care has been taken to ensure GRBs that occur in multiple samples are only included once in the total literature sample. From Figure \[fig:av\_hist\] it can be seen that our sample, denoted by the red line, appears consistent with most of the previous samples. The one distribution that appears discrepant is that presented in @2013MNRAS.432.1231C, which is the BAT6 sample.
![Normalised cumulative distributions of host galaxy $A_{\rm V}$ for this sample and those available from the literature. As well as distributions of individual samples, those of the sum of all previous literature, and sum including our sample, are plotted. All samples are denoted in the key in the bottom right of the panel.[]{data-label="fig:av_hist"}](super_Av_cumulative.eps){width="8.5cm"}
found 25 per cent of bursts with $A_{\rm
V} \sim 0.5$ (8/33). In our sample, this fraction is lower, at 11$\pm$7 per cent (2/19), which is similar to @2010ApJ...720.1513K who found approximately 12 per cent. It is important to note, however, that the fundamental properties of our GRB sample are more similar to those of , as the sample of @2010ApJ...720.1513K is biased towards optically brighter bursts. In another study, @2013MNRAS.432.1231C find in a sample of 53 GRBs that 50 per cent have an extinction of $A_{\rm V} \lesssim 0.3$, whereas our sample has a marginally higher fraction of 63$\pm$11 per cent (12/19).
Those GRBs with values of $A_{\rm V}$ inconsistent with zero are best fitted by a variety of dust laws. 27 per cent (3/11) favour a MW dust extinction law, with 45 per cent (5/11) favouring an LMC dust law and 27 per cent (3/11) being best fit by an SMC dust law. Conversely, @2010MNRAS.401.2773S find that an SMC extinction curve to be preferred in 56 per cent of their sample. In the bottom row of Table \[tab:av\_model\] we calculate the average required amount of dust if the same model was to be assumed for the entire population. We also sum the $\chi^{2}$ for all these models to compare which model provides the best global fit across the entire population should the fitting be limited to one dust extinction law. Due to the few instances where an SMC dust extinction model has a markedly better $\chi^{2}$, while in cases where it is not the preferred model host galaxy $A_{\rm V}$ tends to be low and so $\Delta \chi^{2}$ is much lower, an SMC dust extinction law proves to be the best when fitting to the entire sample. This is more consistent with the findings of @2010MNRAS.401.2773S.
From the distribution of best fitted $A_{\rm V}$ values plotted in \[fig:av\_hist\], we find 16$\pm$8 per cent (3/19) of GRBs with a fitted SED have host dust extinction $A_{\rm V} > 1$, which agrees with . 25 per cent (2/8) of the GRBs with $A_{\rm V}> 0.25$ favour a MW dust profile, which has a prominent feature at 2175 Å. find a suggestion that GRBs with a larger dust content may favour a MW type dust profile. We instead find that 50 per cent (4/8) favour an LMC type dust extinction law. It must be noted that our sample lacks a large number of high extinction GRBs, and this discrepancy may be due to small number statistics.
To compare the distributions of obtained host $A_{\rm V}$, we once more employed K-S tests between our sample and an extensive list of previous samples. These are shown in Table \[tab:ks\_test\_results\]. Comparing our distribution of host galaxy $A_{\rm V}$ to these studies shows only one result that is statistically significantly different. Comparing our work to that of @2013MNRAS.432.1231C we find the two samples to be different at a level of approximately 3$\sigma$. For completeness we also compared the results of @2013MNRAS.432.1231C to those in @2010ApJ...720.1513K and , as well as a composite sample of all other existing literature , finding the BAT6 distribution of host galaxy $A_{\rm V}$ values to significantly differ from all three.
Looking at Figure \[fig:av\_hist\] the main cause of difference between these samples arises from a handful of extremely high $A_{\rm
V}$ values in the BAT6 sample. The highest of these, for GRB 070306, is $A_{\rm V}=5.74_{-1.45}^{+1.48}$. As shown in Table A10 of @2013MNRAS.432.1231C, however, the fit used to derive this value of dust extinction has zero degrees of freedom, which could perhaps lead to the very high value obtained. It must be noted, however, that there are also several instances where $A_{\rm V}$ could not be constrained in the BAT6 sample, due to a lack of photometric detections in a sufficient number of optical and NIR bands, however lower limits could be derived that are indicative of high $A_{\rm
V}$. In these cases, as the redshift is also known for the GRB, high-redshift is precluded, thus requiring higher dust content in the host galaxy. As the BAT6 sample membership is defined by gamma-ray fluence, rather than optical or NIR brightness, it is perhaps expected that it might contain a larger number of highly dust extincted GRBs.
Sample 1 Sample 2 Parameter $N_{\rm 1}$ $N_{\rm 2}$ $D_{\rm KS}$ $p_{\rm KS}$
----------- ----------------------------- ------------------ ------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------------
This work Literature $z$ 16 156 0.20 6.22$\times10^{-1}$
This work Fynbo et al. (2009) $z$ 16 85 0.28 2.02$\times10^{-1}$
This work BAT6 $z$ 16 52 0.32 1.37$\times10^{-1}$
This work Kann et al. (2010) $z$ 16 46 0.26 3.54$\times10^{-1}$
This work Greiner et al. (2011) $z$ 16 33 0.23 5.65$\times10^{-1}$
This work Schady et al. (2010) $z$ 16 26 0.29 3.05$\times10^{-1}$
This work Zafar & Watson (2013) $z$ 16 25 0.52 5.65$\times10^{-3}$
This work Cenko et al. (2009) $z$ 16 16 0.25 3.05$\times10^{-1}$
This work Schady et al. (2012) $z$ 16 16 0.38 1.62$\times10^{-1}$
This work Savaglio et al. (2009) $z$ 16 10 0.88 4.45$\times10^{-5}$
BAT6 Literature $z$ 52 116 0.20 9.24$\times10^{-2}$
This work Literature $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 228 0.11 9.32$\times10^{-1}$
This work Fynbo et al. (2009) $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 137 0.12 8.60$\times10^{-1}$
This work BAT6 $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 44 0.12 9.54$\times10^{-1}$
This work van der Horst et al. (2009) $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 40 0.16 7.51$\times10^{-1}$
This work Jakobsson et al. (2004) $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 37 0.32 6.44$\times10^{-2}$
This work Greiner et al. (2011) $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 34 0.15 8.55$\times10^{-1}$
This work Cenko et al. (2009) $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 28 0.14 9.17$\times10^{-1}$
This work Melandri et al. (2008) $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 22 0.16 8.87$\times10^{-1}$
This work Galama & Wijers (2001) $\beta_{\rm X}$ 28 5 0.36 5.48$\times10^{-1}$
BAT6 Literature $\beta_{\rm X}$ 44 184 0.14 4.99$\times10^{-1}$
This work Literature $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 167 0.27 1.05$\times10^{-1}$
This work Fynbo et al. (2009) $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 86 0.30 7.95$\times10^{-2}$
This work van der Horst et al. (2009) $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 36 0.43 1.12$\times10^{-2}$
This work BAT6 $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 35 0.26 3.03$\times10^{-1}$
This work Greiner et al. (2011) $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 34 0.30 1.48$\times10^{-1}$
This work Jakobsson et al. (2004) $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 25 0.36 8.46$\times10^{-2}$
This work Cenko et al. (2009) $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 21 0.24 5.31$\times10^{-1}$
This work Melandri et al. (2008) $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 21 9 0.37 2.96$\times10^{-1}$
BAT6 Literature $\beta_{\rm OX}$ 35 134 0.12 8.07$\times10^{-1}$
This work Literature $A_{\rm V}$ 19 111 0.35 3.07$\times10^{-2}$
This work Kann et al. (2010) $A_{\rm V}$ 19 50 0.29 1.74$\times10^{-1}$
This work Greiner et al. (2011) $A_{\rm V}$ 19 32 0.15 9.27$\times10^{-1}$
This work BAT6 $A_{\rm V}$ 19 31 0.54 1.29$\times10^{-3}$
This work Schady et al. (2010) $A_{\rm V}$ 19 19 0.47 1.81$\times10^{-2}$
This work Zafar & Watson (2013) $A_{\rm V}$ 19 18 0.53 6.96$\times10^{-3}$
This work Schady et al. (2012) $A_{\rm V}$ 19 16 0.46 3.16$\times10^{-2}$
This work Cenko et al. (2009) $A_{\rm V}$ 19 8 0.58 2.66$\times10^{-2}$
This work Savaglio et al. (2009) $A_{\rm V}$ 19 5 0.48 2.22$\times10^{-1}$
BAT6 Literature $A_{\rm V}$ 31 87 0.42 3.79$\times10^{-4}$
BAT6 Kann et al. (2010) $A_{\rm V}$ 31 50 0.52 2.78$\times10^{-5}$
BAT6 Greiner et al. (2011) $A_{\rm V}$ 31 32 0.53 1.57$\times10^{-4}$
This work Literature $N_{\rm H,rest}$ 13 95 0.26 3.68$\times10^{-1}$
This work BAT6 $N_{\rm H,rest}$ 13 52 0.25 4.73$\times10^{-1}$
This work Greiner et al. (2011) $N_{\rm H,rest}$ 13 32 0.30 3.15$\times10^{-1}$
This work Schady et al. (2010) $N_{\rm H,rest}$ 13 26 0.15 9.77$\times10^{-1}$
This work Schady et al. (2012) $N_{\rm H,rest}$ 13 16 0.26 6.72$\times10^{-1}$
BAT6 Literature $N_{\rm H,rest}$ 52 43 0.14 7.31$\times10^{-1}$
In Figure \[fig:av\_vs\_darkness\] we show the fitted values of $A_{\rm V}$ as a function of the two metrics for optical darkness. In each case, optically dark bursts are in the grey parameter space to the left of the dotted vertical line.
{width="7.5cm"} {width="7.5cm"}\
Both measures of optical darkness reveal a trend where, typically, bursts that are optically dark have either high-redshift or modest to high levels of dust extinction in their host galaxy. There are two GRB that have large modelled $A_{\rm V}$ value, but that aren’t consisent with being optically dark (GRB 130418A & GRB 130701A). Figure \[fig:seds\_fig1\] reveals that the SED for GRB 130701A was only observed in four filters (*r*, *i*, *Z* and *Y*). Furthermore, the relative error in the optical data is large, with two possible types of solution. The first, with the smallest $\chi^{2}$ fit statistic, for an LMC type extinction law. Alternatively, the MW and SMC dust model templates prefer a lower quantity of dust in the host galaxy with $A_{\rm
V}=0.15_{-0.10}^{+0.16}$ in both cases. GRB 130701A was also found to be 5$^{\prime\prime}$ of an $r=19.5$ magnitude source, meaning contaminating light from this nearby source may artificially enhance the reported brightness of GRB 130701A.
GRB 130418A has the softest measured X-ray spectrum in our sample, which also has a high reported measurement error. As discussed in § \[sec:rest\_frame\], it is possible that the true value of X-ray spectral index lies at the harder end of the 1$\sigma$ error bound and that the optical and X-ray regimes lie on the same power-law segment of the intrinsic GRB synchrotron spectrum. In such instances, a moderate amount of dust could reduce the measured optical flux by an amount less than invoking a cooling break at 0.3 keV. Thus it is possible for a GRB host galaxy to contain measurable amounts of dust while not being reported as optically dark.
The optically darkest burst is GRB 130925A. This burst was an unusual event as the prompt high-energy emission was long-lived, making it one of the few “ultra-long” GRBs observed to date [@2014MNRAS.444..250E]. Several studies of this event have suggested that the central engine must occur in a low density environment [@2014MNRAS.444..250E; @2014ApJ...790L..15P], such that more emitted shells have chance to interact before being decelerated by the circumburst medium. The SED for GRB 130925A, as shown in Figure \[fig:seds\_fig2\], implies a high dust content in the host galaxy. It is perhaps possible that whilst the immediate environment of the GRB central engine is low density and cleared by a strong stellar wind, outside of this the host galaxy has a high dust content.
We obtained X-ray defined measures of absorption from the GRB host galaxy in the form of the neutral hydrogen column density, $N_{\rm
H,rest}$ , using the spectral fitting algorithms of @2007ApJ...663..407B. The soft X-ray spectra are fitted with a power-law spectrum and two absorption components, corresponding to a Galactic and extragalactic column. In this pipeline solar abundances are assumed according to @1989GeCoA..53..197A. Those bursts observed by RATIR within eight hours of the initial *Swift* trigger with a measured *Swift*/XRT spectrum have $N_{\rm
H,rest}$ reported in Table \[tab:fast\_sample\]. In total there are 15 GRBs with both a fitted value for $A_{\rm V}$ and $N_{\rm H,rest}$. Of these 15, eleven had a measurable excess $N_{\rm H,rest}$ above that from our own Galaxy. These eleven GRBs are plotted in Figure \[fig:nh\_vs\_av\], once more with previous values obtained from samples in the literature. We have also compared our distribution of $N_{\rm H,rest}$ to those available from the literature, using further K-S tests, and find no significant differences, as shown in Table \[tab:ks\_test\_results\].
![$N_{\rm H,rest}$ as a function $A_{\rm V}$. The solid line is the Galactic $A_{\rm V}$-$N_{\rm H}$ relation . The dash lines correspond to the $A_{\rm V}$-$N_{\rm H}$ relation scaled according to a metal-to-dust ratio 10 and 100 times that of our Galaxy. Black filled circles denote bursts in our sample with $z<3.5$, while empty circles denote bursts in our sample with $z>3.5$. Values available from the literature are also plotted, with corresponding plot symbols and colours denoted in the key in the bottom right of the panel.[]{data-label="fig:nh_vs_av"}](super_Nhx_vs_Av.eps){width="8.5cm"}
$A_{\rm V}$ is a measure of the dust abundance of the GRB host galaxy along the sight line to the burst. $N_{\rm H,rest}$, as measured from soft X-ray spectra, is a probe of the total metal content of the host galaxy along the same line of sight, regardless of the phase it exists in. Figure \[fig:nh\_vs\_av\] confirms that the sight-line from the GRB central engine probes regions in the host galaxy with a higher metal-to-dust ratio than our Galaxy. This is in agreement with previous studies and suggests that the host galaxies of GRBs are similar to molecular clouds, with less dust than our Galaxy. @2001ApJ...549L.209G also consider a scenario in which the central engine of the GRB photoionizes dust in the circumburst medium. Such an effect, however, would only occur close to the GRB, depleting dust from a region of order a few tens of parsecs. This is much less than the distance of host galaxy through which the GRB emission must travel, and as such is less plausible than the host galaxy having a lower bulk dust content.
It must also be noted that we have assumed solar abundances in deriving $N_{\rm H,rest}$. The curvature of the X-ray spectrum is strongly related to absorption by oxygen, and as such the derived $N_{\rm H,rest}$ depends inversely on the O/H ratio in the GRB host galaxy. As the metal content in GRB host galaxies is actually lower than that assumed [@2012MNRAS.420..627S; @2014MNRAS.441.3634C; @2014arXiv1408.3578C], for a given amount of X-ray absorption, a more realistic metal abundance would reduce the O/H ratio and hence increase $N_{\rm
H,rest}$, therefore increasing the inferred metal-to-dust ratio.
We also obtained estimates of neutral hydrogen column densities, $N_{\rm HI}$, derived from optical spectroscopy as presented in Table \[tab:optical\_nh\]. Previous studies have shown that optically derived $N_{\rm HI}$ are usually significantly lower that those estimates from X-ray spectra . In contrast to X-ray derived $N_{\rm H,rest}$, $N_{\rm HI}$ provides an estimate of the quantity of gas in the host galaxy. Using this, we can consider the gas-to-dust ratio of the four host galaxies for which $N_{\rm HI}$ measurements are available.
GRB $\log\left( N_{\rm HI} \right)$ Reference
--------- --------------------------------- ------------------------
130606A 19.93$\pm$0.2 [@2013ApJ...774...26C]
[@2014arXiv1409.4804H]
140311A 21.80$\pm$0.30 [@2014arXiv1408.3578C]
140419A 19.3$\pm$0.2 [@2014arXiv1408.3578C]
140518A 21.65$\pm$0.20 [@2014arXiv1408.3578C]
: Optically derived estimates of $\log\left( N_{\rm HI}
\right)$.[]{data-label="tab:optical_nh"}
The host $A_{\rm V}$ for three of these GRBs is small, with GRB 140419A having $A_{\rm V} = 0$, as shown in Table \[tab:av\_model\]. However, GRB 140311A has a fitted $A_{\rm
V}=0.45_{-0.06}^{+0.08}$. For GRB 130606A, GRB 140311A and GRB 140518A, we derive $N_{\rm HI}/A_{\rm V}=4.26 \times
10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$mag$^{-1}$, $1.40\times
10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$mag$^{-1}$, and $1.49\times
10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$mag$^{-1}$, respectively. In comparison, for the LMC $N_{\rm HI}/A_{\rm V}=8.3 \times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$mag$^{-1}$ and SMC $N_{\rm HI}/A_{\rm V}=1.6 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$mag$^{-1}$ [@2001ApJ...548..296W]. This suggests that the gas-to-dust ratio for GRB 140518A is high in comparison to both the LMC and SMC, while that of GRB 130606A is most consistent with that of the LMC. GRB 140311A appears to be consistent with a gas-to-dust ratio similar to that of the SMC. These latter two results fit nicely with the preferred dust extinction templates, albeit with a very low quantity of dust for GRB 130606A. To reconcile the X-ray $N_{\rm H,rest}$ and optical values of $N_{\rm HI}$ requires either a much larger metal abundance, specifically oxygen, in the GRB host galaxy or for a large fraction of hydrogen gas in the host to be ionised. The latter is perhaps more plausible as the required oxygen abundance would have to be at least an order of magnitude higher. @2013ApJ...768...23W consider GRBs occurring within a star forming H [ii]{} region, attributing the X-ray absorption to a He-dominated absorber. In another study @2007ApJ...660L.101W discuss the sample of , in which 17 GRBs with optical and X-ray measures of column density are compared. @2007ApJ...660L.101W propose that the fundamental difference between absorption in the two regimes may result from the X-ray absorbing column density sampling the immediate environment of the GRB, which is substantially ionised by the burst. The H [i]{} column density may, however, probe an environment further from the GRB progenitor, and thus one that is little affected by the GRB.
Standardising $\beta_{\rm OX}$ {#sec:rest_frame}
------------------------------
and @2012MNRAS.421.1265M observe time evolution in the recovered values of $\beta_{\rm OX}$. With the morphology of optical and X-ray light curves not always being correlated, the temporal power-law index with which both regimes decay can differ. We find mean values of temporal decay index of $\bar{\alpha}_{\rm X}=1.37\pm0.08$ and $\bar{\alpha}_{\rm
opt}=0.97\pm0.11$, which states that GRB light curves in our RATIR sample decay more slowly on average in the optical regime. As such, it is more likely that GRBs with $\beta_{\rm OX}$ measured at earlier times will be reported as optically dark. With bursts occurring at a broad range of redshifts, fixed observer frame times and wavelengths means that $\beta_{\rm OX}$ is not a standardised measure with regards to the intrinsic GRB emission. To solve this, a fiducial time fixed in the rest frame of the GRB can be taken, $t_{\rm rest}=1.5$ hours. With our sample having a redshift range of $0.34<z<5.91$, $t_{\rm
rest}$ corresponds to a range of observer frame times from 2 to 11 hours. At the lowest redshifts a time of 2 hours should allow for sampling of the afterglow at a time after the plateau phase. Conversely, choosing $t_{\rm rest}$ to be only slightly after the end of the plateau phase reduces any contamination of the host galaxy to the photometry of the GRB per se. At the highest redshift in the RATIR sample $t_{\rm rest}$ corresponds to approximately 10.5 hours in the observer frame.
To calculate a rest frame measure of optical darkness, $\beta_{\rm
OX,rest}$, one should also define the energies at which the X-ray and optical fluxes are evaluated in the GRB rest frame, with $E_{\rm
X,rest}=3$ keV and $\lambda_{\rm rest}=0.25~\mu$m, respectively. $E_{\rm X,rest}$ was chosen such that at the peak of the observed GRB redshift distribution ($z\approx2.2$; @2012ApJ...752...62J), $E_{\rm X,rest}\left(1+z\right)
\approx 1$ keV. This minimises the amount by which the X-ray fluxes must be, on average, extrapolated from the 1 keV light curves. $\lambda_{\rm rest}=0.25~\mu$m was chosen to avoid extrapolation beyond the *H* band.
The two expected mechanisms for optical darkness, as measured by $\beta_{\rm OX}$, are high dust content in the host galaxy along the GRB sight line, or high redshift. By selecting a fixed rest frame wavelength in the ultraviolet regime, $\lambda_{\rm rest} =
0.25~\mu$m, $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}$ always corresponds to the observed optical (or indeed NIR) flux above the observed Lyman break, thus removing the effects of high-redshift from the measure. All bursts with $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}-\beta_{\rm X} < -0.5$, therefore, should result from significant quantity of dust in their host galaxy. It is also worth noting, however, that a rest frame wavelength of 0.25 $\mu$m will not sample the 2175 Åbump observed in a MW type dust extinction law, although this feature only becomes visible to optical and NIR facilities at redshifts $z\gtrsim1.5$.
![$A_{\rm V}$ as a function of $\beta_{\rm OX,rest} -
\beta_{\rm X}$ at a fixed rest frame time of $t_{\rm rest}$ = 1.5 hours after the high-energy GRB trigger. The X-ray flux is evaluated at a fixed rest frame energy of 3 keV, while the optical flux is calculated at a fixed rest frame wavelength of 0.25 $\mu$m. Black circles denote bursts with fitted optical lights curves, while grey circles have detections that are extrapolated to $t = t_{\rm rest}\left( 1 + z\right)$. Filled circles are GRBs with $z<3.5$, while empty circles are bursts with $z>3.5$.[]{data-label="fig:av_betadiff_rest"}](Av_vs_beta_diff_rest.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Looking at Figure \[fig:av\_betadiff\_rest\], we see that all of the GRBs classified as optically dark in using $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}$ do indeed have a detectable amount of dust in their host galaxy along the GRB sight line. We note, however, that our sample size is small, as only 15 GRBs met the observational criteria required to measure both $A_{\rm V}$ and $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}$. It is perhaps surprising that a trend of increasing $A_{\rm V}$ with increasing optical darkness (i.e. decreasing $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}-\beta_{\rm X}$) is not apparent, however, the most notable deviations from this trend are GRB 130418A, GRB 130701A and GRB 140311A.
The value of optical flux for GRB 130701A was extrapolated from a single detection assuming $\bar{\alpha}_{\rm opt}$ which may not best represent the actual GRB decay slope. Additionally, as noted in § \[sec:sed\_fit\], GRB 130701A may suffer from contamination in the optical and NIR regime from a nearby source. As such, this would artificially enhance the reported optical flux, and increase $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}$ from its true value.
GRB 130418A has the softest measured X-ray spectrum in our sample ($\beta_{\rm X}=0.59_{-0.18}^{+0.30}$), thus increasing the value of $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}-\beta_{\rm X}$, keeping the burst in the optically bright region of the parameter space in Figure \[fig:av\_betadiff\_rest\], despite significant fitted dust content ($A_{\rm V}=0.68\pm0.11$). As measured in the observer frame, GRB 130418A has $\beta_{\rm OX}=1.01\pm0.09$, which is typical of the expected value of $\beta_{\rm X}$. It is possible that the actual value of $\beta_{\rm X}$ lies closer to the upper end of the error bound in the measured value. In addition to this, the optical and X-ray regimes could lie on the same segment of the intrinsic GRB synchrotron spectrum, thus leading to the burst remaining in the bright region of the parameter space.
GRB 140311A is the final burst with significant amounts of fitted dust, $A_{\rm V}=0.45_{-0.06}^{+0.08}$, that is within the optically bright region of Figure \[fig:av\_betadiff\_rest\]. As discussed in § \[sec:sed\_fit\], this GRB was only observed in four filters, giving poorer constraints on the template fitted to the SED. It is also possible that, like GRB 130418A, GRB 140311A has both the optical and X-ray regimes on the same power-law segment of the intrinsic GRB spectrum. As such, to be reported as optically dark, the amount of dust along the line of sight in the host galaxy would have to be sufficient to reduce the optical flux below the level predicted by having a cooling break just below the X-ray regime. Both GRB 130418A and GRB 140311A highlight the complicated role played by the cooling break in identifying optically attenuated GRBs. As a cooling break could occur anywhere between the optical and X-ray regimes, or indeed not at all, a simple linear relation of increasing $A_{\rm V}$ with decreasing $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}-\beta_{\rm X}$ is unlikely to be observed. However, all GRBs denoted as dark in Figure \[fig:av\_betadiff\_rest\] are successfully explained by either having a high redshift or moderate to high amounts of dust along the GRB line of sight in the host galaxy.
A further test of the results from Figure \[fig:av\_betadiff\_rest\] would be to consider a fixed rest frame wavelength that is also less affected by dust extinction. This could be achieved by considering the rest-frame *i* band, which would allow a measure of optical darkness that should only consider the intrinsic GRB spectrum. If the GRB is intrinsically underluminous $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}$, as evaluated in the rest-frame *i* band, will continue to indicate optical darkness independent of redshift and dust content. Conversely, a GRB that is optically attenuated, due to either being at high-redshift or the dust content of its host galaxy, would not be reported as optically dark using such a measure. We have not calculated $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}$ at a rest-frame *i* band for the RATIR sample of GRBs as this would require an extrapolation further into the NIR, outside of the RATIR coverage for $z\gtrsim1.9$.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
In this work we present photometry of 28 GRBs rapidly observed by RATIR. Combining these data with those obtained by the *Swift*/XRT allows us to quantify optical darkness in these GRBs at a fiducial time of 11 hours after the high-energy trigger. To account for the expected synchrotron emission mechanism, we use the @2009ApJ...699.1087V definition of darkness to find 46$\pm$9 per cent (13/28) of our sample of GRBs are considered optically dark, or 50$\pm$10 per cent (13/26) when only including long GRBs. This fraction is broadly consistent with previous studies . The optically dark fraction of GRBs in our sample also remains constant when calculated at an earlier epoch of 5.5 hours.
To investigate the underlying causes of optical darkness, we use the template fitting algorithm presented in @2014AJ....148....2L to model the optical and NIR SEDs for the 19 GRBs in our sample with coverage in a sufficient number of filters. We were able to model seven of the bursts identified as optically dark. Of these seven, two have high redshift, two have $A_{\rm V} > 1$ and two have $0.25 <
A_{\rm V} < 1$. GRB 130420A has been modelled, but shown to have neither high redshift nor high dust extinction. We consider two alternative explanations, which suggest either a cooling break immediately below the X-ray regime or that a more precise measurement in the *H* band would prefer a template with a larger dust content in the GRB host galaxy.
Optical darkness is indicative of interesting GRB events, as they either occur at high-redshift or within highly dust extincted galaxies. Considering optically attenuated GRBs, we find that 23 per cent (3/13) are due to moderate or high redshifts ($z > 3.5$). Four dark GRBs have unknown redshift, and so this fraction may in fact be higher.
Of the 19 GRBs with modelled SEDs, 37$\pm$11 per cent (7/19) had moderate or high amounts of dust extinction. This is in general agreement with previous studies , where the majority of the sample have low dust extinction. Averaging across the entire fitted sample using a single type of dust extinction law, we find an average best fit of $A_{\rm V}=0.26\pm0.05$ with an SMC model. Individually, only 5 GRBs prefer an SMC type extinction law, but the improvement in $\chi^{2}$ is much larger in a few of these cases than obtained in choosing a different dust extinction law in the other 14 SED fits.
We perform an extensive array of K-S tests comparing the RATIR distributions of $z$, $\beta_{\rm X}$, $\beta_{\rm OX}$, $A_{\rm V}$ and $N_{\rm H,rest}$ to samples provided in previous literature . These tests confirm, with one exception, that our sample is statistically consistent with these previous studies, both individually and when considered as a single sample. We do however, find that our distribution of host galaxy $A_{\rm V}$ along the GRB sight line differs significantly from that of @2013MNRAS.432.1231C. Further K-S tests reveal that the BAT6 distribution of host galaxy $A_{\rm V}$ also differs from other previous literature, whilst the RATIR sample is consistent with these other studies. The BAT6 sample is notable for a handful of very high $A_{\rm V}$ values, including one in excess of $A_{\rm V}>5.5$, which is derived from a fit with zero degrees of freedom. However, it must also be noted that the selection criteria for the BAT6 sample differ significantly from other studies.
Within the sample of optically dark GRBs, an X-ray derived excess $N_{\rm H,rest}$ from the host galaxy is detected in 11 bursts. Figure \[fig:nh\_vs\_av\] compares $N_{\rm H,rest}$ to the dust content, as probed along the line of sight. As such, we find the GRB host galaxies tend to have a higher metal-to-dust ratio, which is in agreement with some previous studies . Optically derived estimates of $N_{\rm HI}$ are also presented for four bursts, showing GRB 130606A and GRB 140311A to have a gas-to-dust ratio broadly consistent with that of the LMC and SMC, respectively.
Finally, we present a standardised measurement of optical darkness $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}$, which corresponds to optical darkness in a fixed rest frame time of 1.5 hours, considering flux at fixed rest frame values of $E_{\rm X,rest}=3$ keV and $\lambda_{\rm
rest}=0.25~\mu$m. In doing so, we reduce the dependency of optical darkness solely to the host galaxy dust content along the GRB line of sight. As such, we demonstrate that optical darkness in our sample is only due to either high-redshift or host galaxy dust content. This statement is limited by the small sample size of rapidly observed RATIR GRBs, but further population of the $A_{\rm V}$ versus $\beta_{\rm OX,rest}-\beta_{\rm X}$ parameter space should finally and conclusively confirm this to be true.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Pall Jakobsson for useful comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We also thank Jochen Greiner for supplying us with detailed data related to . We thank the RATIR project team and the staff of the Observatorio Astronómico Nacional on Sierra San Pedro Mártir. RATIR is a collaboration between the University of California, the Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, and Arizona State University, benefiting from the loan of an H2RG detector and hardware and software support from Teledyne Scientific and Imaging. RATIR, the automation of the Harold L. Johnson Telescope of the Observatorio Astronómico Nacional on Sierra San Pedro Mártir, and the operation of both are funded through NASA grants NNX09AH71G, NNX09AT02G, NNX10AI27G, and NNX12AE66G, CONACyT grants INFR-2009-01-122785 and CB-2008-101958, UNAM PAPIIT grant IN113810, and UC MEXUS-CONACyT grant CN 09-283. A.C. is supported by the NASA Postdoctoral Program at the Goddard Space Flight Center, administered by Oak Ridge Associated Universities through a contract with NASA. This work made use of data supplied by the UK Swift Science Data Centre at the University of Leicester.
[ms]{}
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (OML)
[^2]: www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves
[^3]: http://www.swift.ac.uk//xrt\_live\_cat/docs.php\#lc
[^4]: http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/catalogs/ub1.html
[^5]: http://butler.lab.asu.edu/swift
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The momentum, electronic density, spin density, and interaction dependences of the exponents that control the $(k,\omega)$-plane singular features of the $\sigma =\uparrow,\downarrow$ one-electron spectral functions of the 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field are studied. The usual half-filling concepts of one-electron lower Hubbard band and upper Hubbard band are defined for all electronic density and spin density values and the whole finite repulsion range in terms of the rotated electrons associated with the model Bethe-ansatz solution. Such rotated electrons are the link of the non-perturbative relation between the electrons and the pseudofermions. Our results further clarify the microscopic processes through which the pseudofermion dynamical theory accounts for the $\sigma $ one-electron matrix elements between the ground state and excited energy eigenstates.'
author:
- 'J. M. P. Carmelo'
- 'T. Čadež'
date: 25 May 2016
title: 'One-electron singular spectral features of the 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field'
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
The one-dimensional (1D) Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor hopping integral $t$ and on-site repulsion $U$ is an important correlated electronic system whose Bethe anstaz (BA) solution was first derived by the coordinate BA [@Lieb; @Lieb-03], following a similar solution for a related continuous model with repulsive $\delta$-function interaction [@Yang-67]. For the 1D Hubbard model such a solution is also reachable by the BA inverse-scattering method [@Martins]. In the thermodynamic limit (TL) the imaginary part of its BA complex rapidities simplifies [@Takahashi]. The Hubbard model was originally introduced as a toy model to study d-electrons in transition metals [@Gutzwiller; @Hubbard]. It is possibly the most studied lattice system of correlated electrons. Static properties such as the charge and spin stiffnesses of the 1D Hubbard model under periodic boundary conditions can be determined from the use of the response of the energy eigenvalues to an external flux piercing the ring [@Shastry-90; @Carmelo-97-00].
On the other hand, one of the main challenges in the study of the 1D Hubbard model properties is the calculation of dynamical correlation functions. Its BA solution provides the exact spectrum of the energy eigenstates, yet it has been difficult to apply to the derivation of high-energy dynamical correlation functions. (In this paper we use the designation [*high energy*]{} for all energy scales larger than the model low-energy limit associated with the Tomonaga-Luttinger-liquid regime [@Tomonaga-50; @Luttinger-63; @Solyom-79; @Voit; @Woy-89; @Lederer].) The high-energy dynamical correlation functions of both some integrable models with spectral gap [@Karowski; @Smirnov; @Mussardo; @Zamolodchikov; @Tsvelik; @Altshuler; @Konik] and spin lattice systems [@Jimbo; @Bougourzi; @Biegel; @Kitanine; @Caux; @Konno] can be studied by the form-factor approach. However, form factors of the 1D Hubbard model $\sigma =\uparrow,\downarrow$ electron creation and annihilation operators involved in the spectral functions studied in this paper remains an unsolved problem.
The low-energy behavior of the correlation functions of the 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field was addressed in Refs. [@Woy-89; @Frahm; @Frahm-91; @Ogata-91]. On the other hand, in what high-energy behavior of dynamical correlation functions is concerned the method used in Refs. [@Karlo; @Karlo-97] has been a breakthrough to address it for one-electron removal and addition spectral functions at zero magnetic field in the $u\rightarrow\infty$ limit, which have been derived for the whole $(k,\omega)$ plane. That method relies on the spinless-fermion phase shifts imposed by Heisenberg spins $1/2$. Such elementary objects naturally arise from the zero spin density and $u\rightarrow\infty$ electron wave-function factorization [@Woy; @Woy-82; @Ogata].
A related pseudofermion dynamical theory (PDT) relying on a representation of the model BA solution in terms of the pseudofermions generated by a unitary transformation from the corresponding pseudoparticles considered in Ref. [@Carmelo-04] was introduced in Refs. [@V-1; @LE]. It is an extension of the $u\rightarrow\infty$ method of Refs. [@Karlo; @Karlo-97] to the whole $u\equiv U/4t>0$ range of the 1D Hubbard model. A key property is that the pseudofermions are inherently constructed to their energy spectrum having no interaction terms. This allows the expression of the one-electron spectral functions in terms of convolutions of pseudofermion spectral functions. The price to pay for the lack of pseudofermion energy spectrum interaction terms is that creation or annihilation of pseudofermions under transitions to excited states imposes phase shifts to the remaining pseudofermions. Within the PDT such phase shifts fully control the one- and two-electron spectral-weight distributions over the $(k,\omega)$ plane. That approach has been the first breakthrough for the derivation of analytical expressions of the zero-magnetic-field 1D Hubbard model high-energy dynamical correlation functions for the whole finite $u>0$ range. Recently a modified form of the PDT was used to study the high-energy spin dynamical correlation functions of the 1D Hubbard model electronic density $n_e=1$ Mott-Hubbard insulator phase [@CarCadez].
After the PDT of the 1D Hubbard model was introduced in Refs. [@V-1; @LE], a set of novel methods have been developed to also tackle the high-energy physics of 1D correlated quantum problems, beyond the low-energy Tomonaga-Luttinger-liquid limit [@Glazman]. In the case of the 1D Hubbard model at zero magnetic field such methods reach the same results as the PDT. For instance, the momentum, electronic density, and on-site repulsion $u=U/4t>0$ dependence of the exponents that control the line shape of the one-electron spectral function of the model at zero magnetic field calculated in Refs. [@Essler; @Essler-14] in the framework of a mobile impurity model using input from the BA solution is exactly the same as that obtained previously by the use of the PDT.
However, the applications to the study of the repulsive 1D Hubbard model one-electron spectral functions of both such methods [@Essler; @Essler-14], those of the PDT [@TTF; @spectral0; @spectral; @spectral-06], and the time-dependent density-matrix renormalization group (tDMRG) method [@Kohno-10; @Benthien-04] have been limited to zero magnetic field. The tDMRG studies of Ref. [@Feiguin-09] studied the one-electron spectral-weight distributions of the attractive 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field. Under the canonical transformation that maps that model into the repulsive 1D Hubbard model, the one-electron spectral-weight distributions plotted in Figs. 1 (c) and Fig. 2 of that reference correspond to electronic densities $n_e=1$ and $n_e=0.9$, respectively, and spin density $m=1/2$. The results refer to a finite system with $40$ electrons. While they provide some information on the one-electron spectral-weight distributions, it is not possible to extract from them the momentum dependence of the exponents that [*in the TL*]{} control the line shapes near the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions singularities.
The main goal of this paper is to extend the PDT applications to the study of the $\sigma $ one-electron spectral functions of the repulsive 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field $h$ in the TL near their singularities. In the TL the corresponding line shapes are controlled by exponents whose momentum, on-site repulsion $u=U/4t$, electronic density $n$, and spin density $m$ dependences we study for $u>0$, $n\in [0,1[$, and $m \in [0,n_e]$. In addition, the issue of how the $\sigma$ one-electron creation and annihilation operators matrix elements between the ground state and excited energy eigenstates are accounted for by the PDT introduced in Refs. [@V-1; @LE] is further clarified in this paper. Beyond the preliminary analysis of these references, the corresponding microscopic processes are shown to involve the rotated electrons as a needed link of the non-perturbative relation between the electrons and PDT pseudofermions.
Our studies refer to the TL of the Hubbard model under periodic boundary conditions on a 1D lattice with an even number $L\rightarrow\infty$ of sites and in a chemical potential $\mu$ and magnetic field $h$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat{H}} & = & {\hat{H}}_u + 2\mu\,{\hat{S}}_{\eta}^{z} + 2\mu_B h\,{\hat{S}}_s^{z} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{H}}_u & = & -t\sum_{\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow }\sum_{j=1}^{L}\left(c_{j,\sigma}^{\dag}\,
c_{j+1,\sigma} + c_{j+1,\sigma}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\sigma}\right)
+ U\sum_{j=1}^{L}\left(c_{j,\uparrow}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\sigma} -1/2\right)
\left(c_{j,\downarrow}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\sigma} -1/2\right) \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{S}}_{\eta}^{z} & = & -{1\over 2}(L-\hat{N}) \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
{\hat{S}}_s^{z} = -{1\over 2}({\hat{N}}_{\uparrow}-{\hat{N}}_{\downarrow}) \, .
\label{H}\end{aligned}$$ Here the first and second terms of ${\hat{H}}_u$ are the kinetic-energy operator and the electron on-site repulsion operator, respectively, the operator $c_{j,\sigma}^{\dagger}$ (and $c_{j,\sigma}$) creates (and annihilates) one spin-projection $\sigma$ electron at lattice site $j=1,...,L$, and the electron number operators read ${\hat{N}}=\sum_{\sigma=\uparrow ,\downarrow }\,\hat{N}_{\sigma}$ and ${\hat{N}}_{\sigma}=\sum_{j=1}^{L}\hat{n}_{j,\sigma}= \sum_{j=1}^{L}c_{j,\sigma}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\sigma}$. Moreover, $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton and ${\hat{S}}_{\eta}^{z}$ and ${\hat{S}}_s^{z}$ are the diagonal generators of the Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}}_u$ global $\eta$-spin and spin $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras, respectively. In this paper we use in general units of lattice constant one, so that the number of lattice sites $N_a$ equals the lattice length $L$. The model properties depend on the ratio $U/t$ and in this paper the corresponding parameter $u= U/4t$ is often used.
The lowest weight states (LWSs) and highest weight states (HWSs) of the $\eta$-spin and spin $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras have numbers $S_{\alpha} = - S_{\alpha}^{z}$ and $S_{\alpha} = S_{\alpha}^{z}$, respectively, for $\alpha = \eta,s$. Here $S_{\eta}$ is the states $\eta$-spin, $S_{s}$ their spin, and $S_{\eta}^{z}$ and $S_{s}^{z}$ are the corresponding projections, respectively, which are the eigenvalues of the spin operators given in Eq. (\[H\]). Let $\{\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle\}$ be the complete set of $4^{L}$ energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, Eq. (\[H\]), associated with the BA solution for $u>0$. The LWSs of both $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras are here denoted by $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u\rangle$ where the $u$-independent label $l_{\eta s}$ is a short notation for the set of quantum numbers, $$l_{\eta s} = S_{\eta},S_{s},n_{\eta},n_s \, ; \hspace{0.50cm} n_{\alpha} =
S_{\alpha}+S_{\alpha}^{z} = 0,1,..., 2S_{\alpha} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta, s \, .
\label{etas-states-ll}$$ Furthermore, the label $l_{\rm r}$ refers to the set of all remaining $u$-independent quantum numbers needed to uniquely specify an energy eigenstate $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$. The latter $u$-independent quantum numbers naturally emerge from the BA solution and are given below in Section \[pseudoRelect\].
We call a [*Bethe state*]{} an energy eigenstate that is a LWS of both $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras. For a Bethe state one then has that $n_{\eta}= n_s=0$ in Eq. (\[etas-states-ll\]), so that $l_{\eta s}^0$ stands for $S_{\eta},S_{s},0,0$. The non-LWSs $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$ can be generated from the corresponding Bethe states $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u\rangle$ as [@Completeness], $$\begin{aligned}
\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle & = & \prod_{\alpha=\eta, s}\left(\frac{1}{
\sqrt{{\cal{C}}_{\alpha}}}({\hat{S}}^{+}_{\alpha})^{n_{\alpha}}\right)\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u\rangle \, ;
\hspace{0.50cm} {\cal{C}}_{\alpha} = (n_{\alpha}!)\prod_{j=1}^{n_{\alpha}}(\,2S_{\alpha}+1-j\,)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} n_{\alpha}=1,...,2S_{\alpha} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{S}}^{+}_{\eta} & = & \sum_{j=1}^{L}(-1)^j\,c_{j,\downarrow}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\uparrow}^{\dag} \, ;
\hspace{0.50cm}
{\hat{S}}^{+}_{s} = \sum_{j=1}^{L}c_{j,\downarrow}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\uparrow} \, .
\label{Gstate-BAstate}\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\cal{C}}_{\alpha}$ are normalization constants and $\alpha =\eta,s$. The model in its full Hilbert space can be described either directly within the BA solution [@Woy-82; @Braak] or by application onto the Bethe states of the $\eta$-spin and spin $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras off-diagonal generators, as given in Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]).
Relying on the model symmetries, for simplicity and without loss in generality the studies of this paper refer to electronic densities and spin densities in the ranges $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$, respectively. For such electronic densities and spin densities the model ground states are LWSs of both the $\eta$-spin and spin $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras so that in the studies of this paper we use the LWS formulation of 1D Hubbard model BA solution.
The PDT is used in it to clarify one of the unresolved questions concerning the physics of the 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field, Eq. (\[H\]), by deriving the momentum, repulsive interaction $u=U/4t$, electron-density $n_e$, and spin-density $m$ dependences of the exponents that control the singularities at the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions. These exponents control the line shape near the singularities of the following $\sigma$ one-electron spectral function $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\,\omega)$ such that $\gamma=-1$ (and $\gamma=+1$) for one-electron removal (and addition), $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\sigma,-1} (k,\,\omega) & = & \sum_{\nu^-}
\vert\langle\nu^-\vert\, c_{k,\sigma} \vert \,GS\rangle\vert^2 \,\delta (\omega
+ (E_{\nu^-}^{N_{\sigma}-1}-E_{GS}^{N_{\sigma}})) \hspace{0.5cm} \omega \leq 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
B_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) & = & \sum_{\nu^+}
\vert\langle\nu^+\vert\, c^{\dagger}_{k,\sigma} \vert
\,GS\rangle\vert^2 \,\delta (\omega - (E_{\nu^+}^{N_{\sigma}+1}-E_{GS}^{N_{\sigma}})) \hspace{0.5cm} \omega \geq 0 \, .
\label{Bkomega}\end{aligned}$$ Here $c_{k,\sigma}$ and $c^{\dagger}_{k,\sigma}$ are electron annihilation and creation operators, respectively, of momentum $k$ and $\vert GS\rangle$ denotes the initial $N_{\sigma}$-electron ground state of energy $E_{GS}^{N_{\sigma}}$. The $\nu^-$ and $\nu^+$ summations run over the $N_{\sigma}-1$ and $N_{\sigma}+1$-electron excited energy eigenstates, respectively, and $E_{\nu^-}^{N_{\sigma}-1}$ and $E_{\nu^+}^{N_{\sigma}+1}$ are the corresponding energies.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[relation\] the $\sigma$ one-electron lower-Hubbard band (LHB) and upper-Hubbard band (UHB) are defined for $u>0$ and all densities in terms of quantum numbers associated with the $\sigma$ rotated-electron energy eigenstates occupancies. Moreover, the relation of the $\beta $ pseudoparticle representation to such $\sigma$ rotated electrons, which are uniquely defined in terms of the matrix elements of the electron - rotated-electron unitary operator between all model $4^L$ energy and momentum eigenstates, is an issue also addressed in that section. The PDT suitable for the study of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weights and further information beyond that provided in Refs. [@V-1; @LE] on how that dynamical theory accounts for the matrix elements of the $\sigma$ electron operators between the ground state and the excited energy eigenstates are the issues revisited and studied in Section \[PDT\]. In Section \[DSGzzxx\] the $(k,\omega)$-plane line shape near the singular spectral features of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), is studied. Finally, the concluding remarks are presented in Section \[concluding\].
Lower- and upper-Hubbard bands and the pseudoparticle representation emerging from the rotated electrons associated with the BA solution {#relation}
========================================================================================================================================
Concerning the $\sigma $ one-electron addition processes that contribute to the $\gamma=1$ spectral function, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), important concepts for our study are those of a LHB and a UHB. Those are defined for $u>0$ and all densities in Section \[QPTLUHB\] by the rotated-electron quantum numbers that define the $\sigma $ one-electron addition excited energy eigenstates. The corresponding unique definition of the electron - rotated-electron unitary transformation associated with the BA solution and the separation of the rotated-electron occupancy configurations that generate the exact $u>0$ energy eigenstates into occupancy configurations of three types of fractionalized particles, specifically the spinless $c$ pseudoparticles, the rotated spins $1/2$, and the rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$, are the issues addressed in Section \[pseudoRelect\]. Such a relation allows the introduction and expression in Section \[pseuOpRel\] of operators for the $c$ pseudoparticles, rotated spins $1/2$, and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ in terms of the $\sigma$ rotated-electron creation and annihilation operators. In Section \[quantum-liquid\] the pseudoparticle energy dispersions and other quantities that emerge from the pseudoparticle quantum liquid and determine and control the $(k,\omega)$-plane line shape near the singular spectral features of the $\sigma =\uparrow,\downarrow$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), are introduced.
Definition of $\sigma$ one-electron lower- and upper-Hubbard bands {#QPTLUHB}
------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition is well established at electronic density $n_e=1$ for $u>0$ [@Lieb; @Lieb-03; @DSF-n1]. Below we define the concepts of a LHB and a UHB for $n_e\neq 1$ and $u>0$ such that due to a quantum phase transition at $n_e=1$ there is only $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition whereas for $n_e\neq 1$ there is both $\sigma$ one-electron LHB and UHB addition. The Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, Eq. (\[H\]), quantum phases are associated with different ranges of electronic density $n_e$ and spin density $m$ and are marked by important energy scales. Those correspond to limiting values of the charge energy scale $2\mu = 2\mu (n_e)$ and magnetic energy scale $2\mu_B\,h=2\mu_B\,h (m)$ involving the chemical potential $\mu$ and and magnetic field $h$, respectively.
The energy scales $2\mu = 2\mu (n_e)$ and $2\mu_B\,h=2\mu_B\,h (m)$ are odd functions of the hole concentration $(1-n_e)$ and spin density $m$, respectively. One may then consider for instance the ranges $n_e\in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$. The interval $n_e\in ]0,1[$ refers for $m<n_e$ to a metallic quantum phase for which $2\mu = 2\mu (n_e)$ is a continuous function of $n_e$. It smoothly decreases from $2\mu = (U+4t)$ for $n_e\rightarrow 0$ to $2\mu = 2\mu_{u}$ for $n_e\rightarrow 1$ where $2\mu_{u} <(U+4t)$ is the Mott-Hubbard gap. On the other hand, at $n_e=1$ the chemical potential varies in the range $\mu \in [-\mu_{u},\mu_{u}]$ in spite of the electronic density remaining constant, which is a property of the corresponding $n_e=1$ and $u>0$ Mott-Hubbard insulator quantum phase.
The $n_e=1$ Mott-Hubbard gap $2\mu_{u}$ is the energy scale associated with the phase transition between the two above mentioned quantum phases. For $u>0$ it remains finite for all spin densities, $m\in [0,1[$. For instance, in the limits $m\rightarrow 0$ [@Lieb; @Lieb-03; @Ovchi] and $m\rightarrow 1$ it reads, $$\begin{aligned}
2\mu_{u} & = & U - 4t + 8t\int_0^{\infty}d\omega {J_1 (\omega)\over\omega\,(1+e^{2\omega u})}
= {16\,t^2\over U}\int_1^{\infty}d\omega {\sqrt{\omega^2-1}\over\sinh\left({2\pi t\omega\over U}\right)}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} m\rightarrow 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & \sqrt{(4t)^2+U^2} - 4t \, , \hspace{0.50cm} m\rightarrow 1 \, ,
\label{2mu0}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Its $u\ll 1$ limiting behaviors are $2\mu_{u} \approx (8/\pi)\,\sqrt{t\,U}\,e^{-2\pi \left({t\over U}\right)}$ for $m\rightarrow 0$ and $2\mu_{u} \approx U^2/8t$ for $m\rightarrow 1$ and the $u\gg 1$ behavior is $2\mu_{u} \approx (U - 4t)$ for $m \in [0,1]$.
On the other hand, for the metallic quantum phase corresponding to the spin density interval $m\in [0,n_e[$ for $n_e\in [0,1[$ the magnetic energy scale $2\mu_B\,h$ is a continuous function of $m$. It smoothly increases from zero at $m=0$ to $2\mu_B\,h_c$ for $m\rightarrow n_e$. Here $h_c$ is the critical field for the fully polarized ferromagnetism quantum phase transition. Indeed, for $h>h_c$ there is no electron double occupancy, so that the on-site repulsive interaction term in the Hamiltonian, Eq. (\[H\]), has no effects and the system is driven into a non-interactive quantum phase.
The magnetic energy scale $2\mu_B\,h_c$ associated with such a quantum phase transition is an even function of the hole concentration $(1-n_e)$. For the ranges $n_e\in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ it has the following closed-form expression in terms of $u=U/4t$ and the electronic density $n_e$ [@Carmelo-91-92], $$\begin{aligned}
2\mu_B\,h_c & = & 2t\Bigl[\sqrt{1+u^2}\left(1 - {2\over\pi}\operatorname{arccot}\left({\sqrt{1+u^2}\over u}\tan (\pi n_e)\right)\right)
\nonumber \\
& - & 2u\,n_e - {2\over\pi}\cos (\pi n_e)\arctan\left({\sin (\pi n_e)\over u}\right)\Bigr] \, .
\label{hc}\end{aligned}$$ In the $n_e\rightarrow 0$ and $n_e\rightarrow 1$ limits this gives, $$\begin{aligned}
2\mu_B\,h_c & = & 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n_e\rightarrow 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & \sqrt{(4t)^2+U^2} - U \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n_e\rightarrow 1 \, ,
\label{mBHc-n0-n1}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. For the density range $n_e \in [0,1]$ it behaves as $2\mu_B\,h_c = 4t\sin^2 (\pi\,n_e/2)$ for $u\rightarrow 0$ and as $2\mu_B\,h_c = (2t\,n_e/u)[1 - \sin (2\pi n_e)/(2\pi n_e)]$ for $u\gg 1$.
The definition of the $\sigma$ one-electron LHB and UHB addition for the whole $u>0$ range, electronic densities $n_e \in [0,1]$, and spin densities $m\in [0,n_e]$ relies on the occupancy configurations of uniquely defined [*rotated electrons*]{}. This involves selecting out of the many choices of $u\rightarrow\infty$ degenerate $4^{L}$ energy eigenstates, those obtained from the $u>0$ Bethe states and corresponding non-LWSs, Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]), as $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle = \lim_{u\rightarrow\infty}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$.
The important point is that for the $u\rightarrow\infty$ energy eigenstates $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle$, $\sigma$ electron single occupancy, double occupancy, and non-occupancy are good quantum numbers. We call [*$V$ tower*]{} the set of energy eigenstates $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$ with exactly the same $u$-independent quantum numbers $l_{\rm r}$ and $l_{\eta s}$ and different $u$ values in the range $u>0$. $\sigma$ electron single occupancy, electron double occupancy, and electron non-occupancy are not good quantum numbers for the finite-$u$ energy eigenstates $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$ belonging to the same $V$ tower. For instance, upon decreasing $u$ there emerges for ground states a finite electron double occupancy expectation value, which vanishes for $u\rightarrow\infty$ [@Carmelo-03].
Since for any $u>0$ value the set of energy eigenstates $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$ that belong to the same $V$ tower are generated by exactly the same occupancy configurations of the $u$-independent quantum numbers $l_{\rm r}$ and $l_{\eta s}$ given in Eq. (\[etas-states-ll\]) and below in Section \[pseudoRelect\], respectively, the Hilbert space is the same for the whole $u>0$ range. Hence for any $u>0$ there is a uniquely defined unitary operator ${\hat{V}}={\hat{V}} (u)$ such that $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle={\hat{V}}^{\dag}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle$. This operator ${\hat{V}}$ is the $\sigma $ electron - rotated-electron unitary operator such that, $${\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma}^{\dag} =
{\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\sigma}^{\dag}\,{\hat{V}}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
{\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma} =
{\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,c_{j,\sigma}\,{\hat{V}}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
{\tilde{n}}_{j,\sigma} = {\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma}^{\dag}\,{\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} j = 1,...,L
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} \sigma = \uparrow, \downarrow \, ,
\label{rotated-operators}$$ are the operators that create and annihilate, respectively, the $\sigma$ rotated electrons as defined here. Moreover, $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle=\hat{G}^{\dag}_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}}\,\vert 0\rangle$ where $\vert 0\rangle$ is the electron and rotated-electron vacuum and $\hat{G}^{\dag}_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}}$ a uniquely defined operator. It then follows that $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle=\tilde{G}^{\dag}_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}}\,\vert 0\rangle$ where the generator $\tilde{G}^{\dag}_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}}={\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,\hat{G}^{\dag}_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}}\,{\hat{V}}$ has the same expression in terms of the $\sigma$ rotated-electron creation and annihilation operators as $\hat{G}^{\dag}_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}}$ in terms of $\sigma$ electron creation and annihilation operators, respectively. The $\sigma$ electron - $\sigma$ rotated-electron unitary operator ${\hat{V}}$ in Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]) is uniquely defined in Section \[pseudoRelect\] for $u>0$ by its matrix elements between all $4^L$ energy and momentum eigenstates, Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]).
That $\sigma$ electron single occupancy, electron double occupancy, and electron non-occupancy are good quantum numbers for a $u\rightarrow\infty$ energy eigenstate $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle$ then implies that for all the finite-$u$ energy eigenstates $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$ belonging to the same $V$ tower $\sigma$ rotated-electron single occupancy, rotated-electron double occupancy, and rotated-electron non-occupancy are good quantum numbers for $u>0$. For $u>0$ this applies to all $4^L$ energy and momentum eigenstates.
Fortunately and as confirmed in Section \[pseudoRelect\], the BA quantum numbers are directly related to the numbers of sites singly occupied, doubly occupied, and unoccupied by $\sigma$ rotated electrons. From the use of that relation it is found that for electronic densities $n_e \in [0,1[$ and spin densities $m\in [0,n_e]$ the model ground states have zero rotated-electron double occupancy. The $\sigma$ one-electron LHB addition spectral function $B^{\rm LHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega)$ and UHB addition spectral function $B^{\rm UHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega)$ are then uniquely defined for $u>0$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) & = & B^{\rm LHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) + B^{\rm UHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) \, ,
\nonumber \\
B^{\rm LHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) & = & \sum_{\nu^+_0}
\vert\langle\nu^+_0\vert\, c^{\dagger}_{k,\sigma} \vert
\,GS\rangle\vert^2 \,\delta (\omega - (E_{\nu^+_0}^{N_{\sigma}+1}-E_{GS}^{N_{\sigma}})) \hspace{0.5cm} \omega \geq 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
B^{\rm UHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) & = & \sum_{\nu^+_D}
\vert\langle\nu^+_D\vert\, c^{\dagger}_{k,\sigma} \vert
\,GS\rangle\vert^2 \,\delta (\omega - (E_{\nu^+_D}^{N_{\sigma}+1}-E_{GS}^{N_{\sigma}})) \hspace{0.5cm} \omega \geq 0 \, ,
\label{LUHB}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\nu^+_0$ and $\nu^+_D$ summations run over the $N_{\sigma}+1$-electron excited energy eigenstates with zero and $D>0$, respectively, rotated-electron double occupancy and $E_{\nu^+_0}^{N_{\sigma}-1}$ and $E_{\nu_D^+}^{N_{\sigma}+1}$ are the corresponding energies.
The $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions obey the following sum rules, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_k\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega\,B_{\sigma,-1} (k,\,\omega) & = & N_{\sigma} \, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
\sum_k\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega\,B_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) = L - N_{\sigma} \, ,
\nonumber \\
\sum_k\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega\,B^{\rm LHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) & = & L - N \, ; \hspace{0.55cm}
\sum_k\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega\,B^{\rm UHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega) = N - N_{\sigma} \, .
\label{sumrules}\end{aligned}$$ The first two sum rules are well known and exact for all $u$ values. The $B^{\rm LHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega)$ and $B^{\rm UHB}_{\sigma,+1} (k,\,\omega)$ sum rules are found to be exact both in the limits $n_e\rightarrow 0$ and $n_e\rightarrow 1$ for $u>0$. Both in the $u\ll 1$ and $u\gg 1$ limits they are exact as well for electronic densities $n_e \in [0,1[$ and spin densities $m\in [0,n_e]$. They are likely exact also for intermediate $u$ values yet we could not prove it. If otherwise, they are a very good approximation. Fortunately, clarification of this issue is not needed for our studies, as it focuses only on the line shapes in the vicinity of the singularities of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions and not on the detailed weight distribution over the whole $(k,\omega)$ plane. The line shape near the singularities is that observed in experiments on actual condensed matter systems and spin $1/2$ ultra-cold atom systems. The important point for the present study is rather the definition of $\sigma$ one-electron LHB and UHB for $u>0$, $n_e \in [0,1]$, and $m\in [0,n_e]$, Eq. (\[LUHB\]), which follows from the corresponding unique definition of rotated electrons in Sec. \[pseudoRelect\] in terms of quantities of the exact BA solution.
The present definition for $u>0$ and all densities of the concepts of a LHB and a UHB is directly associated with a global lattice $U(1)$ symmetry of the Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}}_u$, Eq. (\[H\]), beyond its well-known $SO(4) = [SU(2)\otimes SU(2)]/Z_2$ symmetry, which contains the $\eta$-spin and spin $SU(2)$ symmetries [@Yang; @Yang-90; @Lieb-89]. Such a global lattice $U(1)$ symmetry exists for the model on the 1D and any other bipartite lattice [@bipartite] and is behind its global symmetry being actually larger than $SO(4)$ and given by $[SO(4)\otimes U(1)]/Z_2=[SU(2)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1)]/Z_2^2$, which is equivalent to $SO(3)\otimes SO(3)\otimes U(1)$. (The factor $1/Z_2^2$ follows from the total number $4^{L}$ of independent representations of the group $[SU(2)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1)]/Z_2^2$ being four times smaller than the dimension $4^{L+1}$ of the group $SU(2)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1)$.)
That the Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}}_u$, Eq. (\[H\]), global symmetry is $[SO(4)\otimes U(1)]/Z_2$ has direct effects on the $4^{L}$ energy and momentum eigenstates of the Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}}$ in the presence of a chemical potential and magnetic field also given in Eq. (\[H\]), as these states refer to $4^{L}$ state representations of the group $[SO(4)\otimes U(1)]/Z_2$ in the model full Hilbert space. In the present 1D case the occurrence of the global lattice $U(1)$ symmetry justifies for instance that the spin and charge monodromy matrices of the BA inverse-scattering method have different ABCD and ABCDF forms associated with the spin $SU(2)$ and charge $U(2)=SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ symmetries, respectively. Consistently, the latter matrix is larger than the former and involves more fields [@Martins]. If the model global symmetry was $SO(4)=[SU(2)\otimes SU(2)]/Z_2$, the charge and a spin monodromy matrices would have the same traditional ABCD form, which is that of the spin-$1/2$ $XXX$ Heisenberg chain [@Faddeev].
The relation of the global lattice $U(1)$ symmetry beyond $SO(4)$ to the LHB and UHB as defined here for $u>0$ and all densities results from its generator being the operator that counts the number $N_s^R$ of rotated-electron singly occupied sites or, alternatively, the number $N_{\eta}^R = L -N_s^R$ of rotated-electron unoccupied sites plus doubly occupied sites. Indeed, for the electronic density ranges (i) $n_e \in [0,1]$ and (ii) $n_e \in [1,2]$ the UHB exactly originates from transitions to energy eigenstates with a finite number of (i) rotated-electron doubly occupied sites and (ii) rotated-electron unoccupied sites, respectively.
Rotated-electron separation in terms of $c$ pseudoparticles, rotated spins $1/2$, and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ {#pseudoRelect}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The charge-only and spin-only fractionalized particles that emerge in 1D correlated electronic systems are usually identified with holons and spinons, respectively [@Essler-94]. Such holons and spinons are in 1D integrable correlated electronic models associated with specific quantum numbers of the exact solutions. The use of holon and spinon representations provides a suitable description of these models low-energy physics. Some of such quantum liquids exotic properties survive at higher energies yet the exponents characterizing the dynamical correlation functions singularities are functions of the momentum and differ significantly from the predictions of the linear Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid theory [@V-1; @Glazman; @Essler; @Essler-14]. This applies to the 1D Hubbard model.
Furthermore, a careful analysis of the high-energy dynamical correlation functions reveals that their spectral weights are controlled by the scattering of both spinless fractionalized particles and neutral composite objects whose constituents are spin-$1/2$ or $\eta$-spin $1/2$ fractionalized particles. Both such spinless fractionalized particles and composite elementary objects refer to the pseudofermions of the PDT representation used in this paper to study the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]). Such pseudofermions are identical to the pseudoparticles of Ref. [@Carmelo-04] except that their momentum values are slightly shifted by a well defined unitary transformation. The direct relation of the corresponding spinless $c$ pseudoparticles and spin-$1/2$ or $\eta$-spin $1/2$ fractionalized particles within the neutral composite pseudoparticles to the rotated electrons whose operators are given in Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]) refers to the above mentioned needed link of the corresponding non-perturbative relation between the electrons and PDT pseudofermions.
For the 1D Hubbard model there is an infinite number of transformations that generate $\sigma$ rotated electrons from the $\sigma$ electrons such that $\sigma$ rotated-electron single occupancy is a good quantum number for $u>0$ [@bipartite]. The pseudoparticle representation and corresponding pseudofermion representation refer though to a specific choice of $\sigma$ rotated electrons. Those are generated from the $\sigma$ electrons by a unitary transformation uniquely defined by the BA. Actually, the BA solution performs such a transformation. The corresponding electron - rotated-electron unitary operator ${\hat{V}}$ in Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]) can be defined by its matrix elements between the model $4^L$ energy and momentum eigenstates. Fortunately, such matrix elements can be expressed in terms of the following known BA amplitudes of the Bethe states $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u\rangle$ [@Woy; @Woy-82], $$f_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u} (x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}) =
\langle x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u \rangle \, .
\label{f-U-0}$$ Such amplitudes are uniquely defined in Eqs. (2.5)-(2.10) of Ref. [@Woy] in terms of BA solution quantities. In them, $\vert x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}\rangle$ denotes a local state in which the $N^0 = L - 2S_{\eta}$ electrons with spin projection $\sigma_1,...,\sigma_{N^0}$ are located at sites of spatial coordinates $x_1,...,x_{N^0}$, respectively. For a LWS their numbers are $N_{\uparrow}^0 = L/2 -S_{\eta} + S_s$ and $N_{\downarrow}^0 = L/2 -S_{\eta} - S_s$. Due to symmetry, the amplitudes of the non-LWSs $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle$ generated from each Bethe state as given in Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]) differ from it by the trivial phase factor $(-1)^{n_{\eta}}$. Here $n_{\eta}=S_{\eta}+S_{\eta}^z$ is the non-LWS number given in Eq. (\[etas-states-ll\]).
For the set of Bethe states corresponding to different finite $u>0$ values and belonging to the same $V$ tower the amplitudes, Eq. (\[f-U-0\]), smoothly and continuously behave as a function of $u$. That the amplitudes $\langle n_{\eta};n_s;x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u \rangle$ of a non-LWS involving the states $\vert n_{\eta};n_s;x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}\rangle$ are given in terms of those of the corresponding Bethe state merely by $(-1)^{n_{\eta}}\langle x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u \rangle$ and thus by $(-1)^{n_{\eta}}f_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s}^0,u} (x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0})$ follows from except for the phase factor $(-1)^{n_{\eta}}$ the non-LWS amplitudes being insensitive to the $n_{\eta}$ created electrons pairs and their spatial coordinates. These electrons pairs emerge as a result of the application onto the Bethe state of the $\eta$-spin off-diagonal generator ${\hat{S}}^{+}_{\eta}$ a number of times $n_{\eta}$, as given in Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]). Moreover, such amplitudes are insensitive to the spatial coordinates of the $n_{s}$ electrons whose spin has been flipped by the $n_{s}$ spin off-diagonal generators $({\hat{S}}^{+}_{s})^{n_{s}}$, Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]). Such insensitivities are behind denoting the local states $\vert x_1'\sigma_{1'},...,x_{N^0+2n_{\eta}}'\sigma_{(N^0+2n_{\eta})'}\rangle$ in which the $N^0+2n_{\eta}$ electrons with spin projection $\sigma_{1'},...,\sigma_{(N^0+2n_{\eta})'}$ are located at sites of spatial coordinates $x_1',...,x_{N^0+2n_{\eta}}'$ by $\vert n_{\eta};n_s;x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}\rangle$. They also imply that, as for the Bethe states, for the set of any energy eigenstates corresponding to different finite $u$ values and belonging to the same $V$ tower the general amplitudes $f_{l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u} (x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0})
= \langle n_{\eta};n_s;x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u \rangle$ smoothly and continuously behave as a function of $u$.
It then follows from basic quantum mechanics arguments that the electron - rotated-electron unitary operator ${\hat{V}}$ in Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]) is uniquely defined by the set of the following matrix elements between the energy eigenstates, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\vert {\hat{V}}\vert l_{\rm r}',l_{\eta s}',u \rangle & = &
\delta_{l_{\eta s},l_{\eta s}'}\,\sum_{x = 1}^{L}... \sum_{x_{N^0} = 1}^{L}
f_{l_{\rm r},l^0_{\eta s},u}^* (x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0})\,f_{l_{\rm r}',l^0_{\eta s},\infty} (x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0}) \, .
\label{ME-Vll}\end{aligned}$$ Here and throughout this paper $\delta_{l,l'}$ is the usual Kronecker symbol such that $\delta_{l,l'}=1$ for $l=l'=0,1,2,...$ and $\delta_{l,l'}=0$ for $l\neq l'$ and $f_{l_{\rm r},l^0_{\eta s},u} (x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0})$ and $f_{l_{\rm r}',l^0_{\eta s},\infty} (x_1\sigma_1,...,x_{N^0}\sigma_{N^0})$ are the amplitudes defined by Eqs. (2.5)-(2.10) of Ref. [@Woy] for $u>0$ and Eq. (2.23) of Ref. [@Woy-82] for $u\rightarrow\infty$, respectively. The factor $\delta_{l_{\eta s},l_{\eta s}'}$ implies that the phase factors $(-1)^{n_{\eta}}$ always occur in pairs, which gives rise to an overall phase factor $(-1)^{2n_{\eta}}=1$. Since the set of $4^L\times 4^L = 4^{2L}$ matrix elements of form, Eq. (\[ME-Vll\]), are between all $4^L$ energy and momentum eigenstates that span the model full Hilbert space they uniquely define the electron - rotated-electron unitary operator ${\hat{V}}$.
That because of symmetries behind the factor $\delta_{l_{\eta s},l_{\eta s}'}$ many of the matrix elements, Eq. (\[ME-Vll\]), vanish simplifies the quantum problem under consideration. Indeed, the electron - rotated-electron unitary operator ${\hat{V}}$ commutes with the three generators of both the global $\eta$-spin and spin $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras and the charge density operator. As a result, the $\sigma$ rotated electrons have the same charge, spin $1/2$, and $\eta$-spin $1/2$ degrees of freedom as the $\sigma$ electrons. Application of the operator ${\hat{V}}$ onto the $\sigma$ electron operators merely changes the $\sigma$ electrons lattice spatial occupancy configurations. On the other hand, from analysis of the relation between (i) the BA quantum numbers and (ii) rotated-electron occupancy configurations, respectively, that generate the finite-$u$ exact energy eigenstates $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle={\hat{V}}^{\dag}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle$ of any $V$ tower one reaches important physical information.
First, the $\sigma$ rotated-electron spatial occupancy configurations that generate the finite-$u$ energy eigenstates $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle={\hat{V}}^{\dag}\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle$ of any $V$ tower are exactly the same as the $\sigma$ electron spatial occupancy configurations of the tower $u\rightarrow\infty$ energy eigenstate $\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},\infty \rangle$. Hence for $u>0$ the number $N^R_{s,\pm 1/2}$ of spin-projection $\pm 1/2$ rotated-electron singly occupied sites, $N^R_{\eta,+1/2}$ of rotated-electron unoccupied sites, and $N^R_{\eta,-1/2}$ of rotated-electron doubly occupied sites are conserved. Such numbers obey the sum rules $N^R_{s,\pm 1/2}+N^R_{\eta,-1/2}=N_{\pm 1/2}$, $N^R_{s}+2N^R_{\eta,-1/2}=N$, and $N^R_{s}+N^R_{\eta}=L$. The $\sigma $ rotated-electron numbers values equal those of the $\sigma $ electrons, so that here $N_{\pm 1/2}$ denotes the number of electrons and rotated electrons of spin projection $\pm 1/2$. On the other hand, for finite $u$ values the numbers $N^R_{s}=N^R_{s,+1/2}+N^R_{s,-1/2}$ of rotated-electron singly occupied sites and $N^R_{\eta}=N^R_{\eta,+1/2}+N^R_{\eta,-1/2}$ of rotated-electron doubly occupied plus unoccupied sites are only conserved for rotated electrons.
Second, for $u>0$ a non-perturbative three degrees of freedom lattice - $\eta$-spin - spin separation occurs at all energy scales. Here the lattice - $\eta$-spin degrees of freedom separation may be considered as a separation of the charge degrees of freedom. At energy scales lower than $2\vert\mu\vert$ one has that $D=N^R_{\eta,-1/2}=0$ (and $N^R_{\eta,+1/2}=0$) for $n_e \in [0,1[$ (and $n_e \in ]1,2]$), so that the $\eta$-spin degrees of freedom are hidden and the three degrees of freedom non-perturbative lattice - $\eta$-spin - spin separation is seen as the usual two degrees of freedom charge - spin separation. Within the former general separation the (i) lattice global $U(1)$ symmetry, (ii) $\eta$-spin global $SU(2)$ symmetry, and (iii) spin global $SU(2)$ symmetry state representations are in each fixed number $N^R_{s}$ of rotated-electron singly occupied sites subspace generated by the occupancy configurations of (i) $N_c=N^R_{s}$ spinless [*$c$ pseudoparticles*]{} and corresponding $N_c^h=N^R_{\eta}$ $c$ pseudoparticle holes whose $c$ effective lattice is identical to the original lattice and thus has $N^R_{s}+N^R_{\eta}=L$ sites, (ii) $M_{s,\pm 1/2} = N^R_{s,\pm 1/2}$ spin-$1/2$ fractionalized particles of spin projection $\pm 1/2$ that we call [*rotated spins $1/2$*]{}, and (iii) $M_{\eta,\pm 1/2} = N^R_{\eta,+1/2}$ $\eta$-spin-$1/2$ fractionalized particles of $\eta$-spin projection $\pm 1/2$ that we call [*rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$*]{}, respectively. ($+1/2$ and $-1/2$ $\eta$-spin projections refer to $\eta$-spin degrees of freedom of rotated-electron unoccupied and doubly occupied sites, respectively.) It then follows that these numbers are such that, $$\begin{aligned}
&& M_s = M_{s,+1/2} + M_{s,-1/2} = N_c \, ,
\nonumber \\
&& M_{\eta} = M_{\eta,+1/2} + M_{\eta,-1/2} = L - N_c = N_c^h \, ,
\nonumber \\
&& M_{s,+1/2} - M_{s,-1/2} = -2S_s^z = N_{\uparrow} - N_{\downarrow} \, ,
\nonumber \\
&& M_{\eta,+1/2} - M_{\eta,-1/2} = -2S_{\eta}^z = L - N \, ,
\label{severalM}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_s$ denotes the number of rotated spins and $M_{\eta}$ that of rotated $\eta$-spins, which equal those $N_c$ of $c$ pseudoparticles and $N_c^h = L - N_c$ of $c$ pseudoparticle holes, respectively. Consistently with the $N_c$ $c$ pseudoparticles, $M_{\eta,\pm 1/2}$ rotated $\eta$-spins of $\eta$-spin projection $\pm 1/2$, and $M_{s,\pm 1/2}$ rotated spins of spin projection $\pm 1/2$ under consideration stemming from rotated-electron occupancy configurations degrees of freedom separation, their numbers are fully controlled by those of rotated electrons as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
&& N_ c = N_{R}^{s} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} N_ c^h = N_{R}^{\eta} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
N_ c + N_ c^h = N_{R}^{s} + N_{R}^{\eta} = L \, ,
\nonumber \\
&& M_{\alpha,\pm 1/2} = N_{R,\pm 1/2}^{\alpha} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
M_{\alpha} = M_{\alpha,+1/2} + M_{\alpha,-1/2} = N_{R}^{\alpha} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha=\eta, s \, .
\label{NRpm}\end{aligned}$$ Indeed the degrees of freedom of each rotated-electron occupied site decouple into one spinless $c$ pseudoparticle that carries the rotated-electron charge and one rotated spin $1/2$ that carries its spin. On the other hand, the degrees of freedom of each rotated-electron unoccupied and doubly occupied site decouple into one $c$ pseudoparticle hole and one rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ of projection $+1/2$ and $-1/2$, respectively. Hence the rotated-electron on-site separation refers to two degrees of freedom associated with the lattice global $U(1)$ symmetry and one of the two global $SU(2)$ symmetries, respectively. That the rotated-electron occupancy configurations give rise to the independent occupancy configurations of the $c$ pseudoparticles, rotated spins $1/2$, and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ is behind the exotic properties of the corresponding quantum liquid.
Third, from the further analysis of the relation between the BA quantum numbers and the three degrees of freedom separation of the rotated-electron occupancy configurations one finds that such quantum numbers are directly associated with the occupancy configurations of the three types of fractionalized particles that generate all $4^L$ energy eigenstates, Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]). For the densities ranges $n_e\in [0,1]$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ one has that $N^R_{s,+1/2}\geq N^R_{s,-1/2}$ and $N^R_{\eta,+1/2}\geq N^R_{\eta,-1/2}$. For the corresponding exact Bethe states, there is a number $M_{s\,{\rm sp}}=N^R_{s,-1/2}$ of spin-singlet pairs $(\alpha =s)$ and $M_{\eta\,{\rm sp}}=N^R_{\eta,-1/2}$ of $\eta$-spin-singlet pairs $(\alpha =\eta)$ within which all $N^R_{s,-1/2}$ rotated spins of projection $-1/2$ are paired with an equal number of rotated spins of projection $+1/2$ and all $N^R_{\eta,-1/2}$ rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $-1/2$ are paired with an equal number of rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $+1/2$, respectively. Such $M_{\alpha\,{\rm sp}}$ spin-singlet $(\alpha =s)$ and $\eta$-spin-singlet $(\alpha =\eta)$ pairs are found to be contained in a set of composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles. Here $n=1,...,\infty$ gives the number of pairs that refer to their internal structure. One denotes by $N_{\alpha n}$ the number of such $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles in each energy and momentum eigenstate. The sum rule $M_{\alpha\,{\rm sp}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n\,N_{\alpha n}$ is then obeyed.
The remaining $M^{un}_{\alpha}=N^R_{\alpha,+1/2}- N^R_{\alpha,-1/2}=2S_{\alpha}$ unpaired rotated spins $(\alpha =s)$ and rotated $\eta$-spins $(\alpha =\eta)$ have for a Bethe state spin and $\eta$-spin projection $+1/2$. For general energy eigenstates the configurations of these $2S_s$ unpaired rotated spins and $2S_{\eta}$ unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins generate the spin and $\eta$-spin, respectively, towers of non-LWSs. Specifically, the $2S_s$ unpaired rotated spins and $2S_{\eta}$ unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins of the Bethe states are flipped upon the application of the corresponding $SU(2)$ algebras off-diagonal generators, as given in Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]). Application of such generators leaves the spin $(\alpha =s)$ and $\eta$-spin $(\alpha =\eta)$ singlet configurations of the $M_{\alpha\,{\rm sp}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n\,N_{\alpha n}$ pairs contained in $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles unchanged. Hence for general $u>0$ energy eigenstates one finds that the number $M^{un}_{s,\pm 1/2}$ of unpaired rotated spins of projection $\pm 1/2$ and $M^{un}_{\eta,\pm 1/2}$ of unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $\pm 1/2$ are good quantum numbers, which read, $$M^{un}_{\alpha,\pm 1/2} = (S_{\alpha}\mp S_{\alpha}^{z}) \, ;
\hspace{0.50cm}
M^{un}_{\alpha} = M^{un}_{\alpha,-1/2}+M^{un}_{\alpha,+1/2} = 2S_{\alpha}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta,s \, .
\label{L-L}$$ For the $\alpha =\eta,s$ LWSs one has that $M^{un}_{\alpha,+1/2} = M^{un}_{\alpha} = 2S_{\alpha}$ and $M^{un}_{\alpha,-1/2} = 0$ for both $\alpha=\eta, s$. The set of $M_{\eta\,{\rm sp}}$ $\eta$-spin-singlet pairs and $M_{s\,{\rm sp}}$ spin-singlet pairs of an energy eigenstate contains an equal number of rotated $\eta$-spins and rotated spins, respectively, of opposite projection. Hence the total numbers $M_{\eta,\pm 1/2}$ of rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $\pm 1/2$ and $M_{s,\pm 1/2}$ of rotated spins of projection $\pm 1/2$ read, $$M_{\alpha,\pm 1/2} = M_{\alpha\,{\rm sp}} + M^{un}_{\alpha,\pm 1/2} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta,s \, .
\label{Mtotal}$$
Moreover, by combining the above equations one finds that the set of numbers $\{N_{\alpha n}\}$ of composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles of any $u>0$ energy eigenstate obey the following exact sum rules concerning the number of $M_{\alpha\,{\rm sp}}$ of spin $(\alpha =s)$ and $\eta$-spin $(\alpha =\eta)$ singlet pairs of any $u>0$ energy eigenstate, $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\alpha\,{\rm sp}} & = & \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n\,N_{\alpha n} = {1\over 2}(L_{\alpha} - 2S_{\alpha})
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = s, \eta \, ,
\nonumber \\
M_{\rm sp}^{SU(2)} & \equiv & \sum_{\alpha =\eta,s}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n\,N_{\alpha n} = {1\over 2}(L - 2S_s - 2S_{\eta}) \, ,
\label{sum-Nseta}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{\rm sp}^{SU(2)}$ denotes the total number of both rotated spins and rotated $\eta$-spins pairs.
The BA solution contains different types of quantum numbers whose occupancy configurations are within the pseudoparticle representation described by corresponding occupancy configurations of spinless $c$ pseudoparticles with no internal structure and composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles. Complete information on the microscopic details of the latter pseudoparticles internal $\eta$-spin $(\alpha =\eta)$ and spin $(\alpha =s)$ $n$-pair configurations is encoded within the BA solution and is not needed for the goals and studies of this paper. Indeed, within the present TL the problem concerning a $\alpha n$ pseudoparticle internal degrees of freedom and that associated with its translational degrees of freedom center of mass motion separate. Here we merely provide some general information on the internal degrees of freedom issue, which as further discussed below involves the imaginary part of the BA complex rapidities [@Takahashi], $$\Lambda^{\alpha n,l}(q_{j}) = \Lambda^{\alpha n} (q_{j}) + i\,(n + 1 - 2l)\,u \, , \hspace{0.50cm} l = 1,...,n \, ,
\label{complex-rap}$$ where $\alpha = \eta, s$ and $n =1,...,\infty$. The corresponding number $L_{\alpha n}$ of the set $j = 1,...,L_{\alpha n}$ of the $\alpha n$ branch BA quantum numbers $\{q_j\}$ and that $L_c$ of the related set $j = 1,...,L_c$ of the $c$ branch BA quantum numbers $\{q_j\}$ are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\alpha n} & = & N_{\alpha n} + N^h_{\alpha n} \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
N^h_{\alpha n} = 2S_{\alpha}+\sum_{n'=n+1}^{\infty}2(n'-n)N_{\alpha n'} \, ,
\hspace{0.50cm} \alpha=\eta, s \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n =1,...,\infty \, ,
\nonumber \\
L_{c} & = & N_{c} + N^h_{c} = N^R_{s} + N^R_{\eta} = L \, ,
\label{N-h-an}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The real part $\Lambda^{\alpha n}(q_{j})$ of the complex rapidities, Eq. (\[complex-rap\]), is a function of the $j = 1,...,L_{\alpha n}$ quantum numbers $q_j$ that has the same value for the whole set $l = 1,...,n$ of $\alpha n$ rapidities. It is the rapidity function which for each $u>0$ energy eigenstate is the solution of the BA equations introduced in Ref. [@Takahashi] for the TL. Within the pseudoparticle momentum distribution functional notation [@Carmelo-04], these equations have the form given in Eqs. (\[Tapco1\]) and (\[Tapco2\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\] where the sets of $j = 1,...,L_c$ and $j = 1,...,L_{\alpha n}$ of quantum numbers $q_j$, respectively, read, $$q_j = {2\pi\over L}\,I^{\beta}_j \, , \hspace{0.50cm} j=1,...,L_{\beta}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,\eta n,sn \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n =1,...,\infty \, .
\label{q-j}$$ These play the role of $\beta = c,\alpha n$ band microscopic momentum values of the $\beta = c,\alpha n$ pseudoparticle branches. For a given energy and momentum eigenstate, the $j=1,...,L_{\beta}$ quantum numbers $I^{\beta}_j$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[q-j\]) are either integers or half-odd integers according to the following boundary conditions [@Takahashi], $$\begin{aligned}
I_j^{\beta} & = & 0,\pm 1,\pm 2,... \hspace{0.50cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.15cm}I_{\beta}\hspace{0.15cm}{\rm even} \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & \pm 1/2,\pm 3/2,\pm 5/2,... \hspace{0.50cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.15cm}I_{\beta}\hspace{0.15cm}{\rm odd} \, .
\label{Ic-an}\end{aligned}$$ Here the numbers $I_{\beta}$ are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
I_c & = & N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)} \equiv \sum_{\alpha =\eta,s}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}N_{\alpha n} \, ,
\nonumber \\
I_{\alpha n} & = & L_{\alpha n} -1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
\alpha = \eta, s \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n=1,...,\infty \, .
\label{F-beta}\end{aligned}$$
From analysis of the BA quantum numbers, one finds that the set of numbers $\{N_{\alpha n}\}$ of composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles obey a second exact sum rule in addition to the spin $(\alpha =s)$ and $\eta$-spin $(\alpha =\eta)$ singlet pairs sum rule given in Eq. (\[sum-Nseta\]). It is associated with the value of the total number $N_{\alpha\,{\rm ps}} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}N_{\alpha n}$ of composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles of all $n=1,...,\infty$ branches of a $u>0$ energy eigenstate and reads, $$\begin{aligned}
N_{s\,{\rm ps}} & = & \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}N_{s n} = {1\over 2}(N_c - N_{s 1}^h) \, ,
\nonumber \\
N_{\eta\,{\rm ps}} & = & \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}N_{\eta n} = {1\over 2}(N_c^h - N_{\eta 1}^h) \, ,
\nonumber \\
N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)} & = & \sum_{\alpha =\eta,s}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}N_{\alpha n} = {1\over 2}(L - N_{s 1}^h - N_{\eta 1}^h) \, .
\label{NpsNapsSR}\end{aligned}$$ Here $N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)}$ is the number of both $\alpha =\eta$ and $\alpha =s$ composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles of all $n=1,...,\infty$ branches also appearing in Eq. (\[F-beta\]) and $N_{\alpha 1}^h$ is that of $\alpha 1$-band holes, Eq. (\[N-h-an\]) for $\alpha = \eta,s$ and $n =1$. The interesting point is that for given fixed $N_c$ and thus $N_c^h=L-N_c$ values that of $N_{\alpha\,{\rm ps}}$ is fully determined by the corresponding value of the number $N_{\alpha 1}^h$ of $\alpha 1$-band holes.
The $\beta = c,\alpha n$ band successive set $j = 1,...,L_{\beta}$ of momentum values $q_j$, Eq. (\[q-j\]), have only $\beta$ pseudoparticle occupancies zero and one and the usual separation, $q_{j+1}-q_{j}=2\pi/L$. That they play the role of $\beta = c,\alpha n$ band momentum values is consistent with within our functional representation the momentum eigenvalues of all $u>0$ energy and momentum eigenstates reading, $$P =\sum_{j=1}^{L} q_j\, N_c (q_j)
+ \sum_{n =1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{s n}}
q_{j}\, N_{sn} (q_{j})
+ \sum_{n =1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\eta n}}
(\pi -q_{j})\, N_{\eta n} (q_{j}) + \pi M_{\eta,-1/2} \, ,
\label{P}$$ being thus additive in $q_j$. Within that representation, the $\beta$-band momentum distribution functions $N_{\beta} (q_j)$ in Eq. (\[P\]) and BA equations, Eqs. (\[Tapco1\]) and (\[Tapco2\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], read $N_{\beta} (q_j)=1$ and $N_{\beta} (q_j)=0$ for occupied and unoccupied discrete momentum values, respectively. The momentum contribution $\pi M_{\eta,-1/2}$, which from the use of Eq. (\[Mtotal\]) can be written as $\pi (M_{\eta\,{\rm sp}} + M^{un}_{\eta,-1/2})$, follows from both the paired and unpaired rotated spins $1/2$ and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ of projection $\pm 1/2$ having a momentum given by, $$q_{s,\pm 1/2} = q_{\eta,+1/2} = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} q_{\eta,-1/2} = \pi \, .
\label{q-eta-s}$$ On the other hand, the $\eta n$ pseudoparticle contribution $(\pi -q_{j})$ to the momentum eigenvalue, Eq. (\[P\]), refers to its translational degrees of freedom. It is associated with the center of mass motion of that composite $n$-pair object as a whole. That such a contribution to the momentum eigenvalue reads $(\pi -q_{j})$ rather than $q_j$, as for the $c$ and $sn$ pseudoparticles, follows from the $2n$-rotated-$\eta$-spin configuration of a composite $\eta n$ pseudoparticle having an anti-bounding character, as confirmed below in Section \[BANTIB\].
The $c$ band is populated by $N_c=N^R_{s}$ $c$ pseudoparticles. They occupy $N_c$ discrete momentum values out of the $c$ band $j=1,...,L_c$ such momentum values, where $L_c = L$. Hence the number of $c$ pseudoparticle holes indeed reads $N_c^h=N^R_{\eta}=L-N^R_{s}$. On the other hand, the number $L_{\alpha n}$ in Eq. (\[N-h-an\]) refers to that of $\alpha n$ band $j=1,...,L_{\alpha n}$ momentum values $q_j$ in Eq. (\[q-j\]). For an energy and momentum eigenstate each such bands is populated by a well defined number $N_{\alpha n}$ of $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles, so that the corresponding number $N_{\alpha n}^h$ of $\alpha n$ pseudoparticle holes is that given in Eq. (\[N-h-an\]).
The set $j=1,...,L_{\beta}$ of $\beta =c, \alpha n$ bands discrete momentum values $q_j$ whose different occupancy configurations generate the energy and momentum eigenstates and determine the corresponding momentum eigenvalues, Eq. (\[P\]), belong to well-defined domains, $q_j\in [q_{\beta}^-,q_{\beta}^+]$, where, $$\begin{aligned}
q_{c}^{\pm} & = & \pm {\pi\over L}(L-1) \approx \pm\pi \hspace{0.15cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.15cm}N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)}\hspace{0.15cm}{\rm odd} \, ;
\hspace{0.35cm}
q_{c}^{\pm} = \pm {\pi\over L}(L-1\pm 1) \approx \pm\pi \hspace{0.15cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.15cm}N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)}\hspace{0.15cm}{\rm even} \, ,
\nonumber \\
q_{\alpha n}^{\pm} & = & \pm {\pi\over L}(L_{\alpha n}-1) \, .
\label{qcan-range}\end{aligned}$$
The label $l_{\rm r}$ in the energy eigenstates $\{\vert l_{\rm r},l_{\eta s},u\rangle\}$, Eq. (\[Gstate-BAstate\]), can now be defined. It corresponds to a short notation for the following set of BA quantum numbers, $$l_{\rm r} = \{I_j^{\beta}\}\,\,{\rm such}\,\,{\rm that}\,\,N_{\beta} (q_j) =1\,\,{\rm where}\,\,
q_j = {2\pi\over L}I_j^{\beta}\,\,{\rm for}\hspace{0.15cm} j = 1,...,L_{\beta} \, , \hspace{0.15cm} \beta = c, \eta n, sn
\, , \hspace{0.15cm} n = 1,...,\infty \, ,
\label{states-ll}$$
Ground states are neither populated by composite $sn$ pseudoparticles with $n>1$ spin-singlet pairs nor by composite $\eta n$ pseudoparticles with any number $n=1,...,\infty$ of $\eta$-spin-singlet pairs. For electronic densities $n_e \in [0,1]$ and spin densities $m \in [0,n_e]$, ground states have no unpaired rotated spins of projection $-1/2$ and no unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $-1/2$. For them the number $M^{un}_{s}=N^R_{s}=2S_{s}$ of unpaired rotated spins of projection $+1/2$ and the number $M^{un}_{\eta}=N^R_{\eta}=2S_{\eta}$ of unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $+1/2$ equal those $N_{s1}^h =N^R_{s}=2S_{s}$ of $s1$ pseudoparticle holes and $N_c^h=N^R_{\eta}=2S_{\eta}$ of $c$ pseudoparticle holes, respectively. Indeed, within the pseudoparticle representation the unpaired rotated spins and unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins play the role of empty sites of the $c$ effective lattice and squeezed $s1$ effective lattice, respectively, considered in Section \[pseuOpRel\]. Hence they are implicitly accounted for by the pseudoparticle representation.
The ground-state $\beta$ band pseudoparticle momentum distribution functions are given by, $$N_c^0 (q_j) = \theta (q_j - q_{Fc}^{-})\,\theta (q_{Fc}^{+} - q_j)
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
N_{s 1}^0 (q_j) = \theta (q_j - q_{Fs1}^{-})\,\theta (q_{Fs1}^{+} - q_j)
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
N_{\alpha n}^0 (q_j) = 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha n \neq s1 \, ,
\label{N0q1DHm}$$ where the distribution $\theta (x)$ reads $\theta (x)=1$ for $x> 0$ and $\theta (x)=0$ for $x\leq 0$. For the $c$ and $s1$ bands the momentum distribution functions, Eq. (\[N0q1DHm\]), refer to compact and symmetrical occupancy configurations. The corresponding $\beta =c,s1$ Fermi points are associated with the Fermi momentum values $q_{F\beta}^{\pm}$ in Eq. (\[N0q1DHm\]). Accounting for ${\cal{O}} (1/L)$ corrections, they are given in Eqs. (C.4)-(C.11) of Ref. [@Carmelo-04]. If within the TL we ignore such corrections, one finds that $N_{\beta}^0 (q_j) = \theta (q_{F\beta} - \vert q_j\vert)$ for $\beta =c,s1$ where the Fermi momentum values are given by, $$q_{Fc} = 2k_F = \pi\,n_e \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} q_{Fs1} = k_{F\downarrow} = \pi\,n_{e\downarrow} \, .
\label{q0Fcs}$$
The $c$ pseudoparticles have no internal structure. On the other hand, the imaginary part $i\,(n + 1 - 2l)\,u$ of the set of $l = 1,...,n$ complex rapidities, Eq. (\[complex-rap\]), with the same real part $\Lambda^{\alpha n} (q_{j})$ refers to the internal degrees of freedom of one composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticle with $n>1$ pairs whose center of mass carries $\alpha n$ band momentum $q_j$. Specifically, for $\alpha =s$ the imaginary part of such $l = 1,...,n$ rapidities is associated with a corresponding set $l = 1,...,n$ of spin-singlet pairs of rotated spins $1/2$ and the binding of these pairs within the composite $sn$ pseudoparticle. For $\alpha =\eta$ it is rather associated with a set $l = 1,...,n$ of $\eta$-spin-singlet pairs of rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ and the anti-binding of these pairs within the composite $\eta n$ pseudoparticle. Each such $l = 1,...,n$ rapidities thus refers to one of the $l = 1,...,n$ singlet pairs bound and anti-bound within the composite $sn$ and $\eta n$ pseudoparticle, respectively. For $n =1$ the rapidity imaginary part vanishes. Indeed, the $\alpha 1$ pseudoparticle internal degrees of freedom refer to a single singlet pair of rotated spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =s$) or rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =\eta$).
Below in Section \[BANTIB\] the form of the composite $s n$ and $\eta n$ pseudoparticle energy dispersions is used to extract valuable information on the bounding and anti-bounding character of their $2n=2,4,...$ paired rotated spins and paired rotated $\eta$-spins configuration, respectively.
The $c$ pseudoparticle, rotated spin, and rotated $\eta$-spin operators in terms of $\sigma$ rotated-electron operators {#pseuOpRel}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the $c$ pseudoparticles, rotated spins $1/2$, and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ naturally emerge from the $\sigma$ rotated-electron onsite occupancy configurations separation allows the introduction of local operators for these fractionalized particles in terms of the local rotated-electron creation and annihilation operators, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]).
The simplest case refers to the $l = z, \pm$ local operators associated with the rotated spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =s$) and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =\eta$), which read, $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha} & = & {\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,{\hat{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha}\,{\hat{V}} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} l = z, \pm
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta, s \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\tilde{S}}^{\pm}_{j,\alpha} & = & {\tilde{S}}^{x}_{j,\alpha}\pm i\,{\tilde{S}}^{y}_{j,\alpha} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta, s \, ,
\label{inf-exp-OS}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\hat{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha}$ are the usual unrotated $l = z, \pm$ local spin ($\alpha =s$) and $\eta$-spin ($\alpha =\eta$) operators. The $l = z, \pm$ local operators ${\tilde{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha}$, Eq. (\[inf-exp-OS\]), have in terms of creation and annihilation $\sigma$ rotated-electron operators, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]), exactly the same expressions as the corresponding unrotated $l = z, \pm$ local operators ${\hat{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha}$ in terms of creation and annihilation $\sigma$ electron operators.
Specifically, the spin operators ${\tilde{S}}^{l}_{j,s}$, which act onto sites singly occupied by $\sigma$ rotated electrons, read ${\tilde{S}}^-_{j,s} = ({\tilde{S}}^+_{j,s})^{\dag} = {\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow}^{\dag}{\tilde{c}}_{j,\downarrow}$ and ${\tilde{S}}^z_{j,s} = ({\tilde{n}}_{j,\downarrow} - 1/2)$. Similarly, the $\eta$-spin operators ${\tilde{S}}^{l}_{j,\eta}$, which act onto sites unoccupied by rotated electrons and sites doubly occupied by rotated electrons, are given by ${\tilde{S}}^-_{j,\eta} = ({\tilde{S}}^+_{j,\eta})^{\dag} = (-1)^j\,{\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow}{\tilde{c}}_{j,\downarrow}$ and ${\tilde{S}}^z_{j,\eta} = ({\tilde{n}}_{j,\downarrow} - 1/2)$.
Below the $c$ pseudoparticle creation operator $f_{j,c}^{\dag}$ and annihilation operator $f_{j,c}$ on the lattice site $j=1,...,L$ are uniquely defined in terms of the local rotated-electron creation and annihilation operators, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]). (The $c$ effective lattice considered below is identical to the original lattice.) The $c$ pseudoparticles have inherently emerged from the $\sigma$ rotated electrons to the sites singly occupied by the latter being occupied by $c$ pseudoparticles and those unoccupied and doubly occupied by rotated electrons being unoccupied by $c$ pseudoparticles. Hence the $c$ pseudoparticle local density operator ${\tilde{n}}_{j,c} \equiv f_{j,c}^{\dag}\,f_{j,c}$ and the corresponding operator $(1-{\tilde{n}}_{j,c})$ are the natural projectors onto the subset of $N_{R}^{s}=N_c$ original-lattice sites singly occupied by rotated electrons and onto the subset of $N_{R}^{\eta}=N_c^h=L-N_c$ original-lattice sites unoccupied and doubly occupied by rotated electrons, respectively. It then follows that the $\alpha =s,\eta$ and $l = z, \pm$ local operators ${\tilde{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha}$, Eq. (\[inf-exp-OS\]), can be written as, $${\tilde{S}}^l_{j,s} = {\tilde{n}}_{j,c}\,{\tilde{q}}^l_{j}
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
{\tilde{S}}^l_{j,\eta} = (1-{\tilde{n}}_{j,c})\,{\tilde{q}}^l_{j}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} l = z, \pm \, ,
\label{sir-pirG}$$ respectively, where the $l = z, \pm$ local [*$\eta s$ quasi-spin*]{} operators, $${\tilde{q}}^l_{j} = {\tilde{S}}^l_{j,s} + {\tilde{S}}^l_{j,\eta} \, ,
\hspace{0.50cm} l=\pm,z \, ,
\label{q-operG}$$ such that ${\tilde{q}}^{\pm}_{j}= {\tilde{q}}^{x}_{j}\pm i\,{\tilde{q}}^{y}_{j}$, have the following expression in terms of $\sigma$ rotated-electron creation and annihilation operators, $${\tilde{q}}^-_{j} = ({\tilde{q}}^+_{j})^{\dag} =
({\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow}^{\dag}
+ (-1)^j\,{\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow})\,
{\tilde{c}}_{j,\downarrow}
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
{\tilde{q}}^{z}_{j} = ({\tilde{n}}_{j,\downarrow} - 1/2) \, .
\label{rotated-quasi-spinG}$$
The $N_c$ $c$ pseudoparticles live on the $N_{R}^{s}=N_c$ sites singly occupied by the rotated electrons, so that their occupancy configurations refer to the lattice degrees of freedom associated with the relative positions of the $M_s=N_{R}^{s}=N_c$ sites occupied by rotated spins $1/2$ and $M_{\eta}=N_{R}^{\eta} =N_c^h = L-N_c$ sites occupied by rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$. The corresponding three degrees of freedom separation of the $\sigma$ rotated-electron occupancy configurations then implies that their operators, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]), can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow}^{\dag} & = &
\left({1\over 2} - {\tilde{S}}^{z}_{j,s} - {\tilde{S}}^{z}_{j,\eta}\right)f_{j,c}^{\dag} + (-1)^j
\left({1\over 2} +{\tilde{S}}^{z}_{j,s} + {\tilde{S}}^{z}_{j,\eta}\right)f_{j,c} \, ;
\hspace{0.5cm} {\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow} = ({\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow}^{\dag})^{\dag} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\tilde{c}}_{j,\downarrow}^{\dag} & = &
({\tilde{S}}^{+}_{j,s} + {\tilde{S}}^{+}_{j,\eta})(f_{j,c}^{\dag} + (-1)^j\,f_{j,c}) \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm}
{\tilde{c}}_{j,\downarrow} = ({\tilde{c}}_{j,\downarrow}^{\dag})^{\dag} \, .
\label{c-up-c-downG}\end{aligned}$$
The local $c$ pseudoparticle operators $f_{j,c}^{\dag}$ and $f_{j,c}$ appearing here are then [*uniquely*]{} defined for $u>0$ in terms of $\sigma$ rotated-electron creation and annilihation operators, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]), by combining the inversion of the relations, Eq. (\[c-up-c-downG\]), with the expressions of the $l = z, \pm$ local operators ${\tilde{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha}$ associated with the rotated spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =s$) and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =\eta$), Eq. (\[inf-exp-OS\]), provided in Eqs. (\[sir-pirG\])-(\[rotated-quasi-spinG\]), which gives, $$f_{j,c}^{\dag} = (f_{j,c})^{\dag} = {\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow}^{\dag}\,
(1-{\tilde{n}}_{j,\downarrow}) + (-1)^j\,{\tilde{c}}_{j,\uparrow}\,{\tilde{n}}_{j,\downarrow}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} {\tilde{n}}_{j,c} = f_{j,c}^{\dag}\,f_{j,c} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L \, ,
\label{fc+G}$$ where ${\tilde{n}}_{j,\sigma}$ is the $\sigma$ rotated-electron local density operator given in Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]).
The unitarity of the electron - rotated-electron transformation implies that the rotated-electron operators ${\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma}^{\dag}$ and ${\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma}$, Eqs. (\[rotated-operators\]) and (\[c-up-c-downG\]), have the same anticommutation relations as the corresponding electron operators $c_{j,\sigma}^{\dag}$ and $c_{j,\sigma}$, respectively. Straightforward manipulations based on Eqs. (\[inf-exp-OS\])-(\[fc+G\]) then lead to the following algebra for the local $c$ pseudoparticle creation and annihilation operators, $$\{f^{\dag}_{j,c}\, ,f_{j',c}\} = \delta_{j,j'} ;
\hspace{0.75cm}
\{f_{j,c}^{\dag}\, ,f_{j',c}^{\dag}\} =
\{f_{j,c}\, ,f_{j',c}\} = 0 \, .
\label{albegra-cf}$$ Furthermore, the local $c$ pseudoparticle operators and the $l = z, \pm$ local rotated quasi-spin operators ${\tilde{q}}^{l}_{j}$, Eq. (\[rotated-quasi-spinG\]), commute with each other and the latter $l = z, \pm$ operators and corresponding rotated $\eta$-spin ($\alpha =\eta$) and rotated spin ($\alpha =s$) operators ${\tilde{S}}^{l}_{j,\alpha}$, Eqs. (\[inf-exp-OS\]) and (\[sir-pirG\]), obey the usual $SU(2)$ operator algebra.
The $c$ pseudoparticle and $\eta s$ quasi-spin operator algebras refer to the whole Hilbert space. On the other hand, those of the rotated $\eta$-spin and rotated spin operators correspond to well-defined subspaces spanned by energy eigenstates whose value of the number $N^R_{s}=N_c$ of rotated-electron singly occupied sites and thus of $c$ pseudoparticles is fixed. This ensures that the value of the corresponding rotated $\eta$-spin number $M_{\eta}=N^R_{\eta}=L-N_c$ and rotated spin number $M_{s}=N^R_{s}=N_c$ is fixed as well.
The degrees of freedom separation, Eq. (\[c-up-c-downG\]), is such that the $c$ pseudoparticle operators, Eq. (\[fc+G\]), rotated-spin $1/2$ and rotated-$\eta$-spin $1/2$ operators, Eq. (\[sir-pirG\]), and the related $\eta s$ quasi-spin operators, Eqs. (\[q-operG\]) and (\[rotated-quasi-spinG\]), emerge from the $\sigma$ rotated-electron operators by an exact local transformation that [*does not*]{} introduce constraints.
That as given in Eq. (\[N0q1DHm\]) ground states are neither populated by composite $\eta n$ pseudoparticles nor by composite $sn$ pseudoparticles with $n>1$ spin-singlet pairs plays an important role in the PDT. The $s1$ pseudoparticle translational degrees of freedom are associated with its center of mass motion and corresponding $s1$ band momentum $q_{j}$. The PDT involves $s1$ pseudoparticle creation and annihilation operators associated with such translational degrees of freedom.
As mentioned above, for $u>0$ the $c$ pseudoparticles live on a $c$ effective lattice identical to the original lattice that has $j=1,...,L$ sites and length $L$. On the other hand, the $s1$ pseudoparticles live in the TL on a squeezed $s1$ effective lattice [@Ogata; @Karlo-97; @Zaanen] whose $j=1,...,L_{s1}$ sites number $L_{s1}$ equals that of $s1$ band discrete momentum values, Eq. (\[N-h-an\]) for $\alpha n=s1$. The $s1$ effective lattice has length $L$. Its spacing is in general larger than $a$ and given by, $$a_{s1} = {N_a\over L_{s1}}\,a \, ,
\label{a-a-nu}$$ which ensures that indeed $L = L_{s1}\,a_{s1}$. (Except in Eq. (\[a-a-nu\]), in this paper we use units of lattice spacing $a$ one, so that the lattice length $L$ equals the number of lattice sites $N_a$.)
As for the local creation and annihilation $c$ pseudoparticle operators, Eq. (\[albegra-cf\]), the $s1$ pseudoparticle translational degrees of freedom center of mass motion are described by operators $f^{\dag}_{j,s1}$ (and $f_{j,s1}$) that create (and annihilate) one $s1$ pseudoparticle at the $s1$ effective lattice site $x_{j}=a_{s1}\,j$ where $j = 1,...,L_{s1}$. Such local $s1$ pseudoparticle creation and annihilation operators obey a fermionic algebra, consistently with the $\beta =c,s1$ band momentum value $q_j$ having only occupancies zero and one.
The $s1$ pseudoparticle operator representation is valid for the 1D Hubbard model in subspaces spanned by energy eigenstates with fixed $L_{s1}$ value, Eq. (\[N-h-an\]) for $\alpha n=s1$. That in such subspaces the local $s1$ pseudoparticle operators obey a fermionic algebra, can be confirmed in terms of their statistical interactions [@Haldane-91]. This is a problem that we address here very briefly. The local $s1$ pseudoparticle creation and annihilation operators may be written as, $$f^{\dag}_{j,s1} = e^{i\phi_{j,s1}}\,g^{\dag}_{j,s1} \, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
f_{j,s1} = (f^{\dag}_{j,s1})^{\dag} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L_{s1} \, ,
\label{ffs1j}$$ where $\phi_{j,s1} = \sum_{j'\neq j}f^{\dag}_{j',s1}$ and the operator $g^{\dag}_{j,s1}$ obeys a hard-core bosonic algebra. This algebra is justified by the corresponding statistical interaction vanishing for the model in subspaces spanned by energy eigenstates with fixed $L_{s1}$ value, Eq. (\[N-h-an\]) for $\alpha n=s1$. The $s1$ effective lattice has been constructed inherently to that algebra being of hard-core type for the operators $g^{\dag}_{j,s1}$ and $g_{j,s1}$. Therefore, through a Jordan-Wigner transformation, $f^{\dag}_{j,s1} = e^{i\phi_{j,s1}}\,g^{\dag}_{j,s1}$ [@Wang-92], the operators $f^{\dag}_{j,s1}$ and $f_{j,s1} = (f^{\dag}_{j,s1})^{\dag}$ in Eq. (\[ffs1j\]) obey indeed a fermionic algebra, $$\{f^{\dag}_{j,s1}\, ,f_{j',s1}\} = \delta_{j,j'} ;
\hspace{0.75cm}
\{f_{j,s1}^{\dag}\, ,f_{j',s1}^{\dag}\} =
\{f_{j,s1}\, ,f_{j',s1}\} = 0 \, .
\label{ffs1}$$
Each of the $N_{s1}$ occupied $s1$ effective lattice sites corresponds to a spin-singlet pair that involves two original lattice sites occupied by rotated spins $1/2$ of opposite spin projection. For the densities $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ the line shape in the vicinity of the singular features of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), studied in Sections \[PDT\] and \[DSGzzxx\] involves ground state transitions to excited energy eigenstates for which $N_{sn}=0$ for $n>1$. For both the ground states and such excited states the number of $N^h_{s1}$ unoccupied $s1$ effective lattice sites, Eq. (\[N-h-an\]) for $\alpha n=s1$, reads $N^h_{s1}=2S_s$. Indeed for such states the $s1$ effective lattice unoccupied sites refer to the $M^{un}_s=M^{un}_{s,+1/2}=2S_s$ sites occupied in the original lattice by the unpaired rotated spins $1/2$. Such unpaired rotated spins $1/2$ are used within the $s1$ pseudoparticle motion as unoccupied sites with which they interchange position. Hence they are implicitly accounted for by the pseudoparticle representation.
The $\beta =c,s1$ pseudoparticle operators labelled by the $\beta =c,s1$ band momentum values defined in Eqs. (\[q-j\]) and (\[Ic-an\]), which are the quantum numbers of the exact BA solution whose occupancy configurations generate the energy eigenstates considered in the studies of this paper, play a key role in these studies and read, $$f^{\dag}_{q_j,\beta} = {1\over \sqrt{L}}\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{\beta}}e^{i\,q_j\,x_{j'}}f^{\dag}_{j',\beta}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
f_{q_j,\beta} = (f^{\dag}_{q_j,\beta})^{\dag}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L_{\beta} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{f-f-FT}$$ Besides acting within subspaces spanned by energy eigenstates with fixed $L_{s1}$ values, the $s1$ pseudofermion operators labelled by momentum $q_j$ also appear in the expressions of the shake-up effects generators that transform such subspaces quantum number values into each other.
The $(k,\omega)$-plane line shapes near the singular features of the $\sigma$ one-electron LHB and UHB addition spectral functions, Eq. (\[LUHB\]), studied in Sections \[PDT\] and \[DSGzzxx\] for $u>0$ and densities $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m \in [0,n_e]$ are determined by transitions to excited energy and momentum eigenstates with $N_{\eta 1}=0$ and $N_{\eta 1}=1$, respectively. Such states are not populated by composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles with $n>1$ pairs and have no unpaired rotated spins of projection $-1/2$ and no unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $-1/2$.
Hence and as further discussed in Section \[PDT\], only the $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion operator representation generated from the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudoparticle operators, Eq. (\[f-f-FT\]), is needed to study such $(k,\omega)$-plane line shapes. The unpaired rotated spins of projection $+1/2$ and unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins of projection $+1/2$ are accounted for within both the pseudoparticle and pseudofermion representations as unoccupied sites of the $s1$ and $c$ effective lattices, respectively. On the other hand, the effects under $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition of the creation of one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion are simpler to be accounted for than those stemming from the $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion processes and fortunately do not require the explicit use of the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion operator representation.
Needed quantities associated with the $\beta $ pseudoparticle quantum liquid {#quantum-liquid}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the densities $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ considered in this paper for which ground states are LWSs of both the spin and $\eta$-spin $SU(2)$ symmetry algebras, a [*particle subspace*]{} (PS) is spanned by one such ground states and the set of excited energy eigenstates generated from it by a finite number of $\beta $ pseudoparticle processes. For these excited energy eigenstates, the deviation densities $\delta N_{\beta}/L$, $\delta S_{s}/L$, and $\delta S_{\eta/L}$ vanish as $L\rightarrow\infty$. For a PS there are though no restrictions on the value of the excitation energy and excitation momentum.
It is often convenient within the TL to replace the $\beta =c,\alpha n$ band discrete momentum values $q_j$, Eq. (\[q-j\]), such that $q_{j+1}-q_j=2\pi/L$, by a corresponding continuous momentum variable, $q$. It belongs to a domain $q\in [q_{\beta}^-,q_{\beta}^+]$ whose limiting momentum values $q_{\beta}^{\pm }$ are given in Eq. (\[qcan-range\]). For the $\beta =\alpha n$ bands the relation $q_{\alpha n}^{-}=-q_{\alpha n}^{+}$ is exact, as given in that equation. Ignoring $1/L$ corrections as $L\rightarrow\infty$, one finds $q_{\beta}^{\pm }\approx \pm q_{\beta}$ where for all $\beta =c,\alpha n$ bands $q_{\beta}$ has simple expressions for the ground states and their PS excited energy eigenstates. For the present densities ranges they read [@Carmelo-04], $$q_{c} = \pi \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q_{s1} = k_{F\uparrow} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q_{sn} =
(k_{F\uparrow}-k_{F\downarrow}) = \pi\,m \, , \hspace{0.3cm} n >1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
q_{\eta n} = (\pi -2k_F) = \pi\,(1-n_e) \, .
\label{qcanGS}$$
The $\beta =c,\alpha n$ momentum band distribution functions of the PS excited energy eigenstates are of the general form $N_{\beta} (q_j) = N^{0}_{\beta} (q_j) + \delta N_{\beta} (q_j)$ where the ground-state $\beta$ band pseudoparticle momentum distribution functions $N_{\beta}^0 (q_j)$ are given in Eq. (\[N0q1DHm\]). Several physical quantities are then expressed as functionals of the corresponding $\beta =c,\alpha n$ momentum band distribution function deviations, $$\delta N_{\beta} (q_j) = N_{\beta} (q_j) - N^0_{\beta} (q_j) \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
j = 1,...,L_{\beta} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c, \alpha n \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n =1,...,\infty \, .
\label{DNq}$$
Under transitions from a ground state to a PS excited energy eigenstate, there may occur a shakeup effect associated with the overall $\beta$-band discrete momentum shifts, $q_j\rightarrow q_j + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}^0/L$, that follow from the boundary conditions change in Eq. (\[Ic-an\]). Here $\Phi_{\beta}^0$ reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{c}^0 & = & 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)} \hspace{0.50cm} {\rm even}
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \Phi_{c}^0=\pm{1\over 2} \, ;
\hspace{0.50cm}\delta N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)} \hspace{0.50cm} {\rm odd} \, ; \nonumber \\
\Phi_{\alpha n}^0 & = & 0 \, ; \hspace{0.50cm} \delta N_{c}+\delta N_{\alpha n}
\hspace{0.50cm} {\rm even} \, ; \hspace{0.50cm} \Phi_{\alpha n}^0=\pm {1\over 2} \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
\delta N_{c}+\delta N_{\alpha n} \hspace{0.50cm} {\rm odd} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta,s \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n =1,...,\infty \, ,
\label{pican}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)}$ is the deviation in the number $N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)}$ in Eq. (\[NpsNapsSR\]).
Within the continuum $q$ representation, the deviation values $\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)=-1$ and $\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)=+1$, Eq. (\[DNq\]), become $\delta N_{\beta} (q)=-(2\pi/L)\delta (q-q_j)$ and $\delta N_{\beta} (q)=+(2\pi/L)\delta (q-q_j)$, respectively. Here and throughout this paper, $\delta (x)$ denotes the usual Dirac delta-function distribution. According to Eqs. (\[q-j\]) and (\[Ic-an\]), under a transition to an excited energy eigenstate the $\beta$ band discrete momentum values $q_j = (2\pi/L)\,I_j^{\beta}$ may undergo a collective shift, $(2\pi/L)\,\Phi_{\beta}^0 =\pm \pi/L$. For $q$ at the $\beta =c,s1$ and $\iota =\pm 1$ Fermi points, $\iota\,q_{F\beta}$, such an effect is captured within the continuum representation by additional deviations, $\pm (\pi/L)\delta (q-\iota\,q_{F\beta})$. For transitions to an excited energy eigenstate for which $\delta L_{\alpha n}\neq 0$, the removal or addition of BA $\alpha n$ band discrete momentum values occurs in the vicinity of the band edges $q_{\alpha n}^-=-q_{\alpha n}^+$, Eq. (\[qcan-range\]). Those are zero-momentum and zero-energy processes.
The PS energy functionals are derived from the use in the TBA equations, Eqs. (\[Tapco1\])-(\[Tapco2\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], and general energy spectra, Eq. (\[E\]) of that Appendix, of distribution functions of general form $N_{\beta} (q_j) = N^{0}_{\beta} (q_j) + \delta N_{\beta} (q_j)$ for the excited energy eigenstates. The combined and consistent solution of such equations and spectra up to second order in the deviations, Eq. (\[DNq\]), leads to [@Carmelo-91-92], $$\delta E = \sum_{\beta}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\varepsilon_{\beta} (q_j)\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)
+ {1\over L}\sum_{\beta}\sum_{\beta'}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{\beta'}}
{1\over 2}\,f_{\beta\,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})\,\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)\delta N_{\beta'} (q_{j'})
+ \sum_{\alpha =\eta,s}\varepsilon_{\alpha,-1/2}\,M^{un}_{\alpha,-1/2} \, ,
\label{DE-fermions}$$ where for the present densities ranges the unpaired rotated $\eta$-spin $(\alpha =\eta)$ and unpaired rotated spin $(\alpha =s)$ energies relative to the ground state zero-energy level read, $$\varepsilon_{\alpha,-1/2} = 2\mu_{\alpha} \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} \varepsilon_{\alpha,+1/2} = 0
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha =\eta,s \, ,
\label{energy-eta}$$ and the energy scales $2\mu_{\alpha}$ are given by, $$2\mu_{\eta} = 2\vert\mu\vert \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} 2\mu_{s} = 2\mu_B\,\vert h\vert \, ,
\label{2mu-eta-s}$$ for general electronic and spin densities and by $2\mu_{\eta} = 2\mu$ and $2\mu_{s} = 2\mu_B\,h$ for the densities ranges $n_e\in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ for which Eq. (\[energy-eta\]) applies. For the $n_e=1$ Mott-Hubbard insulator phase the unpaired rotated $\eta$-spin energy rather reads $\varepsilon_{\eta,\mp 1/2} = (\mu_{u}\pm\mu)$ for $\mu \in [-\mu_{u},\mu_{u}]$. The $n_e=1$ Mott-Hubbard gap $2\mu_{u}$ appearing here whose limiting behaviors are given in Eq. (\[2mu0\]) is behind the spectra of the one-electron and charge excitations of the half-filled 1D Hubbard model being gapped [@Lieb; @Lieb-03; @Ovchi].
Furthermore, in Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]) the $\beta =c,\alpha n$ band energy dispersions $\varepsilon_{\beta} (q_j)$ are given by, $$\varepsilon_{\beta} (q_j) = E_{\beta} (q_j) +
{t\over \pi}\int_{-Q}^{Q}dk\,2\pi\,\bar{\Phi }_{c,\beta}
\left({\sin k\over u}, {\Lambda_{0}^{\beta} (q_j)\over u}\right)\sin k \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
j = 1,...,L_{\beta} \, .
\label{epsilon-q}$$ Here $\Lambda_{0}^{\beta} (q_j)$ is a ground-state rapidity function and $E_{\beta} (q_j)$ is for $\beta = c, \eta n, s n$ the energy spectrum, Eq. (\[spectra-E-an-c-0\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], with the rapidity functions in their expressions given by the ground-state rapidity functions $k^{c}_{0} (q_j)$ and $\Lambda_{0}^{\beta} (q_j)$. These functions are the solution of Eqs. (\[Tapco1\]) and (\[Tapco2\]) of that Appendix for the $\beta$-band ground-state distribution function distributions, Eq. (\[N0q1DHm\]). The parameter $Q$ also appearing in Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) and related parameters $B$, $r_c^0$, and $r^s_0$ read, $$Q \equiv k^{0}_c (2k_F) \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} B \equiv
\Lambda_{0}^{s1}(k_{F\downarrow}) \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
r_c^0 = {\sin Q \over u} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} r_s^0 = {B\over u} \, .
\label{QB-r0rs}$$
Furthermore, the rapidity dressed phase shift $2\pi\,\bar{\Phi }_{c,\beta} (r,r')$ in Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) is a particular case of the more general rapidity dressed phase shifts $2\pi\,\bar{\Phi }_{\beta,\beta'} (r,r')$ uniquely defined by the set of integral equations given in Eqs. (\[Phis1c-m\])-(\[Phisnsn-m\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\]. The general expression of the $f$ functions in the second-order terms of the energy functional, Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]), is provided in Eq. (\[ff\]) of that Appendix and involves the related momentum dressed phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}(q_j,q_{j'})$, $$2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}(q_j,q_{j'}) = 2\pi\,\bar{\Phi }_{\beta,\beta'} \left(r,r'\right)
\, ; \hspace{0.35cm} r = \Lambda_{0}^{\beta}(q_j)/u
\, ; \hspace{0.35cm} r' = \Lambda_{0}^{\beta'}(q_{j'})/u \, .
\label{Phi-barPhi}$$ Such $f$ function expression also involves the $\beta$ band group velocities $v_{\beta} (q_j)$ that within the TL continuum $q$ representation are given by, $$v_{\beta} (q) = {\partial\varepsilon_{\beta} (q)\over \partial q}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c, \eta n, sn \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n = 1,...,\infty
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
v_{\beta} \equiv v_{\beta} (q_{F\beta}) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, ,
\label{vel-beta}$$ where the $\beta$ band energy dispersions are given in Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]).
An overall dressed phase shift functional involving the momentum dressed phase shifts, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]), that within the PDT plays an active role in the control of the $(k,\omega)$-plane $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight distributions is given by, $$2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j) = \sum_{\beta'}\,\sum_{j'=1}^{N_{a_{\beta'}}}\,2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}(q_j,q_{j'})\, \delta N_{\beta'}(q_{j'})
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} j=1,...,L_{\beta} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, ,
\label{Phibetaq}$$ where the summation $\sum_{\beta'}$ refers to $\beta' =c,s1$ for $\sigma$ one-electron removal and LHB addition and to $\beta' =c,s1,\eta 1$ for $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition and the deviation $\delta N_{\beta'}(q_{j'})$ is defined in Eq. (\[DNq\]).
The functional energy spectrum, Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]), describes the 1D Hubbard model as a quantum liquid of $c$, $\eta n$, and $sn$ pseudoparticles that have residual interactions associated with the $f$ functions, Eqs. (\[ff\]). While the general energy spectrum, Eq. (\[E\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], gives the energy eigenvalues, that given in Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]) rather provides the excited-state energy eigenvalues minus the ground state energy. The second term of the energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]), and the $f$-function terms in Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]) are absent from Eq. (\[E\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\] and stem from such energies difference. This is why that energy dispersion term and the $f$-function expressions involve dressed phase shifts, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]). Indeed those emerge under the transitions from the ground state to energy eigenstates of excitation energy, Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]).
As found in Sections \[PDT\] and \[DSGzzxx\], the spectra of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions near their singular features are expressed in terms of the $c$ and $s1$ band energy dispersions, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta=c,s1$, the definition of a particular type of such features called a boundary line involves $\beta$ pseudoparticle group velocities, Eq. (\[vel-beta\]), and the exponents that control the line shape in the vicinity of another type of singular features are expressed in terms of momentum dressed phase shifts, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]). Hence in Appendix \[LimitBV\] useful limiting behaviors of all such quantities are provided.
Bounding and anti-bounding character of the composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticle $2n=2,4,...$ rotated spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =s$) and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =\eta$) configuration {#BANTIB}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of the form of the composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticle energy dispersions, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =\alpha n$, provides valuable information on the bounding and anti-bounding character of its $2n=2,4,...$ paired rotated spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =s$) and paired rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ ($\alpha =\eta$) singlet configuration, respectively.
Consistently with Eq. (\[energy-eta\]) for the particular case of densities $n_e\in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$, for general electronic densities $n_e\neq 1$ and all corresponding spin densities $m$ the energy of two unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins $(\alpha =\eta)$ and of two unpaired rotated spins $(\alpha =s)$ of opposite projection reads, $$2\mu_{\alpha} = \varepsilon_{\alpha,-1/2} + \varepsilon_{\alpha,+1/2} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \alpha = \eta, s \, ,
\label{varep}$$ where the energy scale $2\mu_{\alpha}$ is given in Eq. (\[2mu-eta-s\]). For $n_e =1$ and $m\in [-1,1]$ this expression remains being valid for $\alpha =s$ yet rather involves the Mott-Hubbard gap, Eq. (\[2mu0\]), and is replaced by $2\mu_u = \varepsilon_{\eta,-1/2} + \varepsilon_{\eta,+1/2}$ for $\alpha =\eta$. The bare $\eta$-spin-triplet $(\alpha =\eta)$ and spin-triplet $(\alpha =s)$ pair energy, Eq. (\[varep\]), also applies to a $\eta$-spin-singlet $(\alpha =\eta)$ and spin-singlet $(\alpha =s)$ pair in case that the corresponding configuration has no bounding or anti-bounding character.
The $\alpha n$ pseudoparticle energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =\alpha n$, may be written as, $$\varepsilon_{\alpha n} (q_j) = \varepsilon_{\alpha n}^0 (q_j) + n\,2\mu_{\alpha}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta,s \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n = 1,..., \infty \, .
\label{e-0-bands}$$ The term $n\,2\mu_{\alpha}$ in this energy dispersion is merely additive in the bare energy $2\mu_{\alpha}$, Eq. (\[varep\]). On the other hand, $\varepsilon_{\alpha n}^0 (q_j)$ is a bounding or anti-bounding energy if $\varepsilon_{\alpha n}^0 (q_j)<0$ or $\varepsilon_{\alpha n}^0 (q_j)>0$, respectively. The use of such a criterion reveals that the $sn$ pseudoparticles $2n$ rotated spins configuration has a bounding character, since $\varepsilon_{s 1}^0 (q_j)<0$ for $\vert q_j\vert <q_{s n}$. The $\eta n$ pseudoparticles $2n$ rotated $\eta$-spins configuration has in turn an anti-bounding character because $\varepsilon_{\eta n}^0 (q_j)>0$ for $\vert q_j\vert <q_{\eta n}$.
Interestingly, $\varepsilon_{\alpha n}^0 (\pm q_{\alpha n})=0$ so that at the $\alpha n$ band limiting values $q_j = \pm q_{\alpha n}$ given in Eq. (\[qcanGS\]) one has that the energy, Eq. (\[e-0-bands\]), becomes additive in the bare energy $2\mu_{\alpha}$ of two unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins $(\alpha =\eta)$ and of two unpaired rotated spins $(\alpha =s)$ of opposite projection, $\varepsilon_{\alpha n} (\pm q_{\alpha n}) = n\,2\mu_{\alpha}$. As discussed below in Sec. \[upUHBs\], this is due to a symmetry that is behind the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition singular spectral features being for $n_e \in [0,1[$ and under the transformations $k\rightarrow \pi -k$ and $\omega\rightarrow 2\mu -\omega$ similar to those of the corresponding $\bar{\sigma}$ one-electron removal singular spectral features.
On the other hand, the $c$ pseudoparticle energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =c$, can be written as, $$\varepsilon_{c} (q_j) = \varepsilon_{c}^0 (q_j) + \mu_{\eta} - \mu_{s} \, .
\label{e-c-band}$$
The magnetic-field energy scale $2\mu_B\,h = 2\mu_B\,h (m)$ dependence on the spin density $m\in [0,n_e]$ and the energy scale $2\mu = 2\mu (n_e)$ associated with the chemical potential $\mu $ dependence on the electronic density $n_e\in [0,1[$ are fully determined by the $s1$ band energy dispersion $\varepsilon_{s1}^0 (q_j)$ at $q_j = q_{Fs1} = k_{F\downarrow}$ in Eq. (\[e-0-bands\]) for $\alpha n=s1$ and the $c$ band energy dispersion $\varepsilon_{c}^0 (q_j)$ at $q_j = q_{Fc} = 2k_{F}$ in Eq. (\[e-c-band\]), respectively, as follows [@Carmelo-91-92], $$\begin{aligned}
2\mu_B\,h (m) & = & - \varepsilon_{s1}^0 (q_{Fs1}) \in [0,2\mu_B\,h_c]
\nonumber \\
& & {\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm} q_{F{s1}} = k_{F\downarrow} =
{\pi\over 2}(n_e - m)\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm where}\hspace{0.1cm}m \in [0,n_e]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm at}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm fixed}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \, ,
\nonumber \\
2\mu (n_e) & = & - 2\varepsilon_{c}^0 (q_{Fc}) - \varepsilon_{s1}^0 (q_{F{s1}}) \in [2\mu_u,(U+4t)]
\nonumber \\
& & {\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}q_{Fc} = 2k_{F} =
\pi\,n_e\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm} q_{F{s1}} = {\pi\over 2}(n_e - m)\hspace{0.1cm}
{\rm where}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,1[\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm at}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm fixed}\hspace{0.1cm}m < n_e \, ,
\label{mu-muBH}\end{aligned}$$ where $2\mu_B\,h (0) =0$, $2\mu_B\,h (n_e) =2\mu_B\,h_c$ is the magnetic energy scale, Eq. (\[hc\]), $2\mu (0) = (U+4t)$, and $\lim_{n_e\rightarrow 1}2\mu (n_e) = 2\mu_u$ is the Mott-Hubbard gap, Eq. (\[2mu0\]).
The pseudofermion dynamical theory microscopic processes that account for the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weights {#PDT}
====================================================================================================================
The main goal of this section is to provide information beyond that of Refs. [@V-1; @LE] on the microscopic processes that control the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weights at finite magnetic field. This includes how the PDT accounts through such processes for the matrix elements of the $\sigma $ electron creation or annihilation operators between the initial ground state and the excited energy eigenstates. To accomplish that aim, we start by briefly introducing in Section \[matrixelem\] the pseudofermion representation to be used for these matrix elements. In Section \[leading\] the $\sigma$ one-electron problem is expressed in terms of pseudofermion operators. The matrix elements of the $\sigma $ electron creation or annihilation operators and the expression of the corresponding $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions in terms of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral functions are the issues addressed in Section \[matrixOnel\]. In Section \[hocontribu\] the effects of the small higher-order pseudofermion contributions to the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight are discussed. Section \[statesumm2\] addresses the involved state summations problem and the analytical expressions obtainable near $\sigma$ one-electron singular spectral features. Finally, the validity of the expressions for the line shape near such features is the subject of Section \[validity\].
Pseudofermion representation to be used for the $\sigma $ electron operators matrix elements {#matrixelem}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 1D Hubbard model at a finite magnetic field in a PS as defined in Section \[quantum-liquid\], the $c$ and $s1$ rapidity functions of the excited energy eigenstates can be expressed in terms of those of the corresponding initial ground state as given in Eq. (\[FL\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\]. The set of $j=1,...,L_{\beta}$ values ${\bar{q}}_j = {\bar{q}} (q_j)$ in such excited energy eigenstates rapidity expressions $\Lambda^{c}(q_j) = \Lambda_0^{c} ({\bar{q}} (q_j))$ and $\Lambda^{s1}(q_j) = \Lambda^{s1}_0 ({\bar{q}} (q_j))$ are the $\beta = c,s1$ band discrete [*canonical momentum*]{} values. They are given by, $${\bar{q}}_j = {\bar{q}} (q_j) = q_j + {2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)\over L} = {2\pi\over
L}\left(I^{\beta}_j + \Phi_{\beta} (q_j)\right) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} j=1,...,L_{\beta} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{barqan}$$ Here $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$ stands for the dressed phase-shift functional, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), in units of $2\pi$. The discrete canonical momentum values, Eq. (\[barqan\]), have spacing ${\bar{q}}_{j+1}-{\bar{q}}_{j}= 2\pi/L + {\rm h.o.}$, where h.o. stands for contributions of second order in $1/L$.
We call a [*$\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion*]{} each of the $N_{\beta}$ occupied $\beta$-band discrete canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_j$ [@V-1; @LE]. We call a [*$\beta$ pseudofermion hole*]{} the remaining $N_{\beta}^h$ unoccupied $\beta$-band discrete canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_j$ of a PS energy eigenstate. There is a pseudofermion representation for each ground state and its PS. This holds for all electronic and spin densities.
The $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion creation and annihilation operators are generated from the corresponding $\beta =c,s1$ pseudoparticle creation and annihilation operators, Eq. (\[f-f-FT\]), as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_j,\beta} & = & f^{\dag}_{q_j + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)/L,\beta} =
\left({\hat{S}}^{\Phi}_{\beta} \right)^{\dag}f^{\dag}_{q_j,\beta}\,{\hat{S}}^{\Phi}_{\beta}
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm} {\bar{f}}_{{\bar{q}}_j,\beta} = ({\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_j,\beta})^{\dag} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{S}}^{\Phi}_{\beta} & = &
e^{\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}f^{\dag}_{q_{j} + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)/L,\beta}f_{q_{j},\beta}}
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
\left({\hat{S}}^{\Phi}_{\beta} \right)^{\dag} =
e^{\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}f^{\dag}_{q_{j} - 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)/L,\beta}f_{q_{j},\beta}} \, ,
\label{f-f-Q}\end{aligned}$$ where and ${\hat{S}}^{\Phi}_{\beta}$ is the $\beta$ pseudoparticle - $\beta$ pseudofermion unitary operator. By combining Eq. (\[fc+G\]) with Eq. (\[f-f-FT-Q\]) for $\beta =c$, the $c$ pseudofermion operator given here can be formally expressed in terms of rotated-electron operators as, $${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_j,c} = {1\over{\sqrt{L}}}\sum_{j'=1}^{L}\,e^{+i{\bar{q}}_j j'}\,
\Bigl({\tilde{c}}_{j',\uparrow}^{\dag}\,
(1-{\tilde{n}}_{j',\downarrow}) + (-1)^{j'}\,{\tilde{c}}_{j',\uparrow}\,{\tilde{n}}_{j',\downarrow}\Bigr)
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} {\bar{f}}_{{\bar{q}}_j,c} = ({\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_j,c})^{\dag} \, .
\label{f-f-Q-cG}$$
As in the case of the corresponding $\beta =c,s1$ pseudoparticle operators, the canonical-momentum $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion operators, Eq. (\[f-f-Q\]), are related to local $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion operators ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{j',\beta}$ and ${\bar{f}}_{j',\beta}$ that create and annihilate, respectively, one $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion at the $\beta =c,s1$ effective lattice site $x_{j'}=a_{\beta}\,j'$ where $ j' = 1,...,L_{\beta}$. The relation reads, $${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_j,\beta} = {1\over \sqrt{L}}\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{s1}}e^{i\,{\bar{q}}_j\,x_{j'}}{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{j',\beta}
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
{\bar{f}}_{{\bar{q}}_j,\beta} = {1\over \sqrt{L}}\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{s1}}e^{-i\,{\bar{q}}_j\,x_{j'}}{\bar{f}}_{j',\beta}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L_{\beta} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{f-f-FT-Q}$$ Indeed, the $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermions also live in the $c$ effective lattice, which is identical to the original lattice, and in the squeezed $s1$ effective lattice, respectively. As the $c$ pseudoparticles, the $c$ pseudofermions have no internal structure, whereas the $s1$ pseudofermions have the same internal structure as the corresponding $s1$ pseudoparticles. They only differ in their discrete momentum values, which rather refer to the translational degrees of freedom associated with their center of mass motion.
In the present pseudofermion operator representation a PS ground state has the simple form, $$\vert GS\rangle = \prod_{{\bar{q}}=-k_{F\downarrow}}^{k_{F\downarrow}}\prod_{{\bar{q}}'=-\pi}^{\pi}
{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{\bar{q}},\,s1}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{\bar{q}}',\,c}\vert 0\rangle
= \prod_{j=1}^{N_{\downarrow}}\prod_{j'=1}^{L}
{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{\bar{q}}_j,\,s1}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{\bar{q}}_{j'},\,c}\vert 0\rangle \, .
\label{GS}$$ That representation has been inherently constructed to ${\bar{q}} = q$ for a PS ground state, so that here the $s1$ and $c$ band momentum values ${\bar{q}} = q = {\bar{q}}_j = q_j$ and ${\bar{q}}' = q' = {\bar{q}}_{j'} = q_{j'}$, respectively, are those of the corresponding $s1$ and $c$ pseudoparticle occupied ground-state Fermi seas. Moreover, $\vert 0\rangle$ stands in Eq. (\[GS\]) for the electron and rotated-electron vacuum and the ground-state generator has been written in terms of $s1$ and $c$ pseudofermion creation operators, Eqs. (\[f-f-Q\]) and (\[f-f-FT-Q\]).
The $c$ pseudofermions as defined here refer to an extension to finite $u$ of the usual $u\rightarrow\infty$ spinless fermions [@Karlo; @Karlo-97]. Indeed, in the $u\rightarrow\infty$ limit the momentum rapidity function of the ground state $k^{c}_{0} (q_j)$ simplifies to $k^{c}_{0} (q_j) = q_j$. Hence, according to Eq. (\[FL\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], for the PS excited energy eigenstates associated with the initial ground state under consideration such a function reads, $k^c (q_j) = {\bar{q}}_j$. The $u\rightarrow\infty$ spinless fermions of Refs. [@Karlo; @Karlo-97] have been constructed inherently to carry the momentum rapidity $k_j = k^c (q_j) = {\bar{q}}_j$. This reveals that such spinless fermions are the $c$ pseudofermions as defined here in the $u\rightarrow\infty$ limit. Indeed, the relations ${\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{\bar{q}}_j,c} = {\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,b^{\dag}_{k_j}\,{\hat{V}}$ and ${\bar{f}}_{{\bar{q}}_j,c} ={\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,b_{k_j}\,{\hat{V}}$ hold where ${\hat{V}}$ is the electron - rotated-electron unitary operator defined in terms of its matrix elements in Eq. (\[ME-Vll\]) and $b^{\dag}_{k_j}$ and $b_{k_j}$ stand for the $u\rightarrow\infty$ spinless fermions creation and annihilation operators that appear in the anti-commutators given in the first equation of Section IV of Ref. [@Karlo-97].
The one-to-one correspondence between a canonical momentum value ${\bar{q}}_j$ and the corresponding bare momentum value $q_j$ as defined in Eq. (\[barqan\]) enables the expression of several ${\bar{q}}_j$-dependent pseudofermion quantities in terms of the corresponding bare momentum $q_j$. This applies to the dressed phase shift $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}(q_j,q_{j'})$, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]). Within the pseudofermion representation it has a precise physical meaning: $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}(q_j,q_{j'})$ (and $-2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}(q_j,q_{j'})$) is the phase shift acquired by a $\beta$ pseudofermion or $\beta$ pseudofermion hole of canonical momentum ${\bar{q}}_j={\bar{q}} (q_j)$ upon scattering off a $\beta'$ pseudofermion (and $\beta'$ pseudofermion hole) of canonical momentum value ${\bar{q}}_{j'}={\bar{q}} (q_{j'})$ created under a transition from the ground state to a PS excited energy eigenstate. Hence the important functional $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), in the $\beta =c,s1$ canonical momentum expression ${\bar{q}}_j = q_j + {2\pi\over L}\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[barqan\]), is the phase shift acquired by a $\beta$ pseudofermion or $\beta$ pseudofermion hole of canonical momentum value ${\bar{q}}_j={\bar{q}} (q_j)$ upon scattering off the set of $\beta'$ pseudofermions and $\beta'$ pseudofermion holes created under a transition from the ground state to a PS excited energy eigenstate. Hence the $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shift $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$ has a specific value for each ground-state - excited-state transition.
The line shape near the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition spectral function singular features involves the creation of a single $\eta 1$ pseudoparticle at one of the $\eta 1$ band limiting momentum values $q_j = \pm q_{\eta 1} = \pm (\pi -2k_F)$, Eq. (\[qcanGS\]). $\eta 1$ band canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_j =q_j + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\eta 1} (q_j)/L$ can be introduced, as in Eq. (\[barqan\]) for the $\beta =c,s1$ bands. Interestingly, one finds that $2\pi\,\Phi_{\eta 1} (q_j)=0$ at the $\eta 1$ band limiting momentum values $q_j = \pm (\pi -2k_F)$, so that ${\bar{q}}_j =q_j$. This reveals that a $\eta 1$ pseudoparticle and a $\eta 1$ pseudofermion of momenta $\pm (\pi -2k_F)$ are the same quantum object. Such an invariance under the $\eta 1$ pseudoparticle - $\eta 1$ pseudofermion unitary transformation follows from symmetries related to the anti-bounding energy $\varepsilon_{\eta 1}^0 (q_j)$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[e-0-bands\]) for $\alpha n = \eta 1$ vanishing at $q_j = \pm q_{\eta 1}= \pm (\pi -2k_F)$. As the unpaired rotated spins and unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins, the $\eta 1$ pseudofermions of momentum $\pm q_{\eta 1} = \pm (\pi -2k_F)$ do not acquire a phase shift under the transitions from the ground state to the PS excited energy eigenstates.
One can introduce a creation operator $f^{\dag}_{q_j,\eta 1}$ for the $\eta 1$ pseudoparticles that at $q_j = \iota(\pi -2k_F)$ is identical to the corresponding $\eta 1$ pseudofermion creation operator, $${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_j,\eta 1} = f^{\dag}_{q_j,\eta 1} \hspace{0.1cm}{\rm at}\hspace{0.1cm}
{\bar{q}}_j = q_j = \iota(\pi -2k_F)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\label{feta1}$$ where in the present case ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_j,\eta 1}$ creates one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion at the canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_j = \pm (\pi -2k_F)$. Although such a $\eta 1$ pseudofermion does not acquire phase shifts of its own, under its creation within a transition from the ground state to an excited energy eigenstate the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions of canonical momentum ${\bar{q}}_j$ acquire a phase shift $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\eta 1}(q_j,\pm (\pi -2k_F))$, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]) for $\beta' = \eta 1$ and $q_{j'}=\pm (\pi -2k_F)$. After some manipulations relying on the use of Eqs. (\[Phis1cn-m\]) and (\[Phiccn-m\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\] for $\eta n = \eta 1$, one finds that it can be written as, $$2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\eta 1}(q_j,\pm (\pi -2k_F)) = \pm {1\over 2}\left(\delta_{\beta,c}2\pi + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,c}(q_j,2k_F)
- 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,c}(q_j,-2k_F)\right) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, .
\label{Phibetaeta1}$$ Hence except for the factor $1/2$ creation of one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion at the canonical momentum values $\pm (\pi -2k_F)$ is felt by a $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion as the creation and annihilation of two $c$ pseudofermions at opposite Fermi points.
The exponents that control the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight in the $(k,\omega)$-plane vicinity of a type of singular features called branch lines are found below in Section \[matrixOnel\] to involve both the two-pseudofermion phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{c,\beta}(\pm 2k_F,q_{j})$ and $2\pi\,\Phi_{s1,\beta}(\pm k_{F\downarrow},q_{j})$ where $\beta =c,s1$ and the following related $j=0,1$ parameters, $$\xi^{j}_{\beta\,\beta'} = \delta_{\beta,\beta'}
+ \sum_{\iota=\pm 1} (\iota)^j\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}\left(q_{F\beta},\iota q_{F\beta'}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta, \beta' = c, s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 0, 1 \, .
\label{x-aa}$$ For the particular case of $\beta =\beta'$ and $\iota=1$ in Eq. (\[x-aa\]), the present notation assumes that the two $\beta =c,s1$ Fermi momenta in the argument of the $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shift, $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta}\left(q_{F\beta},q_{F\beta}\right)$, differ by $2\pi/L$. (For identical momentum values one has that $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta}(q_j,q_j)=0$.)
The two-pseudofermion phase-shift related anti-symmetrical $\xi^{1}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ and symmetrical $\xi^{0}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ parameters, Eq. (\[x-aa\]), that naturally emerge from the pseudofermion representation are actually the entries of the low-energy conformal-field theory dressed-charge matrix and of the transposition of its inverse matrix [@Woy-89; @Frahm; @LE; @Carmelo-91-92], $$Z^1 = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
\xi^{1}_{c\,c} & \xi^{1}_{c\,s1} \\
\xi^{1}_{s1\,c} & \xi^{1}_{s1\,s1}
\end{array}\right]
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
Z^0 = ((Z^1)^{-1})^T = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
\xi^{0}_{c\,c} & \xi^{0}_{c\,s1} \\
\xi^{0}_{s1\,c} & \xi^{0}_{s1\,s1}
\end{array}\right] \, ,
\label{ZZ-gen}$$ respectively. (Here the dressed-charge matrix definition of Ref. [@Woy-89] has been used, which is the transposition of that of Ref. [@Frahm].) The limiting behaviors of the parameters, Eq. (\[x-aa\]), which are the entries of the matrices, Eq. (\[ZZ-gen\]), are given in Appendix \[LimitBV\].
Moreover, from the combined use of Eqs. (\[Phibetaeta1\]) and (\[x-aa\]) one finds, $$\Phi_{\beta,\eta 1}(\iota q_{F\beta},\iota' (\pi -2k_F)) = \iota' {\xi^{1}_{\beta\,c}\over 2}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota, \iota' = \pm 1 \, .
\label{Phibetaeta1Fbeta}$$
For the PS excited energy eigenstates with densities $n_e\in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ associated with the line shape near the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions singularities the $\alpha n$ pseudofermion numbers have values given by $N_{\alpha n}=0$ for $n>1$ and $N_{\eta 1}=0,1$ where when $N_{\eta 1}=1$ the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion has canonical momentum $\pm (\pi -2k_F)$. For the PSs spanned by these excited energy eigenstates and corresponding ground states the pseudoparticle representation general PS energy functional, Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]), simplifies to, $$\delta E = \sum_{\beta=c,s1}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\varepsilon_{\beta} (q_j)\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)
+ {1\over L}\sum_{\beta =c,s1}\sum_{\beta'=c,s1,\eta 1}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{\beta'}}
{1\over 2}\,f_{\beta\,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})\,\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)\delta N_{\beta'} (q_{j'})
+ 2\mu\,N_{\eta 1} \, .
\label{DE-fermions0}$$ Upon expressing this functional in the pseudofermion representation, which involves the $\beta =c,s1$ bands discrete canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_j = {\bar{q}} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[barqan\]), one finds after some algebra that it reads up to ${\cal{O}}(1/L)$ order, $$\delta E = \sum_{\beta=c,s1}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\varepsilon_{\beta} ({\bar{q}}_j)\,\delta {\cal{N}}_{\beta}({\bar{q}}_j)
+ 2\mu\,N_{\eta 1} \, .
\label{DE}$$ Here the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion energy dispersions $\varepsilon_{\beta} ({\bar{q}}_j)$ have exactly the same form as those given in Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) with the momentum $q_j$ replaced by the corresponding canonical momentum, ${\bar{q}}_j= {\bar{q}} (q_j)$.
If in Eq. (\[DE\]) one expands the $\beta =c,s1$ band canonical momentum ${\bar{q}}_j=q_j + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)/L$ around $q_j$ and considers all energy contributions up to ${\cal{O}}(1/L)$ order, one arrives after some algebra to the energy functional, Eq. (\[DE-fermions0\]), which includes terms of second order in the deviations $\delta N_{\beta}(q_j)$. Their absence from the corresponding energy spectrum, Eq. (\[DE\]), follows from the functional $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), being incorporated in the $\beta =c,s1$ band canonical momentum, Eq. (\[barqan\]).
In contrast to the equivalent energy functional, Eq. (\[DE-fermions0\]), that in Eq. (\[DE\]) has no energy interaction terms of second-order in the deviations $\delta {\cal{N}}_{\beta}({\bar{q}}_j)$. Indeed the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions have no such interactions up to ${\cal{O}}(1/L)$ order. Within the present TL, only finite-size corrections up to that order are relevant. The property that the excitation energy spectrum, Eq. (\[DE\]), has no pseudofermion energy interactions is found below to simplify the expression of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions in terms of a sum of convolutions of $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion spectral functions whose spectral weights are expressed as Slater determinants of pseudofermion operators.
The $\sigma$ one-electron problem expressed in terms of pseudofermion operators {#leading}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the PDT of Refs. [@V-1; @LE] the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts determine the dynamical correlation functions spectral-weight distributions. Here we provide information beyond that given in these references about how that dynamical theory accounts for the matrix elements $\langle\nu^-\vert\, c_{k,\sigma} \vert \,GS\rangle$ and $\langle\nu^+\vert\, c^{\dagger}_{k,\sigma} \vert\,GS\rangle$ in the spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]). For such spectral functions the elementary processes that generate the excited energy eigenstates from ground states with densities in the ranges $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ can be classified into three (A)-(C) classes:
\(A) High-energy and finite-momentum elementary $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion processes. Specifically, creation or annihilation of one or a finite number of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions with canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_j\neq \pm {\bar{q}}_{F\beta}$;
\(B) Finite-momentum processes of excitation energy zero or $2\mu$ that change the number of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions at the $\iota=+1$ right and $\iota=-1$ left $\beta =c,s1$ Fermi points. The processes contributing to the line shape near the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB spectral function singular features involve creation of one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion at a $\eta 1$ band limiting canonical momentum $q_{\eta 1}^{\pm}=\pm (\pi -2k_F)$, Eq. (\[qcan-range\]) for $\alpha n = \eta 1$, which involves a finite-energy $2\mu$. This is the minimal energy for creation of one rotated-electron doubly occupied site and stems from the first term of the spectrum $E_{\eta 1} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[spectra-E-an-c-0\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\] for $\alpha n = \eta 1$, in the $\eta 1$ energy dispersion $\varepsilon_{\eta 1} (q_j)$, Eqs. (\[epsilon-q\]) and (\[e-0-bands\]) for $\beta = \eta 1$;
\(C) Low-energy and small-momentum elementary pseudofermion particle-hole processes in the vicinity of the $\beta =c,s1$ bands right ($\iota=+1$) and left ($\iota=+1$) Fermi points, relative to the excited-state $\beta = c,s1$ pseudofermion momentum occupancy configurations generated by the above elementary processes (A) and (B).\
The creation of one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion associated with the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition singular spectral features refers to transitions from ground states with densities $n_e<1$. At $n_e=1$ the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB involves instead ground-state transitions to excited energy eigenstates populated by one unpaired rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ of $\eta$-spin projection $-1/2$. This also amounts for creation of one rotated-electron doubly occupied site.
The first two steps to express in the pseudofermion representation the matrix elements $\langle\nu^-\vert\, c_{k,\sigma} \vert \,GS\rangle$ and $\langle\nu^+\vert\, c^{\dagger}_{k,\sigma} \vert\,GS\rangle$ in the spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), of a $\sigma $ electron operator between the ground state and the excited energy eigenstates are (i) to express the $\sigma$ electron creation or annihilation operator in terms of $\sigma $ rotated electron creation and annihilation operators, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]), and (ii) to express the latter operators in terms of rotated spin $1/2$ operators, rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ operators, and $c$ pseudofermion operators. This is accomplished by use of the $\sigma $ rotated electron creation and annihilation operators expressions in terms of rotated spin $1/2$ operators, rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ operators, and $c$ pseudoparticle operators, Eqs. (\[c-up-c-downG\]) and (\[rota-cksigma\]), accounting for the relation between the $c$ pseudoparticle and $c$ pseudofermion operators, Eq. (\[f-f-Q\]) for $\beta =c$.
The momentum $k$ dependent $\sigma $ electron operators in the spectral functions Lehmann representation, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), are related to the corresponding local operators as, $$c_{k,\sigma} = {1\over{\sqrt{L}}}\sum_{j=1}^{L}e^{i\,k\,x_{j}}c_{j,\sigma} \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
c_{k,\sigma}^{\dag} = (c_{k,\sigma})^{\dag}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \sigma = \uparrow,\downarrow \, .
\label{cksigma}$$ To write the operators $c_{k,\sigma}$ and $c^{\dagger}_{k,\sigma}$ in terms of $\sigma $ rotated electron creation and annihilation operators, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]), we use of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula to rewrite the relation, Eq. (\[rotated-operators\]), as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{k,\sigma} & = & \sum_{i =0}^{\infty}c_{k,\sigma,i} =
{\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma} + {1\over 1!}\,[{\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma},{\tilde{S}}\,] + {1\over 2!}\,[[{\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma},{\tilde{S}}\,],{\tilde{S}}\,] + ...
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} c_{k,\sigma}^{\dag} = (c_{k,\sigma})^{\dag}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \sigma = \uparrow,\downarrow \, ,
\nonumber \\
c_{k,\sigma,i} & = & [{\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma},{\tilde{S}}\,]_{i} = {1\over i!}[[{\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma},{\tilde{S}}\,]_{i-1},{\tilde{S}}\,] \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
i = 1,...,\infty \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} [{\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma},{\tilde{S}}\,]_0 = {\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma} = {\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,c_{k,\sigma}\,{\hat{V}} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{V}} & = & e^{\hat{S}} = e^{\tilde{S}} \, .
\label{Sr-rot}\end{aligned}$$ Here the operator $\tilde{S}=\hat{S}$ commutes with ${\hat{V}}$ and thus has the same expression in terms of creation and annihilation $\sigma $ rotated-electron operators and $\sigma $ electron operators, respectively, and the momentum operators ${\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma}^{\dag} = {\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,c_{k,\sigma}^{\dag}\,{\hat{V}}$ and ${\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma} = {\hat{V}}^{\dag}\,c_{k,\sigma}\,{\hat{V}}$ can be written in terms of the local operators ${\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma}^{\dag}$ and ${\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma}$, respectively, in Eqs. (\[rotated-operators\]) and (\[c-up-c-downG\]) as, $${\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma}^{\dag} = {1\over \sqrt{L}}\sum_{j=1}^{L}e^{i\,k\,x_{j}}{\tilde{c}}_{j,\sigma}^{\dag} \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
{\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma} = ({\tilde{c}}_{k,\sigma}^{\dag})^{\dag}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \sigma = \uparrow,\downarrow \, .
\label{rota-cksigma}$$
The next step of our program consists in rewriting the rotated-electron expression $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i =0}^{\infty}c_{k,\sigma,i}$ within a related uniquely defined $\beta $ pseudofermion representation as, $$c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i' =0}^{\infty}{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, .
\label{Oodotpse}$$ The new index $i'=0,1,...,\infty$ refers here to $\beta $ pseudofermions processes and ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ is a generator that transforms the initial ground state $\vert GS\rangle$ into a state with the same electron and rotated-electron numbers $N_{\uparrow}$ and $N_{\downarrow}$ and compact symmetrical $c$ and $s1$ bands momentum occupancies as the ground state of the final PS, which we call $\vert GS_f\rangle$. The only difference between the states ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle$ and $\vert GS_f\rangle$ is their $c$ and $s1$ band discrete momentum values being those of the initial ground state, $\bar{q}'=q'$, and of the excited-energy eigenstate $\sum_{i' =0}^{\infty}{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\vert GS_f\rangle$, $\bar{q}\neq q$, respectively.
Each term of index $i'=0,1,...,\infty$ in Eq. (\[Oodotpse\]) may have contributions from several terms of different index $i=0,1,...,\infty$ in $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i =0}^{\infty}c_{k,\sigma,i}$, Eq. (\[Sr-rot\]). Fortunately, one can compute the operational form in terms of $\beta$ pseudofermion operators of the leading $i'=0,1,...,\infty$ orders of $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i' =0}^{\infty}{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ from the transformation laws of the ground state $\vert GS\rangle$, Eq. (\[GS\]), upon acting onto it the related operators $c_{k,\sigma,i}$ in the expression $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i =0}^{\infty}c_{k,\sigma,i}$.
The 1D Hubbard model is a non-perturbative quantum problem in terms of $\sigma$ electron processes. This is behind the computation of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), being a very complex many-electron problem. On the other hand, a property that plays key role in our study follows from expressing the $\sigma $ electron operator $c_{k,\sigma}$ in the terms of pseudofermion operators as $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i' =0}^{\infty}{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}$, Eq. (\[Oodotpse\]), rendering the computation of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), a perturbative problem.
Note that both the expressions $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i =0}^{\infty}c_{k,\sigma,i}$ and $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i' =0}^{\infty}{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ are not small-parameter expansions. Consistently, the perturbative character of the $\beta$ pseudofermions processes refers to the spectral weight contributing to the spectral functions being dramatically suppressed upon increasing the number of corresponding elementary processes of classes (A) and (B). Those are generated by application onto the ground state, Eq. (\[GS\]), of operators in $\sum_{i' =0}^{\infty}{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ with an increasingly large value of the index $i'=0,1,...,\infty$.
The perturbative character of the 1D Hubbard model upon expressing the $\sigma $ electron creation or annihilation operators in the spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), in terms of $c$ pseudofermion operators, rotated spins $1/2$ operators and corresponding $sn$ pseudofermion operators, and rotated $\eta$-spins $1/2$ operators and corresponding $\eta n$ pseudofermion operators, follows from the exact energy eigenstates being generated by occupancy configurations of these elementary objects. The non-perturbative character of the problem in terms of electrons results from their relation to the above elementary objects having as well a non-perturbative nature, qualitatively different from that of the electrons to the quasiparticles of a Fermi liquid.
For simplicity, in the following we denote the $i'=0$ operator ${\hat{g}}_0 (k)$ associated with the $\sigma $ one-electron operator $c_{k,\sigma}$ (or $c_{k,\sigma}^{\dagger}$) by ${\hat{g}} (k)$. Such a $i'=0$ leading-order operator term in the one- or two-electron operator expression, $$c_{k,\sigma} = \left({\hat{g}} (k) + \sum_{i' =1}^{\infty}{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\right)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, ,
\label{Oodot0kGO}$$ plays a key role in our study.
The leading-order operators ${\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ are selected inherently to all the singular spectral features in the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), being produced by their application onto the ground state. The corresponding leading-order pseudofermion processes (A) and (B) that after being dressed by low-energy and small-momentum elementary $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion particle-hole processes (C) in the vicinity of their right ($\iota=+1$) and left ($\iota=+1$) Fermi points control the line shape near the singular features of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), are the following:
\(1) Removal of one $\uparrow$ electron and thus of one $\uparrow$ rotated electron is a process that involves annihilation of one $c$ pseudofermion and one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$, so that $\delta N_c=-1$. That unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ recombines with the annihilated $c$ pseudofermion within the removed $\uparrow$ rotated electron. The annihilation of the unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ leaves the number $N_{s1}$ $s1$ pseudofermions unchanged and leads to a deviation $\delta N_{s1}^h=-1$ in the number of $s1$ band holes.
\(2) LHB addition of one $\uparrow$ electron and thus of one $\uparrow$ rotated electron is a process that involves creation of one $c$ pseudofermion and one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$, so that $\delta N_c=1$. The creation of the unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ leaves the number $N_{s1}$ $s1$ pseudofermions unchanged and gives rise to a deviation $\delta N_{s1}^h=1$ in the number of $s1$ band holes.
\(3) UHB addition of one $\uparrow$ electron and thus of one $\uparrow$ rotated electron is a process that involves annihilation of one $c$ pseudofermion and one $s1$ pseudofermion and creation of one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion and one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$, so that $\delta N_c=-1$, $\delta N_{s1}=-1$, and $\delta N_{\eta 1}=1$. The $s1$ pseudofermion annihilation occurs through its spin-singlet pair breaking. The rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\downarrow$ emerging from such a pair breaking recombines with the annihilated $c$ pseudofermion within one $\downarrow$ rotated electron. Such a $\downarrow$ rotated electron then pairs with the created $\uparrow$ rotated electron onto a doubly occupied site. The rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ of projection $-1/2$ that describes the $\eta$-spin degrees of freedom of such a doubly occupied site combines with one ground-state unpaired rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ of projection $+1/2$ within the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion $\eta$-spin singlet pair. The creation of one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ is accounted for by the deviation $\delta N_{s1}^h=1$ in the number of $s1$ band holes.
\(4) Removal of one $\downarrow$ electron and thus of one $\downarrow$ rotated electron is a process that involves annihilation of one $c$ pseudofermion and one $s1$ pseudofermion and creation of one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$, so that $\delta N_c=-1$ and $\delta N_{s1}=-1$. The $s1$ pseudofermion annihilation spin-singlet pair breaking gives rise to one rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\downarrow$ that recombines with the annihilated $c$ pseudofermion within the removed $\downarrow$ rotated electron. The created rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$ is that left over by the pair breaking. Its creation is accounted for by the deviation $\delta N_{s1}^h=1$ in the number of $s1$ band holes.
\(5) LHB addition of one $\downarrow$ electron and thus of one $\downarrow$ rotated electron is a process that involves the creation of one $c$ pseudofermion and one $s1$ pseudofermion and annihilation of one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$, so that $\delta N_c=1$ and $\delta N_{s1}=1$. The $s1$ pseudofermion creation involves a spin-singlet pair formation. The annihilated unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$ combines with the rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\downarrow$ of the created $\downarrow$ rotated electron within such a $s1$ pseudofermion spin-singlet pair. The annihilation of the unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$ is accounted for by the deviation $\delta N_{s1}^h=-1$ in the number of $s1$ band holes.
\(6) UHB addition of one $\downarrow$ electron and thus of one $\downarrow$ rotated electron is a process that involves the annihilation of one $c$ pseudofermion and one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ of projection $\uparrow$ and creation of one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion, so that $\delta N_c=-1$ and $\delta N_{\eta 1}=1$. The annihilated unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ recombines with the annihilated $c$ pseudofermion within one $\uparrow$ rotated electron. Such a $\uparrow$ rotated electron then pairs with the created $\downarrow$ rotated electron onto a doubly occupied site. The rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ of projection $-1/2$ that describes the $\eta$-spin degrees of freedom of such a doubly occupied site combines with one ground-state unpaired rotated $\eta$-spin $1/2$ of projection $+1/2$ within the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion $\eta$-spin singlet pair. The annihilation of one unpaired rotated spin $1/2$ leaves the number $N_{s1}$ $s1$ pseudofermions unchanged and gives rise to a deviation $\delta N_{s1}^h=-1$ in the number of $s1$ band holes.
The above elementary processes involving $s1$ pseudofermion annihilation pair breaking and $s1$ pseudofermion creation pair formation are behind the squeezed $s1$ effective lattice and corresponding $s1$ momentum band being exotic, since their number of sites and discrete momentum values, respectively, which both are given by $L_{s1} = N_{s1} + N_{s1}^h$, has different values for different subspaces. Hence within the $s1$ pseudofermion operator algebra, one distinguishes the $s1$-band holes created and annihilated under processes within which one $s1$ pseudofermion is annihilated and created, respectively, from the $s1$-band holes created and annihilated upon changing the number $L_{s1} = N_{s1} + N_{s1}^h$ of squeezed $s1$ effective lattice sites, which equals that of $s1$-band discrete momentum values. (For $S_s>0$ states such exotic $L_{s1}$ variations only lead to $N_{s1}^h$ variations.)
The former processes are described by application of the operators ${\bar{f}}_{\bar{q},s1}$ and ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q},s1}$, respectively, onto the initial state. On the other hand, the latter $N_{s1}^h$ variations that do not conserve $L_{s1} = N_{s1} + N_{s1}^h$ result from vanishing energy and vanishing momentum processes within which discrete momentum values are added to and removed from one of the $s1$ band limiting momentum values $q_{s1}^{\pm}$, Eq. (\[qcan-range\]) for $\alpha n = s1$. Whether such an addition or remotion occurs at the left limiting momentum $q_{s1}^{-}$ or at right limiting momentum $q_{s1}^{+}$ is uniquely defined, since the process must leave invariant the $s1$ band symmetrical relation $q_{s1}^{+}=-q_{s1}^{-}$ for the final state.
Specifically, in the case of the (i) $\uparrow$ one-electron removal processes (1) and $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition processes (6) and (ii) $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition processes (1) a single discrete momentum value is (i) removed from and (ii) added to, respectively, the $s1$ band limiting momentum values. Such vanishing energy and vanishing momentum processes are implicitly accounted for by the pseudofermion representation through the $s1$ band discrete momentum values of the final states, which are uniquely defined.
In the following we use the transformation laws of the ground state, Eq. (\[GS\]), upon acting onto it with the $i=0,1,...,\infty$ operators on the right-hand side of the equation, $c_{k,\sigma} = \sum_{i =0}^{\infty}c_{k,\sigma,i}$ (and $c_{k,\sigma}^{\dag} = \sum_{i =0}^{\infty}c_{k,\sigma,i}^{\dag}$), for the $\sigma$ electron annihilation (and creation) operators whose first terms are given in Eq. (\[Sr-rot\]) to derive the expression of the corresponding leading-order operators ${\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}$, Eq. (\[Oodot0kGO\]), in terms of $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion operators for the processes (1), (2), (4), and (5) and in terms of $c$, $s1$, and $\eta 1$ pseudofermion operators for the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition processes (3) and (6).
Within our study of the line shape near the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight singular features the expression of the $\sigma$ electron creation and annihilation operators in terms of pseudofermion operators can be approximated by the corresponding leading-order term, ${\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}$. In the case of the $\uparrow$ one-electron removal processes (1) one finds the following leading-order expression, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{k,\uparrow} & \approx & {\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{c}}_{\odot} & = & {\bar{f}}_{\pm 2k_F,c} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\Phi_{c}^0 = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \Phi_{s1}^0= \iota/2 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k) & = & {\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(\pm 2k_F),c}\,{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(\iota k_{F\downarrow}),s1}
\sum_{q = -2k_F}^{2k_F}
\Theta (k_{F\downarrow} - \vert k + q\vert)\,
{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(q),c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(k+q),s1} \, ,
\label{upElremo}\end{aligned}$$ where the shift parameters $\Phi_{\beta}^0$ whose value results from the ground-state transition to the excited energy eigenstates are those in Eq. (\[pican\]) for $\beta = c,s1$, ${\bar{q}} (q) = q + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q)/L$, and the capital-$\Theta$ distribution $\Theta (x)$ is given here and in the following by $\Theta (x)=1$ for $x\geq 0$ and $\Theta (x)=0$ for $x<0$. The momentum $\mp k_{F\downarrow}$ resulting from the $s1$ pseudofermion annihilation at $\bar{q}(\pm k_{F\downarrow})$ exactly cancels the momentum $\pm k_{F\downarrow}$ stemming from the overall $s1$ band momentum shift $q_j \rightarrow q_j \pm \pi/L$ associated with $\Phi_{s1}^0=\pm 1/2$.
Within a $k$ extended zone scheme, the $\omega <0$ spectrum generated by application of the $\uparrow$ one-electron removal leading-order generator, Eq. (\[upElremo\]), onto the ground state reads $-\omega = -\varepsilon_c (q) +\varepsilon_{s1} (k+q)$ and has the following two branches, $$\begin{aligned}
-\omega (k) & = & -\varepsilon_c (q) +\varepsilon_{s1} (q') \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} k = - q + q' \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [-k_{F\uparrow}, (2k_F + k_{F\uparrow})] \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_F,2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}A \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [-(2k_F + k_{F\uparrow}),k_{F\uparrow}] \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_F,2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}B \, .
\label{SpupElremo}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of the $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition processes (2) the leading-order operator is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
c^{\dag}_{k,\uparrow} & \approx & {\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{c}}_{\odot} & = & {\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\pm 2k_F,c} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\Phi_{c}^0 = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \Phi_{s1}^0= \iota/2 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k) & = & {\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(\pm 2k_F),c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(-\iota k_{F\downarrow}),s1}
(\sum_{q = -\pi}^{-2k_F} + \sum_{q = 2k_F}^{\pi})\,
\Theta (k_{F\downarrow} - \vert k - q\vert)\,
{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(q),c}\,{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(-k + q),s1} \, ,
\label{upElLHBadd}\end{aligned}$$ where the momentum $\mp k_{F\downarrow}$ resulting from the $s1$ pseudofermion creation at $\bar{q}(\mp k_{F\downarrow})$ exactly cancels again the momentum $\pm k_{F\downarrow}$ stemming from an overall $s1$ band momentum shift $q_j \rightarrow q_j \pm \pi/L$ that occurs under the ground-state transition to the excited energy eigenstates.
The $\omega >0$ spectrum generated by application of the $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition leading-order generator, Eq. (\[upElLHBadd\]), onto the ground state reads $\omega = \varepsilon_c (q) -\varepsilon_{s1} (k-q)$ and has within a $k$ extended zone scheme again two branches, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega (k) & = & \varepsilon_c (q) - \varepsilon_{s1} (q') \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} k = q - q' \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [k_{F\uparrow}, (\pi + k_{F\downarrow})] \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [2k_F,\pi]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}A \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [-(\pi + k_{F\downarrow}),-k_{F\uparrow}] \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-\pi,-2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}B \, .
\label{SpupElLHBadd}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of the $\uparrow$ one-electron UHB addition processes (3) the leading-order operator reads, $$\begin{aligned}
c^{\dag}_{k,\uparrow} & \approx & {\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{c}}_{\odot} & = & {\bar{f}}_{\iota 2k_F,c}\,{\bar{f}}_{\pm k_{F\downarrow},s1}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{-\iota (\pi - 2k_F),\eta 1}
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \Phi_{c}^0 = \Phi_{s1}^0 = 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k) & = & {\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(\iota 2k_F),c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(\pm k_{F\downarrow}),s1}
\sum_{q = -2k_F}^{2k_F}
\Theta (k_{F\downarrow} -\vert k - \iota\,(\pi -2k_F) + q\vert)\,
{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(q),c}\,{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(-k + \iota\,(\pi -2k_F)-q),s1} \, .
\label{upElUHBadd}\end{aligned}$$ In this case one has $N_{\eta 1} (q_j)=1$ where $q_j = -\iota (\pi - 2k_F)$ and $M_{\eta,-1/2}=1$ for the excited energy eigenstates in the general momentum expression, Eq. (\[P\]), so that the momentum $\pi\,M_{\eta,-1/2}=\pi$ combines with $(\pi -q_j)\, N_{\eta 1} (q_j)
= \pi - q_j$ to give $2\pi - q_j = -q_j =\iota (\pi - 2k_F)$.
Within a $k$ extended zone scheme, the $\omega >0$ spectrum generated by application of the $\uparrow$ one-electron UHB addition leading-order generator, Eq. (\[upElUHBadd\]), onto the ground state reads $\omega = 2\mu -\varepsilon_c (q) -\varepsilon_{s1} (k - \iota\,(\pi -2k_F)+q)$ and has two branches corresponding to $\iota = \pm 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega (k) & = & 2\mu -\varepsilon_c (q) - \varepsilon_{s1} (q') \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} k = \iota (\pi-2k_F) - q - q'
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_F,2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & (\pi-2k_F) - q - q' \in [(\pi - 4k_F -k_{F\downarrow}), (\pi + k_{F\uparrow})] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}A \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & - (\pi-2k_F) - q - q' \in [-(\pi + k_{F\uparrow}),-(\pi - 4k_F -k_{F\downarrow})] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}B \, .
\label{SpupElUHBadd}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of the $\downarrow$ one-electron removal processes (4) the leading-order operator is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{k,\downarrow} & \approx & {\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{c}}_{\odot} & = & {\bar{f}}_{\iota\,2k_F,c}\,{\bar{f}}_{-\iota k_{F\downarrow},s1} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\Phi_{c}^0 = \iota/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \Phi_{s1}^0 = 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k) & = & {\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(\iota\, 2k_F),c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(-\iota k_{F\downarrow}),s1}
\sum_{q = -2k_F}^{2k_F}
\Theta (k_{F\downarrow} -\vert k - \iota\,2k_F + q\vert)\,
{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(q),c}\,{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(-k + \iota\,2k_F-q),s1} \, .
\label{downElremo}\end{aligned}$$ The operator ${\bar{f}}_{\iota\,2k_F,c}$ in ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ leads to a momentum $-\iota 2k_F$ that exactly cancels the momentum $\iota 2k_F$ stemming from the overall $c$ band momentum shift associated with $\Phi_{c}^0 = \iota/2$ whereas the operator ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(\iota\, 2k_F),c}$ in ${\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)$ leads to a momentum contribution that restores such a momentum $\iota 2k_F$.
The $\omega <0$ spectrum generated by application of the $\downarrow$ one-electron removal leading-order generator, Eq. (\[downElremo\]), onto the ground state reads $-\omega = -\varepsilon_c (q) -\varepsilon_{s1} (k - \iota\,2k_F+q)$ and has two branches corresponding to $\iota = \pm 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega (k) & = & -\varepsilon_c (q) - \varepsilon_{s1} (q') \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} k = \iota\,2k_F - q - q'
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_F,2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & 2k_F - q - q' \in [-k_{F\downarrow}, (4k_F + k_{F\uparrow})] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}A \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & - 2k_F - q - q' \in [-(4k_F + k_{F\uparrow}), k_{F\downarrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}B \, .
\label{SpdownElremo}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of the $\downarrow$ one-electron LHB addition processes (5) the leading-order operator reads, $$\begin{aligned}
c^{\dag}_{k,\downarrow} & \approx & {\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{c}}_{\odot} & = & {\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{-\iota\,2k_F,c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\iota k_{F\downarrow},s1} \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\Phi_{c}^0 = \iota/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \Phi_{s1}^0 = 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1\, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k) & = & {\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(-\iota\, 2k_F),c}\,{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(\iota k_{F\downarrow}),s1}
\nonumber \\
& \times & (\sum_{q = -\pi}^{-2k_F} + \sum_{q = 2k_F}^{\pi})\,\delta_{-\iota,{\rm sgn}\{k - \iota\,2k_F -q\}}
\Theta (k_{F\uparrow} -\vert k -\iota\,2k_F - q\vert)\Theta (\vert k -\iota\,2k_F - q\vert - k_{F\downarrow})
\nonumber \\
& \times &
{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(q),c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(k - \iota\,2k_F -q),s1} \, .
\label{downElLHBadd}\end{aligned}$$ Here and throughout this paper one has that ${\rm sgn}\{x\}=1$ for $x>0$, ${\rm sgn}\{x\}=-1$ for $x<0$, and ${\rm sgn}\{x\}=0$ for $x=0$. The operator ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{-\iota\,2k_F,c}$ in the operator ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ leads to a momentum $-\iota 2k_F$ that exactly cancels the momentum $\iota 2k_F$ stemming from the $c$ band overall momentum shift whereas the operator ${\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(-\iota\, 2k_F),c}$ in ${\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)$ leads to a momentum contribution that restores such a momentum $\iota 2k_F$.
Within a $k$ extended zone scheme the $\omega >0$ spectrum generated by application of the $\downarrow$ one-electron LHB addition leading-order generator, Eq. (\[downElLHBadd\]), onto the ground state reads $\omega = \varepsilon_c (q) + \varepsilon_{s1} (k - \iota\,2k_F -q)$ and has four branches, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega (k) & = & \varepsilon_c (q) + \varepsilon_{s1} (q') \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} k = \iota\,2k_F + q + q'
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} {\rm sgn}\{q'\} = -\iota\hspace{0.10cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.10cm}q'\neq 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & 2k_F + q + q' \in [(4k_F +k_{F\uparrow}), (\pi + 2k_F + k_{F\uparrow})] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}A \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & q \in [2k_F,\pi] \, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & 2k_F + q + q' \in [ - (\pi - 2k_F - k_{F\downarrow}),k_{F\uparrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}B \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & q \in [-\pi,-2k_F] \, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & - 2k_F + q + q' \in [-(\pi + 2k_F + k_{F\uparrow}), -(4k_F +k_{F\uparrow})] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}A' \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & q \in [-\pi,-2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & - 2k_F + q + q' \in [-k_{F\uparrow}, (\pi - 2k_F - k_{F\downarrow})] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}B' \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & q \in [2k_F,\pi]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}] \, .
\label{SpdownElLHBadd}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of the UHB addition of one $\downarrow$ electron processes (6) the leading-order operator is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat{c}}^{\dag}_{k,\downarrow} & \approx & {\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{c}}_{\odot} & = & {\bar{f}}_{\iota\,2k_F,c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{-\iota (\pi -2k_F),\eta 1}
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\Phi_{c}^0 = \iota/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \Phi_{s1}^0 = \pm 1/2 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1\, ,
\nonumber \\
{\hat{g}} (k) & = & {\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(\iota\,2k_F),c}\,{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(\pm k_{F\downarrow}),s1}
\sum_{q = -2k_F}^{2k_F} \Theta (k_{F\downarrow} - \vert k - \iota\,\pi + q\vert)\,
{\bar{f}}_{\bar{q}(q),c}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(k - \iota\,\pi + q),s1} \, .
\label{downElUHBadd}\end{aligned}$$ The operator ${\bar{f}}_{\iota\,2k_F,c}$ in ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ leads to a momentum $-\iota 2k_F$ that exactly cancels the momentum $\iota 2k_F$ stemming from the $c$ band overall momentum shift whereas the operator ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{\bar{q}(\iota\, 2k_F),c}$ in ${\hat{g}}_{\iota} (k)$ leads to a momentum contribution that restores such a momentum $\iota 2k_F$. The latter momentum is finally cancelled by the momentum $-\iota 2k_F$ from the second term of the momentum $\iota (\pi - 2k_F)$ stemming from ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{-\iota(\pi -2k_F),\eta 1}$. Indeed, as in the case of the $\uparrow$ one-electron UHB addition processes (3), Eq. (\[upElUHBadd\]), one has $N_{\eta 1} (q_j)=1$ where $q_j = -\iota (\pi - 2k_F)$ and $M_{\eta,-1/2}=1$ for the excited energy eigenstates in the general momentum expression, Eq. (\[P\]), so that the momentum $\pi\,M_{\eta,-1/2}=\pi$ combines with $(\pi -q_j)\, N_{\eta 1} (q_j)
= \pi - q_j$ to give $2\pi - q_j = -q_j =\iota (\pi - 2k_F)$. Moreover, the momentum $\mp k_{F\downarrow}$ resulting from the $s1$ pseudofermion annihilation at $\bar{q}(\pm k_{F\downarrow})$ exactly cancels the momentum $\pm k_{F\downarrow}$ stemming from the $s1$ band overall momentum shift.
The $\omega >0$ spectrum generated by application of the $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition leading-order generator, Eq. (\[downElUHBadd\]), onto the ground state reads $\omega = 2\mu -\varepsilon_c (q) + \varepsilon_{s1} (k - \iota\,\pi +q)$ and has within a $k$ extended zone scheme the following two branches, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega (k) & = & 2\mu -\varepsilon_c (q) +\varepsilon_{s1} (q') \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} k = \iota\,\pi - q + q' = \pi - q + q' \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [(\pi-k_{F\uparrow}), (\pi + 2k_F + k_{F\uparrow})] \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_F,2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}A \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [(\pi - 2k_F - k_{F\uparrow}),(\pi + k_{F\uparrow})] \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_F,2k_F]
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} q' \in [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}] \, , \hspace{0.4cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}B \, .
\label{SpdownElUHBadd}\end{aligned}$$
In the above expressions, the $c$ and/or $s1$ pseudofermion momentum values $\pm 2k_{F}$ and $\pm k_{F\downarrow}$, respectively, appearing in the operators ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ belong to the initial ground state $\beta = c,s1$ band whereas the $\beta$ pseudofermion momentum values ${\bar{q}} (q) = q + 2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q)/L$ in the operators ${\hat{g}} (k)$ expressions belong to the excited energy eigenstates $\beta =c,s1$ bands.
The $\sigma$ one-electron operators matrix elements between the ground state and the excited energy eigenstates and corresponding spectral functions in terms of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral functions {#matrixOnel}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), can be written in the pseudofermion representation as follows, $$B (k,\omega) = \sum_{i' =0}^{\infty}\sum_{\nu}\, \vert\langle\nu\vert\,
{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle\vert^2\,
\delta\Bigl(\omega - \gamma (E_{\nu} - E_{GS})\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \gamma\,\omega > 0 \, ,
\label{ABON-odotGEN}$$ where for simplicity we have omitted from $B (k,\omega)$ the labels $\sigma $ and $\gamma =\pm 1$ and denoted the excited-state indices $\nu^-$ and $\nu^+$ generally by $\nu$.
Following the above properties, one approximates the general spectral function, Eq. (\[ABON-odotGEN\]), by its pseudofermion leading-order term involving the operators given in Eqs. (\[upElremo\]), (\[upElLHBadd\]), (\[upElUHBadd\]), (\[downElremo\]), (\[downElLHBadd\]), and (\[downElUHBadd\]), $$B (k,\omega) \approx B^{\odot} (k,\omega) = \sum_{\nu}\, \vert\langle\nu\vert\,
{\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle\vert^2\,\delta\Bigl(
\omega - \gamma (E_{\nu} - E_{GS})\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \gamma\,\omega > 0 \, .
\label{ABON-odot}$$
Both the generator onto the electron vacuum of the initial ground state in Eq. (\[GS\]) and the operator ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ in ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle$ are written in terms of $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion creation and/or annihilation operators, Eqs. (\[f-f-Q\]) and (\[f-f-FT-Q\]), whose discrete canonical momentum values equal the corresponding momentum values $q_j$, Eqs. (\[q-j\]) and (\[Ic-an\]), of that initial ground state. In the case of the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition operators in Eqs. (\[upElUHBadd\]) and (\[downElUHBadd\]), the expression of the operator ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}$ includes as well a $\eta 1$ pseudofermion creation operator of canonical momentum $\pm (\pi - 2k_F)$.
On the other hand, both the operator ${\hat{g}} (k)$ and the generators onto the electron vacuum of the excited energy eigenstates $\vert\nu\rangle$ are written in terms of $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion operators whose discrete canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_j$, Eq. (\[barqan\]), are those of these excited energy eigenstates. Interestingly, there is always an exact excited energy eigenstate $\vert f_G \rangle$ of the final $N_{\sigma}\pm 1$ ground state $\vert GS_f\rangle$ such that, $$\vert f_G \rangle = {\hat{g}} (k)\vert GS_f\rangle \, .
\label{statef}$$
In the case of the $c$ and $s1$ bands, the two types of discrete canonical momentum values that correspond to the initial ground state and excited energy eigenstates, respectively, account for the Anderson orthogonality catastrophe [@Karlo-97; @Anderson] occurring in these bands under the transitions to the excited energy eigenstates $\vert\nu\rangle$. Such an Anderson orthogonality catastrophe is behind the exotic character of the quantum overlaps that control the one-electron spectral functions. On the other hand, since the initial ground state is not populated by $\eta 1$ pseudofermions and in the case of $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition the $\eta 1$ band limiting canonical momentum values $\pm (\pi - 2k_F)$ of the created $\eta 1$ pseudofermion are unchanged relative to the corresponding $\eta 1$ pseudoparticle momentum values, the $\sigma$ one-electron operators matrix elements overlaps involving such a $\eta 1$ pseudofermion are straightforwardly computed.
The excitation ${\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle$ in the matrix elements of the spectral function expression, Eq. (\[ABON-odot\]), has finite overlap with the corresponding specific energy eigenstate, Eq. (\[statef\]), which gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f_G \vert\,{\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle & = & \langle GS_f^{\rm ex}\vert {\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle
\nonumber \\
& = & \langle 0\vert \prod_{\beta =c,s1}
{\bar{f}}_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}...{\bar{f}}_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}
{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}...{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\vert 0\rangle
\nonumber \\
& = & \langle 0\vert \prod_{\beta =c,s1}{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}...{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}
{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}...{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\vert 0\rangle^* \, ,
\label{matrixel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vert GS_f^{\rm ex}\rangle$ is a state with the same $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion occupancy as $\vert GS_f\rangle$ but whose $\beta = c,s1$ band discrete momentum values are those of its excited energy eigenstate $\vert f_G \rangle = {\hat{g}} (k) \vert GS_f\rangle$ and $N_{\beta}^{\odot}$ is the number of $\beta =c$ and $\beta =s1$ pseudofermions of the states ${\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle$ and $\vert GS_f\rangle$.
The $\beta = c,s1$ bands discrete canonical momentum values ${q'}_1$, ${q'}_2$, ...,${q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}$ in Eq. (\[matrixel\]) equal the corresponding initial ground state discrete momentum values whereas ${\bar{q}}_1$, ${\bar{q}}_2$, ...,${\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}$ are the discrete canonical momentum values of the excited energy eigenstate $\vert f_G \rangle$, Eq. (\[statef\]). Since these two sets of discrete momenta have different values, an Anderson orthogonality catastrophe occurs such that the excited energy eigenstates of general form, $$\begin{aligned}
\vert f_{G_C} \rangle & = & \prod_{\beta =c,s1}{\hat{g}}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})\,{\hat{g}} (k) \vert GS_f\rangle
\nonumber \\
& = & \prod_{\beta =c,s1}{\hat{g}}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})\,\vert f_G \rangle
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} \beta = c, s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\label{statefGC}\end{aligned}$$ which result from application onto the state $\vert f_G \rangle$, Eq. (\[statef\]), of the $\beta =c,s1$ generators ${\hat{g}}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})$ of the low-energy and small-momentum processes (C), also have overlap with the excitation ${\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle$.
One then finds that, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \langle f_G\vert\prod_{\beta =c,s1}{\hat{g}}^{\dag}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})
{\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle =
\langle GS_f^{\rm ex}\vert \prod_{\beta =c,s1}{\hat{g}}^{\dag}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1}){\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle
\nonumber \\
& = & \langle 0\vert\prod_{\beta =c,s1}{\bar{f}}_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}...{\bar{f}}_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\,
{\hat{g}}^{\dag}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})
{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}...{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\vert 0\rangle
\nonumber \\
& = & \langle 0\vert\prod_{\beta =c,s1}{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}...{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}\,
{\hat{g}}^{\dag}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})\,
{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}...{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,s1}\vert 0\rangle^* \, .
\label{mtrixelC}\end{aligned}$$ The number of elementary $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion - pseudofermion-hole processes (C) of momentum $\pm 2\pi/L$ in the vicinity of the $\beta;\iota=\pm 1$ Fermi points of $\vert GS_f\rangle$ is denoted here and in the following by $m_{\beta,\iota}=1,2,3,...$. Such processes conserve the number $N_{\beta}^{\odot}$ of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions, so that the matrix elements, Eq. (\[mtrixelC\]), have the same form as that in Eq. (\[matrixel\]) but with the excited-state occupied discrete canonical momentum values ${\bar{q}}_1$, ${\bar{q}}_2$, ...,${\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}$ in the vicinity of the $\beta =c,s1$ bands Fermi points being slightly different from those in that equation.
The function $B^{\odot} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[ABON-odot\]), is below expressed in terms of a sum of terms each of which is a convolution of $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion spectral functions. The expression of such pseudofermion spectral functions involves sums that run over the processes (C) numbers $m_{\beta,\iota}=1,2,3,...$. It reads, $$\begin{aligned}
B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega') & = & {L\over 2\pi}\sum_{m_{\beta,\,+1};m_{\beta,\,-1}}\,A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\,a_{\beta} (m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})
\nonumber \\
& \times & \delta \Bigl(\omega' -{2\pi\over L}\,v_{\beta}\sum_{\iota =\pm1} (m_{\beta,\iota}+\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})\Bigr)\,
\delta \Bigl(k' -{2\pi\over L}\,\sum_{\iota =\pm1}\iota\,(m_{\beta,\iota}+\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})\Bigr)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, ,
\label{BQ-gen}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\beta =c,s1$ [*lowest peak weights*]{} $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$ are associated with a transition from the ground state to a PS excited energy eigenstate generated by processes (A) and (B), the relative weights $a_{\beta}=a_{\beta} (m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})$ are generated by additional processes (C) whose $\beta =c,s1$ generators ${\hat{g}}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})$ are those in Eq. (\[statefGC\]), and $\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}$ refers to the functional $2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}=
(\iota\delta N^{F}_{\beta,\iota} + \Phi_{\beta}(\iota q_{F\beta}))^2$ associated with the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion number deviation $\delta N^{F}_{\beta,\iota}$ at the $\iota =\pm 1$ Fermi points and corresponding phase shift $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}(\iota q_{F\beta})$, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), in units of $2\pi$ acquired by the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions with momenta $\iota q_{F\beta}=\pm q_{F\beta}$ under the above transition. This functional plays a key role in the PDT and is found below to emerge naturally from the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral weights.
In the case of $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition, the $\beta =c,s1$ weights $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\,a_{\beta} (m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})$ in Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]) are reached after the quantum overlap stemming from creation of the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion is trivially computed. For all the $\sigma $ one-electron removal, LHB addition, and UHB addition processes that contribute to the spectral functions in the vicinity of their singular features the $\beta =c,s1$ weights $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\,a_{\beta} (m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})$ have the general form, $$\vert\langle 0\vert {\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}...{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}
{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}...{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\vert 0\rangle\vert^2 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \beta = c,s1 \, ,
\label{Aa}$$ where $N_{\beta}^{\odot}$ stands for the number of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions of the excited energy eigenstate generated by the processes (A) and (B). Such matrix element square can be expressed in terms of a Slater determinant of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion operators, Eqs. (\[f-f-Q\]) and (\[f-f-FT-Q\]), as follows, $$\left|\left|
\begin{array}{llcl} \{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}\} & \{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}\}
& \cdots &
\{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}\} \\
\{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}\} & \{{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}\}
& \cdots & \{{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}\} \\
\multicolumn{4}{c}\dotfill\\
\{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}\}
& \{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}\}
& \cdots &
\{{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\, ,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_{N_{s1}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\}
\end{array} \right| \right|^2 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{det1}$$ The $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion operators matrix elements $\langle 0\vert {\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}},\,\beta}}...{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_2},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}_{{{q'}_1},\,\beta}{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_1},\,\beta}\,{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{{\bar{q}}_2},\,\beta}...{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{{\bar{q}}_{N_{\beta}^{\odot}}},\,\beta}\vert 0\rangle$ in Eq. (\[Aa\]) are associated with the two factors of the product $\prod_{\beta =c,s1}$ in the matrix elements, Eq. (\[matrixel\]).
The function $B^{\odot} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[ABON-odot\]), can be written as follows, $$B^{\odot} (k,\omega) = \sum_{\nu}
\Theta\Bigl(\Omega -\delta\omega_{\nu}\Bigr)\,\Theta\Bigl(\delta\omega_{\nu}\Bigr)\,
\Theta\left(\vert v_{\nu}\vert -v_{{\bar{\beta}}} \right)
{\breve{B}}^{\odot}_{\nu} (\delta\omega_{\nu},v_{\nu}) \, .
\label{B-PAR-J-CPHS-sum-0}$$ The summation $\sum_{\nu}$ runs here over excited energy eigenstates generated by processes (A), (B), and (C) of the general form, Eq. (\[statefGC\]), at fixed values of $k$ and $\omega$. Such states have excitation energy and momentum, Eq. (\[dE-dP\]), in the ranges $\delta E_{\nu}^{\odot} \in [\omega - \Omega,\omega]$ and $\delta P_{\nu}^{\odot}\in [k - \Omega/v_{\nu},k]$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\omega_{\nu} & = & (\omega-\gamma\,\delta E_{\nu}^{\odot} ) = (\omega - \gamma\,E_{\nu}^{\odot} + \gamma\,E_{GS}) \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
\delta k_{\nu} = k -\delta P_{\nu}^{\odot} \, ,
\nonumber \\
\delta E_{\nu} & = & \gamma\,\delta E_{\nu}^{\odot} + \delta\omega_{\nu} = \omega \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
P_{\nu} = \delta P_{\nu}^{\odot} + \delta k_{\nu} = k \, .
\label{dEdPvv*}\end{aligned}$$ Here the energy and momentum spectra, $$\delta E_{\nu}^{\odot} = E_{\nu}^{\odot} - E_{GS} \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} \delta P^{\odot}_{\nu} = P^{\odot}_{\nu} - P_{GS} \, ,
\label{dE-dP}$$ are those of the excited energy eigenstates $\vert f_G \rangle$, Eq. (\[statef\]), generated by the processes (A) and (B), which have finite quantum overlap with the excitation ${\hat{g}} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle$. The velocities in Eq. (\[B-PAR-J-CPHS-sum-0\]) read, $$v_{\nu} = \delta\omega_{\nu}/\delta k_{\nu}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
v_{{\bar{\beta}}} = {\rm min}\{v_c,v_{s1}\}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
v_{\beta} = {\rm max}\{v_c,v_{s1}\} \, ,
\label{v-bb-b}$$ where $v_c$ and $v_{s1}$ are the $\beta =c,s1$ Fermi velocities, Eq. (\[vel-beta\]). The energy deviation $\delta E_{\nu} =\omega$ and momentum deviation $\delta P_{\nu} =k$ in Eq. (\[dEdPvv\*\]) denote the excitation energy and momentum of the excited energy eigenstates, respectively. $\Omega$ is the processes (C) energy range. It is self-consistently determined as that for which the velocity $v_{\nu}$, Eq. (\[dEdPvv\*\]), remains nearly unchanged.
The lack of $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion interaction terms in the PS finite-$u$ energy spectrum, Eq. (\[DE\]), enables the function ${\breve{B}}^{\odot}_{\nu} (\delta\omega_{\nu},v_{\nu})$ in Eq. (\[B-PAR-J-CPHS-sum-0\]) being expressed as the following convolution of $c$ and $s1$ peudofermion spectral functions, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), $${\breve{B}}^{\odot}_{\nu} (\delta\omega_{\nu},v_{\nu}) = {{\rm sgn} (v_{\nu})\over 2\pi}\int_{0}^{\delta\omega_{\nu}}d\omega'\int_{-{\rm sgn}
(v_{\nu})\delta\omega_{\nu}/v_{\beta}}^{+{\rm sgn} (v_{\nu})\delta\omega_{\nu}/v_{\beta}}dk'
\,B_{Q_{{\bar{\beta}}}} (\delta\omega_{\nu}/v_{\nu} -k',\delta\omega_{\nu}-\omega')\,B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega') \, .
\label{B-l-i-breve}$$ Here ${\bar{\beta}}=c,s1$ and $\beta =s1,c$, respectively, are chosen according to the criterion, Eq. (\[v-bb-b\]), concerning the relative magnitudes of the two $c$ and $s1$ Fermi velocities, Eq. (\[vel-beta\]).
In addition to leading to a non-interacting like spectral-function matrix-element overlap, the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition processes involving the creation of one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion of momentum $\pm (\pi-2k_F)$ are accounted for by their contributions $2\mu$ and $\mp (\pi-2k_F)$ to the excitation energy and momentum spectra $\delta E^{\odot}$ and $\delta P^{\odot}$, Eq. (\[dE-dP\]), respectively. On the other hand and as mentioned above, under transitions from the present $n_e\in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ initial ground states, the zero-momentum $q_{\eta,+1/2} = 0$ and $q_{s,+1/2} = 0$, Eq. (\[q-eta-s\]), and zero-energy $\varepsilon_{\eta,+1/2} = 0$ and $\varepsilon_{s,+1/2} = 0$, Eq. (\[energy-eta\]), unpaired $+1/2$ rotated $\eta$-spin and unpaired $+1/2$ rotated spin processes are accounted for by the $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion holes, respectively. This follows from they playing the role of unoccupied sites of the $c$ and $s1$ effective lattices, respectively.
The Slater determinant of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion operators, Eq. (\[det1\]), involves the pseudofermion anti-commutators. The apparent simplicity of such a Slater determinant masks the complexity of the main technical problem of the PDT, which lays in performing the state summations in the spectral functions Lehmann representation, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]). As reported in the following, it results from the involved form of such anti-commutators and thus of the corresponding Slater determinants of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion operators.
The unitarity of the pseudoparticle - pseudofermion transformation implies that the local $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion operators ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{j',\beta}$ and ${\bar{f}}_{j',\beta}$ in Eq. (\[f-f-FT-Q\]) obey the following fermionic algebra similar to that in Eqs. (\[albegra-cf\]) and (\[ffs1\]) for the corresponding local $\beta =c,s1$ pseudoparticle operators, $$\{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{j,\beta},{\bar{f}}_{j',\beta}\} = \delta_{j,j'} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{pfalocal-Q}$$
Consider two $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions of canonical momentum ${\bar{q}}_j$ and ${\bar{q}_{j'}}$, respectively. Here ${\bar{q}}_j$ and ${\bar{q}}_{j'}=q_{j'}$ correspond to the $\beta =c,s1$ bands of a PS excited energy eigenstate and the corresponding ground state, respectively. Due to the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase-shift functional $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), being incorporated in the canonical momentum, Eq. (\[barqan\]), one straightforwardly finds from the use of Eqs. (\[f-f-FT-Q\]) and (\[pfalocal-Q\]) that the anti-commutator of ${\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{j',\beta}$ and ${\bar{f}}_{j',\beta}$ reads, $$\{{\bar{f}}^{\dag }_{{\bar{q}}_j,\beta},{\bar{f}}_{{\bar{q}}_{j'},\beta}\} =
{1\over L_{\beta}}\,e^{-i({\bar{q}}_j-{\bar{q}}_{j'})/
2}\,e^{i\,2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}^T(q_j)/2}\,{\sin\Bigl(2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}^T (q_j)/
2\Bigr)\over\sin ([{\bar{q}}_j-{\bar{q}}_{j'}]/2)} \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
\Phi_{\beta}^T (q_j) = \Phi_{\beta}^0 + \Phi_{\beta} (q_j) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, ,
\label{pfacrGS}$$ whereas $\{{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_{j},\beta},{\bar{f}}^{\dag}_{{\bar{q}}_{j'},\beta}\} = \{{\bar{f}}_{{\bar{q}}_{j},\beta},{\bar{f}}_{{\bar{q}}_{j'},\beta}\}=0$. Here $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}^T(q_j)$ is the overall phase shift acquired by a $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion of momentum $q_j$ under the transition from the ground state to the PS excited energy eigenstate, $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}^0$, Eq. (\[pican\]), is the corresponding non-scattering part of that phase shift, and $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), is its scattering part.
For $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}^T(q_j)\rightarrow 0$ the anti-commutator relation, Eq. (\[pfacrGS\]), would be the usual one, $\{f^{\dag }_{{\bar{q}}_j,\beta},f_{q_{j'},\beta}\} = \delta_{{\bar{q}}_j,{\bar{q}}_j'}$. That such an anti-commutator relation has not that simple form is the price to pay to render the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions without interaction terms in their energy spectrum, which is of the form, Eq. (\[DE\]). Indeed this is achieved by incorporating the $\beta$ pseudofermion scattering phase shift $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), in the $\beta =c,s1$ band canonical momentum, Eq. (\[barqan\]). The unusual form, Eq. (\[pfacrGS\]), of that anti-commutator relation is behind such a scattering phase shift controlling the spectral weight distributions of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), as confirmed below.
The unitarity of the pseudoparticle - pseudofermion transformation would preserve the pseudoparticle operator algebra provided that the sets of $\beta =c,s1$ band $j=1,...,L_{\beta}$ and $j'=1,...,L_{\beta}$ canonical momentum values $\{{\bar{q}}_j\}$ and $\{{\bar{q}}_{j'}\}$, respectively, were the same. The exotic form of the anti-commutator, Eq. (\[pfacrGS\]), follows from ${\bar{q}}_j$ and ${\bar{q}}_{j'}$ corresponding to different sets of slightly shifted canonical momentum values. This is due to the shakeup effects introduced by the state-dependent $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion scattering phase-shift functional $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (q_j)$.
The derivation of the spectral weights in the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral functions, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), which include the $\beta =c,s1$ lowest peak weights $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$ generated by processes (A) and (B) and the relative weights $a_{\beta}=a_{\beta} (m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})$ generated by processes (C) resulting from the application of the $\beta =c,s1$ operators ${\hat{g}}_C (m_{\beta,+1},m_{\beta,-1})$, Eq. (\[statefGC\]), onto the energy eigenstates generated by the processes (A) and (B), proceeds much as for the corresponding $u\rightarrow\infty$ spinless fermion spectral function in Ref. [@Karlo-97]. Following the procedures of such a reference, after some algebra that involves the use of the pseudofermion anti-commutators, Eq. (\[pfacrGS\]), in Eq. (\[det1\]) one arrives to the expressions given in Eqs. (\[A00\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\] for the lowest peak weights $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$ and in Eqs. (\[aNNDP\]) and (\[aNDP\]) of that Appendix for the relative weights $a_{\beta}=a_{\beta} (m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})$.
Also the corresponding computation of the one-electron spectral-weight $(k,\omega)$-plane distributions follows steps similar to those used in Ref. [@Karlo-97]. The PDT is indeed an extension to finite $u$ of the method used in that reference for $u\rightarrow\infty$ [@V-1]. Note though that the mapping to a Heisenberg chain used in that reference to deal with the spin part of the problem is valid only at $m=0$ and $u\gg 1$. In our case for which $u$ is finite and $m\in [0,n_e]$ the alternative use of the $s1$ pseudofermion representation renders the treatment of the corresponding rotated spins $1/2$ formally similar to that of the related $c$ pseudofermion representation.
For $m_{\beta,\iota}=1$ the relative weights given in Eq. (\[aNDP\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\] read, $$2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota} \equiv a_{\beta,\iota}(1) = \left({\delta {\bar{q}}_{F\beta}^{\iota}\over (2\pi/L)}\right)^2
= \left(\iota\delta N^{F}_{\beta,\iota} + \Phi_{\beta}(\iota q_{F\beta})\right)^2 \, ,
\hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c, s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota =\pm 1 \, .
\label{a10DP-iota}$$ These four $\beta =c,s1$ and $\iota =\pm 1$ relative weights $2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota} \equiv a_{\beta,\iota}(1)$, which appear in the $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion spectral function expression, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), are controlled by the $\beta =c,s1$ and $\iota =\pm 1$ Fermi-points pseudofermion scattering phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (\iota q_{F\beta})$, Eq. (\[Phibetaq\]), and corresponding excited energy eigenstate canonical momentum deviations $\delta {\bar{q}}_{F\beta}^{\iota} = (\iota\,2\pi\,\delta N^F_{\beta,\iota}+
2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta} (\iota q_{F\beta}))/L$. Here $\delta N^F_{\beta,\iota}=\delta N^{0,F}_{\beta,\iota}+\iota\,\Phi_{\beta}^0$ so that $\delta {\bar{q}}_{F\beta}^{\iota} = (\iota\,2\pi\,\delta N^{0,F}_{\beta,\iota}+
2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta}^T (\iota q_{F\beta}))/L$. The bare deviation $\delta N^{0,F}_{\beta,\iota}$ accounts for the number of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions created or annihilated at the right ($\iota =+1$) and left ($\iota =+1$) $\beta =c,s1$ Fermi points. The overall deviation $\delta N^{F}_{\beta,\iota}$ accounts in addition to the non-scattering phase shifts $\Phi_{\beta}^0$.
For general PS excited energy eigenstates populated by $c$ pseudofermions and composite $\alpha n$ pseudofermions with arbitrary numbers $n\geq 1$ of pairs such that $(\delta N_c +\delta N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)})/L\rightarrow 0$ as $L\rightarrow\infty$ where the deviations from the initial ground state refer to the number $N_c$ of $c$ pseudofermions and $N_{\rm ps}^{SU(2)}$ of $\alpha n$ pseudofermions of the different $\alpha\nu$ branches, Eq. (\[F-beta\]), the four $\beta =c,s1$ and $\iota =\pm 1$ functionals, Eq. (\[a10DP-iota\]), can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
2\Delta^{\iota}_{\beta} & = & \left(\sum_{\beta'=c,s1}\left(\iota\, \xi^0_{\beta\,\beta'}\,{\delta N^F_{\beta'}\over 2}
+ \xi^1_{\beta\,\beta'}\,\delta J^F_{\beta'}\right)
+ \sum_{\beta''=c,\alpha n}\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{\beta''}}\Phi_{\beta,\beta''}(\iota q_{F\beta},q_{j'})\delta N^{NF}_{\beta''} (q_{j'})\right)^2 \, .
\label{functional}\end{aligned}$$ In this expression $\xi^{0}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ and $\xi^{1}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ are the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase-shift parameters, Eq. (\[x-aa\]), $\delta N^F_{\beta'}=\sum_{\iota=\pm 1}\delta N_{\beta',\iota}$, and $\delta J_{\beta'}^F={1\over 2}\sum_{\iota=\pm 1}(\iota)\,\delta N_{\beta',\iota}$. The deviations $\delta N^{NF}_{\beta''} (q_{j'})$ refer to $\beta''=c,\alpha n$ band momentum values $q_{j'}$, which for the $\beta''=c,s1$ branches are away from the $\beta''=c,s1$ Fermi points. (The $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion creation or annihilation at and in the vicinity of such points is rather accounted for by the deviations $\delta N^F_{\beta'}$ and $\delta J^F_{\beta'}$ in Eq. (\[functional\]).)
A property that in the present TL plays a key role in our derivation of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weights is that the $\delta$-functions in the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral function expression, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), impose that, $${L\over 4\pi\,v_{\beta}}(\omega' +\iota\,v_{\beta}\,k')-\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})=m_{\beta,\iota} \, ,
\hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c, s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota =\pm 1 \, .
\label{relaTL}$$ That the quantity $((L/4\pi\,v_{\beta})(\omega' +\iota\,v_{\beta}\,k')-\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})$ on the left-hand side of this equation is proportional to $L$ implies that for any arbitrarily small $k'$ and $\omega'$ values for which $0<(\omega' +\iota\,v\,k')/(4\pi v)\ll 1$ the corresponding values of the $\iota=\pm 1$ integer numbers $m_{\beta,\iota}=((L/4\pi\,v_{\beta})(\omega' +\iota\,v_{\beta}\,k')-\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})$ are in the TL such that $m_{\beta,\iota}\gg 1$. Hence the following asymptotic behavior of the $\beta,\iota$ relative weight, Eq. (\[aNDP\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], is [*exact*]{} within the TL and is thus used in the derivation of the spectral-function expressions given below, $$a_{\beta,\iota} (m_{\beta,\iota}) \approx \frac{1}{\Gamma (2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})}
\Bigl(m_{\beta,\iota}+\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}\Bigr)^{2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}-1}
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm} 2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}\neq 0 \, ,
\hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c, s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, .
\label{f}$$
A relation also useful for such a derivation involves the $\beta =c,s1$ lowest peak weight $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$, Eq. (\[A00\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], in the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral function $B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega')$, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]). It reads, $$A^{(0,0)}_{\beta} = {F^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\over (L\,S_{\beta})^{-1+2\Delta_{\beta}^{+1} +2\Delta_{\beta}^{-1}}}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,\,s1 \, .
\label{F00}$$ Here $F^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$ and $S_{\beta}$ are in the $L\rightarrow\infty$ limit independent of $L$ and $2\Delta_{c}^{+1}$, $2\Delta_{c}^{-1}$, $2\Delta_{s1}^{+1}$, and $2\Delta_{s1}^{-1}$ are the four functionals, Eq. (\[functional\]). (The product $S_{c}\times S_{s1}\approx 1$ is given by $1$ both in the $u\rightarrow 0$ and $u\rightarrow\infty$ limits.)
In the general case in which the four $\beta =c,s1$ and $\iota =\pm 1$ parameters $2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}$ are finite, one finds that the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral function $B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega')$, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), reads in the TL, $$\begin{aligned}
& & B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega') = {L\over 4\pi v_{\beta}}\,
A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\,\prod_{\iota =\pm 1}\,a_{\beta,\iota}
\Bigl({\omega' +\iota\,v_{\beta}\,k'\over 4\pi v_{\beta}/L}\Bigr)
\nonumber \\
& \approx &
{F^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\over 4\pi\,v_{\beta}\,S_{\beta}}\,
\prod_{\iota =\pm 1}\,{\Theta (\omega' +\iota\,v_{\beta}\,k')\over
\Gamma (2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})}\,
\Bigl({\omega' +\iota\,v_{\beta}\,k'\over 4\pi \,v_{\beta}\,S_{\beta}}\Bigr)^{-1 +2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}}
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{B-J-i-sum-GG}\end{aligned}$$ To reach the second expression, which in the TL is exact, Eqs. (\[f\]) and (\[F00\]) were used. The $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral functions, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), have a different form when $2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}>0$ and $2\Delta_{\beta}^{-\iota}=0$, as given in Eq. (\[B-J-i-sum-GG2\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\]. When $2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota} =2\Delta_{\beta}^{-\iota}=0$ it is $\delta$-function like, Eq. (\[B-J-i-sum-GG3\]) of that Appendix.
The small higher-order pseudofermion contributions to the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight {#hocontribu}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pseudofermion representation spectral functions expression, Eq. (\[ABON-odotGEN\]), includes all higher-order processes that generate little $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight and do not contribute to the line shape near singular spectral features studied in this paper. The PDT also accounts for the corresponding contributions of ground-state transitions to excited energy eigenstates of general form, $$\vert f_G (i')\rangle = {\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\vert GS_f\rangle \, , \hspace{0.50cm} i' = 0,1,...,\infty \, .
\label{statefGEN}$$ Those may be populated by $\alpha n$ pseudofermions of branches with $n>1$ pairs. For finite values of the spin density, the small weight contribution from such transitions higher-order pseudofermion processes appear at high excitation energy scales, which for each created $n>1$ $\alpha n$ pseudofermion is around $n\,2\mu_{\alpha}$, Eq. (\[2mu-eta-s\]).
The contribution to the $\sigma$ electron operators matrix elements of the creation of such composite $\alpha n$ pseudofermions is simpler to compute than that of the $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermions. As above for the $i'=0$ operator ${\hat{g}} (k)$, the $\alpha n$ pseudofermion operators in the expression of any $i'\geq 0$ operator ${\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)$ in the spectral function expression, Eq. (\[ABON-odotGEN\]), and energy eigenstate, Eq. (\[statefGEN\]), have discrete canonical momentum values that belong to the excited energy eigenstate $\alpha n$ band. One then finds that, $$\langle f_G \vert{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle
= \langle GS_f\vert {\hat{g}}_{i'}^{\dag} (k)\,{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)\,{\hat{c}}_{\odot}\vert GS\rangle
= \langle GS_f^{\rm ex(i')}\vert {\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle \, ,
\label{melemsn}$$ where $\vert GS_f^{\rm ex(i')}\rangle$ is a state with the same $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion occupancy as $\vert GS_f\rangle$ but whose $c$ and $s1$ band discrete momentum values are those of its excited energy eigenstate $\vert f_G (i')\rangle = {\hat{g}}_{i'} (k) \vert GS_f\rangle$.
That the $\sigma$ one-electron matrix elements quantum overlaps resulting from the creation of $n>1$ $\alpha n$ pseudofermios by the operators ${\hat{g}}_{i'}^{\dag} (k)\,{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)$ in Eq. (\[melemsn\]) are Fermi-liquid like is due to the lack of such occupancies in the ground states $\vert GS_f\rangle$ and $\vert GS\rangle$. Their creation is thus not associated with Anderson orthogonality catastrophes. This is why after computing such trivial quantum overlaps, one is left with matrix elements $\langle GS_f^{\rm ex(i')}\vert {\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle$, Eq. (\[melemsn\]), that only involve $c$ and $s1$ pseudofermion operators and have the same general form as that in Eq. (\[matrixel\]). The same applies to higher-order additional $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion particle-hole processes of type (A) also generated by the operators ${\hat{g}}_{i'}^{\dag} (k)\,{\hat{g}}_{i'} (k)$.
However, $\vert\langle GS_f^{\rm ex(i')}\vert {\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle\vert$ strongly decreases upon increasing the index $i'=0,1,...,\infty$, most of the spectral weight being associated with the $i'=0$ matrix element $\langle GS_f^{\rm ex(0)}\vert {\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle
= \langle GS_f^{\rm ex}\vert {\hat{c}}_{\odot} \vert GS\rangle$, Eq. (\[matrixel\]). As a result, the corresponding higher-order pseudofermion processes lead to very small $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight contributions. Moreover, the transitions to the excited energy eigenstates, Eq. (\[statefGEN\]), generated from the ground state by such higher-order pseudofermion processes do not contribute to the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight in the vicinity of the singular features, which is the issue studied in this paper.
The involved state summations problem and analytical expressions obtainable near singular spectral features {#statesumm2}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numerical computation of the momentum and state summations in Eqs. (\[ABON-odotGEN\]) and (\[ABON-odot\]) needed to access the corresponding finite-$u$ spectral-weight distributions over the whole $(k,\omega)$ plane is a very involved technical problem. This is a procedure that enormously simplifies in the $u\rightarrow\infty$ limit. The reason is that within it the $c$ pseudofermion phase-shift functional $2\pi\,\Phi^T_{c}(q_j)$ defined by Eqs. (\[Phibetaq\]) and (\[pfacrGS\]) becomes independent of $q_j$, being the quantity called $Q'-Q$ in Ref. [@Karlo-97]. This enables, in the case of the $u\rightarrow\infty$ and $m=0$ one-electron removal and LHB addition spectral functions, the numerical computation of all state summations. The authors of Refs. [@Karlo; @Karlo-97] have performed that exercise. They obtained the beautiful one-electron spectral-weight distributions plotted in Fig. 1 of Ref. [@Karlo] for the whole $(k,\omega)$ plane, $u\gg 1$, $n_e=0.5$, and $m=0$.
On the other hand, for finite $u$ values the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase-shift functionals $\Phi^T_{\beta}(q_j)$ are both momentum $q_j$ and densities $n_e$ and $m$ dependent and have different values for each excited energy eigenstate. Hence the numerical computation of the momentum and state summations needed to access the corresponding finite-$u$ spectral-weight distributions over the whole $(k,\omega)$ plane becomes an extremely difficult technical task.
Fortunately, though, the use of Eq. (\[B-J-i-sum-GG\]) and Eqs. (\[B-J-i-sum-GG2\]) and (\[B-J-i-sum-GG3\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\] for the $\beta$ pseudofermion spectral function $B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega')$, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), in the function ${\breve{B}}^{\odot}_{\nu} (\delta\omega_{\nu},v_{\nu})$, Eq. (\[B-l-i-breve\]), that appears in the expression of the spectral function leading-order term $B^{\odot} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[B-PAR-J-CPHS-sum-0\]), enables partially performing the summations in the latter equation for the $(k,\omega)$-plane vicinity of most $\sigma $ one-electron singular spectral features.
An important such a feature is a [*branch line*]{}. In the present case of the $\sigma $ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), the one-parametric branch lines that at least for some momentum interval correspond to a singular feature are all contained in the two-parametric spectra given in Eqs. (\[SpupElremo\]), (\[SpupElLHBadd\]), (\[SpupElUHBadd\]), (\[SpdownElremo\]), (\[SpdownElLHBadd\]), and (\[SpdownElUHBadd\]). Those correspond to excited energy eigenstates generated by the leading-order pseudofermion processes.
Such a branch line results from transitions to a well-defined subclass of these excited energy eigenstates. Specifically, a particle and hole branch line is generated by creation of one $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion and one $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion hole, respectively, of canonical momentum ${\bar{q}} = {\bar{q}} (q)$ corresponding to a well-defined $\beta$ band momentum value $q$ as defined by Eq. (\[barqan\]). The set of such transitions scans the whole corresponding $\beta$ band momentum range. Specifically, for a $\beta=c$ branch line the $c$ band momentum $q$ runs in the intervals $q \in [-\pi,-2k_F]$ and $q \in [2k_F,\pi]$ for a particle branch line and in the range $q \in [-2k_F,2k_F]$ for a hole branch line. In the case of a $\beta =s1$ branch line, the $s1$ band momentum $q$ runs in the ranges $q \in [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}]$ and $q \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}]$ for a particle branch line and in the interval $q \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}]$ for a hole branch line.
For a $c$ and $s1$ branch line, the $s1$ and $c$, respectively, pseudofermion or pseudofermion hole created under the transitions to the excited energy eigenstates whose two-parametric spectra are given in Eqs. (\[SpupElremo\]), (\[SpupElLHBadd\]), (\[SpupElUHBadd\]), (\[SpdownElremo\]), (\[SpdownElLHBadd\]), and (\[SpdownElUHBadd\]) is added to one of the $\iota =\pm 1$ corresponding Fermi points. As given in Eqs. (\[upElUHBadd\]) and (\[downElUHBadd\]), in the case of $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition the corresponding $\eta 1$ pseudofermion is created at one of the $\eta 1$ band limiting momentum values, $q = \pm (\pi -2k_F)$.
The PS excited energy eigenstates generated from the ground state by the types of processes described above have a one-parametric $(k,\omega)$-plane $\beta =c,s1$ branch line spectrum, $$\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k) = \omega_0 + \varepsilon_{\beta} (q)\,\delta N_{\beta} (q) \, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
k = k_0 + q\,\delta N_{\beta} (q) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, ,
\label{dE-dP-bl}$$ where $\sigma =\uparrow,\downarrow$ refers to the one-electron spectral function under consideration, $\varepsilon_{\beta} (q)$ is the $\beta =c,s1$ band energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]), $\delta N_{\beta} (q) = +1$ and $\delta N_{\beta} (q) = -1$ for a particle and hole branch line, respectively, and the energy scale $\omega_0$ and momentum $k_0$ are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_0 & = & 2\mu\,\delta N_{\eta 1} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_{\eta 1} = 0,1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
k_0 & = & 4k_F\,\delta J_{c}^F + 2k_{F\downarrow}\,\delta J_{s1}^F + 2(\pi -2k_F)\,\delta J_{\eta 1} \, ,
\label{1el-omega0}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Here the $\beta=c,s1$ current number deviations $\delta J_{\beta}^F$ are those in Eq. (\[functional\]), $\delta N_{\eta 1} =\delta J_{\eta 1}=0$ for both $\sigma$ electron removal and $\sigma$ electron LHB addition, $\delta N_{\eta 1} =1$ and $\delta J_{\eta 1}=-{1\over 2}\sum_{\iota=\pm 1}(\iota)\,\delta N_{\eta 1,\iota} = \mp 1/2$ for $\sigma$ electron UHB addition, and $\delta N_{\eta 1,\iota} = 1$ for creation of the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion at the $\iota =\pm 1$ limiting $\eta 1$ band momentum $\iota (\pi -2k_F)$.
In the case of the $(k,\omega)$-plane region in the vicinity of a $\beta =c,s1$ branch line, the summation $\sum_{\nu}$ in Eq. (\[B-PAR-J-CPHS-sum-0\]) runs over excited energy eigenstates with the specific $k$ and $\omega$ values that appear in the argument of the corresponding function $B^{\odot} (k,\omega)$. At such fixed values, the two corresponding $\beta =c,s1$ lowest peak weights $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$, Eq. (\[A00\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\], have nearly the same magnitude for all such states. The state summations can then be partially performed. The technical details of such summations are provided in Appendix B of Ref. [@V-1]. They lead to the following general behavior in the vicinity of a $\sigma$ one-electron $\beta = c,s1$ branch line, $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) & = & C_{\sigma,\gamma,\beta}\,
\Bigl(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)\Bigr)^{\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)} \, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)) \geq 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \gamma = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k) & = & -1+\sum_{\beta' = c,s1}\sum_{\iota =\pm 1}2\Delta_{\beta'}^{\iota} (q)\vert_{q=(k-k_0)\delta N_{\beta} (q)} \, .
\label{branch-l}\end{aligned}$$ Here $C_{\sigma,\gamma,\beta}$ is a $n_e$, $m$, and $u$ dependent constant that is independent of $k$ and $\omega$, $\omega\geq 0$ and $\omega\leq 0$ for $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma=-1$, respectively, and $2\Delta_{\beta'}^{\iota} (q)$ refers to the following specific form that the functionals, Eq. (\[functional\]), have for the excited energy eigenstates that control the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral weight distribution near the $\beta =c,s1$ branch line, $$\begin{aligned}
2\Delta^{\iota}_{c} (q) & = & \left(\sum_{\beta'=c,s1}\left(\iota\, \xi^0_{c\,\beta'}\,{\delta N^F_{\beta'}\over 2}
+ \xi^1_{c\,\beta'}\,\delta J^F_{\beta'}\right) + \xi^1_{c\,c}\,\delta J_{\eta 1}
+ \Phi_{c\,\beta}(\iota 2k_F,q)\,\delta N^{NF}_{\beta} (q)\right)^2 \, ,
\nonumber \\
2\Delta^{\iota}_{s1} (q) & = & \left(\sum_{\beta'=c,s1}\left(\iota\, \xi^0_{s1\,\beta'}\,{\delta N^F_{\beta'}\over 2}
+ \xi^1_{s1\,\beta'}\,\delta J^F_{\beta'}\right) + \xi^1_{s1\,c}\,\delta J_{\eta 1}
+ \Phi_{s1\,\beta}(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q)\,\delta N^{NF}_{\beta} (q)\right)^2 \, .
\label{OESFfunctional}\end{aligned}$$ In these expressions one has that $\delta N^{NF}_{\beta} (q) = +1$ and $ \delta N^{NF}_{\beta} (q) = -1$ for a particle and hole $\beta =c,s1$ branch line, respectively, and $q$ is not at the $\beta =c,s1$ Fermi points. For the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition energy eigenstates for which $\delta J_{\eta 1} =\mp 1/2$ the relation $\Phi_{\beta'',\eta 1}(\iota q_{F\beta''},\pm (\pi -2k_F)) = \pm \xi^{1}_{\beta''\,c}/2$, Eq. (\[Phibetaeta1Fbeta\]), was used to express the phase shift acquired by the $\beta'' =c,s1$ pseudofermions of $\iota =\pm 1$ Fermi momenta $\iota q_{F\beta''}$ due to the creation of the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion of $\eta 1$ band momentum $\pm(\pi -2k_F)$.
In addition to the parameter, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma & = & -1 \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal} \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & + 1 \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition} \, ,
\label{c0RA}\end{aligned}$$ the one $\sigma$ one-electron spectra associated with the singular spectral features considered in Sec. \[DSGzzxx\] involve a second parameter $\gamma_{\sigma}$ and the use of the symbol $\bar{\sigma}$ that are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\uparrow} & = & + 1 \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} {\bar{\uparrow}} = \downarrow \, ,
\nonumber \\
\gamma_{\downarrow} & = & - 1 \, ; \hspace{0.75cm} {\bar{\downarrow}} = \uparrow \, .
\label{cssigma}\end{aligned}$$ That in Eq. (\[branch-l\]) the $\beta =c,s1$ branch line spectrum $\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ is not multiplied by $\gamma$ is justified by it being according to Eq. (\[dE-dP-bl\]) always such that $\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)\geq 0$.
The $\sigma$ one-electron spectral function line shapes near the branch lines, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), are beyond the reach of the techniques associated with the low-energy Tomonaga-Luttinger-liquid. In the limit of low-energy, the PDT describes the well-known behaviors predicted by such techniques. This refers specifically to the vicinity of $(k,\omega)$-plane points $(k_0,0)$ of which $(k_0,\omega_0)$ is a generalization for $\omega_0>0$. Near them, the $\sigma =\uparrow, \downarrow$ one-electron spectral function $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), behavior rather is [@LE], $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) & \propto & \Bigl(\gamma\,\omega -\omega_0\Bigr)^{\zeta^{\sigma}} \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_0) \geq 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\zeta^{\sigma} & = & -2+\sum_{\beta' = c,s1}\sum_{\iota =\pm 1}2\Delta_{\beta'}^{\iota} \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_0) \neq \pm v_{\beta}\,(k-k_0) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta =c,s1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) & \propto & \Bigl(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_0 \mp v_{\beta}\,(k-k_0)\Bigr)^{\zeta_{\pm}^{\sigma}} \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_0 \mp v_{\beta}\,(k-k_0)) \geq 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\zeta_{\pm}^{\sigma} & = & -1- 2\Delta_{\beta}^{\mp 1} +\sum_{\beta' = c,s1}\sum_{\iota =\pm 1}2\Delta_{\beta'}^{\iota} \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_0) \approx \pm v_{\beta}\,(k-k_0) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta =c,s1 \, ,
\label{point}\end{aligned}$$ where the form of the $\beta' =c,s1$ functionals $2\Delta_{\beta'}^{\iota}$ , Eq. (\[functional\]), simplifies to, $$\begin{aligned}
2\Delta^{\iota}_{c} & = & \left(\sum_{\beta'=c,s1}\left(\iota\, \xi^0_{c\,\beta'}\,{\delta N^F_{\beta'}\over 2}
+ \xi^1_{c\,\beta'}\,\delta J^F_{\beta'}\right) + \xi^1_{c\,c}\,\delta J_{\eta 1}\right)^2 \, ,
\nonumber \\
2\Delta^{\iota}_{s1} (q) & = & \left(\sum_{\beta'=c,s1}\left(\iota\, \xi^0_{s1\,\beta'}\,{\delta N^F_{\beta'}\over 2}
+ \xi^1_{s1\,\beta'}\,\delta J^F_{\beta'}\right) + \xi^1_{s1\,c}\,\delta J_{\eta 1}\right)^2 \, .
\label{pointfunctional}\end{aligned}$$ The $\sigma$ spectral function expressions, Eq. (\[point\]), apply to the small finite-weight region very near and above ($\gamma=1$) or below ($\gamma=-1$) the $(k,\omega)$-plane point $(k_0,\omega_0)$.
There is a third type of $\sigma$ one-electron spectral feature in the vicinity of which the PDT provides an analytical expression. It is generated by processes where one $c$ pseudofermion or $c$ pseudofermion hole is created at a momentum value $q$ and one $s1$ pseudofermion or one $s1$ pseudofermion hole is created at a momentum value $q'$, such that their group velocities, Eq. (\[vel-beta\]), obey the equality $v_{c}(q) = v_{s1}(q')$. It corresponds to a $c-s1$ border line whose $(k,\omega)$-plane spectrum is, $$\omega_{c-s1}^{\sigma} (k)= \left(\omega_0 + \vert\epsilon_{c}(q)\vert+\vert\epsilon_{s1}(q')\vert\right)\,\delta_{v_{c}(q) ,\,v_{s1}(q')}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm}
k = k_0 + q\,\delta N_{c} (q) + q'\,\delta N_{s1} (q') \,
\label{dE-dP-c-s1}$$ Whether each of the deviations $\delta N_{c} (q)$ and $\delta N_{s1} (q')$ reads $+1$ or $-1$ is unrelated and is specific to border line under consideration.
The following $\sigma$ one-electron spectral function behavior in the vicinity of such a $c-s1$ border line, $$B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) \propto \Bigl(\gamma\,\omega -\omega_{c-s1}^{\sigma} (k)\Bigr)^{-1/2} \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
(\gamma\,\omega -\omega_{c-s1}^{\sigma} (k)) \geq 0 \, ,
\label{B-bol}$$ is determined by the density of the two-parametric states generated upon varying $q$ and $q'$ within the corresponding $c$ and $s1$ band values, respectively. A $\sigma$ one-electron border line is part of the boundary line of the two-parametric spectra, Eqs. (\[SpupElremo\]), (\[SpupElLHBadd\]), (\[SpupElUHBadd\]), (\[SpdownElremo\]), (\[SpdownElLHBadd\]), and (\[SpdownElUHBadd\]), $(k,\omega)$-plane regions.
Validity of the expressions for the line shape near the singular spectral features {#validity}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general behavior $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) = C_{\sigma,\gamma,\beta}\,
(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k))^{\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)}$ for small $(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k))>0$ in the vicinity of $\beta =c,s1$ branch lines, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), also occurs in the case of two-particle dynamical correlation functions $B (k,\omega)$ for which the convention is $\gamma =1$ and $\omega \geq 0$. However, such a $B (k,\omega)$ expression near a $\beta =c,s1$ branch line is in that case exact provided that the branch line coincides with a lower threshold of the $(k,\omega)$-plane finite spectral-weight region [@CarCadez], [*i.e.*]{} for which $B (k,\omega) =0$ for $(\omega - \omega_{\beta} (k))<0$.
The $(k,\omega)$-plane spectral weight distribution of two-particle dynamical correlation functions is in general plateau-like. It then follows that for $k$ ranges of a branch line for which $B (k,\omega) >0$ for $(\omega - \omega_{\beta} (k))<0$ there is a sufficient amount of two-particle spectral weight just below the line for the coupling to that generated by the processes that contribute to the weight distribution as given in Eq. (\[branch-l\]) changing the type of $k$ and $\omega$ dependence for $(\omega - \omega_{\beta} (k))>0$. The microscopic processes behind such a coupling are accounted for by the PDT yet performing the corresponding state summations needed to reach a simple analytical expression for $B (k,\omega)$ at small $(\omega - \omega_{\beta} (k))>0$ turns out to be a complex technical problem.
In the present case of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), the behavior, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), in the vicinity of a $\beta =c,s1$ branch line is exact for $k$ ranges for which such a line coincides with a lower threshold ($\gamma=1$) or a upper threshold ($\gamma=-1$) of the $(k,\omega)$-plane finite spectral-weight regions associated with the corresponding two-parametric spectra. This requires that $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)=0$ for $\gamma\,\omega < \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$.
The physically more important $\beta =c,s1$ branch line $k$ ranges are those for which the exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is negative and that line corresponds to a singular feature. Fortunately and in contrast to two-particle dynamical correlation functions, along the line $k$ ranges for which $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)<0$ in Eq. (\[branch-l\]) and $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)>0$ for small $(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k))<0$ the corresponding spectral weight at $\gamma\,\omega < \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ is much smaller than that at $\gamma\,\omega > \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$. As a result, the coupling of the small weight at $\gamma\,\omega < \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ to that at $\gamma\,\omega > \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ changes the distribution near the singular feature, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), very little. The processes behind the small weight at $\gamma\,\omega < \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ are generated as well by the pseudofermion leading-order operator term that depending on the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral function is one of the operators given in Eqs. (\[upElremo\]), (\[upElLHBadd\]), (\[upElUHBadd\]), (\[downElremo\]), (\[downElLHBadd\]), and (\[downElUHBadd\]). Indeed, the subclass of one-parametric processes that generate the line shape, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), just above ($\gamma =+1$) or below ($\gamma =-1$) the branch line refers to a particular case of such more general two-parametric processes.
For the $k$ ranges for which $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)>0$ at $\gamma\,\omega < \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, the spectral function $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)$ remains having the power-law like behavior, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), in the vicinity of the line for $\gamma\,\omega > \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$. Specifically, the line spectrum $\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[dE-dP-bl\]), remains insensitive to the coupling, which only slightly affects the value of the exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$. Such an effect is small and very small when $0<\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)<1$ and $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)<0$, respectively, in Eq. (\[branch-l\]). The theory includes actually a small $k$ dependent parameter, $$\gamma_{\sigma,\gamma} (k) = \left({\int_{\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)-\Omega}^{\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)}
B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)\,d\omega
\over \int_{\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)}^{\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)+\Omega}
B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)\,d\omega}\right)^{\gamma} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \gamma = \pm 1 \, .
\label{tausigk}$$ Here $\Omega$ stands for the processes (C) energy range for $\omega>\gamma\,\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$. It is self-consistently determined as that for which the velocity $v_{\nu}$, Eq. (\[dEdPvv\*\]), remains nearly unchanged. One can then expand the exponent expression in that small parameter, the zeroth order leading term being $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, as given in Eq. (\[branch-l\]).
In the vicinity of the line $k$ ranges for which $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is negative there is a much larger amount of spectral weight for $\omega>\gamma\,\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ than for $\omega<\gamma\,\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$. The $k$ dependent parameter, Eq. (\[tausigk\]), is thus extremely small for such $k$ intervals, [*i.e.*]{} $\gamma_{\sigma,\gamma} (k)\ll 1$. Since the corresponding exponent corrections are also extremely small and do not change the physics, for simplicity in the studies of Sec. \[DSGzzxx\] we use the leading-order exponent expression $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]). The otherwise very small exponent corrections vanish in a $\beta =c,s1$ branch line $k$ ranges for which it coincides with the a lower threshold ($\gamma=1$) or upper threshold ($\gamma=-1$) of the $(k,\omega)$-plane finite spectral-weight region.
Moreover, the $\sigma $ one-electron spectral function expression near a $\beta =c,s1$ branch line, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is valid provided that the exponent in it obeys the inequality $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)>-1$. When for a given $\beta =c,s1$ branch line $k$ range one finds that $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)=-1$, the exact expression of the spectral function is not that given in Eq. (\[branch-l\]). For these $k$ ranges one has that the four functionals $2\Delta^{\iota}_{\beta}$, Eq. (\[pointfunctional\]) for $\beta =c,s1$ and $\iota =\pm 1$, vanish. This corresponds to the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral function form, Eq. (\[B-J-i-sum-GG3\]) of Appendix \[Ele2PsPhaShi\]. One then finds that the corresponding $\sigma $ one-electron spectral function behavior is also $\delta$-function-like and given by, $$B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) = \delta \Bigl(\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)\Bigr) \, .
\label{branch-lexp-1}$$
As expected, it is confirmed in the ensuing section that only as $u\rightarrow 0$ some $\beta =c,s1$ branch line exponents read $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)=-1$. For the corresponding $k$ momentum ranges one recovers parts of the exact $u=0$ $\sigma$ one-electron spectrum, with $\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[branch-lexp-1\]) becoming the corresponding non-interacting electronic spectrum. This is confirmed by accounting for the $u\rightarrow 0$ limiting behaviors of the $\beta =c,s1$ energy dispersions $\varepsilon_{\beta} (q)$ appearing in the spectrum $\omega_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[dE-dP-bl\]). Such limiting behaviors are reported in Eqs. (\[varepsiloncu0\]) and (\[varepsilonsu0\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\].
Furthermore, the branch-line exponent expression, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is not valid in its limiting $k$ points when they coincide with boundary points $(k_0,\omega_0)$ in the vicinity of which the line shape has rather the form given in Eqs. (\[point\]) and (\[pointfunctional\]). The PDT naturally accesses such an alternative behavior. For $\sigma$ electron removal and LHB addition it corresponds to the known low-energy behavior of the spectral function in the vicinity of $(k,\omega)$-plane points $(k_0,0)$. Since for the densities ranges $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ considered here the latter low-energy behavior is known and coincides with that reported in Eq. (5.7) of Ref. [@Frahm-91], we restrict our study of Section \[DSGzzxx\] to the high-energy spectral features. The previous studies of the high-energy spectral features of the 1D Hubbard model by means of the PDT [@TTF; @spectral0; @spectral; @spectral-06] and most of those relying on other methods [@Essler; @Essler-14; @Kohno-10; @Benthien-04] have been limited to zero spin density. Hence the analysis of Sec. \[DSGzzxx\] is mainly focused on finite spin densities $m \in ]0,n_e]$.
Concerning the behavior of the spectral functions near the border lines, Eq. (\[B-bol\]), in the related cases of charge-charge and spin-spin two-electron dynamical correlation functions the boundary line exponent $-1/2$ that results from the density of the two-parametric states is changed to $1/2$ by the two-electron matrix elements between the ground state and the excited energy eigenstate. This always occurs when the two values $q$ and $q'$ and corresponding group velocities $v_{\beta}(q)$ and $v_{\beta}(q')$ such that $v_{\beta}(q)=v_{\beta}(q')$ belong to the same $\beta =c,s1$ band.
![\[s4525u01\] The $(k,\omega)$-plane singular branch lines $k$ ranges (solid lines) and other branch lines $k$ ranges (dashed lines) for which the corresponding exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is negative and positive, respectively, and singular boundary lines (dashed-dotted lines) of the weight distribution associated with the $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron spectral function for $u=0.1$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and (a)-(b) spin densities $m=0.45$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.25$. The branch line spectra plotted here are defined in Section \[DSGzzxx\]. The $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch-line labels appearing here in panels (a) for $\sigma =\uparrow$ and (b) for $\sigma =\downarrow$ apply to the branch lines with similar topology in the panels (c) and (d), respectively. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines plotted here as defined in Section \[DSGzzxx\] are blue, red, and green, respectively.) The lines represented by sets of diamond symbols contribute to the $u\rightarrow 0$ one-electron spectrum yet are not branch lines. For $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition only the branch lines that contribute to the $u\rightarrow 0$ spectral weight are represented.](fig1ab.eps "fig:") ![\[s4525u01\] The $(k,\omega)$-plane singular branch lines $k$ ranges (solid lines) and other branch lines $k$ ranges (dashed lines) for which the corresponding exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is negative and positive, respectively, and singular boundary lines (dashed-dotted lines) of the weight distribution associated with the $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron spectral function for $u=0.1$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and (a)-(b) spin densities $m=0.45$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.25$. The branch line spectra plotted here are defined in Section \[DSGzzxx\]. The $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch-line labels appearing here in panels (a) for $\sigma =\uparrow$ and (b) for $\sigma =\downarrow$ apply to the branch lines with similar topology in the panels (c) and (d), respectively. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines plotted here as defined in Section \[DSGzzxx\] are blue, red, and green, respectively.) The lines represented by sets of diamond symbols contribute to the $u\rightarrow 0$ one-electron spectrum yet are not branch lines. For $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition only the branch lines that contribute to the $u\rightarrow 0$ spectral weight are represented.](fig1cd.eps "fig:")
In the present case of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions the border lines are generated by pairs of values $q$ and $q'$ belonging to the $c$ and $s1$ bands, respectively, such that $v_{c}(q)=v_{s1}(q')$. The $\sigma$ one-electron matrix elements between the ground state and the excited energy eigenstates do not change the exponent $-1/2$ resulting from the density of the two-parametric states, so that the border-line singularities, Eq. (\[B-bol\]), prevail. The border lines of the $\sigma $ one-electron removal and LHB addition spectral functions are plotted in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] yet for simplicity their specific analytical form is not given in this paper.
In what the $\sigma$ one-electron LHB and UHB addition spectral functions as defined in Eq. (\[LUHB\]) for $u>0$, $n_e \in [0,1[$, and $m\in [0,n_e]$ is concerned, we have a few comments. At $n_e=1$ there is no $\sigma$ one-electron LHB. That eletronic density refers to the Mott-Hubbard insulator phase at which there is a gap $2\mu_u$, Eq. (\[2mu0\]), between the top of the $\sigma$ one-electron removal band and the addition UHB. On the other hand, for the metallic phase electronic density range $n_e \in [0,1[$ considered here, the spectral weight associated with the $\sigma$ one-electron addition LHB has not an exact top, yet such a weight becomes very small above some $u>0$, $n_e \in [0,1[$, and $m\in [0,n_e]$ dependent finite energy scale. Hence for intermediate and large $u$ values there emerges a pseudogap between that region of the $\sigma$ one-electron addition LHB and the well-defined bottom of the UHB. Our study focuses on singular spectral features, such a pseudogap being clearly visible in Figs. \[s6545u1\]-\[s032505u1\] for intermediate and large $u$ values, where as discussed below the $(k,\omega)$-plane solid lines and dashed-dotted lines refer to negative-exponent singular branch lines $k$ ranges and singular border lines, respectively.
An interesting property is that, when expressed as function of the $\beta =c,s1$ band momentum $q$, the $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition $\beta =c,s1$ branch lines spectrum and exponent are exactly the same as for the $\beta =c,s1$ branch lines of the $\bar{\sigma}=\downarrow,\uparrow$ one-electron removal spectral function. That relation is also preserved in terms of the momentum $k$ and energy $\omega$ provided that they are replaced by $\pi -k$ and $2\mu -\omega$, respectively.
Such a relation follows from model symmetries whose consequences are fully explicit at $n_e=1$ for chemical potential $\mu =0$ at the middle of the Mott-Hubbard gap. Then there is no $\sigma$ one-electron LHB addition spectral function and the following exact relation holds, $$B_{\sigma,+1}^{\rm UHB} (k,\omega) =
B_{\bar{\sigma},-1} (\pi-k,-\omega) \, , \hspace{0.5cm} n_e = 1
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} \mu = 0 \, .
\label{ne1SFsymm}$$ For $n_e\rightarrow 1$ and thus chemical potential $\mu\rightarrow \mu_u$ this relation is also valid yet reads $B_{\sigma,+1}^{\rm UHB} (k,\omega) =
B_{\bar{\sigma},-1} (\pi-k,2\mu-\omega)$.
At $n_e = 1$ the rotated-electron doubly occupied site of the excited energy eigenstates associated with the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition spectral function corresponds to a $\eta$-spin doublet configuration of a single unpaired rotated spin of projection $-1/2$. On the other hand, for electronic densities $n_e \in [0,1[$ such states are rather populated by one $\eta 1$ pseudofermion that corresponds to a $\eta$-spin singlet configuration of two paired rotated $\eta$-spins of opposite projection.
That the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition $s1$ and $c^{\pm}$ branch lines $(k,\omega)$-plane spectrum and exponent momentum dependence studied below in Section \[DSGzzxx\] are for electronic densities in the range $n_e \in [0,1[$ and under the transformations $k\rightarrow \pi -k$ and $\omega\rightarrow 2\mu -\omega$ exactly the same as for the $\bar{\sigma}$ one-electron removal $s1$ and $c^{\pm}$ branch lines, respectively, is a weaker consequence of the same symmetry. It follows from a $\eta 1$ pseudofermion of momentum at the $\eta 1$ band limting values $\bar{q}=q = \pm (\pi -2k_F)$, Eq. (\[qcanGS\]), being invariant under the pseudoparticle - pseudofermion unitary transformation. Indeed, for such $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition singular features the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion is created at one of such two $\eta 1$ band limiting values. Hence the corresponding $\eta 1$ pseudofermion energy, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =\eta 1$, reads $\varepsilon_{\eta 1} (\pm (\pi -2k_F)) = 2\mu_{\eta}=2\mu$. It thus equals that of two unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins of opposite projection, Eq. (\[varep\]) with $2\mu_{\alpha}$ given by Eq. (\[2mu-eta-s\]) for $\alpha = \eta$. The invariance under the pseudoparticle - pseudofermion unitary transformation of the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion created at the momentum $\bar{q}=q = \pm (\pi -2k_F)$ is behind this property by implying that the corresponding anti-bounding energy $\varepsilon_{\eta 1}^0 (q)\geq 0$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[e-0-bands\]) vanishes, $\varepsilon_{\eta 1}^0 (\pm (\pi -2k_F))=0$. This means that at these momentum values the two rotated $\eta$-spins within the composite $\eta 1$ pseudofermion are in a $\eta$-spin singlet configuration yet are unpaired, similarly to the unpaired rotated $\eta$-spins in the multiplet configurations and specifically to the projection $-1/2$ unpaired and single rotated $\eta$-spin of the $n_e=1$ $\eta$-spin doublet $\sigma $ one-electron UHB addition spectral function $B_{\sigma,+1}^{\rm UHB} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[ne1SFsymm\]).
![\[s6545u1\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=1$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.65$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.45$. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig2ab.eps "fig:") ![\[s6545u1\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=1$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.65$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.45$. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig2cd.eps "fig:")
Although the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition spectral weight generated by transitions to excited energy eigenstates for which the $\eta 1$ pseudofermion emerges at a $\eta 1$ band canonical momentum $\bar{q} = \bar{q} (q)$ corresponding to a bare momentum value $-(\pi -2k_F)<q < (\pi -2k_F)$ is small, such processes imply that the relation $B_{\sigma,+1}^{\rm UHB} (k,\omega) =B_{\bar{\sigma},-1} (\pi-k,2\mu-\omega)$ is not exact for $n_e<1$. It becomes exact only in the $n_e\rightarrow 1$ limit and thus for chemical potential $\mu\rightarrow \mu_u$ when $(\pi -2k_F)\rightarrow 0$. In a weaker way it nevertheless survives for $n_e \in [0,1[$ in what the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition singular $\beta =c,s1$ branch lines $(k,\omega)$-plane spectrum and exponent momentum dependence are concerned for the reasons reported above.
In Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] the $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition $\beta$ branch lines whose exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is negative for at least some $k$ interval and $u$, $n_e$, and $m$ ranges and the boundary lines considered in the ensuing section are shown in the $(k,\omega)$-plane for several values of $u$, electronic densities $n_e=0.3$ and $n_e=0.7$, and sets of spin density values $m<n_e$. For $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition only the main branch lines that in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit contribute to the $u=0$ $\sigma $ one-electron addition spectrum are shown. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines defined in Section \[DSGzzxx\] and plotted in these figures are blue, red, and green, respectively.)
Indeed, since the behavior of the $\downarrow$ and $\uparrow$ one-electron removal spectral functions near their $\beta =c,s1$ branch lines is studied in some detail, for simplicity in the following the study of the related $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$, respectively, one-electron UHB addition branch lines is limited to those that in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit contribute to the $u=0$ $\sigma $ one-electron addition $\delta$-function-like spectrum.
The $\sigma$ one-electron $\beta$ branch lines are in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] represented by solid lines and dashed lines for the $k$ ranges for which the corresponding exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is negative and positive, respectively. The $\sigma$ one-electron removal and LHB addition boundary lines are represented by dashed-dotted lines. Most of the $u=0$ $\delta$-function like $\sigma$ one-electron spectrum $k$ ranges are obtained from branch lines in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit. The two exceptions are the $u=0$ $\uparrow$ one-electron removal spectrum for the momentum range $k \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}]$ and the $u=0$ $\downarrow$ one-electron addition spectrum for the $k$ interval $\vert k\vert \in [\pi-k_{F\downarrow},\pi]$, which emerge in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit from the non-branch lines that are represented in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] by sets of diamond symbols.
The singular $\sigma$ one-electron spectral features {#DSGzzxx}
====================================================
In this section we study the line shape behavior of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), in the vicinity of the branch lines shown in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\]. For the $k$ ranges for which the exponents controlling the line shape near these lines are negative, there are singularity cusps in the corresponding $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions.
![\[s2505u1\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=1$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.25$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.05$. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig3ab.eps "fig:") ![\[s2505u1\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=1$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.25$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.05$. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig3cd.eps "fig:")
The $\sigma $ one-electron removal and LHB addition $c^{\pm}$ and $s1$ branch lines are the topics of Sections \[upRcc\] and \[upRs\], respectively. Section \[upUHBs\] addresses the issue of the $\sigma $ one-electron UHB addition branch lines. Finally, the $\uparrow$ one-electron removal and $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition $s1'$ non-branch lines that for $m\neq 0$ contribute to the $u\rightarrow 0$ one-electron spectrum is the subject of Section \[upRsl\].
The $\sigma $ one-electron removal and LHB addition $c^{\pm}$ branch lines {#upRcc}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $\sigma $ electron removal and LHB addition $c^{\pm}$ branch lines are generated by processes that correspond to particular cases of those generated by the leading-order operators, Eqs. (\[upElremo\]), (\[upElLHBadd\]), (\[downElremo\]), and (\[downElLHBadd\]) that are behind the $\uparrow$ one-electron removal spectrum, Eq. (\[SpupElremo\]), $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition spectrum, Eq. (\[SpupElLHBadd\]), $\downarrow$ one-electron removal spectrum, Eq. (\[SpdownElremo\]), and $\downarrow$ one-electron LHB addition spectrum, Eq. (\[SpdownElLHBadd\]). Hence these lines one-parametric spectra plotted in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] are contained within such two-parametric spectra that occupy well defined regions in the $(k,\omega)$ plane. (Online the $c^+$ and $c^-$ branch lines are blue and red, respectively, in these figures.)
![\[s4525u10\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=10$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.45$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.25$. Note the different $\omega$ intervals separated by a horizontal dashed line used for the removal and LHB addition spectral features and the UHB addition branch line, respectively. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig4ab.eps "fig:") ![\[s4525u10\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=10$, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.45$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.25$. Note the different $\omega$ intervals separated by a horizontal dashed line used for the removal and LHB addition spectral features and the UHB addition branch line, respectively. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig4cd.eps "fig:")
These one-parametric spectra $\omega_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)$ and the exponents $\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)$ associated with these branch lines are such that, $$\omega_{c^{+}}^{\sigma} (k) = \omega_{c^{-}}^{\sigma} (-k) \, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
\xi_{c^{+}}^{\sigma} (k) = \xi_{c^{-}}^{\sigma} (-k) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \sigma =\uparrow,\downarrow \, .
\label{c+-rela}$$ Within a reduced first-Brillouin zone scheme, considering both the $c^{+}$ and $c^{-}$ branch lines for $k \in [0,\pi]$ or only the $c^{+}$ branch line for $k \in [-\pi,\pi]$ contains exactly the same information. Here we chose the latter option.
The $\sigma$ one-electron removal and LHB addition $c^{+}$ branch line refers to excited energy eigenstates with the following number deviations relative to those of the initial ground state, $$\delta N_c^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_c^F = \delta_{\sigma,\downarrow}/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_c^{NF} = \gamma \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\delta N_{s1}^F = \delta_{\sigma,\downarrow}\,\gamma \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{s1}^F = \gamma_{\sigma}/2 \, .
\label{NudRcc}$$
The spectrum of general form, Eq. (\[dE-dP-bl\]), that defines the $(k,\omega)$-plane shape of the $\sigma $ one-electron removal and LHB addition $c^+$ branch line reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{c^{+}}^{\sigma} (k) & = & \gamma\,\varepsilon_c (q) \, , \hspace{0.6cm} \gamma = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
q & \in & [-2k_F,2k_F] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\sigma\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal} \, ,
\nonumber \\
q & \in & [-\pi,-2k_F] \hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}q \in [2k_F,\pi]
\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\sigma\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm LHB}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition} \, ,
\label{OkudRLAcc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_c (q)$ is the $c$ band energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =c$. The relation of the $c$ band momentum $q$ to the excitation momentum $k$ is within an extended-zone scheme given by, $$\begin{aligned}
k & = & \gamma\,q + k_{F\bar{\sigma}} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k &\in & [-k_{F\sigma},(2k_F+k_{F\bar{\sigma}})] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [-(\pi -k_{F\bar{\sigma}}),-k_{F\sigma}] \hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}
k \in [(2k_F+k_{F\bar{\sigma}}),(\pi +k_{F\bar{\sigma}})] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1 \, .
\label{OkudLAcc}\end{aligned}$$
![\[s032505u1\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=1$, electronic density $n_e =0.3$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.25$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.05$. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig5ab.eps "fig:") ![\[s032505u1\] The same $(k,\omega)$-plane lines as in Fig. \[s4525u01\] for $u=1$, electronic density $n_e =0.3$, and spin densities (a)-(b) $m=0.25$ and (c)-(d) $m=0.05$. (Online the $c^+$, $c^-$, and $s1$ branch lines are blue, red, and green, respectively.)](fig5cd.eps "fig:")
As mentioned above, we consider a reduced first Brillouin-zone scheme for $k \in [-\pi,\pi]$ within which the $c^{+}$ branch line separates into several subbranches. One finds that these subbranches refer to the following momentum $k$ intervals, $$\begin{aligned}
k & = & \gamma\,q + k_{F\bar{\sigma}} \hspace{0.2cm}{\rm subbranch} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k &\in & [-k_{F\sigma},(2k_F+k_{F\bar{\sigma}})] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [-(\pi -k_{F\bar{\sigma}}),-k_{F\sigma}] \hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}
k \in [(2k_F+k_{F\bar{\sigma}}),\pi] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & q + k_{F\bar{\sigma}} - 2\pi \hspace{0.2cm}{\rm subbranch} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [-\pi,-(\pi -k_{F\bar{\sigma}})] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1 \, ,
\label{kqsigc+1}\end{aligned}$$ that are valid for the densities ranges, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \uparrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron:}\hspace{0.1cm}(i)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [0,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}(ii)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(3n_e-2),n_e] \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \downarrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron:}\hspace{0.1cm}(i)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [0,1/2]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}(ii)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [1/2,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(2-3n_e)] \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the momentum $k$ intervals, $$\begin{aligned}
k & = & \gamma\,q + k_{F\bar{\sigma}} \hspace{0.2cm}{\rm subbranch} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k &\in & [-k_{F\sigma},\pi] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
k & \in &[-(\pi -k_{F\bar{\sigma}}),-k_{F\sigma}]\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & q + k_{F\bar{\sigma}} - 2\pi \hspace{0.2cm}{\rm subbranch} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k &\in & [-\pi,-(2\pi - 2k_F - k_{F\bar{\sigma}})] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [-(2\pi - 2k_F - k_{F\bar{\sigma}}),-(\pi -k_{F\bar{\sigma}})] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1 \, ,
\label{kqsigc+2}\end{aligned}$$ are valid for the densities ranges, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \uparrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron:}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(3n_e-2)] \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \downarrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron:}\hspace{0.1cm}(i)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [1/2,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(2-3n_e),n_e]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}(ii)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e] \, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding $k$ intervals of the $c^-$ branch line subbranches are obtained from those provided here upon exchanging $k$ by $-k$.
The one-parametric spectrum $\omega_{c^{+}}^{\sigma} (k)$ of each $c^+$ branch line subbranch is given by Eq. (\[OkudRLAcc\]) with the relation between the excitation momentum $k$ and the $c$ band momentum $q$ provided in the corresponding $k$ interval, Eqs. (\[kqsigc+1\]) and (\[kqsigc+2\]). Combining the analysis of such momentum $k$ intervals with the relation $\omega_{c^{+}}^{\sigma} (k) = \omega_{c^{-}}^{\sigma} (-k)$, Eq. (\[c+-rela\]), reveals that the $\sigma$ one-electron LHB addition $c^{\pm}$ branch lines are the natural continuation of the $\sigma$ one-electron removal $c^{\pm}$ branch lines.
From the use of the values of the functional, Eq. (\[OESFfunctional\]), specific to the excited energy eigenstates that determine spectral weight distribution near the $c^{\pm}$ branch lines, one finds that the momentum dependent exponents of general form, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), that control such a line shape read, $$\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k) = \xi_{c^{-}}^{\uparrow} (-k) = -1 + \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\xi_{c\,s1}^1\over 2} + \gamma\,\Phi_{c,c}(\iota 2k_{F},q)\right)^2
+ \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\xi_{s1\,s1}^1\over 2} + \gamma\,\Phi_{s1,c}(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q)\right)^2 \, ,
\label{xiupRLAcc}$$ for the $\sigma = \uparrow$ one-electron $c^{\pm}$ branch lines and, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & \xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k) = -1 + \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\iota\,\gamma\,\xi_{c\,s1}^0\over 2} + {(\xi_{c\,c}^1-\xi_{c\,s1}^1)\over 2}
+ \gamma\,\Phi_{c,c}(\iota 2k_{F},q)\right)^2
\nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\iota\,\gamma\,\xi_{s1\,s1}^0\over 2} + {(\xi_{s1\,c}^1-\xi_{s1\,s1}^1)\over 2}
+ \gamma\,\Phi_{s1,c}(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q)\right)^2 \, ,
\label{xidownRLAcc}\end{aligned}$$ for the $\sigma = \downarrow$ one-electron $c^{\pm}$ branch lines. These $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron exponents are plotted in Figs. \[fc+up\] and \[fc+down\], respectively, as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]-1,1[$ for several $u$ values, electronic densities $n_e =0.3$ and $n_e =0.7$, and a set of spin density values $m<n_e$.
![\[fc+up\] The exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k)=\xi_{c^{-}}^{\uparrow} (-k)$, Eq. (\[xiupRLAcc\]), that controls the singularities in the vicinity of the $c^+$ branch line whose $(k,\omega)$-plane one-parametric spectrum is defined by Eqs. (\[OkudRLAcc\]), (\[kqsigc+1\]), and (\[kqsigc+2\]) for the $\sigma =\uparrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition spectral function, Eq. (\[cpm-branch\]), as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]-1,1[$ for several $u$ values, electronic density $n_e =0.7$, and spin densities (a) $m=0.65$, (b) $m=0.45$, (c) $m=0.25$, and (d) $m=0.05$, and for electronic density $n_e =0.3$ and spin densities (e) $m=0.25$ and (f) $m=0.05$. The type of exponent line associated with each $u$ value is for all figures the same. Full and dashed vertical lines denote specific momentum values between different subbranches and momenta where the $u\rightarrow 0$ limiting value of the exponent changes, respectively.](fig6aa.eps)
The specific form of the general expression, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral function $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), in the vicinity of the present $c^{\pm}$ branch lines is, $$B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) = C_{\sigma,\gamma,c^{\pm}} \Bigl(\gamma\omega - \omega_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)\Bigr)^{\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} (\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)) \geq 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \gamma = \pm 1 \, ,
\label{cpm-branch}$$ where $C_{\sigma,\gamma,c^{\pm}}$ are constants independent of $k$ and $\omega$, the spectra $\omega_{c^{+}}^{\sigma} (k) = \omega_{c^{-}}^{\sigma} (-k)$ of the several subbranches are given in Eqs. (\[OkudRLAcc\]), (\[kqsigc+1\]), and (\[kqsigc+2\]), and the exponents $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\sigma} (k)=\xi_{c^{-}}^{\sigma} (-k)$ are defined in Eqs. (\[xiupRLAcc\]) and (\[xidownRLAcc\]) for $\sigma =\uparrow$ and $\sigma =\downarrow$, respectively.
The following exponents behaviors reached in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit are derived from the use in Eqs. (\[xiupRLAcc\]) and (\[xidownRLAcc\]) of the values corresponding to that limit of the phase-shift parameters $\xi^{j}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ and $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts in units of $2\pi$, $\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (\iota q_{F\beta},q)$, given in Eqs. (\[ZZ-gen-u0\]) and (\[Phis-all-qFqu0\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\], respectively. The found behaviors in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit of the $c^{+}$ branch line subbranches exponents for $\sigma = \uparrow$ one-electron removal ($\gamma=-1$) are, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k) = -1 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e] \, ,
\label{xiupRc+U0-0}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k) = 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.5cm}k \in [-k_{F\downarrow},3k_{F\downarrow}]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(n_e-2/3),n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.5cm}k \in [-k_{F\downarrow},\pi]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}k \in [-\pi,-(2\pi -3k_{F\downarrow})]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(n_e-2/3)] \, ,
\label{xiupRc+U0-1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k) = 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [3k_{F\downarrow},(2k_F+k_{F\downarrow})] \hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(3n_e-2),n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [3k_{F\downarrow},\pi]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}
k \in [-\pi,-(2\pi -2k_F-k_{F\downarrow})]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(n_e-2/3),(3n_e-2)]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [-(2\pi -3k_{F\downarrow}),-(2\pi -2k_F-k_{F\downarrow})]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(n_e-2/3)] \, .
\label{xiupRc+U0--1}\end{aligned}$$
For LHB addition ($\gamma=+1$), one finds, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k) = -1 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [-(\pi -k_{F\downarrow}),-k_{F\uparrow}]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e] \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k) = 1 \hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm the}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm other}\hspace{0.1cm}
k\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm ranges}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm in}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm Eqs.}\hspace{0.1cm}(\ref{kqsigc+1})
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}(\ref{kqsigc+2})
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm with}\hspace{0.1cm}\sigma=\uparrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}\bar{\sigma}=\downarrow \, .
\label{xiupLAccU0}\end{aligned}$$
Similar values for the exponent $\xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (k)$ are obtained upon exchanging $k$ by $-k$. Important $c^{-}$ branch line subbranches are those for which $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{-}}^{\uparrow} (k) = -1$. They refer to the $k$ ranges, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{-}}^{\uparrow} (k) = -1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.50cm}k \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}k \in [k_{F\uparrow},(\pi -k_{F\downarrow})]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1\, ,
\label{xiupRc+U0-0-1}\end{aligned}$$ that are valid for $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$.
For the $k$ ranges for which $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\uparrow} (k) = -1$ the line shape has not the form given in Eq. (\[cpm-branch\]) and rather becomes $\delta$-function like, Eq. (\[branch-lexp-1\]). In the present case this gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B_{\uparrow,-1} (k,\omega) & = & \delta\Bigl(\omega + \omega_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega - 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\uparrow})\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} k \in [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B_{\uparrow,+1} (k,\omega) & = & \delta\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega + 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\uparrow})\Bigr)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} k \in [-(\pi -k_{F\downarrow}),-k_{F\uparrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B_{\uparrow,-1} (k,\omega) & = & \delta\Bigl(\omega + \omega_{c^{-}}^{\uparrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega - 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\uparrow})\Bigr)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} k \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B_{\uparrow,+1} (k,\omega) & = & \delta\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{c^{-}}^{\uparrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega + 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\uparrow})\Bigr)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} k \in [k_{F\uparrow},(\pi -k_{F\downarrow})] \, .
\label{cpm-branch-delta}\end{aligned}$$ The behaviors reported here thus recover parts of the exact $u=0$ $\sigma$ one-electron spectrum. That the spectra $\omega_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)$ become in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the corresponding non-interacting electronic spectra is confirmed by accounting for the limiting behavior of the $c$ energy dispersion $\varepsilon_{c} (q)$ appearing in these $u>0$ general spectra expression, Eq. (\[OkudRLAcc\]). Such a limiting behavior is reported in Eq. (\[varepsiloncu0\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\].
![\[fc+down\] The exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k)=\xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$, Eq. (\[xidownRLAcc\]), that controls the singularities in the vicinity of the $c^+$ branch line whose $(k,\omega)$-plane shape is defined by Eqs. (\[OkudRLAcc\]), (\[kqsigc+1\]), and (\[kqsigc+2\]) for the $\sigma =\downarrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition spectral function, Eq. (\[cpm-branch\]), as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]-1,1[$ for the same values of $u$, electronic density $n_e$, and spin density $m$ as in Fig. \[fc+up\].](fig7aa.eps)
On the other hand, for the $k$ ranges for which the exponents are for $u\rightarrow 0$ given by $0$ and/or $1$ the $\uparrow$ one-electron spectral weight at and near the corresponding branch lines vanishes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit.
One finds that in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the $\sigma = \downarrow$ one-electron removal exponent, Eq. (\[xidownRLAcc\]), has the following behaviors, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.50cm}k \in [-k_{F\downarrow},(k_{F\uparrow}-2k_{F\downarrow})]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.50cm}k \in [(2k_F+k_{F\downarrow}),(2k_F+k_{F\uparrow})]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,1/2]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [1/2,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(2-3n_e)]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.50cm}k \in [(2k_F+k_{F\downarrow}),\pi]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}
k \in [-\pi,-(2\pi -2k_F-k_{F\uparrow})]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [1/2,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(2-3n_e),n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(3n_e-2),n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.50cm}k \in [-(2\pi -2k_F-k_{F\downarrow}),-(2\pi -2k_F-k_{F\uparrow})]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(3n_e-2)]
\nonumber \\
\label{xidownRc+U0-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&& \lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.50cm}k \in [(k_{F\uparrow}-2k_{F\downarrow}),(2k_F+k_{F\downarrow})]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [0,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(3n_e-2),n_e]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.50cm}k \in [(k_{F\uparrow}-2k_{F\downarrow}),\pi]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}k \in [-\pi,-(2\pi -2k_F-k_{F\downarrow})]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = -1
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(3n_e-2)] \, .
\label{xidownRc+U0-0}\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, the $\sigma = \downarrow$ one-electron LHB exponent is found to behave as, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = 1 \hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = +1
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm the}\hspace{0.1cm}
k\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm ranges}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm in}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm Eqs.}\hspace{0.1cm}(\ref{kqsigc+1})
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}(\ref{kqsigc+2})
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm with}\hspace{0.1cm}\sigma=\downarrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}\bar{\sigma}=\uparrow \, .
\label{xidownRccU0}$$ Hence the $\downarrow$ one-electron spectral weight at and near these branch lines vanishes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit both for electron removal and LHB addition. Similar values for the exponent $\xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (k)$ are obtained upon exchanging $k$ by $-k$.
Analytical expressions for the above exponents can be derived for $u\gg 1$. These expressions are continuous functions of the spin density $m$ whose limiting behaviors for $m\rightarrow 0$ and $m\rightarrow n_e$ we provide here. For $u\gg 1$ and spin density $m\rightarrow 0$ such expressions are derived from the use in Eqs. (\[xiupRLAcc\]) and (\[xidownRLAcc\]) of the parameters $\xi^{j}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ expressions obtained by combining Eqs. (\[ZZ-gen-m0\]) and (\[x0limits\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] for $u\gg 1$ and of those of the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts provided in Eq. (\[PhiallFULm0\]) of that Appendix. One then finds the following $c^{+}$ branch line exponent expression that applies to all its above subbranches $k$ intervals whereas for the twin $c^{-}$ branch line it refers to subbranches $k$ intervals generated from those of the $c^{+}$ branch line upon exchanging $k$ by $-k$, $$\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k) = -{3\over 8} + {\ln 2\over 4\pi\,u}
\left(\sin (\pi n_e) \pm 2\sin \left(k \mp {\pi\over 2}n_e\right)\right) \, , \hspace{0.5cm}
\sigma = \uparrow, \downarrow \, .
\label{xiudRLAccUim0}$$
On the other hand, for $u\gg 1$ and spin density $m\rightarrow n_e$ one uses in Eqs. (\[xiupRLAcc\]) and (\[xidownRLAcc\]) the parameters $\xi^{j}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ expressions obtained by combining Eqs. (\[ZZ-gen-m1\]) and (\[eta0lim\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] and those of the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts provided in Eq. (\[PhiallFULmne\]) of that Appendix. One then finds that the $c^{\pm}$ branch line exponents have different expressions for the $\uparrow$ one-electron and $\downarrow$ one-electron spectral functions that read, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & - {1\over 2} \pm {2\over \pi\,u}\sin k \, ,
\nonumber \\
\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & {1\over 2} - {2\over \pi\,u}
\left(\sin (\pi n_e) \pm \sin (k \mp \pi n_e)\right) \, ,
\label{xiudRLAccUim1}\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
As shown in Fig. \[fc+up\], the main effect on the $k$ dependence of the $\uparrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\uparrow} (k) = \xi_{c^{-}}^{\uparrow} (-k)$, Eq. (\[xiupRLAcc\]), of increasing the on-site repulsion $u$ from $u\ll 1$ to $u\gg 1$ is to continuously changing its $u\rightarrow 0$ values $-1$, $0$, and $1$ for the $k$ ranges given in Eqs. (\[xiupRc+U0-0\])-(\[xiupLAccU0\]) to a $k$ independent value for $k\in [-\pi,\pi]$ as $u\rightarrow\infty$, which smoothly changes from $-3/8$ for $m\rightarrow 0$ to $-1/2$ for for $m\rightarrow n_e$. The general trend of such an exponent $u$ dependence is thus that for the momentum $k$ ranges for which it reads $0$ and $1$ in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit it decreases upon increasing $u$ whereas for the $k$ intervals for which it is given by $-1$ in that limit it rather increases for increasing $u$ values.
On other hand, the exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k)=\xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (k)$, Eq. (\[xidownRLAcc\]), plotted in Fig. \[fc+down\] becomes negative only for large $u$ and small spin density values. For $u\rightarrow 0$ it reads $0$ and $1$ for the $k$ intervals provided in Eqs. (\[xidownRc+U0-1\])-(\[xidownRccU0\]) whereas as $u\rightarrow\infty$ it continuously evolves to a $k$ independent value for $k\in [-\pi,\pi]$ that smoothly changes from $-3/8$ for $m\rightarrow 0$ to $1/2$ for for $m\rightarrow n_e$. The general trend of that exponent $u$ dependence is different upon changing the densities. As shown in Fig. \[fc+down\], for some densities it always decreases upon increasing $u$ whereas for other densities it first decreases upon increasing $u$ until reaching some minimum at a finite $u$ value above which it increases upon further increasing $u$.
The $\sigma$ one-electron removal and LHB addition $s1$ branch line {#upRs}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The $\sigma $ electron removal and LHB addition $s1$ branch line is generated by processes that correspond again to a particular case of those generated by the leading-order operators, Eqs. (\[upElremo\]), (\[upElLHBadd\]), (\[downElremo\]), and (\[downElLHBadd\]). Hence for the $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron spectral functions its one-parametric spectrum plotted in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] is contained within the $(k,\omega)$-plane region occupied by the two-parametric spectra corresponding to such more general processes. (Online the $s1$ branch lines are green in these figures.)
The one-parametric spectrum of this branch line is such that $\omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) = \omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (-k)$ and the corresponding exponent given below is also such that $\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) = \xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (-k)$. Hence for simplicity we restrict our following analysis to $k \geq 0$. For such a momentum range the $\sigma $ electron removal and LHB addition parts of the $s1$ branch line refer to excited energy eigenstates with the following number deviations relative to those of the initial ground state, $$\delta N_c^F = \gamma \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_c^F = \delta_{\sigma,\uparrow}/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\delta N_{s1}^F = \delta_{\sigma,\uparrow}\,\gamma \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{s1}^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\delta N_{s1}^{NF} = - \gamma_{\sigma}\,\gamma \, .
\label{NudRLAs}$$
The spectrum $\omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (k)$ of general form, Eq. (\[dE-dP-bl\]), is for the present branch line given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) & = &
- \gamma_{\sigma}\,\gamma\, \varepsilon_{s1} (q) \, ,
\nonumber \\
q & \in & [-k_{F\uparrow},-k_{F\downarrow}] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\uparrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal} \, ,
\nonumber \\
q & \in & [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\uparrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm LHB}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition} \, ,
\nonumber \\
q & \in & [-k_{F\downarrow},0] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\downarrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal} \, ,
\nonumber \\
q & \in & [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow},] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\downarrow\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm LHB}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition} \, ,
\label{OkudRs}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_{s1} (q)$ is the $s1$ band energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =s1$.
The relation of the $s1$ band momentum $q$ to the excitation momentum $k$ is, $$k = \delta_{\sigma,\uparrow}\,2k_{F} - \gamma_{\sigma}\,\gamma\,q \geq 0 \, ,
\label{kqs1up}$$ which gives, $$\begin{aligned}
k & \in & [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}]
\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\uparrow\hspace{0.05cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [k_{F\uparrow},(2k_F+k_{F\downarrow})]
\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\uparrow\hspace{0.05cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm LHB}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition} \, ,
\label{kupRLAs}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
k & \in & [0,k_{F\downarrow}]
\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\downarrow\hspace{0.05cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}]
\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\downarrow\hspace{0.05cm}{\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm LHB}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition} \, ,
\label{OkdownRLAsoth}\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
Except for $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition, the above $s1$ branch-line $k$ ranges are within the first Brillouin-zone. In that specific case it refers for some densities to an extended-zone scheme. Here we consider a reduced first Brillouin-zone scheme for $k \in [0,\pi]$ within which the $s1$ branch line separates for $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition into two subbranches. Actually, one of such subbranches stems for $k>0$ from $k$ momentum values that within an extended-zone scheme arise from second Brillouin-zone $k<0$ momentum values. (For such processes one has in Eq. (\[NudRLAs\]) that $\delta J_c^F = -1/2$ rather than $\delta J_c^F = 1/2$.) This gives, $$\begin{aligned}
k & = & 2k_{F} - q\hspace{0.2cm}{\rm subbranch} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [k_{F\uparrow},(2k_F+k_{F\downarrow})]
\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \uparrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition}\hspace{0.1cm}(i)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [0,2/3]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,n_e]
\hspace{0.1cm}
\nonumber \\
& & {\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}(ii)\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [(3n_e-2),n_e] \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & 2k_{F} - q\hspace{0.2cm}{\rm subbranch} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [k_{F\uparrow},\pi]
\hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & - 2k_{F} - q + 2\pi \hspace{0.2cm}{\rm subbranch} \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & \in & [(2\pi - 2k_F - k_{F\downarrow}),\pi] \hspace{0.5cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}\gamma = 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \uparrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition}\hspace{0.1cm}n_e \in [2/3,1]\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm}m\in [0,(3n_e-2)] \, .
\label{kupRLAs1BZ}\end{aligned}$$
Analysis of the momentum $k$ intervals in Eqs. (\[OkdownRLAsoth\]) and (\[kupRLAs1BZ\]) reveals that the $\sigma$ one-electron LHB addition $s1$ branch line is the natural continuation of the $\sigma$ one-electron removal $s1$ branch line. The momentum dependent exponent of general form, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), that controls the line shape near the $\sigma =\uparrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition $s1$ branch line is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & -1 + \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\iota \,\gamma(\xi_{c\,c}^0+\xi_{c\,s1}^0)\over 2}
+ {\xi_{c\,c}^1\over 2} - \gamma\,\Phi_{c,s1}(\iota 2k_{F},q)\right)^2
\nonumber \\
& + & \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\iota \,\gamma(\xi_{s1\,c}^0+\xi_{s1\,s1}^0)\over 2} +
{\xi_{s1\,c}^1\over 2} - \gamma\,\Phi_{s1,s1}(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q)\right)^2 \, ,
\label{xiupRLAs}\end{aligned}$$ whereas that that controls it in the vicinity of the $\sigma =\downarrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition $s1$ branch line reads, $$\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) = -1 + \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\iota\,\xi_{c\,c}^0\over 2} + \Phi_{c,s1}(\iota 2k_{F},q)\right)^2
+ \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\iota\,\xi_{s1\,c}^0\over 2} + \Phi_{s1,s1}(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q)\right)^2 \, .
\label{xidownRLAsoth}$$ This latter exponent has the same formal expression for $\gamma =-1$ and $\gamma =+1$ the corresponding $q$ ranges being though different, as given in Eq. (\[OkudRs\]). These $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron exponents are plotted in Figs. \[fs1up\] and \[fs1down\], respectively, as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ for several $u$ values, electronic densities $n_e =0.3$ and $n_e =0.7$, and a set of spin density values $m<n_e$.
![\[fs1up\] The exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$, Eq. (\[xiupRLAs\]), that controls the singularities in the vicinity of the $s1$ branch line whose $(k,\omega)$-plane shape is defined by Eqs. (\[OkudRs\]), (\[kupRLAs\]), and (\[kupRLAs1BZ\]) for the $\sigma =\uparrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition spectral function, Eq. (\[s1-branch\]), as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ for the same values of $u$, electronic density $n_e$, and spin density $m$ as in Fig. \[fc+up\]. (For $k/\pi\in ]-1,0[$ the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ is given by $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)=\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (-k)$ with $-k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ as plotted here.)](fig8aa.eps)
The general expression, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), of the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral function $B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), near the $s1$ branch lines is in the present case given by, $$B_{\sigma,\gamma} (k,\omega) = C_{\sigma,\gamma,s1} \Bigl(\gamma\omega - \omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (k)\Bigr)^{\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k)}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} (\gamma\,\omega - \omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (k)) \geq 0 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \gamma = \pm 1 \, ,
\label{s1-branch}$$ where $C_{\sigma,\gamma,s1}$ is a constant independent of $k$ and $\omega$, the spectrum $\omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (k)$ is that in Eq. (\[OkudRs\]), and the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k)$ is given in Eqs. (\[xiupRLAs\]) and (\[xidownRLAsoth\]).
The behaviors reached in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit by the exponents, Eqs. (\[xiupRLAs\]) and (\[xidownRLAsoth\]), can be found by use in these equations of the parameters $\xi^{j}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ values given in Eq. (\[ZZ-gen-u0\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] and of the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts $\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (\iota q_{F\beta},q)$ expressions provided in Eq. (\[Phis-all-qFqu0\]) of that Appendix. One then finds that the $\sigma =\uparrow$ one-electron removal exponent and the $\sigma =\downarrow$ one-electron LHB addition exponent have the following related behaviors, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) & = & \gamma_{\sigma} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}]
\nonumber \\
& & {\rm for}\hspace{0.50cm} m \in [0,n_e] \hspace{0.50cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.50cm} n_e \in [0,1/2]
\hspace{0.50cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.50cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.50cm} m \in [0,1-n_e] \hspace{0.50cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.50cm} n_e \in [1/2,1]
\nonumber \\
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) & = & \gamma_{\sigma} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [k_{F\downarrow},\pi - k_{F\uparrow}]
\nonumber \\
& = & 0 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [\pi - k_{F\uparrow},k_{F\uparrow}]
\nonumber \\
& & {\rm for}\hspace{0.50cm} m \in [1-n_e,n_e] \hspace{0.50cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.50cm} n_e \in [1/2,1] \, .
\label{xiupRsU0}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, one finds that the $\sigma =\uparrow$ electron LHB addition and $\sigma =\downarrow$ electron removal exponents have also related behaviors that read, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) = \gamma_{\sigma} \hspace{0.3cm}{\rm (for}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm the}\hspace{0.1cm}
{\rm whole}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm lines}\hspace{0.1cm}k\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm range)} \, .
\label{xiupLAsU0}$$ Hence the $\sigma =\uparrow$ one-electron spectral weight at and near these $s1$ branch lines vanishes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit both for $\sigma =\uparrow$ electron removal and LHB addition.
As given generally in Eq. (\[branch-lexp-1\]), for the $n_e$, $m$, and $k$ ranges for which $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) = -1$ the line shape near the branch line is not of the power-law form, Eq. (\[s1-branch\]). In that limit it rather corresponds to the following $\delta$-function-like $\sigma =\downarrow$ one-electron spectral weight distribution along it, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B_{\downarrow,-1} (k,\omega) = \delta\Bigl(\omega + \omega_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega - 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\downarrow})\Bigr)
\, , \hspace{0.20cm} k \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B_{\downarrow,+1} (k,\omega) = \delta\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega + 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\downarrow})\Bigr) \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm} k \in [k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\uparrow}]
\hspace{0.20cm} {\rm for}\hspace{0.10cm} m \in [0,n_e] \hspace{0.10cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.10cm} n_e \in [0,1/2]
\hspace{0.10cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.10cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.10cm} m \in [0,1-n_e] \hspace{0.10cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.10cm} n_e \in [1/2,1]
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace{0.75cm} k \in [k_{F\downarrow},\pi - k_{F\uparrow}]
\hspace{0.20cm} {\rm for}\hspace{0.10cm} m \in [1-n_e,n_e] \hspace{0.10cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.10cm} n_e \in [1/2,1] \, .
\label{s1-branch-delta}\end{aligned}$$ The $u\rightarrow 0$ limiting behavior reported in Eq. (\[varepsilonsu0\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] for the $s1$ energy dispersion $\varepsilon_{s1} (q)$ appearing in the spectrum $\omega_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)$, Eq. (\[OkudRs\]), confirms that the latter spectrum becomes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the corresponding $u=0$ non-interacting electronic spectrum, as given in Eq. (\[s1-branch-delta\]).
On the other hand, for the $k$ range for which $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) = 0$ the $\downarrow$ one-electron addition spectral weight at and near the present $s1$ branch line vanishes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit.
For $u\gg 1$ the $s1$ branch line exponent expression is a continuous function of the spin density $m$. We have derived the corresponding exponent analytical expressions valid for $u\gg 1$ in the $m\rightarrow 0$ and $m\rightarrow n_e$ limits. The $s1$ branch line momentum width vanishes in the $m\rightarrow 0$ limit both for $\downarrow$ one-electron LHB addition and $\uparrow$ one-electron removal. On the other hand, in that limit the $s1$ branch line for $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition and $\downarrow$ one-electron removal becomes the $s1$ branch line for one-electron LHB addition and removal, respectively. By using in Eqs. (\[xiupRLAs\]) and (\[xidownRLAsoth\]) the values of the parameters $\xi^{j}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ obtained by combining Eqs. (\[ZZ-gen-m0\]) and Eq. (\[x0limits\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] for $u\gg 1$ and of the expressions of the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts provided in Eq. (\[PhiallFULm0\]) of that Appendix, which refer to $u\gg 1$ and spin density $m\rightarrow 0$, one finds that the exponent in the spectral function expression, Eq. (\[s1-branch\]), that controls the line shape near the $\downarrow$ one-electron removal and $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition $s1$ branch line reads in these limits, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) & = & - {1\over 2}\left(1- \left({k\over \pi n_e}\right)^2\right)
\left(1 + {2\ln 2\over \pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e)\right)
- {1\over 2u}\cos\left({k\over n_e}\right)\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \sigma = \uparrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}k\in [k_F,3k_F]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [0,2/3]
\nonumber \\
& & \sigma = \uparrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}k\in [k_F,\pi]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [2/3,1]
\nonumber \\
& & \sigma = \downarrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}k\in [0,k_F]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [0,1]
\nonumber \\
\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & - {1\over 2}\left(1- \left({(k-2\pi)\over \pi n_e}\right)^2\right)
\left(1 + {2\ln 2\over \pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e)\right)
- {1\over 2u}\cos\left({k-2\pi\over n_e}\right)\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \uparrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}k\in [(2\pi - 3k_F),\pi]
\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm and}\hspace{0.1cm} n_e \in [2/3,1] \, ,
\label{xiupRsUim0}\end{aligned}$$ so that, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & - {1\over 2}
- {1\over 2u}\left(1 + {2\ln 2\over \pi}\right)\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) & = & - {3\over 8}
- {3\ln 2\over 4\pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
\lim_{k\rightarrow 2k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) = {1\over 2u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow 3k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (3k_F) & = & \lim_{k\rightarrow 2\pi -3k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = {5\over 8} + {5\ln 2\over 4\pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, .
\label{xiupRsUim0-aux}\end{aligned}$$ To reach the second exponent expression given in Eq. (\[xiupRsUim0\]) one can either (i) use a new general exponent expression obtained upon replacing $\delta J_c^F = 1/2$ by $\delta J_c^F = -1/2$, which changes the terms $\xi_{c\,c}^1/2$ and $\xi_{s1\,c}^1/2$ in Eq. (\[xiupRLAs\]) to $-\xi_{c\,c}^1/2$ and $-\xi_{s1\,c}^1/2$, respectively, or (ii) use the present exponent expression, Eq. (\[xiupRLAs\]), upon bringing a $k>0$ second Brillouin zone contribution to $k\in [-\pi,-(2\pi - 3k_F)]$ and then relying on the $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)=\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (-k)$ symmetry to reach the expression valid for $k\in [(2\pi - 3k_F),\pi]$. For $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow 0$ the $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ continuously changes from $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = - 3/8$ for $k\rightarrow k_F$ to $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = 0$ for $k\rightarrow 2k_F$. For its other $k$ ranges it is positive. In these limits the $\downarrow$ one-electron removal exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)$ continuously changes from $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) = - 1/2$ for $k\rightarrow 0$ to $\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) = - 3/8$ for $k\rightarrow k_F$.
![\[fs1down\] The exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)$, Eq. (\[xidownRLAsoth\]), that controls the singularities in the vicinity of the $s1$ branch line whose $(k,\omega)$-plane one-parametric spectrum is defined by Eqs. (\[OkudRs\]) and (\[OkdownRLAsoth\]) for the $\sigma =\downarrow$ one-electron removal and LHB addition spectral function, Eq. (\[s1-branch\]), as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ for the same values of $u$, electronic density $n_e$, and spin density $m$ as in Fig. \[fc+up\]. (For $k/\pi\in ]-1,0[$ the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)$ is again given by $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)=\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (-k)$ with $-k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ as plotted here.)](fig9aa.eps)
On the other hand, in the $m\rightarrow n_e$ limit the situation is the opposite relative to that for $m\rightarrow 0$, as the $s1$ branch line momentum width vanishes in the former limit both for $\uparrow$ one-electron LHB addition and $\downarrow$ one-electron removal. The use in the exponent expressions, Eqs. (\[xiupRLAs\]) and (\[xidownRLAsoth\]), of the values for $u\gg 1$ and spin density $m\rightarrow n_e$ of the parameters $\xi^{j}_{\beta\,\beta'}$ obtained by combining Eq. (\[ZZ-gen-m1\]) and (\[eta0lim\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] for $u\gg 1$ and of the expressions of the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts provided in Eq. (\[PhiallFULmne\]) of that Appendix we find the following exponent expressions for the $\uparrow$ one-electron removal and $\downarrow$ one-electron LHB addition $s1$ branch line, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & {1\over 2}\left({k\over \pi n_e}\right)^2
+ {2\over\pi^2}\left[\arctan\left({1\over 2}\cot \left({k\over 2n_e}\right)\right)\right]^2
\nonumber \\
& - & {2\over\pi\,u}\left[\cos^2 \left({k\over 2n_e}\right)
- {k\over \pi n_e}{2\over\pi}\arctan\left({1\over 2}\cot \left({k\over 2n_e}\right)\right)\right]\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \uparrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm removal}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}k\in [0,2k_F] \, ,
\nonumber \\
\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & - {1\over 2}\left(1-\left({k\over \pi n_e}\right)^2 \right)
+ {2\over\pi^2}\left[\arctan\left({1\over 2}\tan \left({k\over 2n_e}\right)\right)\right]^2
\nonumber \\
& - & {2\over\pi\,u}\left[\cos^2 \left({k\over 2n_e}\right)
+ {k\over \pi n_e}{2\over\pi}\arctan\left({1\over 2}\tan \left({k\over 2n_e}\right)\right)\right]\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
& & \downarrow {\rm electron}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm addition}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm for}\hspace{0.1cm}k\in [0,2k_F] \, ,
\label{xiupLAsUim0}\end{aligned}$$ so that, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & {1\over 2} - {2\over\pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & {1\over 8} + 2\left({1\over\pi}\arctan\left({1\over 2}\right)\right)^2
- {1\over\pi\,u}\left(1 - {2\over\pi}\arctan\left({1\over 2}\right)\right)\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
& \approx & 0.16856 - {0.22436\over u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow 2k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & {1\over 2} \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & - {1\over 2} - {2\over\pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & - {3\over 8}
+ 2\left({1\over\pi}\arctan\left({1\over 2}\right)\right)^2 - {1\over\pi\,u}\left(1
+ {2\over\pi}\arctan\left({1\over 2}\right)\right)\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
& \approx & - 0.33144 - {0.41226\over u}\sin (\pi n_e)
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow 2k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & {1\over 2} - {2\over\pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, .
\label{xiupLAsUim0-aux}\end{aligned}$$ Analysis of these expressions and values reveals that in the $u\gg 1$ limit and $m\rightarrow n_e$ the $\uparrow$ one-electron removal exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ smoothly decreases from $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = 1/2$ for $k\rightarrow 0$ until it reaches a minimum value at $k=k_F$. For $k>k_F$ it continuously increases to $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = 1/2$ as $k\rightarrow 2k_F$. In the same limits the $\downarrow$ one-electron LHB addition exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)$ smoothly varies from $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) = - 1/2$ for $k\rightarrow 0$ to $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) = 1/2$ for $k\rightarrow 2k_F$.
Moreover, analysis of Fig. \[fs1up\] shows that the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ only becomes negative for a part of the $s1$ branch line $k$ interval that starts at $k=k_{F\downarrow}$ and ends at a $k$ momentum that for smaller and larger spin density values refers to one-electron LHB addition and removal, respectively. The $u$ values for which it is negative are dependent of the densities. For the densities ranges $n_e \in [0,1/2] $ and $m \in [0,1-n_e]$ and also for $n_e \in [1/2,1]$ and $m \in [0,1-n_e]$ the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ decreases upon increasing $u$ from $1$ for $u\rightarrow 0$ to its $u\gg 1$ values. In addition, according to Fig. \[fs1up\] its $u$ dependence is more involved for the densities intervals $n_e \in [1/2,1]$ and $m \in [1-n_e,n_e]$ for which it is given by $0$ and $1$ in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit for different $k$ ranges, respectively. For the $k$ ranges for which it reads $1$ for $u\rightarrow 0$ it remains being an increasing function of $u$ for the whole $u$ interval. For the $k$ intervals for which it is given by $0$ in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit, upon increasing $u$ it first decreases, goes through a minimum value, and then becomes an increasing function of $u$ until reaching its $u\rightarrow\infty$ $k$ dependent values.
On the other hand, for $u>0$ the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)$ whose $k$ dependence is plotted in Fig. \[fs1down\] is in general negative except for a small $k$ region that corresponds to the larger $k$ values of its range. Both for the densities ranges $n_e \in [0,1/2] $ and $m \in [0,1-n_e]$ and for $n_e \in [1/2,1]$ and $m \in [0,1-n_e]$ the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k)$ increases upon increasing $u$ from $-1$ for $u\rightarrow 0$ to its $u\gg 1$ $k$ dependent values. As also shown in that figure, its $u$ dependence is more complex for the densities intervals $n_e \in [1/2,1]$ and $m \in [1-n_e,n_e]$ for which it is given by $-1$ and $0$ in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit for different $k$ ranges, respectively. For the $k$ ranges for which it reads $-1$ for $u\rightarrow 0$ it remains being an increasing function of $u$ for the whole $u$ interval. However, for the $k$ domains for which it is given by $0$ in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit, upon increasing $u$ it first decreases, goes through a minimum value, and then becomes an increasing function of $u$ until reaching its $u\rightarrow\infty$ $k$ dependent values.
The $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition branch lines {#upUHBs}
---------------------------------------------------
The $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition branch lines are generated by processes that correspond to particular cases of those generated by the leading-order operators, Eqs. (\[upElUHBadd\]) and (\[downElUHBadd\]), that are behind the $\uparrow$ one-electron UHB addition spectrum, Eq. (\[SpupElUHBadd\]), and $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition spectrum, Eq. (\[SpdownElUHBadd\]). Hence they are contained within such two-parametric spectra that occupy well defined regions in the $(k,\omega)$ plane.
As discussed in Sec. \[validity\], following the direct relation of the $\sigma $ one-electron UHB addition branch lines spectra and exponents to those of the $\bar{\sigma}$ one-electron removal branch lines, for simplicity here we limit our study to the $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition branch lines that in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit contribute to the $u=0$ $\sigma $ one-electron addition spectrum. In the case of the $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition spectral functions those are the $s1$ branch line and one of the subbranches of the $c^{\pm}$ branch lines, respectively.
As for the $\downarrow$ one-electron removal $s1$ branch line, the spectrum that defines the $(k,\omega)$-plane spectrum of the $\uparrow$ one-electron UHB addition $s1$ branch line is such that $\omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) = \omega_{s1}^{\sigma} (-k)$ for $k \leq 0$ and the corresponding exponent given below is also such that $\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) = \xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (-k)$ for $k \leq 0$. Hence for simplicity we restrict our following analysis to a reduced first Brillouin-zone scheme for positive momentum values $k \in [0,\pi]$.
This $s1$ branch line refers to excited energy eigenstates with the following number deviations relative to those of the initial ground state, $$\delta N_c^F = -1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_c^F = 1/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\delta N_{s1}^F = \delta J_{s1}^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_{s1}^{NF} = -1
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_{\eta 1} = 1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{\eta 1} = -1/2 \, .
\label{NupUHBs}$$ Its $(k,\omega)$-plane one-parametric spectrum reads, $$\omega_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = 2\mu - \varepsilon_{s1} (q) \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, .
\label{OkupUHBs}$$ Here $\varepsilon_{s1} (q)$ is the $s1$ band energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =s1$, and $2\mu$ stands for the energy scale defined in Eq. (\[mu-muBH\]). Within an extended zone scheme the general relation of the $k>0$ excitation momentum to the $s1$ band momentum $q$ in Eq. (\[OkupUHBs\]) is, $$k = \pi - q \in [(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),(\pi+k_{F\downarrow})] \, .
\label{kupUHBs}$$
Bringing this spectrum to the first Brillouin zone leads to two subbranches that refer to excitation momentum ranges $k\in [(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),\pi]$ and $k =\in [-\pi,-(\pi - k_{F\downarrow})]$, respectively. On the other hand, a contribution from $k<0$ extended zone scheme second Brillouin zone interval also leads to the $k\in [(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),\pi]$ range. We checked that the two corresponding spectral-function contributions to the momentum range $k\in [(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),\pi]$ lead to the same power-law type of spectral-weight distributions in the vicinity of the $s1$ branch line. The corresponding reduced first-Brillouin-zone scheme used here for $k\in [0,\pi]$ excitation momentum relates to the $s1$ band momentum as, $$k = \pi - q = [(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),\pi] \, ,
\label{OkupUHBs1BZ}$$ for $q \in [0,k_{F\downarrow}]$. (Online the $\uparrow$ one-electron UHB addition $s1$ branch line is green in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\]; This branch line lays above the UHB pseudogap in Figs. \[s6545u1\]-\[s032505u1\], which refer to intermediate and large $u$ values.)
The momentum dependent exponent of general form, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), that controls the line shape near the branch line is given by, $$\xi_{s1}^ {\uparrow} (k) = -1 + \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left(-{\iota\,\xi_{c\,c}^0\over 2} - \Phi_{c,s1}(\iota 2k_{F},q)\right)^2
+ \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left(-{\iota\,\xi_{s1\,c}^0\over 2} - \Phi_{s1,s1}(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q)\right)^2 \, .
\label{xiupUHBs}$$ This exponent is plotted in Fig. \[fs1upUHB\] as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ for several $u$ values, electronic densities $n_e =0.3$ and $n_e =0.7$, and a set of spin density values $m<n_e$.
![\[fs1upUHB\] The exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$, Eq. (\[xiupUHBs\]), that controls the singularities in the vicinity of the $s1$ branch line whose $(k,\omega)$-plane one-parametric spectrum is defined by Eq. (\[OkupUHBs\]) for the $\sigma =\uparrow$ one-electron UHB addition spectral function, Eq. (\[s1-branch-UHB\]), as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]k_0/\pi,1[$ where $]k_0/\pi,1[$ with $0<k_0<\pi$ is a $k$ interval that contains the branch line for the same values of $u$, electronic density $n_e$, and spin density $m$ as in Fig. \[fc+up\]. (For $k/\pi\in ]-1,-k_0/\pi[$ the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ is given by $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)=\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (-k)$ with $-k/\pi\in ]k_0/\pi,1[$ as plotted here.)](fig10aa.eps)
Near the present $s1$ branch line the $\sigma =\uparrow$ one-electron addition spectral function $B_{\uparrow,+1} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), corresponds to the UHB and has the following power-law behavior, $$B^{\rm UHB}_{\uparrow,+1} (k,\omega) = C_{\uparrow,s1}^{UHB} \Bigl(\omega - \omega_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)\Bigr)^{\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} (\omega - \omega_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)) \geq 0 \, ,
\label{s1-branch-UHB}$$ where $C_{\uparrow,s1}^{UHB}$ is a constant independent of $k$ and $\omega$, the spectrum $\omega_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ is that in Eq. (\[OkupUHBs\]), and the exponent $\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$ is given in Eq. (\[xiupUHBs\]).
The direct relation of the exponent, Eq. (\[xiupUHBs\]), to that of the $\downarrow$ one-electron removal $s1$ branch line enables deriving its behaviors for both $u\rightarrow 0$ and $u\gg 1$ from those of that other exponent. In the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit one finds the following value, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = -1 \hspace{0.3cm}{\rm (for}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm the}\hspace{0.1cm}
{\rm whole}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm above}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm branch}\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm line}\hspace{0.1cm}k\hspace{0.1cm}{\rm range)} \, .
\label{xiupUHBsU0}$$ Hence, consistently with Eq. (\[branch-lexp-1\]), for $u\rightarrow 0$ this branch line acquires the following $\delta$-function-like one-electron spectral weight distribution along it, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B^{\rm UHB}_{\uparrow,+1} (k,\omega) = \delta\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega + 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\uparrow})\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \vert k\vert \in [(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),\pi] \, .
\label{BUHBs1up}$$ The $u\rightarrow 0$ limiting behavior reported in Eq. (\[varepsilonsu0\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] for the $s1$ energy dispersion $\varepsilon_{s1} (q)$ appearing in the spectrum $\omega_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k)$, Eq. (\[OkupUHBs\]), confirms that the latter spectrum becomes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the corresponding $u=0$ non-interacting electronic spectrum, as given in Eq. (\[BUHBs1up\]).
The expression found for $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow 0$ for the exponent, Eq. (\[xiupUHBs\]), is given by, $$\xi_{s1}^{\uparrow} (k) = - {1\over 2}\left(1- \left({\pi - k\over \pi n_e}\right)^2\right)
\left(1 + {2\ln 2\over \pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e)\right)
- {1\over 2u}\cos\left({\pi -k\over n_e}\right)\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\label{xiupUHBsUim0}$$ so that, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \pi-k_F}\xi_{s1}^{\sigma} (k) & = & - {3\over 8}
- {3\ln 2\over 4\pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\lim_{k\rightarrow \pi}\xi_{s1}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & - {1\over 2}
- {1\over 2u}\left(1 + {2\ln 2\over \pi}\right)\sin (\pi n_e) \, .
\label{xiupUHBsUim0-aux}\end{aligned}$$ In the $m\rightarrow n_e$ limit the present $s1$ branch line momentum width vanishes so that it does not exist.
Analysis of Fig. \[fs1upUHB\] reveals that for $m<n_e$ the $s1$ branch-line exponent, Eq. (\[xiupUHBs\]), is a decreasing function of the momentum $k$. Moreover, it increases upon increasing $u$ and remains negative for all momentum $k$ and $m<n_e$ densities ranges.
Next, concerning the $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition spectral function, the spectra $\omega_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)$ that define the $(k,\omega)$-plane shape of the $c^{+}$ branch line and its twin $c^{-}$ branch line and the corresponding exponents $\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\sigma} (k)$ are related as given in Eq. (\[c+-rela\]) for $\uparrow$ electron removal. Considering the $c^{+}$ branch line in a reduced first Brillouin-zone scheme for which $k\in [-\pi,\pi]$ contains the same information as considering both the $c^{+}$ and $c^{-}$ branch lines for the positive excitation momentum range $k\in [0,\pi]$. Below we only consider the $k$ range associated with the subbranches for which the exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = \xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$ contributes to the $\downarrow$ one-electron spectral weight as $u\rightarrow 0$. It turns out that for the exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k)$ such a subbranch is contained in the positive excitation momentum range $k\in [0,\pi]$.
The one $\sigma$ one-electron UHB addition $c^{+}$ branch line is associated with excited energy eigenstates with the following number deviations relative to those of the initial ground state, $$\delta N_c^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_c^F = \mp 1/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_c^{NF} = -1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\delta N_{s1}^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{s1}^F = 1/2 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_{\eta 1} = 1
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{\eta 1} = \pm 1/2 \, .
\label{NdownHAcc1BZ}$$
The one-parametric spectrum of general form, Eq. (\[dE-dP-bl\]), that defines the $(k,\omega)$-plane shape of this line reads, $$\omega_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = 2\mu - \varepsilon_c (q) \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_F,2k_F] \, ,
\label{OkdownHAcc}$$ where $\varepsilon_c (q)$ is the $c$ band energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =c$, and the corresponding $c$ band momentum $q$ is within an extended zone scheme related to the excitation momentum $k$ as, $$k = \pi + k_{F\downarrow} - q \in [(\pi -k_{F\uparrow}),(\pi + 2k_F+k_{F\downarrow})] \, .
\label{kdownHAcc}$$
Bringing this spectrum to the $k\in [-\pi,\pi]$ reduced first Brillouin-zone leads to two $(k,\omega)$-plane $c^{+}$ branch line subbranches whose $k$ intervals are given by $k = - \pi + k_{F\downarrow} - q \in [-\pi,-(\pi - 2k_F -k_{F\downarrow})]$ and $k= \pi + k_{F\downarrow} - q \in [(\pi -k_{F\uparrow}),\pi]$, respectively. As mentioned above, in the following we only consider the second of such momentum ranges, $$k = \pi + k_{F\downarrow} - q \in [(\pi -k_{F\uparrow}),\pi] \, .
\label{O2kdownHAcc}$$ Indeed, it is that for which the exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = \xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$ reads $-1$ in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit and thus the branch line contributes to the $\delta$-function-like $\downarrow$ one-electron spectrum in that limit. (Online the $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition $c^+$ branch line is is blue in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\]; This branch line lays above the UHB pseudogap in Figs. \[s6545u1\]-\[s032505u1\], which refer to intermediate and large $u$ values.)
The momentum dependent exponent of general form, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), that controls the line shape near the branch line is in the present case given by, $$\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = \xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k) =
-1 + \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\xi_{c\,s1}^1\over 2} - \Phi_{c,c}(\iota 2k_{F},q)\right)^2
+ \sum_{\iota=\pm1}\left({\xi_{s1\,s1}^1\over 2} - \Phi_{s1,c}(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q)\right)^2 \, .
\label{xidownHAcc}$$ It is plotted in Fig. \[fc+downUHB\] as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ for several $u$ values, electronic densities $n_e =0.3$ and $n_e =0.7$, and a set of spin density values $m<n_e$.
![\[fc+downUHB\] The exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k)=\xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$, Eq. (\[xidownHAcc\]), that controls the singularities in the vicinity of the $c^+$ branch line whose $(k,\omega)$-plane one-parametric spectrum is defined by Eq. (\[OkdownHAcc\]) for the $\sigma =\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition spectral function, Eq. (\[cpm-branch-UHB\]), as a function of the momentum $k/\pi\in ]0,1[$ for the same values of $u$, electronic density $n_e$, and spin density $m$ as in Fig. \[fc+up\].](fig11aa.eps)
In the vicinity of the present $c^{\pm}$ branch lines the $\sigma =\downarrow$ one-electron addition spectral function $B_{\downarrow,+1} (k,\omega)$, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), refers to the UHB and has the following power-law behavior, $$B^{\rm UHB}_{\downarrow,+1} (k,\omega) = C_{\downarrow,c^{\pm}}^{UHB}
\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{c^{\pm}}^{\downarrow} (k)\Bigr)^{\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\downarrow} (k)}
\, ; \hspace{0.50cm} (\omega - \omega_{c^{\pm}}^{\downarrow} (k)) \geq 0 \, ,
\label{cpm-branch-UHB}$$ where $C_{\downarrow,c^{\pm}}^{UHB}$ is a constant independent of $k$ and $\omega$, the spectrum $\omega_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k)$ is that in Eqs. (\[OkdownHAcc\]) and (\[O2kdownHAcc\]), and the exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k)$ is given in Eq. (\[xidownHAcc\]). Furthermore, $\omega_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (k)=\omega_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$ and $\xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (k)=\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$.
The direct relation of the exponent, Eq. (\[xidownHAcc\]), to that of the corresponding $\uparrow$ one-electron removal $c^{\pm}$ branch lines subbranches enables deriving its behaviors for both $u\rightarrow 0$ and $u\gg 1$ from those of these other exponents. In the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit one finds the following values in the $k$ range, Eq. (\[O2kdownHAcc\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^+}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & 0 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),\pi] \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & -1 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [(\pi -k_{F\uparrow}),(\pi - k_{F\downarrow})]
\nonumber \\
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\xi_{c^-}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & -1 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [-(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),-(\pi -k_{F\uparrow})]
\nonumber \\
& = & 0 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} k \in [-\pi,-(\pi - k_{F\downarrow})] \, .
\label{xidownHA+U0}\end{aligned}$$ For the $k$ ranges for which such exponents read $-1$ the line shape becomes $\delta$-function-like for $u\rightarrow 0$, as given in Eq. (\[branch-lexp-1\]). In the present cases we find, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B^{\rm UHB}_{\downarrow,+1} (k,\omega) & = & \delta\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega + 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\downarrow})\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} k \in [-(\pi - k_{F\downarrow}),-(\pi -k_{F\uparrow})] \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & \delta\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega + 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\downarrow})\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} k \in [(\pi -k_{F\uparrow}),(\pi - k_{F\downarrow})] \, .
\label{BUHBcpmdown}\end{aligned}$$ That the spectrum $\omega_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = \omega_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$, Eq. (\[OkdownHAcc\]), becomes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the corresponding $u=0$ non-interacting electronic spectrum is confirmed by the $u\rightarrow 0$ limiting behavior reported in Eq. (\[varepsiloncu0\]) of Appendix \[LimitBV\] for the $c$ band energy dispersion $\varepsilon_{c} (q)$ appearing in the $u>0$ spectrum general expression, Eq. (\[OkdownHAcc\]). On the other hand, for the $k$ ranges for which the exponent is given by $0$ for $u\rightarrow 0$ the one-electron spectral weight at and near the corresponding branch lines vanishes in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit.
For $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow 0$ one finds the following expressions, $$\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\downarrow} (k) = -{3\over 8} + {\ln 2\over 4\pi\,u}
\left(\sin (\pi n_e) \mp 2\sin \left(k \mp {\pi\over 2}n_e\right)\right) \, .
\label{xidownHAUim0}$$ In the $m\rightarrow n_e$ limit the exponents expressions are found to read, $$\xi_{c^{\pm}}^{\downarrow} (k) = - {1\over 2} \mp {2\over \pi\,u}\sin k \, .
\label{xidownHAUim1}$$
As it follows from analysis of Fig. \[fc+downUHB\], the main effect on the $k$ dependence of the $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition exponent $\xi_{c^{+}}^{\downarrow} (k) = \xi_{c^{-}}^{\downarrow} (-k)$, Eq. (\[xidownHAcc\]), of increasing the on-site repulsion $u$ from $u\ll 1$ to $u\gg 1$ is to continuously changing its $u\rightarrow 0$ values $-1$ and $0$ for the $k$ ranges given in Eq. (\[xidownHA+U0\]) to a $k$ independent value for $k\in [0,\pi]$ as $u\rightarrow\infty$, which smoothly changes from $-3/8$ for $m\rightarrow 0$ to $-1/2$ for for $m\rightarrow n_e$.
The $\uparrow$ one-electron removal and $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition $s1'$ non-branch lines for $0<m<n_e$ {#upRsl}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of the branch lines is confirmed by in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit they recovering most of the $u=0$ $\delta$-function-like $\sigma$ one-electron spectrum $k$ ranges, as confirmed by combining Eqs. (\[cpm-branch-delta\]), (\[s1-branch-delta\]), (\[BUHBs1up\]), (\[BUHBcpmdown\]). Interestingly, part of that spectral weight stems from the $u>0$ UHB.
The $k$ subrange of the $u=0$ $\sigma$ one-electron spectrum that does not stem from branch lines refers for $0<m<n_e$ to the momentum interval $k\in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}]$ for $\uparrow$ one-electron removal and $\vert k\vert\in [\pi-k_{F\downarrow},\pi]$ for $\downarrow$ one-electron addition. That spectral weight stems from well-defined $u>0$ spectral features whose line-shape expressions involve state summations difficult to compute.
Specifically, the $u=0$ $\uparrow$ one-electron removal spectral weight missing for $k\in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}]$ and $0<m<n_e$ stems from a $u>0$ $s1'$ non-branch line that is generated by transitions to excited energy eigenstates with the following number deviations relative to those of the initial ground state, $$\delta N_c^F = \delta J_c^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_c^{NF} = - 1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\delta N_{s1}^F = 1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{s1}^F = \pm 1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_{s1}^{NF} = - 1 \, .
\label{NupRsl}$$
The one-parametric spectrum of this line is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{s1'}^{\uparrow} (k) & = & - \varepsilon_{s1} (-k) - \varepsilon_c (\pm 2k_{F\downarrow}) = - \varepsilon_{s1} (q)
- \varepsilon_c (\pm 2k_{F\downarrow}) \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, ,
\nonumber \\
k & = & - q \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, ,
\label{OkupRsl}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon_{s1} (q)$ is the $s1$ band energy dispersion, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta =s1$.
While the line shape analytical expression near this $s1'$ non-branch line remains an unsolved problem for $u>0$, in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit it becomes $\delta$-function-like, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B_{\uparrow,-1} (k,\omega) = \delta\Bigl(\omega + \omega_{s1'}^{\uparrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega - 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\uparrow})\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} k \in [-k_{F\downarrow},k_{F\downarrow}] \, .
\label{Bremovslineup}$$
On the other hand, the $u=0$ $\downarrow$ one-electron addition spectral weight missing for $\vert k\vert\in [\pi-k_{F\downarrow},\pi]$ and $0<m<n_e$ stems from a $u>0$ UHB $s1'$ non-branch line that is generated by transitions to excited energy eigenstates with the following number deviations relative to those of the initial ground state, $$\delta N_c^F = -1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_c^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm}
\delta N_{s1}^F = 0 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{s1}^F = 1/2
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta N_{\eta 1} = 1 \, ; \hspace{0.5cm} \delta J_{\eta 1} = -1/2 \, .
\label{NdownUAsl}$$ There is another such a $s1'$ non-branch line for $k<0$.
The one-parametric spectrum that defines the $(k,\omega)$-plane form of this line reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{s1'}^{\downarrow} (k) & = & 2\mu - \varepsilon_{s1} (\pi -k) + \varepsilon_{s1} (k_{F\uparrow}) = 2\mu - \varepsilon_{s1} (q)
+ \varepsilon_{s1} (k_{F\uparrow}) \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [0,k_{F\downarrow}] \, .
\nonumber \\
k & = & \pi - q \in [\pi -k_{F\downarrow},\pi] \, .
\label{OkdownUAsl}\end{aligned}$$
The line shape analytical expression near this $s1'$ non-branch line remains again an open problem for $u>0$ except in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit in which it is $\delta$-function-like, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0} B^{\rm UHB}_{\downarrow,+1} (k,\omega) = \delta\Bigl(\omega - \omega_{s1'}^{\downarrow} (k)\Bigr)
= \delta\Bigl(\omega + 2t(\cos k - \cos k_{F\downarrow})\Bigr)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} \vert k\vert \in [\pi -k_{F\downarrow},\pi] \, .
\label{BUHBs1pdown}$$
The $\uparrow$ one-electron removal and $\downarrow$ one-electron UHB addition $s1'$ non-branch lines are represented in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] by sets of diamond symbols.
Concluding remarks {#concluding}
==================
In this paper we have studied the momentum and energy dependence of the $\sigma $ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]), of the 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field in the vicinity of two types of singular features: The branch lines and border lines whose $(k,\omega)$-plane spectra general form is given in Eqs. (\[dE-dP-bl\]) and (\[dE-dP-c-s1\]), respectively. The branch lines are represented in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] by solid lines and dashed lines for the $k$ ranges for which the corresponding exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), is negative and positive, respectively. The one-electron removal and LWS addition boundary lines are in these figures represented by dashed-dotted lines.
To access the line shapes near these singular features we have used the PDT introduced in Refs. [@V-1; @LE] whose applications to the study of the 1D Hubbard model one-electron spectral functions have been limited to zero magnetic field [@TTF; @spectral0; @spectral; @spectral-06]. The momentum dependence of the exponents that in the TL control the line shapes in the vicinity of the $\sigma $ one-electron spectral functions branch lines was derived. For the $k$ ranges for which such exponents $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$ (which are plotted in Figs. (\[fc+up\])-(\[fc+downUHB\])) are negative, there are singularity cusps in the corresponding $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions, Eq. (\[Bkomega\]). The same occurs in the $(k,\omega)$-plane vicinity of the border lines.
The important role played by the branch lines singularity cusps is confirmed by in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit they recovering the $u=0$ $\delta$-function-like $\sigma$ one-electron spectrum for most of its momentum $k$ range, as confirmed by combining Eqs. (\[cpm-branch-delta\]), (\[s1-branch-delta\]), (\[BUHBs1up\]), (\[BUHBcpmdown\]). The low-energy behavior of the correlation functions of the 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field has been the subject of several previous studies [@Woy-89; @Frahm; @Frahm-91; @Ogata-91]. To our knowledge, no previous investigations accessed for finite magnetic fields the repulsion $u$, electronic density $n_e$, spin density $m$, and momentum dependence of the exponents that in the TL control at high-energy the $\sigma$ one-electron spectral functions in the vicinity of such branch lines singularity cusps.
The momentum subrange for which the $u=0$ $\delta$-function-like $\sigma$ one-electron spectrum does not stem from branch lines is $k\in [0,k_{F\downarrow}]$ for $\uparrow $ one-electron removal and $k\in [\pi-k_{F\downarrow},\pi]$ for $\downarrow $ one-electron addition. The PDT also accounts for the non-branch-line processes that give rise in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit to the $u=0$ one-electron spectrum at such a $k$ interval yet the line shape of the corresponding spectral features remains for $u>0$ an involved unsolved technical problem. (These $u>0$ non-branch lines are represented in Figs. \[s4525u01\]-\[s032505u1\] by sets of diamond symbols.)
Complementarily, we have clarified beyond the results of Refs. [@V-1; @LE] how the $\sigma$ one-electron creation and annihilation operators matrix elements between the ground state and excited energy eigenstates are accounted for by the PDT. Specifically, we have shown that the corresponding microscopic processes involve the rotated electrons as a needed link of the non-perturbative relation between the electrons and the pseudofermions. Moreover, in this paper the $\sigma$ one-electron addition LHB and UHB were defined in terms of the occupancy configurations of such rotated electrons for the whole $u>0$ range and all electronic densities and spin densities.
Concerning the relation of our theoretical results to actual condensed-matter systems, angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy at finite magnetic field is not possible, since the field would severely deflect the photoelectrons. However, it is possible to measure the local spectral function on quasi-1D metals by (scanning) tunneling spectroscopy at finite magnetic field. Such experiments would provide some partial information on the spectral features theoretically studied in this paper by means of the 1D Hubbard model at finite magnetic field.
On the other hand, such a model has been implemented with ultra-cold atoms on optical lattices [@Campo-07; @Greif-15] and the related antiferromagnetic Heisenberg spin chain has been prepared to characterize its spin configurations [@Campo-15]. An interesting program would be the observation of the one-atom spectral weight distributions over the $(k,\omega)$ plane associated with the spectral functions studied in this paper in systems of spin $1/2$ ultra-cold atoms on optical lattices.
We thank Ralph Claessen, Henrik Johannesson, Alexander Moreno, and Pedro D. Sacramento for illuminating discussions and the support by the Beijing CSRC and the FEDER through the COMPETE Program and the Portuguese FCT in the framework of the Strategic Projects PEST-C/FIS/UI0607/2013 and UID/CTM/04540/2013. J. M. P. C. acknowledges the hospitality of the Department of Physics at the University of Gothenburg, where the final part of this work was conducted.
The Bethe-ansatz equations within the $\beta$ pseudoparticle representation and related quantities needed for the studies of this paper {#Ele2PsPhaShi}
=======================================================================================================================================
Here we provide the pseudoparticle momentum distribution functional notation used in this paper for the 1D Hubbard model BA equations introduced in Ref. [@Takahashi] for the TL, express the energy eigenvalues in terms of the rapidities that are the solutions of such equations, and provide useful information on the specific solutions of these equations for the excited energy eigenstates belonging to a PS as defined in Section \[quantum-liquid\].
Moreover, the integral equations that define the rapidity dressed phase shifts $2\pi\,\bar{\Phi }_{\beta,\beta'} (r,r')$ in the expression, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]), of the related $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})$ are introduced, the $f$ functions in the second-order terms of the energy functional, Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]), are expressed in terms of such $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shifts, and the $\beta =c,s1$ lowest peak weights $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$ and relative weights $a_{\beta}=a_{\beta}(m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})$ in the $\beta$ pseudofermion spectral functions, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), are written in terms of the related $\beta$ pseudofermion phase-shift functional $\Phi^T_{\beta}({q}_j)$, Eq. (\[pfacrGS\]), which is a well-defined superposition of $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})$. Two different forms that the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral function $B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega')$ whose general expression, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), involves these lowest peak weights and relative weights acquires in the TL as a result of the specific values of four functionals controlled by $\Phi^T_{\beta}({q}_j)$ are also provided.
Within the pseudoparticle momentum distribution functional notation used in this paper the BA equations considered in Ref. [@Takahashi] read, $$\begin{aligned}
q_j & = & k^c (q_j) + {2\over L}\sum_{n =1}^{\infty}
\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{s n}}\,N_{sn}(q_{j'})\arctan\left({\sin
k^c (q_j)-\Lambda^{sn}(q_{j'}) \over n u}\right)
\nonumber \\
& + & {2\over L}\sum_{n =1}^{\infty}
\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{\eta n}}\, N_{\eta n}(q_{j'}) \arctan\left({\sin
k^c (q_j)-\Lambda^{\eta n}(q_{j'}) \over n u}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L \, ,
\label{Tapco1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
q_j & = & \delta_{\alpha,\eta}
\sum_{\iota =\pm1}\arcsin (\Lambda^{\alpha n} (q_{j}) - i\,\iota\,u)
+ {2\,(-1)^{\delta_{\alpha,\eta}}\over L} \sum_{j'=1}^{L}\,
N_{c}(q_{j'})\arctan\left({\Lambda^{\alpha n}(q_j)-\sin k^c (q_{j'})\over n u}\right)
\nonumber \\
& - & {1\over L}\sum_{n' =1}^{\infty}\sum_{j'=1}^{L_{\alpha n'}}\, N_{\alpha n'}(q_{j'})\Theta_{n\,n'}
\left({\Lambda^{\alpha n}(q_j)-\Lambda^{\alpha n'}(q_{j'})\over u}\right) \, , \hspace{0.35cm}
j = 1,...,L_{\alpha n} \, , \hspace{0.35cm} \alpha = \eta, s \, , \hspace{0.35cm} n =1,...,\infty \, .
\label{Tapco2}\end{aligned}$$ The sets of $j = 1,...,L$ and $j = 1,...,L_{\alpha n}$ quantum numbers $q_j$ in Eqs. (\[Tapco1\]) and (\[Tapco2\]), respectively, which are defined in Eqs. (\[q-j\]) and (\[Ic-an\]), play the role of microscopic momentum values of different BA excitation branches. The corresponding $\beta$-band momentum distribution functions $N_{\beta} (q_j)$ read $N_{\beta} (q_j)=1$ and $N_{\beta} (q_j)=0$ for occupied and unoccupied discrete momentum values, respectively, the rapidity function $\Lambda^{\alpha n}(q_{j})$ is the real part of the complex rapidity, Eq. (\[complex-rap\]), and $\Theta_{n\,n'} (x)$ is the function, $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{n\,n'}(x) & = & \delta_{n,n'}\Bigl\{2\arctan\Bigl({x\over 2n}\Bigl)
+ \sum_{l=1}^{n -1}4\arctan\Bigl({x\over 2l}\Bigl)\Bigr\}
\nonumber \\
& + & (1-\delta_{n,n'})\Bigl\{ 2\arctan\Bigl({x\over \vert\,n-n'\vert}\Bigl)
+ 2\arctan\Bigl({x\over n+n'}\Bigl)
+ \sum_{l=1}^{{n+n'-\vert\,n-n'\vert\over 2} -1}4\arctan\Bigl({x\over \vert\, n-n'\vert +2l}\Bigl)\Bigr\} \, ,
\label{Theta}\end{aligned}$$ where $n, n' = 1,...,\infty$. The indices $\alpha =\eta,s$ and numbers $n =1,...,\infty$ refer to different BA excitation branches that are associated with the composite $\alpha n$ pseudoparticles as defined in this paper.
The corresponding energy eigenvalues have for densities ranges $n_e\in [0,1[$ and $m\in [0,n_e]$ the following form, $$E = \sum_{j=1}^{L}\left(N_{c} (q_j)\,E_c (q_j) + U/4 - \mu_{\eta}\right)
+ \sum_{\alpha=\eta,s}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\alpha n}}\,N_{\alpha n} (q_j)\,E_{\alpha n} (q_j)
+ \sum_{\alpha=\eta,s}2\mu_{\alpha}\,(S_{\alpha}+S_{\alpha}^z) \, ,
\label{E}$$ where the $\alpha = \eta,s$ energy scales $2\mu_{\alpha}$ are given in Eq. (\[2mu-eta-s\]) and the spectra $E_c (q_j)$ and $E_{\alpha n} (q_j)$ read, $$\begin{aligned}
E_c (q_j) & = & - 2t\cos k^c (q_j) - U/2 + \mu_{\eta} - \mu_s \, ,
\nonumber \\
E_{\alpha n} (q_j) & = & n\,2\mu_{\alpha} +
\delta_{\alpha,\eta}\left(4t\,{\rm Re}\Bigl\{\sqrt{1-(\Lambda^{\eta n} (q_j) -i\,n u)^2}\Bigr\} - n\,U\right)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} \alpha = \eta,s \, , \hspace{0.50cm} n =1,...,\infty \, ,
\label{spectra-E-an-c-0}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. (The corresponding momentum eigenvalues of general $u>0$ energy and momentum eigenstates are provided in Eq. (\[P\]).)
Useful solutions for our studies of the BA equations, Eqs. (\[Tapco1\]) and (\[Tapco2\]), are those for a ground state and its excited energy eigenstates that span a PS, as defined in Section \[quantum-liquid\]. We denote the $c$ and $s1$ band PS ground-state rapidity functions by $\Lambda_0^{c}(q_j) = \sin k_0^c (q_j)$ and $\Lambda_0^{s1}(q_j)$, respectively. They are the solutions of the BA equations, Eq. (\[Tapco1\]) and Eq. (\[Tapco2\]) for $\alpha n=s1$, respectively, with the $\beta =c,\alpha n$ band momentum distribution functions as given in Eq. (\[N0q1DHm\]). Hence they read, $$\begin{aligned}
q_j & = & k_0^c (q_j) + {2\over L}\sum_{q'=-k_{F\downarrow}}^{k_{F\downarrow}}
\arctan\left({\sin k_0^c (q_j)-\Lambda_0^{s1}(q') \over u}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L \, ,
\nonumber \\
q_j & = & {2\over L} \sum_{q'=-2k_F}^{2k_F}\arctan\left({\Lambda_0^{s1}(q_j)-\sin k_0^c (q')\over u}\right)
\nonumber \\
& - & {2\over L}\sum_{q'=-k_{F\downarrow}}^{k_{F\downarrow}}
\arctan\left({\Lambda_0^{s1}(q_j)-\Lambda_0^{s1}(q')\over 2u}\right) \, , \hspace{0.35cm}
j = 1,...,N_{\uparrow} \, .
\label{TapcoGS}\end{aligned}$$ In the TL the ground state momentum rapidity function $k_0^c (q)$ and rapidity function $\Lambda_0^{s1}(q)$ have well-defined inverse functions $q^c = q^c (k)$ where $k\in [-\pi,\pi]$ and $q^{s1} = q^{s1} (\Lambda)$ where $\Lambda\in [-\infty,\infty]$, respectively. One can then derive coupled integral equations from the coupled algebraic equations, Eq. (\[TapcoGS\]), whose solutions are the distributions $2\pi\rho (k) =\partial q^c (k)/\partial k$ and $2\pi\sigma (\Lambda) =\partial q^{s1} (\Lambda)/\partial \Lambda$. From such solutions one can then access the TL ground-state momentum rapidity function $k_0^c (q)$ and rapidity function $\Lambda_0^{s1}(q)$, respectively.
A result that plays a key role in the pseudoparticle - pseudofermion unitary transformation studied in Section \[matrixelem\] is that the $c$ and $s1$ band rapidity functions $\Lambda^{c}(q_j) = \sin k^c (q_j)$ and $\Lambda^{s1}(q_j)$ of a PS excited energy eigenstates can be expressed in terms of those of the corresponding initial ground state. From straightforward yet lengthly manipulations of the BA equations, Eqs. (\[Tapco1\]) and (\[Tapco2\]), that involve expansions up to arbitrary order in the deviations $\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)$, Eq. (\[DNq\]), one finds that, $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^{c}(q_j) & = & \Lambda_0^{c}\Bigl({\bar{q}} (q_j)\Bigr) =
\sin k_0^c\Bigl({\bar{q}} (q_j)\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L_c \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Lambda^{s1}(q_j) & = & \Lambda_0^{s1}\Bigl({\bar{q}} (q_j)\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} j = 1,...,L_{s1} \, ,
\label{FL}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bar{q}}_j = {\bar{q}} (q_j)$ with $j=1,...,L_{\beta}$ are the discrete $\beta =c,s1$ band canonical momentum values given in Eq. (\[barqan\]).
The integral equations that define the rapidity dressed phase shifts $2\pi\,\bar{\Phi }_{\beta,\beta'} (r,r')$ in Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]) are for densities in the ranges $n_e \in [0,1]$ and $m \in [0,n_e]$ derived by solving such BA equations up to first order in the deviations $\delta N_{\beta} (q_j)$. In the following we write the rapidity dressed phase shifts in units of $2\pi$. A first set of rapidity dressed phase shifts obey integral equations by their own. These equations read, $$\bar{\Phi }_{s1,c}\left(r,r'\right) = -{1\over\pi}\arctan (r-r') + \int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s}
dr''\,G(r,r'')\,{\bar{\Phi }}_{s1,c}\left(r'',r'\right) \, ,
\label{Phis1c-m}$$ $$\bar{\Phi }_{s1,\eta n}\left(r,r'\right) = -{1\over{\pi^2}}\int_{-r^0_c}^{r^0_c} dr''{\arctan
\Bigl({r''-r'\over n}\Bigr)\over{1+(r-r'')^2}} +
\int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''\,G(r,r'')\,{\bar{\Phi}}_{s1,\eta n}\left(r'',r'\right) \, ,
\label{Phis1cn-m}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Phi }_{s1,sn}\left(r,r'\right) & = & \delta_{1
,n}\,{1\over\pi}\arctan\Bigl({r-r'\over 2}\Bigl) + (1-\delta_{1
,n}){1\over\pi}\Bigl\{ \arctan\Bigl({r-r'\over n-1}\Bigl) +
\arctan\Bigl({r-r'\over
n+1}\Bigl)\Bigr\} \nonumber \\
& - & {1\over{\pi^2}}\int_{-r^0_c}^{r^0_c} dr''{\arctan \Bigl({r''-r'\over n}\Bigr)\over{1+(r-r'')^2}} +
\int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''\,G(r,r'')\,{\bar{\Phi
}}_{s1,s1}\left(r'',r'\right) \, .
\label{Phis1sn-m}\end{aligned}$$ The parameters $r_c^0$ and $r_s^0$ appearing in these equations are defined in Eq. (\[QB-r0rs\]) and the kernel $G(r,r')$ is given by, $$G(r,r') = - {1\over{2\pi}}\left[{1\over{1+((r-r')/2)^2}}\right]
\left[1 - {1\over 2}
\left(t(r)+t(r')+{{l(r)-l(r')}\over{r-r'}}\right)\right] \, .
\label{G}$$ Here $$t(r) = {1\over{\pi}}\left[\arctan(r + r^0_c) - {\rm
arc}{\rm tan}(r -r^0_c)\right] \, , \label{t}$$ and $$l(r) = {1\over{\pi}}\left[ \ln (1+(r + r^0_c)^2) - \ln (1+(r
-r^0_c)^2)\right] \, .
\label{l}$$
A second set of rapidity dressed phase shifts are expressed in terms of those in Eqs. (\[Phis1c-m\])-(\[Phis1sn-m\]) as follows, $$\bar{\Phi }_{c,c}\left(r,r'\right) =
{1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''{\bar{\Phi}_{s1,c}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {1+(r-r'')^2}} \, ,
\label{Phicc-m}$$ $$\bar{\Phi }_{c,\eta n}\left(r,r'\right) = -{1\over\pi}\arctan\Bigl({r-r'\over n}\Bigr) +
{1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''{\bar{\Phi
}_{s1,\eta n}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {1+(r-r'')^2}} \, ,
\label{Phiccn-m}$$ and $$\bar{\Phi }_{c,sn}\left(r,r'\right) = -{1\over\pi}\arctan\Bigl({r-r'\over n}\Bigr) + {1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''
{\bar{\Phi}_{s1,sn}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {1+(r-r'')^2}} \, .
\label{Phicsn-m}$$
Finally, the remaining rapidity dressed phase shifts can be expressed either in terms of those in Eqs. (\[Phicc-m\])-(\[Phicsn-m\]) only, $${\bar{\Phi }}_{\eta n,c}\left(r,r'\right) = {1\over\pi}\arctan\Bigl({r-r'\over {n}}\Bigr)
- {1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r_c^0}^{+r_c^0} dr''{{\bar{\Phi}}_{c,c}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {n[1+({r-r''\over {n}})^2]}} \, ,
\label{Phicnc-m}$$ $$\bar{\Phi }_{\eta n,\eta n'}\left(r,r'\right) = {\Theta_{n,n'}(r-r')\over{2\pi}} -
{1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r_c^0}^{+r_c^0} dr''{\bar{\Phi }_{c,\eta n'}\left(r'',r'\right) \over
{n[1+({r-r''\over n})^2]}} \, ,
\label{Phicncn-m}$$ $$\bar{\Phi }_{\eta n,sn'}\left(r,r'\right) = - {1\over{\pi}}\,\int_{-r_c^0}^{+r_c^0}
dr''{\bar{\Phi }_{c,sn'}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {n[1+({r-r''\over n})^2]}} \, ,
\label{Phicnsn-m}$$ or in terms of both those in Eqs. (\[Phis1c-m\])-(\[Phis1sn-m\]) and in Eqs. (\[Phicc-m\])-(\[Phicsn-m\]), $${\bar{\Phi }}_{sn,c}\left(r,r'\right) = - {1\over\pi}\arctan\Bigl({r-r'\over {n}}\Bigr) +
{1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r^0_c}^{r^0_c} dr''{{\bar{\Phi}}_{c,c}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {n[1+({r-r''\over
n})^2]}} - \int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''{\bar{\Phi}}_{s1,c}\left(r'',r'\right){\Theta^{[1]}_{n,1}(r-r'')\over{2\pi}}
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} n > 1 \, ,
\label{Phisnc-m}$$ $${\bar{\Phi }}_{sn ,\eta n'}\left(r,r'\right) = {1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r^0_c}^{r^0_c} dr''{{\bar{\Phi}}_{c,\eta n'}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {n[1+({r-r''\over n})^2]}}
- \int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''{\bar{\Phi}}_{s1,\eta n'}\left(r'',r'\right) {\Theta^{[1]}_{n,1}(r-r'')\over {2\pi}}
\, ; \hspace{0.5cm} n > 1 \, ,
\label{Phisncn-m}$$ $${\bar{\Phi }}_{sn ,sn'}\left(r,r'\right) = {\Theta_{n,n'}(r-r')\over{2\pi}} +
{1\over{\pi}}\int_{-r^0_c}^{r^0_c} dr''{{\bar{\Phi}}_{c,sn'}\left(r'',r'\right) \over {n[1+({r-r''\over n})^2]}}
- \int_{-r^0_s}^{r^0_s} dr''{\bar{\Phi}}_{s1,sn'}\left(r'',r'\right){\Theta^{[1]}_{n,1}(r-r'')\over{2\pi}} \, .
\label{Phisnsn-m}$$
In the above equations, $\Theta_{n\,n'}(x)$ is the function given in Eq. (\[Theta\]) and $\Theta^{[1]}_{n\,n'}(x)$ is its derivative, $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta^{[1]}_{n,n'}(x) & = & {\partial\Theta_{n,n'}(x)\over
\partial x} = \delta_{n ,n'}\Bigl\{{1\over n[1+({x\over 2n})^2]}+
\sum_{l=1}^{n -1}{2\over l[1+({x\over 2l})^2]}\Bigr\} +
(1-\delta_{n ,n'})\Bigl\{ {2\over |n-n'|[1+({x\over
|n-n'|})^2]} \nonumber \\
& + & {2\over (n+n')[1+({x\over n+n'})^2]} +
\sum_{l=1}^{{n+n'-|n-n'|\over 2} -1}{4\over
(|n-n'|+2l)[1+({x\over |n-n'|+2l})^2]}\Bigr\} \, .
\label{The1}\end{aligned}$$
The $f$ functions in the second-order terms of the energy functional, Eq. (\[DE-fermions\]), can be expressed in terms of the related $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})$, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]), as follows [@Carmelo-91-92], $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\beta\,\beta'}(q_j,q_{j'}) & = & v_{\beta}(q_{j})\,2\pi \,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'}(q_{j},q_{j'})+
v_{\beta'}(q_{j'})\,2\pi \,\Phi_{\beta',\beta}(q_{j'},q_{j})
\nonumber \\
& + & {1\over 2\pi}\sum_{\beta''=c,s1} \sum_{\iota =\pm 1} v_{\beta''}\,
2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta'',\beta}(\iota q_{F\beta''},q_{j})\,2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta'',\beta'} (\iota q_{F\beta''},q_{j'}) \, ,
\label{ff}\end{aligned}$$ where the group velocities are defined in Eq. (\[vel-beta\]).
Other important quantities controlled by $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shifts are the $\beta =c,s1$ lowest peak weights $A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}$ and relative weights $a_{\beta}=a_{\beta}(m_{\beta,\,+1},\,m_{\beta,\,-1})$ in the $\beta$ pseudofermion spectral functions, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]). These weights are derived by the use of the pseudofermion anti-commutators, Eq. (\[pfacrGS\]), in Eq. (\[det1\]). After some suitable algebra one finds, $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(0,0)}_{\beta} & = & \Big({1\over
L}\Bigr)^{2N^{\odot}_{\beta}}\, \prod_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\,
\sin^2\Bigl({\pi\over 2}\left(1- (1-2\Phi^T_{\beta}(q_j))N_{\beta}^{\odot}(q_j)\right)\Big)\, \prod_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}-1}\,
\Bigl(\sin\Bigl({\pi j\over L}\Bigr)\Bigr)^{2(L_{\beta} -j)}
\nonumber \\
& \times &
\prod_{i=1}^{L_{\beta}}\prod_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\,\theta (j-i)\,
\sin^2\left({\pi\over 2}\left(1 - \left(1 - {(2(j-i) + 2\Phi^T_{\beta}({q}_j) - 2\Phi^T_{\beta}({q}_i))
\over L}\right)N_{\beta}^{\odot}({q}_j)N_{\beta}^{\odot}({q}_i)\right)\right)
\nonumber \\
& \times &
\prod_{i=1}^{L_{\beta}}\prod_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}\,{1\over
\sin^2\left({\pi\over 2}\left(1 - \left(1 - {2(j-i) + 2\Phi^T_{\beta}({q}_j)\over L}\right)
N_{\beta}^{\odot}({q}_i)N_{\beta}^{\odot}({q}_j)\right)\right)} \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c, s1 \, ,
\label{A00}\end{aligned}$$ and $$a_{\beta}(m_{\beta,\,+1},m_{\beta,\,-1})=\Bigl(\prod_{\iota =\pm 1}
a_{\beta,\iota}(m_{\beta,\iota})\Bigr)
\Bigl(1+{\cal{O}}\Bigl(\ln L/L\Bigr)\Bigr) \, ,
\hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c, s1 \, ,
\label{aNNDP}$$ respectively, where, $$a_{\beta,\iota}(m_{\beta,\iota}) = \prod_{j=1}^{m_{\beta,\iota}}
{(2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota} + j -1)\over j} = \frac{\Gamma (m_{\beta,\iota} +
2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})}{\Gamma (m_{\beta,\iota}+1)\,
\Gamma (2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})} \, , \hspace{0.50cm}
\beta = c, s1 \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \iota =\pm 1 \, .
\label{aNDP}$$ In these expressions, $N_{\beta}^{\odot}=\sum_{j=1}^{L_{\beta}}N_{\beta}^{\odot}({q}_j)$ and $N_{\beta}^{\odot}({q}_j)$ are the number of $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions and the $\beta$ band momentum distribution function, respectively, of the excited energy eigenstate generated by the PDT processes (A) and (B) defined in Section \[leading\], $L_{\beta}$ is the number of $\beta =c,s1$ band discrete momentum values given by $L_c = L$ and $L_{s1}$ by Eq. (\[N-h-an\]) for $\alpha n=s1$, $\Phi^T_{\beta}({q}_j)$ is the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase-shift functional, Eq. (\[pfacrGS\]), $\Gamma (x)$ is the usual gamma function, and the functionals $2\Delta^{\iota}_{\beta}$ are defined in Eqs. (\[a10DP-iota\]) and (\[functional\]).
When such functionals are such that $2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}>0$ and $2\Delta_{\beta}^{-\iota}=0$, the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion spectral function $B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega')$, Eq. (\[BQ-gen\]), has in the TL the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
& & B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega') = {A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\over v_{\beta}}\,a_{\beta,\iota}
\left({L\over 2\pi\,v_{\beta}}\,\omega' - \Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}\right)\,\delta \Bigl(k' - {\iota\,\omega'\over v_{\beta}}\Bigr)
\nonumber \\
& \approx &
{F^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\over v_{\beta}\,\Gamma (2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota})}\,\Theta (\iota\,\omega')\,\Bigl({\omega'\over 2\pi\,S_{\beta}\,v_{\beta}}\Bigr)^{-1 +2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota}}
\,\delta \Bigl(k' - {\iota\,\omega'\over v_{\beta}}\Bigr) \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{B-J-i-sum-GG2}\end{aligned}$$ The second expression provided here is obtained from the use of Eqs. (\[f\]) and (\[F00\]).
On the other hand, when $2\Delta_{\beta}^{\iota} =2\Delta_{\beta}^{-\iota}=0$ one finds that in the TL such a function reads, $$B_{Q_{\beta}} (k',\omega') = {2\pi\over L}\,A^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\,\delta (k')\,\delta (\omega')
\approx 2\pi\,F^{(0,0)}_{\beta}\,S_{\beta}\,\delta (k')\,\delta (\omega') \, , \hspace{0.50cm} \beta = c,s1 \, .
\label{B-J-i-sum-GG3}$$
Limiting behaviors of the $\beta =c,s1$ band energy dispersions, group velocities, and pseudofermion phase shifts {#LimitBV}
=================================================================================================================
The one-parametric spectra of the $\sigma $ one-electron spectral functions branch lines and border lines given in Eqs. (\[dE-dP-bl\]) and (\[dE-dP-c-s1\]), respectively, are expressed in terms of the $c$ and $s1$ band energy dispersions, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta=c,s1$. The corresponding $\sigma $ one-electron spectral weight distribution in the vicinity of the branch lines is controlled by the exponent $\xi_{\beta}^{\sigma} (k)$, Eq. (\[branch-l\]), whose expression is linear in the functionals, Eq. (\[OESFfunctional\]), that involve the $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})$.
Here we provide limiting behaviors of such $c$ and $s1$ band energy dispersions, corresponding $c$ and $s1$ band group velocities, Eq. (\[vel-beta\]) for $\beta=c,s1$, and $\beta$ pseudofermion phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})$, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]). Except if otherwise stated, the expressions given in the following refer to electronic densities and spin densities in the ranges $n_e \in [0,1[$ and $m \in ]0,n_e]$, respectively.
In the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the $c$ and $s1$ energy dispersions, Eq. (\[epsilon-q\]) for $\beta=c,s1$, have the following behaviors, $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_c (q) & = & -2t\left(2\cos \left({q\over 2}\right) - \cos k_{F\uparrow} - \cos k_{F\downarrow}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert \leq 2k_{F\downarrow} \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & -2t\left(\cos (\vert q\vert - k_{F\downarrow}) - \cos k_{F\uparrow}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} 2k_{F\downarrow} \leq \vert q\vert < \pi \, ,
\label{varepsiloncu0}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{s1} (q) & = & -2t\left(\cos q - \cos k_{F\downarrow}\right) \, , \hspace{0.5cm}
q \in [-k_{F\uparrow},k_{F\uparrow}] \, ,
\label{varepsilonsu0}\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
On the other hand, for $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow 0$ the behavior of these energy dispersions is, $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_c (q) & = & -2t\left(\cos q - \cos 2k_{F} + {n\ln 2\over u}(\sin^2 q - \sin^2 2k_F)\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-\pi,\pi] \, ,
\nonumber \\
\varepsilon_{s1} (q) & = & - {\pi n_e\,t\over 2u}\left(1 - {\sin 2\pi n_e\over 2\pi n_e}\right)
\cos\left({q\over n_e}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-k_{F},k_{F}] \, ,
\label{varepsiloncsulm0}\end{aligned}$$ whereas for $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow n_e$ they read, $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_c (q) & = & -2t\left(\cos q - \cos 2k_{F}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-\pi,\pi] \, ,
\nonumber \\
\varepsilon_{s1} (q) & = & - {n_e\,t\over u}\left(1 - {\sin 2\pi n_e\over 2\pi n_e}\right)
\left(\cos\left({q\over n_e}\right) - 1\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_{F},2k_{F}] \, .
\label{varepsiloncsulm1}\end{aligned}$$
In the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the corresponding $c$ and $s1$ group velocities, Eq. (\[vel-beta\]) for $\beta=c,s1$, have the following behaviors, $$\begin{aligned}
v_c (q) & = & 2t\sin\left({q\over 2}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert \leq 2k_{F\downarrow} \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & {\rm sgn}\{q\}\,2t\sin (\vert q\vert - k_{F\downarrow})
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} 2k_{F\downarrow} \leq \vert q\vert < \pi \, ,
\label{vc0}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
v_{s1} (q) & = & 2t\sin q \, , \hspace{0.5cm}
q \in [-k_{F\uparrow},k_{F\uparrow}] \, ,
\label{vs0}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Moreover, for $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow 0$ the group velocities behavior is, $$\begin{aligned}
v_c (q) & = & 2t\left(\sin q - {n_e\ln 2\over u}\sin 2q)\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-\pi,\pi] \, ,
\nonumber \\
v_{s1} (q) & = & {\pi\,t\over 2u}\left(1 - {\sin 2\pi n_e\over 2\pi n_e}\right)\sin\left({q\over n_e}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-k_{F},k_{F}] \, ,
\label{vcsm0}\end{aligned}$$ whereas for $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow n_e$ they are given by, $$\begin{aligned}
v_c (q) & = & 2t\sin q \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-\pi,\pi] \, ,
\nonumber \\
v_{s1} (q) & = & {t\over u}\left(1 - {\sin 2\pi n_e\over 2\pi n_e}\right)
\sin\left({q\over n_e}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \in [-2k_{F},2k_{F}] \, .
\label{vcsm1}\end{aligned}$$
In the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit the phase shifts $2\pi\,\Phi_{\beta,\beta'} (q_j,q_{j'})$, Eq. (\[Phi-barPhi\]), acquired by $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermions due to the creation or annihilation under transitions to excited energy eigenstates of other $\beta' =c,s1$ pseudofermions have the following limiting behaviors, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s1,s1} (q,q') & = & 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{s1,c} (q,q') & = & - {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\left\{\sin q - \sin\left({q'\over 2}\right)\right\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q'\vert \leq 2k_{F\downarrow}
\nonumber \\
& = & - {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\left\{\sin q - {\rm sgn}\{q'\}\sin (\vert q'\vert - k_{F\downarrow})\right\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} 2k_{F\downarrow} \leq \vert q'\vert < \pi \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,c} (q,q') & = & - {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\{q-q'\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert, \vert q'\vert \leq 2k_{F\downarrow}
\nonumber \\
& = & {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\{q'\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert \leq 2k_{F\downarrow} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} 2k_{F\downarrow} \leq \vert q'\vert < \pi \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & 0 \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} 2k_{F\downarrow} < \vert q\vert < \pi \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,s1} (q,q') & = & - {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\left\{\sin\left({q\over 2}\right) - \sin q'\right\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert \leq 2k_{F\downarrow}
\nonumber \\
& = & - {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\left\{{\rm sgn}\{q\}\sin (\vert q'\vert - k_{F\downarrow})-\sin q'\right\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} 2k_{F\downarrow} \leq \vert q\vert < \pi \, .
\label{Phis-all-qqu0}\end{aligned}$$
Particular cases of these $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts are those involved in the functionals, Eq. (\[OESFfunctional\]), which in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit are then given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s1,s1}\left(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q\right) & = & \Phi_{c,c}\left(\iota 2k_{F},q\right) = 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{s1,c}\left(\iota k_{F\downarrow},q\right) & = & - {\iota\over 2} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert < 2k_{F\downarrow} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} q = - \iota 2k_{F\downarrow} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1
\nonumber \\
& = & 0 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q = \iota 2k_{F\downarrow} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1
\nonumber \\
& = & - {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\left\{\iota\sin k_{F\downarrow} - {\rm sgn}\{q\}\sin (\vert q\vert - k_{F\downarrow})\right\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} 2k_{F\downarrow} \leq \vert q\vert < \pi \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,s1}\left(\iota 2k_{F},q\right) & = & - {\iota\over 2} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert < k_{F\uparrow} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1
\nonumber \\
& = & {1\over 2}{\rm sgn}\{q\} \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert = k_{F\uparrow} \, .
\label{Phis-all-qFqu0}\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, for $u\gg 1$ and spin density $m\rightarrow 0$ the above $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts behave as, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s1,s1}(q,q') & = & {1\over\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}
d\omega{\sin\left(\omega\,{2\over\pi}\left[\operatorname{arcsinh}\left(\tan\left({q\over n_e}\right)\right)
- \operatorname{arcsinh}\left(\tan\left({q'\over n_e}\right)\right)\right]\right)\over \omega \left(1+e^{2\omega}\right)}
\nonumber \\
& + & {q'\over 4u}{\sin (\pi n_e)\over \pi n_e}\cos\left({q\over n_e}\right) \, ,
\hspace{0.5cm} \vert q\vert \neq k_F
\nonumber \\
& = & {\iota\over 2\sqrt{2}} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q = \iota k_F
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} q' \neq \iota k_F \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1
\nonumber \\
& = & {\iota\over 2\sqrt{2}}(3-2\sqrt{2}) \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q = q' = \iota k_F \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{s1,c}(q,q') & = & - {q\over 2\pi n_e} + {1\over 4u}\cos\left({q\over n_e}\right)\,\sin q' \, , \hspace{0.5cm}
\vert q\vert \neq k_F
\nonumber \\
& = & - {\iota\over 2\sqrt{2}} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q = \iota k_F \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,c}(q,q') & = & - {\ln 2\over 2\pi u}(\sin q -\sin q') \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,s1}(q,q') & = & {q'\over 2\pi n_e} - {1\over 4u}\sin q\,\cos\left({q'\over n_e}\right)
+ q'\,{\ln 2\over 2\pi u}{\sin (\pi n_e)\over \pi n_e} \, .
\label{PhiallUlm0}\end{aligned}$$
Those involved in the functionals, Eq. (\[OESFfunctional\]), are in that limit and for the same densities then given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s1,s1}(\iota k_F,q) & = & {\iota\over 2\sqrt{2}} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q \neq \iota k_F \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1
\nonumber \\
& = & {\iota\over 2\sqrt{2}}(3-2\sqrt{2}) \, , \hspace{0.5cm} q = \iota k_F \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{s1,c}(\iota k_F,q) & = & - {\iota\over 2\sqrt{2}} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,c}(\iota 2k_F,q) & = & - {\ln 2\over 2\pi u}(\iota\sin (\pi n_e) -\sin q) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,s1}(\iota 2k_F,q) & = & {q\over 2\pi n_e} - {\iota\over 4u}\sin 2k_F\,\cos\left({q\over n_e}\right)
+ q\,{\ln 2\over 2\pi u}{\sin (\pi n_e)\over \pi n_e} \, .
\label{PhiallFULm0}\end{aligned}$$
For $u\gg 1$ and $m\rightarrow n_e$ the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts under consideration behave as, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s1,s1}(q,q') & = & {1\over\pi}\arctan\left({\tan\left({q\over 2n_e}\right) -\tan\left({q'\over 2n_e}\right)\over 2}\right)
+ {q'\over \pi u}{\sin (\pi n_e)\over \pi n_e}\cos^2\left({q\over 2n_e}\right) \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{s1,c}(q,q') & = & - {q\over 2\pi n_e} + {1\over \pi u}\cos^2\left({q\over 2n_e}\right)\,\sin q' \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,c}(q,q') & = & 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,s1}(q,q') & = & {q'\over 2\pi n_e} - {1\over \pi u}\sin q\,\cos^2\left({q'\over 2n_e}\right) \, .
\label{PhiallULmne}\end{aligned}$$
As a result, in that limit in which $k_{F\downarrow}=0$ the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase shifts involved in the functionals, Eq. (\[OESFfunctional\]), read, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{s1,s1}(0,q) & = & - {1\over\pi}\arctan\left({1\over 2}\tan\left({q\over 2n_e}\right)\right)
+ {q\over \pi u}{\sin (\pi n_e)\over \pi n_e} \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{s1,c}(0,q) & = & {\sin q\over \pi u} \, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
\Phi_{c,c}(\iota 2k_F,q) = 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{c,s1}(\iota 2k_F,q) & = & {q\over 2\pi n_e} - {\iota\over \pi u}\sin (\pi n_e)\,\cos^2\left({q\over 2n_e}\right)
\, , \hspace{0.5cm} \iota = \pm 1 \, .
\label{PhiallFULmne}\end{aligned}$$
The limiting behaviors of the related $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase-shift parameters, Eq. (\[x-aa\]), which are the entries of the matrices, Eq. (\[ZZ-gen\]), are given in the following. In the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit such matrices read, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\,Z^1 =
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\,\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\xi^{1}_{c\,c} & \xi^{1}_{c\,s1} \\
\xi^{1}_{s1\,c} & \xi^{1}_{s1\,s1}
\end{array}\right]
= \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
1 & 1
\end{array}\right]
\, ; \hspace{0.75cm}
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\,Z^0 =
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\,\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\xi^{0}_{c\,c} & \xi^{0}_{c\,s1} \\
\xi^{0}_{s1\,c} & \xi^{0}_{s1\,s1}
\end{array}\right]
= \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -1 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right] \, .
\label{ZZ-gen-u0}$$ These values apply to the limit $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}$. However, if one takes the limit $\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}$ before $\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}$ one finds instead, $$\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}\,Z^1 = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
\sqrt{2} & 1/\sqrt{2} \\
0 & 1/\sqrt{2}
\end{array}\right]
\, ; \hspace{1.5cm}
\lim_{u\rightarrow 0}\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}\,Z^0 = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1/\sqrt{2} & 0 \\
-1/\sqrt{2} & \sqrt{2}
\end{array}\right] \, .
\label{ZZ-gen-m0u0}$$ This singular behavior means that at $m=0$ and for $m\rightarrow 0$ the matrices, Eq. (\[ZZ-gen\]), have different values at $u=0$ and in the $u\rightarrow 0$ limit. Interestingly, this singular behavior does nor show up in the physical quantities whose expressions involve the $\beta =c,s1$ pseudofermion phase-shift parameters, Eq. (\[x-aa\]), which are the entries of the matrices under consideration.
For $m\rightarrow 0$ and all $u$ values the matrices in Eq. (\[ZZ-gen\]) are given by, $$\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}\,Z^1 = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
\xi_{0} & \xi_{0}/2 \\
0 & 1/\sqrt{2}
\end{array}\right]
\, ; \hspace{1.5cm}
\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}\,Z^0 = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1/\xi_{0} & 0 \\
-1/\sqrt{2} & \sqrt{2}
\end{array}\right] \, ,
\label{ZZ-gen-m0}$$ where the $m\rightarrow 0$ parameter $\xi_0$ has the following limiting behaviors, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_0 & = & \sqrt{2} \, , \hspace{0.5cm} u\rightarrow 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & 1 + {\ln 2\over \pi u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, , \hspace{0.5cm} u\gg 1 \, .
\label{x0limits}\end{aligned}$$
In the $m\rightarrow n_e$ limit the matrices in Eq. (\[ZZ-gen\]) simplify to, $$\lim_{m\rightarrow n_e}\,Z^1 = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
\eta_0 & 1
\end{array}\right]
\, ; \hspace{1.5cm}
\lim_{m\rightarrow n_e}\,Z^0 = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\eta_0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right] \, ,
\label{ZZ-gen-m1}$$ where the parameter $\eta_0$ reads $\eta_0 = {2\over\pi}\arctan\left({\sin (\pi n_e)\over u}\right)$ and thus has limiting behaviors, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_0 & = & 1 \, , \hspace{0.5cm} u\rightarrow 0 \, ,
\nonumber \\
& = & {2\over\pi\,u}\sin (\pi n_e) \, , \hspace{0.5cm} u \gg 1 \, .
\label{eta0lim}\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} E. H. Lieb, F. Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20 (1968) 1445. E. H. Lieb, F. Y. Wu, Physica A 321 (2003) 1. C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1312. M. J. Martins, P. B. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. B 522 (1998) 413. M. Takahashi, Progr. Theor. Phys 47 (1972) 69. M. C. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 159. J. Hubbard, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 276 (1963) 238. B. S. Shastry, Bill Sutherland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 243. J. M. P. Carmelo, N. M. R. Peres, D. K. Campbell, A. W. Sandvik, Z. Phys. B 103 (1997) 217; N. M. R. Peres, R. G. Dias, P. D. Sacramento, J. M. P. Carmelo, Phys. Rev. B 61 (2000) 5169. S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 5 (1950) 544. J. M. Luttinger, J. Math. Phys. 4 (1963) 1154 J. Sólyom, Adv. Phys. 28 (1979) 201. J. Voit, Rep. Prog. Phys. 57 (1994) 977. F. Woynarovich, H. P. Eckle, T. T. Truong, J. Phys. A 22 (1989) 4027. K.-V. Pham, M. Gabay, P. Lederer, Phys. Rev. B 61 (2000) 16 397. M. Karowski, P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B 139 (1978) 455;\
B. Berg, M. Karowski, and P. Weisz, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 2477. F. A. Smirnov, Form Factors in Completely Integrable Models of Quantum Field Theory, Advanced Series in Mthematical Physics, vol. 14, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992. J. L. Cardy, G. Mussardo, Nucl. Phys. B 340 (1990) 387;\
A. Fring, G. Mussardo, P. Simonetti, Nucl. Phys. B 393 (1993) 413. V. P. Yurov, Al. B. Zamolodchikov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 6 (1991) 3419;\
S. Lukyanov, Commun. Math. Phys. 167 (1995) 183;\
S. Lukyanov, A. B. Zamolodchikov, Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997) 2541;\
S. Lukyanov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1990) 2543. F. H. L. Essler, A. M. Tsvelik, G. Delfino, Phys. Rev. B 56 (1997) 11001;\
F. H. L. Essler, A. M. Tsvelik, Phys. Rev. B 57 (1998) 10592 . B. L. Altshuler, R. M. Konik, A. M. Tsvelik, Nucl. Phys. B 739 (2006) 311. F. H. L. Essler, R. M. Konik, J. Stat. Mech. (2009) P.09018. M. Jimbo, T. Miwa, Algebraic Analysis of Solvable Lattice Models, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1994. A. H. Bougourzi, M. Couture, M. Kacir, Phys. Rev. B 54 (2006) 12669;\
A. Abada A. H. Bougourzi, B. Si-Lakhal, Nucl. Phys. B 497 (1997) 733;\
M. Karbach, G. Müller, A. H. Bougourzi, A. Fledderjohann, K. H. Mütter, Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 12510. D. Biegel, M. Karbach. G. Müller, Europhys. Lett. 59 (2002) 882. N. Kitanine, J. M. Maillet, V. Tetras, Nucl. Phys. B 554 (1999) 647. J.-S. Caux, J. M. Maillet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 077201. J.-S. Caux, H. Konno, M. Sorrell, R. Weston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 217203. H. Frahm, V. E. Korepin, Phys. Rev. B 42 (1990) 10553. H. Frahm, V. E. Korepin, Phys. Rev. B 43 (1991) 5653. M. Ogata, T. Sugiyama, H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 43 (1991) 8401. K. Penc, K. Hallberg, F. Mila, H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1390. K. Penc, K. Hallberg, F. Mila, H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 15 475. F. Woynarovich, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 15 (1982) 85. F. Woynarovich, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 15 (1982) 97. M. Ogata, H. Shiba, Phys. Rev. B 41 (1990) 2326. J. M. P. Carmelo, J. M. Román, K. Penc, Nucl. Phys. B 683 (2004) 387. J. M. P. Carmelo, K. Penc, D. Bozi, Nucl. Phys. B 725 (2005) 421; 737 (2006) 351, Erratum. J. M. P. Carmelo, L. M. Martelo, K. Penc, Nucl. Phys. B 737 (2006) 237. J. M. P. Carmelo and T. Čadež, Nucl. Phys. B 904 (2016) 39. A. Imambekov, T. L. Schmidt, L. I. Glazman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 1253. F. H. L. Essler, Phys. Rev. B 81 (2010) 205120. L. Seabra, F. H. L. Essler, F. Pollmann, I. Schneider, T. Veness, Phys. Rev. B 90 (2014) 245127. J. M. P. Carmelo, D. Bozi, K. Penc, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 20 (2008) 415103. M. Sing, U. Schwingenschlögl, R. Claessen, P. Blaha, J. M. P. Carmelo, L. M. Martelo, P. D. Sacramento, M. Dressel, C. S. Jacobsen, Phys. Rev. B 68 (2003) 125111. J. M. P. Carmelo, K. Penc, L. M. Martelo, P. D. Sacramento, J. M. B. Lopes dos Santos, R. Claessen, M. Sing, U. Schwingenschlögl, Europhys. Lett. 67 (2004) 233. J. M. P. Carmelo, K. Penc, P. D. Sacramento, M. Sing, R. Claessen, J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 18 (2006) 5191. M. Kohno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 106402. H. Benthien, F. Gebhard, E. Jeckelmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 256401. A. E. Feiguin, D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B 79 (2009) 100507(R). F. H. L. Essler, V. E. Korepin, K. Schoutens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 3848. D. Braak, N. Andrei, Nucl. Phys. B 542 (1999) 551. R. G. Pereira, K. Penc, S. R. White, P. D. Sacramento, J. M. P. Carmelo, Phys. Rev. B 85 (2012) 165132. A. A. Ovchinnikov, Sov. Phys. - JETP 30 (1970) 1160. J. M. P. Carmelo, P. Horsch, P. A. Bares, A. A. Ovchinnikov, Phys. Rev. B 44 (1991) 9967; J. M. P. Carmelo, P. Horsch, A. A. Ovchinnikov, Phys. Rev. B 45 (1992) 7899; J. M. P. Carmelo, P. D. Sacramento, Phys. Rev. B 68 (2003) 085104. C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 2144. C. N. Yang, S. C. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 4 (1990) 759. E. H. Lieb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1201. J. M. P. Carmelo, S. Östlund, M. J. Sampaio, Ann. Phys. 325 (2010) 1550. L. D. Faddeev, L. A. Takhtajan, Phys. Lett. 85A (1981) 375. F. H. L. Essler, V. E. Korepin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994) 908; F. H. L. Essler, V. E. Korepin, Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 505, Section 5. H. V. Kruis, I. P. McCulloch, Z. Nussinov, J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. B 70 (2004) 075109. F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 937. Y. R. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 46 (1992) 151. P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18 (1967) 1049. V. L. Campo, Jr., K. Capelle, J. Quintanilla, C. Hooley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 240403 D. Greif, G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois,T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 260401. V. L. Campo, Jr., K. Capelle, J. Quintanilla, C. Hooley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 215301.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Department of Statistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 32611'
- 'Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 48109'
author:
- Mohamad Kazem Shirani Faradonbeh
- Ambuj Tewari
- George Michailidis
- Mohamad Kazem Shirani Faradonbeh
- Ambuj Tewari
- George Michailidis
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: Input Perturbations for Adaptive Control and Learning
---
,
,
,
,
Finite-time Optimality; Greedy Policies; Adaptive LQRs; System Identification; Decision-making under Uncertainty; Linear-Quadratic; Exploration-Exploitation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Case isolation and contact tracing is a widely-used intervention method for controlling epidemic outbreaks. Here, we argue that the effectiveness of contact tracing and isolation is likely underestimated by existing studies because they do not take into account the different forms of heterogeneity and sampling biases from the network structure. Specifically, we show that contact tracing can be even more effective than acquaintance sampling at locating hubs. Our results call for the need for contact tracing to go both backward and forward, in multiple steps, to leverage all forms of positive biases. Using simulations on networks with a power-law degree distribution, we show that this deep contact tracing can potentially prevent almost all further transmissions even at a small probability of detecting infected individuals. We also show that, when the number of traced contacts is small, the number of prevented transmission per traced node is even higher—although most traced individuals are healthy—than that from case isolation without contact tracing. Our results also have important consequences for new implementations of digital contact tracing and we argue backward and deep tracing can be incorporated without the important sacrificing privacy-preserving requirements of these new platforms.'
author:
- Sadamori Kojaku
- 'Laurent Hébert-Dufresne'
- 'Yong-Yeol Ahn'
bibliography:
- '../main.bib'
title: The effectiveness of contact tracing in heterogeneous networks
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Contact tracing, combined with case isolation, is one of the most intuitive and oldest methods for controlling epidemic outbreaks [@eames2003contact; @klinkenberg2006effectiveness; @peak2017comparing]. Contact tracing is considered a highly effective strategy *if* the contact network is concretely defined (e.g. sexually-transmitted diseases) or when the outbreak is still at the early stage. For instance, it was possible to control the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 with case isolation and contact tracing [@glasser2011modeling]. However, contact tracing, which involves interviewing and tracing contacts, is a labor-intensive and costly process. When there are many cases or the route of spreading is not clearly defined (e.g. airborne diseases), the traditional contact tracing can thus become cost inhibitive. Therefore, a critical question in contact tracing has been assessing its viability [@hellewell2020feasibility] or the cost-benefit tradeoffs [@armbruster2007contact].
Meanwhile, recent studies on *digital contact tracing* have demonstrated that leveraging smart mobile devices may allow much more swift and efficient contact tracing [@ferretti2020quantifying], asking an important question of whether digital contact tracing can overcome the existing limitations of contact tracing. Yet, existing studies do not fully leverage insights from network science about the underlying contact structure, particularly regrading the imapct of its heterogeneity.
Heterogeneous networks, where the number of contacts varies significantly among individuals, have been of great interest in network epidemiology because such heterogeneity can alter the fundamental nature of the dynamics in the form of, for instance, vanishing epidemic threshold [@pastor2001epidemic], hierarchical spreading [@barthelemy2004velocity], and large variance in individual’s reproductive number [@lloyd2005superspreading] as well as the final outbreak size [@hebert2020beyond]. Under the assumption of heterogeneous contact network structure, epidemic dynamics is dominated by the hubs and the superpreading events caused by them.
Superspreading events can be easily found during an epidemic outbreak. For instance, a famous example from the COVID-19 pandemic would be the “Patient $31$” in South Korea [@patient31wp]. The patient was the first positive case from a church that was later identified, via contact tracing, as the single biggest super-spreading event in South Korea, linked to more than $5,000$ cases, which account for *more than half* of South Korea’s total cases at the time [@patient31wp]. Super-spreading events are common in the past epidemic outbreaks [@lloyd2005superspreading], and they are often discovered through contact tracing efforts [@andre2007transmission; @park2020coronavirus]. Contact tracing’s ability to identify super-spreading events raise important questions: how effective is the contact tracing at identifying superspreading events? How does the heterogeneity in the contact network affect the effectiveness of contact tracing?
Here, we show that the effectiveness of contact tracing strongly depends on the degree heterogeneity of the networks and can become extremely efficient in heterogeneous networks. Importantly for new applications of digital contact tracing, we show that this heterogeneity is not fully leveraged by the most common contact tracing implementations that are limited to future contacts or to a single step in the contact network.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Let us first sketch the central idea. Given that the dynamics of epidemic spreading is dominated by hubs in static heterogeneous networks [@pastor2001epidemic; @barthelemy2004velocity; @newman2005threshold], let us first focus on the degree distribution of the traced nodes. Consider a random network with degree distribution $p_k$. The probability generating function for this network’s degree distribution can be written as $$G_0(x) = \sum_k p_k x^k.$$ First, note that the spreading process, at the early stage, can be considered as sampling nodes by following edges (see [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}a). Because nodes are sampled proportionally to their degree, the degree distribution of the sampled (infected) nodes would follow, not $p_k$, but $q_k = \frac{k p_k}{\sum_k k p_k}$. Second, assume that the disease spread through an edge with a probability $T$, which we call *transmissibility* of the disease, and this assumption allows us to approximate the disease spreading by a bond percolation process [@newman2002spread; @newman2005threshold; @kenah2007second]. If we focus on a transmission tree—a connected component from the bond percolation process with probability $T$ (see [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}b)—we can consider it as another network where the *original* degree of the nodes is distributed according to $q_k$ because the nodes in this tree are sampled by following edges. Now, an idealized and simplified contact tracing can be thought as a process of (i) identifying an infected node from the transmission tree and (ii) following the edges of the node to further identify other infected nodes in the transmission tree. Because the degree of a node in the transmission tree is proportional to its original degree and because following an edge in the transmission tree is *once again* biased by the degree of a node, the degree distribution of the *contact-traced* infected nodes would be $\sim k^2 p_k$ rather than $\sim kp_k$. In other words, contact tracing can be highly efficient—even more efficient than acquaintance sampling [@cohen2003efficient; @christakis2010social]—at identifying high-degree nodes, or super-spreading events. Simply put, this is because we can leverage the work required in identifying an infected node in the first place, and then do biased sampling over the already biased subset of infected nodes.
![(a) A transmission occurs from a ‘parent’ to a ‘focal node’ (or an offspring). (b) Because a node is infected through an edge, at the early stage of the epidemic, the degree distribution of the infected nodes is roughly proportional to $kp_k$. Because the degree of a node in the transmission tree is also proportional to the original degree, sampling from the transmission tree via an edge will be even more biased; it samples nodes proportional to $k^2 p_k$. (c) If contact tracing perfectly identifies the parents, we sample nodes based on $k^2 p_k$. (d) The true list of recent contacts ($C$) always includes the parent, along with other neighbors. The actual list of contacts that get traced ($C'$) is a subset of $C$. []{data-label="fig:diagrams"}](fig1){width="\columnwidth"}
We can also explicitly take the directionality into account by considering a directional transmission tree (see [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}c). For the sake of simplicity, let us consider a case shown in [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}c and assume that tracing only occurs from offsprings to parents because the nodes at $l-1$ are more likely to be asymptomatic or already recovered when the disease spread further down. Because the nodes in the tree are already sampled by following an edge, the node with original degree $k$ is $k$ times more likely to be in the transmission tree in the first place. Then the generating function for the excess degree distribution can be written as $$G_1(x) = \frac{G'_0(x)}{G'_0(1)} = \frac{1}{\sum_k k p_k} \sum_k k p_k x^{k-1}.$$ An extreme case of perfect tracing would be the case where we can immediately identify the true parent node once we identify an infected node. If we compare nodes at level $l+1$, as illustrated in [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}c, node $b$ is three times more likely to be traced than $a$; that is, for a node with original degree $k$, the probability of being traced from an offspring is proportional to $k-1$. Combining these two factors, the probability that a node with degree $k$ gets contact-traced is proportional to $k(k-1)$ or roughly to $k^2$. The remaining degree that can be potentially blocked by the contact tracing (e.g. two remaining white nodes in the case of $b$ in [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}c) can be captured by the following probability generating function: $$G_2(x) = \frac{G'_1(x)}{G'_1(1)} = \frac{1}{\sum_k k(k-1)p_k} \sum_k k (k-1) p_k x^{k-2}.$$ This intuition can be easily checked by running a SIR model on a network and sampling the parents of a randomly chosen infected node (see [Fig. \[fig:degreedist\]]{}a). As expected, if we sample infected nodes and trace their parents, their degree distribution closely matches the distribution described by $G_2(x)$.
Needless to say, it is impossible to perfectly identify the disease pathway in practice; we can only obtain an incomplete list of recent contacts of a node. Note that, however, the *parent* node who is responsible for the infection of the focal node is, by definition, always belongs to the *true* list of recent contacts (denoted as $C$ in [Fig. \[fig:diagrams\]]{}d). Therefore, when we obtain $C'$, the set of nodes to be traced (e.g. via an interview or through digital contact tracing), the parent node is more likely to be included, and thus more likely to be traced. Moreover, if the parent node is a super-spreader, then it would appear in many recent contact lists (from different nodes) and becomes much more likely to be contact-traced. Imagine an infected node $i$ that has spread the disease to $n$ of its neighbors. If there is a constant probability ($p$) for $i$ to be traced (included in $C'$) then the probability of $i$ being contact-traced is $1 - (1 - p)^{n}$. In other words, super-spreaders are more likely to show up, potentially multiple times, in the list of recent contacts to be traced even in practical scenarios. Based on this idea, we hypothesize that contact tracing is highly effective in heterogeneous networks, especially if it is allowed to move at least two steps deep—immediately identifying and isolating the offsprings of the identified parents—and both backward and forward, in the contact network.
![(a) The degree distribution of the infected nodes and that of the parents of randomly sampled (1%) infected nodes at $t=1.0$. They closely follow the distribution $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. (b) The effectiveness of more realistic contact tracing in terms of hub-sampling. Even under more realistic scenarios where we cannot accurately identify the true parents, contact tracing reaches hubs effectively. Such tendency increases as we sort the list of nodes to be traced based on how many times they appear in the list and pick the most frequent ones. Parameters used in this simulation are: $p_s = 0.01$, $p_t = 0.5$, and $p_r = 0.5$. We run the simulation 50 times and sample the nodes of each type for each simulation. Then, we compute the degree distributions for the nodes. []{data-label="fig:degreedist"}](fig2){width="\linewidth"}
We test this hypothesis with simulations. First, we examine the degree distribution of the contact-traced nodes. We create a network with Barabási-Albert model [@barabasi1999emergence], with $N=10^6$ and $m=5$. We then run the SIR model with transmission rate $\tau = 0.1$, recovery rate $\gamma = 1$, and initial seed fraction $\rho = 0.0001$, by using the `EoN` package [@kiss2017mathematics]. At the early stage ($t=1.0$), we examine the degree distribution of all infected nodes (blue) and that of the parents of sampled infected nodes (red). As shown in [Fig. \[fig:degreedist\]]{}a, the empirical distributions closely follow the expected probability distribution.
We then simulate the contact tracing. Let us assume that there exists a true list of recent contacts, which always contains the parent. The actual contacts to be traced is obtained by sampling from this true recent contact list. This process can be described as following: (i) at time $t$, a fraction ($p_s$) of infected nodes will be identified and isolated (no further infection); (ii) for each identified node, we add the parent to the true recent-contact list and add others with probability $p_t$; (iii) we then sample nodes from this list with probability $p_r$ to create the actual list of nodes to be traced. As we merge the lists from many identified nodes, we keep the counts of each node’s occurrences; if there was a super-spreading event, the super-spreader is likely to appear multiple times in the list. This procedure cannot be as effective as the idealized perfect contact tracing. Yet, this scenario still samples hubs much better than acquaintance sampling (see [Fig. \[fig:degreedist\]]{}b). As we focus more on those who ranked high in the contact list, the effectiveness increases.
![ A small fraction of contact tracing $p_s \ll 1$ efficiently prevents a majority of transmission events. (a) Fraction of isolated individuals by case isolation and contact tracing. (b) The fraction of transmissions that are prevented ($\phi$) between $t$ and $t+\Delta$ ($t=3$ and $\Delta=0.5$). (c) Number of prevented cases per traced or isolated individual. We run the SIR simulations for 30 networks generated by Barabási-Albert model with same parameter used in Fig. 2 and $p_s \in [0,1]$. Each point indicates the value averaged over the SIR model simulations for the 30 generated networks. The translucent band indicates the 95% confidence interval estimated by a bootstrapping with $10^4$ resamples. []{data-label="fig:effectiveness"}](fig3){width="\linewidth"}
Let us now measure the effectiveness of contact tracing more directly. We focus on a single intervention at time $t$. At $t$, we perform a single course of the contact tracing procedure as described above (with varying $p_s$) and measure how many further infections can be prevented by contact tracing and isolation. We run the SIR model simulation on the network and examine the transmission events between $t$ and $t+\Delta$. Formally, we measure $$\phi(t, t+\Delta) = \frac{\hat{T}(t, t+\Delta)}{T(t, t+\Delta)},$$ where $T(t, t+\Delta)$ is the total number of transmission events that would have happened between $t$ and $t+\Delta$ if there were no intervention at $t$, and $\hat{T}(t, t+\Delta)$ is the number of transmission events that would not happen because they were from the contact-traced nodes. As can be seen in [Fig. \[fig:effectiveness\]]{}, even a tiny amount of contact tracing is highly effective at preventing further spreading. Even if we only detect 1% of currently infected nodes and trace their contacts, it is enough to prevent about half of the total near-future transmissions. The $\phi$ saturates close to 1 when only 5% of contact tracing (see [Fig. \[fig:effectiveness\]]{} inset). In other words, almost all further transmissions can be prevented by 5–10% contact tracing. This is primarily because contact tracing can efficiently identify super-spreaders; if we randomly sample infected nodes, they are much more likely infected from a super-spreader and thus likely lead us to the super-spreader.
We also examine the efficiency of contact tracing by measuring the number of prevented future cases per traced & isolated individuals (see [Fig. \[fig:effectiveness\]]{}c). The case isolation baseline refers to the intervention where we isolate only the infected individuals who have been discovered (with probability $p_s$ from all infected individuals). Unlike the isolation-alone strategy where every isolation is almost guaranteed to prevent further spreading, the contact tracing inevitably has to examine many healthy individuals. Therefore, contact tracing is almost always considered as a costly strategy unless the outbreak is at its very early stage. However, our results demonstrate that contact tracing can be even more efficient than case isolation even if the epidemic is well on the way. Because contact tracing is highly efficient at locating super-spreading events and super-spreaders, it can prevent a huge number of further transmissions even with a small amount of resource.
Our results indicate that contact tracing may be highly effective and efficient strategy particularly if it were to be performed at all. Contrary to the usual findings that suggest a substantial amount of contact tracing is necessary to control the epidemic [@hellewell2020feasibility], our results suggest that—if strong heterogeneity in contact structure is present—*any* amount of contact tracing is effective. Our results also indicate that the ‘cheaper’ contact tracing offered by digital contact tracing may hold even greater potential than previous suggested.
![The biased sampling is also in play in a bipartite network of people and gatherings. A high-degree gathering is more likely be “infected” and it is also more likely to be traced. Both sampling biases are roughly proportional to the gathering’s degree in the bipartite network. []{data-label="fig:bipartite"}](bipartite){width="0.75\linewidth"}
The same reasoning can be extended to the bipartite network of people and gatherings (see [Fig. \[fig:bipartite\]]{}; e.g. churches, grocery markets, or any spontaneous gatherings) [@sekara2016fundamental]. The recently-proposed privacy-preserving contact tracing protocols such as DP-3T [@dp3t] also works in terms of ‘gatherings’ by marking each temporal segment with a unique code (gathering) and propagating the identification of infected individuals through the past gatherings. Existing studies also support the formalism of people-gathering bipartite network. It has been shown that the human mobility follow regular routines, making it highly predictable [@song2010limits; @bagrow2012mesoscopic]. An important implication of these studies is that the biparite network between people and gatherings—such as public transportation system, groceries, religious services, or even ad-hoc corridor encounters—would be less dynamic than the network of human contacts and proximate encounters, making a static network model more plausible. Moreover, studies have shown that high temporal resolution proximity detection can clearly reveal the people-gathering structure [@sekara2016fundamental]. In this bipartite network, the degree of an individual roughly captures how mobile the person is across diverse sets of places and gatherings, and the degree of a gathering captures how large the gathering is. Let us use $G_0(x)$ again to denote the generating function of the individuals’ degree distribution, and $F_0(x)$ to denote the generating function of the gatherings’ degree distribution, where $$\begin{aligned}
G_0(x) &=& \sum_k p_k x^k,\\
F_0(x) &=& \sum_k q_k x^k.\end{aligned}$$ The transmission event happens from a person to others *via* a gathering. When we sample a gathering from an individual, the excess size of the gathering is generated by $$F_1(x) = \frac{F'_0(x)}{F'_0(1)} = \frac{1}{\sum_k k q_k} \sum_k k q_k x^{k-1},$$ because we are sampling an edge. Therefore, the probability distribution of the number of one’s neighbors through gatherings is captured by $G_0(F_1(x))$.
Let us assume that a gathering can be ‘infected’ by an infected individual (see [Fig. \[fig:bipartite\]]{}). If we were to sample from all infected gatherings, the probability distribution of the size of the gathering would be generated by $F_1(x)$. Yet again, because larger gatherings would produce more infections and thus more likely to be traced, the probability generating function for the remaining contacts for a gathering (except the original spreader and the identified individual from which the contact tracing is initiated) would be written as $$F_2(x) = \frac{F'_1(x)}{F'_1(1)} = \frac{1}{\sum_k (k^2 -k) q_k} \sum_k k (k-1) q_k x^{k-2},$$ in the case of perfect contact tracing. Applying the same logic above, we again expect that, even in more realistic scenarios, a small amount of contact tracing would be able to identify super-spreading events and prevent numerous further disease transmission events.
![ Effectiveness of contact tracing for people-gathering networks. We generate the networks using the configuration model with a power-law degree distribution with exponent 3. The fraction of gathering nodes are 25% for the left column (a-c) and 10% for the right column (d-f). (a,d) Fraction of isolated cases. (b,e) The fraction of transmissions that are prevented between $t$ and $t+\Delta$ ($t=3$ and $\Delta=0.5$). (c,f) Number of prevented cases per isolated case. []{data-label="fig:fig5"}](fig5){width="\linewidth"}
We test this hypothesis by running simulations of SIR model on bipartite networks. As is the case for the unipartite networks, tracing a small number of gatherings prevents near-future transmissions more effectively than case isolation and the efficiency of contact tracing is more pronounced at the beginning with small $p_s$. If we detect 10% of infected people and trace their gatherings, we can prevent approximately a half of near-future transmissions. The effectiveness for the contact tracing is more pronounced for fewer gatherings (i.e., each gathering has more people on average). In fact, if the 10% of nodes are gatherings in the bipartite network, we can prevent approximately twice more transmissions than that when 25% nodes are gatherings for $p_s=0.01$ ([Fig. \[fig:fig5\]]{}c and f).
Our results imply that the proximity-based digital contact tracing (e.g. DP-3T) can be exceptionally effective at identifying super-spreading events and subsequently preventing further transmissions from those who attended those super-spreading events, much more so than currently assumed.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
As we consider new privacy-preserving technologies that can help contact tracing efforts, it is also important to leverage known heterogeneity and sampling biases stemming from the underlying network structure of contacts. Our results show the need for (i) backward contact-tracing to identify the parent node of a detected case over the transmission tree and (ii) deep contact tracing to notify other recent contacts of this identified parent node. While this will result in a lot more notifications, it is a feature and not a problem per se: The goal is to identify potential super-spreading events that, by definition, imply many contacts. Moreover, given that multiple signals is particularly indicative of high-risk as shown here, such features can be potentially leveraged for better intervention strategies.
Current implementations of digital contact tracing, including the Apple and Google partnership [@apple-google] and the DP-3T proposal [@dp3t], are focused on a one-step process: Notifying previous contacts of an infected individual to take appropriate safety measures and get tested. They do not explicitly consider the fact that one of these previous contact is likely the parent node of the infected individual that might be infecting other. Considering the requirements for testing in many regions, it is unlikely for the parent node to be tested in time for the app to then notify its heavily-biased number of excess neighbours. Therefore, we urge the consideration of multi-step notification feature that can fully leverage the biases from the contact network structure.
Importantly, an implementation of our model does not necessarily necessitate any compromise in terms of privacy or decentralization of the contact tracing protocol itself [@cho2020contact]. One could also imagine a hybrid where previous notifications pushed to different devices are stored in a decentralized database and deep contact tracing is only undertaken once a given device has been notified more than a certain amount of time, thereby increasing its chance of being a parent node. The benefits of such network-based contact-tracing could be great, especially if accompanied by serious educational efforts for users to comprehend the science behind the intervention and the importance of their own role in our social network.
Acknowledgments {#sec:ack}
===============
The authors would like to thank M. Girvan, J. Lovato, and other organizers of Net-COVID program, which initiated the project. We also thank A. Allard, S. Lehmann, C. Moore, E. Moro, A. S. Pentland, and S. V. Scarpino for helpful discussions. L.H.-D. acknowledges support from the National Institutes of Health 1P20 GM125498-01 Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence Award.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Gabriel Ferreira, Christian K[ä]{}stner, Joshua Sunshine, Sven Apel, and William Scherlis'
bibliography:
- 'sigproc.bib'
title: |
Design Dimensions for Software Certification:\
A Grounded Analysis
---
Software certification by regulatory entities plays a fundamental role in defining and assessing the fitness of software systems in environments where failures can result in serious consequences. Software flaws can negatively affect business, environment, and society, for example, when confidential data are leaked or when medical devices emit excessive radiation [@therac25:1993; @dowson:1997; @risksToThePublic:2016].
Airborne and power plant systems have a long regulatory history, and their requirements and development processes are better understood than those from emerging domains such as software-based medical devices, IoT ecosystems, or self-driving cars. New guidelines are being discussed to address the challenges posed by these domains, but these are still incipient initiatives. There is much discussion but little agreement on how these domains should be regulated. There are many competing drivers for regulating a domain, defining standards, and establishing certification processes for software systems. For example, different stakeholders expect certification processes to:
- enhance the quality of products,
- specify software processes to guide development of products,
- guide requirements definition for certified products and define a common vocabulary among practitioners, and
- serve as a legal safe harbor.
At the same time, current certification schemes are often criticized for creating perverse incentives [@anderson:2001; @hearn:2004; @thomas:2007; @dodd:2012]. For example, Common Criteria allows vendors to select testing laboratories; vendors may then select laboratories that give “easy” evaluations, by charging less, being less thorough, or taking less time; contradicting the “enhance the quality of software products” goal of the certification efforts [@anderson:2001]. The value proposition of certification is also questioned. For example, even experts claim that [“*belief in the effectiveness of DO-178C and similar standards is superstition, not science or engineering*”]{} [@thomas:2007]. As a consequence, certification is sometimes seen as just a “tick the box” process and as an obstacle for selling products [@hearn:2004]. In cases where vendors are satisfied with the value proposition of certification efforts, there are still efficiency and scalability issues. For example, the long development cycles and certification time observed in the aerospace industry might be incompatible with the automobile industry’s expectations [@nhtsaFederalAutomatedVehicles]. Another common criticism of current certification approaches is that certification methods can be subjective and do not make use of the most powerful or cost-effective quality assurance methods to produce or evaluate evidence. In our study, we use *evidence* to refer to any artifact that is produced for quality-evaluation purposes. Software certification often focuses on evidence derived from documenting and manually analyzing requirements, development processes, and test protocols. Advances in software engineering techniques, for example, testing, theorem proving, and static analysis, which could mechanize evidence production and provide more guarantees, are only slowly adopted, if at all. Many argue that the next generation of certification standards must focus on making the use of such techniques ubiquitous to reduce subjective interpretation and increase objective production of evidence [@swForDependableSystemsBook; @maibaum:2008; @hatcliff:2009].
Despite all the tension around existing and upcoming certification standards, there is little public knowledge about what aspects of designing certification efforts are important or controversial. Domain experts are often familiar with a single standard and its evolution and many have published white papers and magazine articles [@lipner:1991; @hearn:2004; @keblawi:2006; @thomas:2007; @maibaum:2008; @rushby:2011; @kallberg:2012], often calling for change to a specific standard. However, domain experts have their own agenda and might not be aware of alternatives adopted in other domains or have a limited view of the conflicting forces at play.
Our goal is to step back and to compare two certification efforts based on the analysis of standard documents and on the perceptions of stakeholders involved with them in their everyday activities. Specifically, we performed a multiple case study [@yin:2009caseStudyBook] based on two certification standards: *Common Criteria*, which assesses security requirements of infrastructure and end-user software and devices, and *DO-178C*, which assesses safety requirements in software aerospace systems. We specifically chose standards from two distinct communities to elicit alternatives adopted by them and to increase stakeholders awareness of the conflicting forces at play on each community.
For this purpose, we cross-validated data from three sources: (i) interviews with [18]{} experts working with these standards in various roles, (ii) analysis of standards’ documents, and (iii) a survey of 11 papers discussing these standards (often white papers and magazine articles).
Our results contribute to an *analytical framework* grounded in data that can support the creation and revision of certification efforts. The framework elicits relevant design dimensions, their range of options, and the interactions that arise between options and the quality of certification efforts. We also characterize each standard in the framework as we identify their alternatives in the design dimensions, but also highlight points of contention, trends, and open questions for designers of future certification efforts. Our results are intended to better-inform decisions about software processes, techniques, and tools that affect certification efforts design.
Our paper does not intend to present or evaluate solutions for the design of certification standards (the evaluation on a new standard might be a 10-year agenda beyond the scope of a single paper), but it encourages further investigation and ground discussions with data from two important cases [@brooks:2010 ch. 13], which is a substantial step toward a testable theory and valuable in itself for the community.
In summary, we contribute
insights from interviews with [18]{} experts and cross-validated with analysis of the standards’ documents and a literature survey,
an analytical framework with design dimensions and interactions between them for creating and assessing certification efforts,
an analysis of two standards in the context of the framework; including design options collected from [18]{} interviews as well as from [13]{} papers written by subject-matter experts, and
discussion of challenges in certification efforts and implications for future standards.
Certifying Software Systems {#sec:certifyingSoftSystems}
===========================
Certification standards define the technical baseline for vendors to produce compliant products that demonstrate a set of desired quality attributes and for evaluators to judge their compliance to these attributes. In this context, software represents both the means and end of certification. Many certification efforts exist for various kinds of properties. Common Criteria [@commonCriteria:CC], DO-178C [@do178c], IEC 62304 [@isoIEC62304], and NIST RMF 800 Series [@nistRMF800], for example, play a leading role in the certification of infrastructure and application software systems, airborne systems, medical device software, and information security controls for systems and organizations, respectively. They differ in formality, adoption, and certification processes, with focus ranging from product requirements to life cycle development and maintenance requirements to organizational requirements.
Early certification standards with focus on product requirements optimistically expected that mathematical models and system design elements could enable the development of systems that were virtually free of safety or security violations [@thomas:2007; @yost:2007]. Certification standards in the safety community were inspired by hardware standards, often associating statistical failure rates with assurance levels to address the criticality of products. In contrast, certification standards in the security community were originally motivated by the proliferation of time-sharing computing, which replaced batch processing as a paradigm and defined multilevel computer security as field [@yost:2007; @yost:2015]. Today it is broadly accepted that it is unlikely to achieve the probability of failures level and the “vulnerability-free” status to which early certification efforts aspired [@lipner:2004; @thomas:2007].
More recent certification standards relax the “high-assurance” expectations of earlier ones. Instead of aspiring to guarantee the correctness of a system, they *provide the means to analyze the design and implementation of functionality by checking how particular requirements are met*; that is, they focus on specific requirements. For our study, we investigate two current and broadly used standards, *Common Criteria* and *DO-178C*, that follow this mindset.
Common Criteria {#sec:commonCriteria}
---------------
Common Criteria [@commonCriteria:CC] is an international computer security standard created to evaluate security attributes of products against security specification and requirements. Systems certified with Common Criteria are typically infrastructure software, such as databases, operating systems, and firewalls, as well as various software systems and devices for networking, trusted computing, digital signatures, smart cards, and biometric systems. Common Criteria originated from the U.S. TCSEC standard (Orange Book), released in 1982, and was later unified with the European ITSEC standard to provide mutual recognition mechanisms to products addressing international markets [@kallberg:2012; @lipner:2015birthAndDeathOrangeBook]. For Common Criteria, security requirements such as *information security principles* and *access control* are the main quality attributes of concern. Functional testing, vulnerability analysis, and secure development practices [@howard:2006:SDLbook; @commonCriteria:CC] are the main proxies for assessing security.
A certification in Common Criteria works as follows. A document called a *Security Target* defines the scope of an evaluation and describes a set of implementation-dependent security requirements. To achieve consistent standards across multiple products in one domain, *Protection Profiles* (PP) describe technology-specific and implementation-independent security requirements for many domains, such as operating systems, databases, and VPN clients. For example, a protection profile for Web Browsers specifies requirements for secure cookie handling, deleting browser data, and sandboxing the rendering process among many others [@niap2014browser]. The roles defined by certification with Common Criteria are:
developers/vendors produce the required evidence for a product evaluation, including the *Security Target*,
evaluators/testing laboratories are private companies that evaluate products in accordance with the policies defined by a certification scheme, and
meta-evaluators are responsible for the oversight of testing laboratories and to ensure consistency among them.
A typical evaluation process in Common Criteria works as follows:
the vendor identifies what evidence needs to be produced for a given set of security requirements,
the vendor produces a *Security Target*, the evidence that the product meets it, and submits both to a testing laboratory,
a testing laboratory then checks the compliance between the two and performs independent testing and vulnerability analysis of the product.
The standard defines seven levels of assurance for security requirements (EAL-1 to EAL-7), which require increasingly detailed documentation and assessment methods. For example, demonstrating that the implementation of a system corresponds to its design, as the *ADV\_TDS* assurance family specifies, can range from informal design description (EAL-2) to formal specification (EAL-7). *Protection Profiles* created in Europe specify assurance levels [@commonCriteria:CC] in their description that can be selected for evaluations according to customers need. However, *Protection Profiles* defined in the United States do not allow the selection of assurance levels and accurately specify the minimal set of requirements and assurance for a technology. Recently, evaluations conducted in the United States are accepted only if a product claims strict conformance with an approved Protection Profile [@niap2018faq].
DO-178C {#sec:DO178C}
-------
DO-178C [@do178c] is a commercial standard used to regulate the development and certification of software-based aerospace systems. It is currently used to evaluate airborne software systems by aviation authorities around the world. The standard is not freely available; so we joined the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) to gain access. DO-178C is a 2011 replacement of DO-178B (introduced in 1992). For DO-178C, general *safety, reliability* and *predictability* are the key quality attributes of concern. As a proxy for these qualities, *traceability* between requirements and source code and *deterministic resource consumption* are evaluated.
The roles defined by certification with DO-178C are:
developers/vendors are usually aerospace manufacturers and suppliers; they produce the required evidence for product evaluation,
evaluators/designated engineering representatives (DERs) are private companies or public agencies accredited by aviation certification authorities; they evaluate products in accordance to the standard throughout four stages of development [@faaJobAid], and
meta-evaluators/certification authorities oversee designated engineering representatives and their processes.
For uniformity, from now on we refer to “designated engineering representatives” as “testing laboratories.”
A typical evaluation process in DO-178C is similar to one in Common Criteria—vendors generate evidence and evaluators check the evidence to qualify the associated system. A difference is that DO-178C defines five levels of assurance determined by safety assessment processes, from A to E with decreasing degree of criticality. These levels reflect the maximum severity of failure in the software under evaluation and, consequently, the thoroughness of the evaluation process, as measured by the number of objectives met and the degree of independence required between development and assurance team to verify the objectives. For example, passenger entertainment and internet communications subsystems, being instances of low-criticality systems, are evaluated according to level E objectives.
Research Design {#sec:researchDesign}
===============
This study builds on the experience of the authors in engaging with diverse stakeholders from government and industry who are concerned with the development of confident assurance judgments. Initial discussions with stakeholders, often based in opinions rather than facts, motivated our grounded research approach based on interview data, literature survey, and certification standards document analysis.
We contrast two distinct software certification standards aiming at characterizing the design space [@tatar:2007designTensions; @brooks:2010; @shaw:2012] of certification efforts. Rather than generating a complete and bounded set of independent design options for designing certification efforts, we aim at start eliciting relevant design dimensions across two existing cases, namely Common Criteria and DO-178C. The characterization of a design space for certification efforts provides an analytical framework that can be used to inform technical discussions towards revising or designing new standards. Design space representations have long been used to codify knowledge about families of designs [@shaw:2012; @card:1990:DSInputDevices; @kern:2009:DSAutomotiveUI; @romer:2004:DSWirelessComm; @xie:2006:DS3DArch; @brun:2013:DSSelfAdaptSys].
Our investigation focuses on the comparison of two certification standard cases, namely Common Criteria and DO-178C, and is centered around two research questions:
**RQ1:** What are the design dimensions for certification efforts?
**RQ2:** How do design dimensions affect the quality of certification efforts?
=-1 To answer these two questions and to understand how design dimensions affect the efficiency and effectiveness of certification efforts, we combine qualitative interviews of domain experts with iterative data analysis. We use this method because it allows us to combine in-depth open-ended inquiry with focused data analysis. This allows insights to emerge iteratively and enables us to have more control over the data being constructed in the study than other methods [@charmaz:2006ConstructingGTbook]. A survey, for example, cannot provide the same opportunities for reflection and would require an upfront theory [@shull:2007guideAdvancedEmpiricalSEBook]. We follow standard methods of qualitative research that grounds results and discussion in data, but do not claim to follow any grounded theory model because we start our study with a preconceived set of comparison criteria.
Our paper aims at contrasting two communities/standards and at presenting cross-case insights. We gather opinions from practitioners in different roles, organizations, and countries, aiming to include diverse backgrounds and experiences. We look beyond a single standard to understand the broader context, aiming to achieve *theoretical replication* [@yin:2009caseStudyBook]. As characterized by Yin, the goal with theoretical replication is to study important cases that can contribute to analytic generalization and provide significant insights for further research rather than achieve statistical generalization. Instead of discussing each case individually, we aim at examining differences in processes and outcomes of certification efforts across communities and at presenting *cross-case* insights and conclusions about their design.
In the rest of this section, we provide a more detailed description of:
our research method based on interviews and content analysis,
our participant recruitment strategy,
our paper selection process for the literature survey, and
threats to validity.
Research Method {#sec:researchMethod}
---------------
As is common in qualitative exploratory research, we proceeded in multiple iterations. We started conceptualizing our prior understanding from informal discussions about software certification into a list of [criteria]{} for further study. Next, we studied the documents of both certification standards and performed a literature survey on both standards, applying and refining the list of [criteria]{} (see Appendix \[apdx:analysisStdDocuments\]). We then used these [criteria]{} to derive initial interview questions and conducted interviews with [18]{} experts that worked with the standards in different roles (see Appendix \[apdx:interviewScripts\]). We interleaved coding and analysis of the interview transcripts with revising our questions catalog. After concluding all interviews, we again analyzed all documents to identify common themes and coded all interview transcripts and papers. We describe the specifics of each step next. Figure \[fig:method-overview\] shows an overview of the followed research method.
![Overview of our research method: from the initial standard document analysis, to interviews and literature survey, to the final design dimensions and qualities.[]{data-label="fig:method-overview"}](overview-analysis-crop.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
First, we collected a set of [criteria]{} that could be used to guide our comparison of certification efforts (see Table \[tab:setofCriteria\]). These [criteria]{} represent potential points of discussion about certification efforts and were based on our experience and on prior discussions with stakeholders in the field. It was the very motivation of this study to confront ours and their beliefs and preconceptions [@devanbu:2016], approaching observations around certification efforts more scientifically by grounding them on data . Our initial set of [criteria]{} was:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality attributes addressed; level of quality assurable.
Validity of certification results.
Reliability of evaluations and certification results.
Process phase where evaluation activities are undertaken.
Evaluator access to intellectual property and artifacts.
Role of architectural decisions and implementation choices.
Process indicators vs. examination of development artifacts.
Reusability of evidence from prior evaluations.
Diversity of kinds of evidence to support judgments.
Up-front investment and ongoing cost.
Benefits to cost, schedule, and risk management.
Enhancements to engineer productivity.
Composability of certification artifacts and results.
Support for certification of ecosystems (libraries, frameworks).
Skill requirements for developers and evaluators.
------------------------------------------------------------------
: Initial set of [criteria]{} used to design our study.
\[tab:setofCriteria\]
Second, we analyzed the latest editions of the Common Criteria and DO-178C standards (a total of over 1300 pages) [@commonCriteria:CC; @commonCriteria:CEM; @do178c]. The process of reviewing the documents involved understanding the standards and mapping relevant parts from the documents to the [criteria]{} we initially identified in our set. For example, regarding the “Reliability and validity of certification results” [criteria]{}, we identified that the language used by Common Criteria [@commonCriteria:CC] to define how evaluators should assess products design leaves much room for interpretation: [“*The evaluator shall determine that the design is an accurate and complete instantiation of all security functional requirements.*”]{} This specific example motivated us to ask questions about practices around inter-rater reliability during our interviews.
Third, we used the initial set of [criteria]{} and the technically-informed analysis of standards’ documentation to guide the design of our semi-structured interviews. We designed our interview questions to allow differences around the [criteria]{} between the two standards to emerge during the interviews. During an interview, we start with an open question such as ‘*How long does a typical certification process take?*’ and proceed from there based on the experiences of each interviewee. We shared interview guides across standards, but designed separate interview guides for developers and evaluators (see Appendix \[apdx:analysisStdDocuments\] for examples of questions asked to evaluators). We conducted interviews with [18]{} participants (see Section \[sec:participantRecruitment\]) experienced with the standards. We refined our interview questions after each interview and more substantially after a thorough data analysis conducted after nine interviews. We aimed to identify topics that we had not covered in the interviews or for which we received evasive, vague, or conflicting answers from participants. Interleaving interviews and data analysis was essential to grounding the differences across the two standards in practice.
Finally, in addition to interviews, we read and coded white papers, experience reports, and opinion papers by consultants and subject-matter experts (see Section \[sec:paperSelection\] for details). We used the surveyed papers as additional interview data by extracting interesting comments, insights, and quotes about issues with certification efforts that map back to our initial set of [criteria]{}.
Data Analysis
-------------
Our data analysis was based on Qualitative Content Analysis [@schreier:2012QCAbook] and we used coding both as reductive and conceptual device. That is, we use it to reduce our text-based data from interview transcripts and from surveyed papers, but also to draw connections between our data and the set of [criteria]{} relevant for standard comparison. The goal was to build a coding frame to structure data obtained from the cross-validation of our set of [criteria]{} with interview transcripts and surveyed papers. All interviews and papers were coded by at least two authors and all new or conflicting codes that emerged were discussed and merged when necessary.
To explain in more detail how we built the coding frame obtained from the analysis of interviews’ and surveyed papers’ raw data, we will use an example of the design quality **Reliability**. To build our concept-driven coding frame [@schreier:2012QCAbook p. 84], we first used our initial set of [criteria]{} as code categories, as described in Table \[tab:setofCriteria\]. The categories from the initial coding frame were unstructured, directly reflecting the set of individual [criteria]{} we identified during the discussion phase. Next, we refined these categories iteratively using the raw data we collected from the standards documents, interview transcripts, and papers. We constantly revised our coding frame while incorporating new interview data to our analysis, generating new categories and sub-categories, but also merging old ones. We eventually applied a hierarchy to the coding frame to enable better and deeper comparisons. For example, this allowed us to classify the top-level categories of our coding frame into design dimensions and qualities, which are the central points of discussion in this paper. Figure \[fig:coding-frame\](a) illustrates how the raw data is abstracted to codes and (b) shows a slice of the hierarchical coding structure showing **Reliability** as the top-level category.\
[**Raw data:**]{} [“*So, we really said, “How do we add value” How do we gain assurance so that we can truly mutually recognize these evaluation activities? And that’s when **we decided that review of source code was risky to vendors, was time-consuming and expensive to evaluation facilities, and it really did not give us the confidence that we needed because we had no sense of consistency**.*”]{}\
[**Code:**]{} *Subjectivity in source code evaluation*;\
[**Categories:**]{} **Reliability**, **Access to Evidence**.\
From this code, which summarizes the snippet in bold font extracted from the quote, we inferred that the discussion is about reliability among evaluators (**Reliability**), but about the use of*source code*, which relates to the kinds of evidence available to evaluators and to how they are manipulated by evaluators (**Access to Evidence**).
![Example of code and categories obtained from iterative content analysis of textual data, which includes interview transcripts and literature papers (a) and a slice of the final coding structure after codes and categories have been merged and organized hierarchically (b).[]{data-label="fig:coding-frame"}](coding-frame-crop.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Participant Recruitment {#sec:participantRecruitment}
-----------------------
We interviewed [18]{} experts with experience in either certification standard in different roles and from different backgrounds (i.e., not all from the same organization). Given the sensitive and political nature of the topic, recruiting participants was significantly more challenging than in our prior interview studies on software engineering topics, but still within the range of what is considered acceptable in high-quality research [@creswell:2008:researchDesign; @mason:2012:howManyInterviewsIsEnough p. 189]. We reached out to additional potential participants using public listings of testing laboratories, contacting companies with certified products, contacting people mentioned in publicly available reports, and used our professional connections to find participants. We did only marginally rely on our professional network to conduct the study (5 out of [18]{} participants).
As part of the recruiting e-mail, we explained the purpose of the study, asked them about their experience with the standards, and asked to schedule phone or Skype calls with them. After agreeing to participate, we conducted interviews, each lasting 30–40 minutes. With participants’ consent, all interviews were recorded and later transcribed. Table \[tab:participants\] lists our participants, their roles in the certification process, and standard expertise. Participants were from 14 different organizations, from seven different countries.
Codes Role Expertise
-------------------------- ---------------- -----------
CC1, CC6, CC7 Developer CC
CC3, CC4, CC5, CC9, CC10 Evaluator CC
CC2 Meta-evaluator CC
CC8 Policymaker CC
DO1, DO3, DO4, DO6, DO8 Developer DO-178C
DO2, DO5 Evaluator DO-178C
DO7 Meta-evaluator DO-178C
: Interviewees and their role in the certification process.
\[tab:participants\]
Standard Citation
----------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Criteria [@hearn:2004; @maibaum:2008; @lipner:1991; @keblawi:2006; @lipner:2015birthAndDeathOrangeBook; @lipner:1999; @shankar:2004]
DO178C [@thomas:2007; @dodd:2012; @rushby:2011; @heimdahl:2007; @moy:2013testingFormalVerif; @hatcliff:2014]
: Surveyed papers that reflect on either social, technical, or economic aspects of software certification.
\[tab:literaturesurvey\]
Literature Survey {#sec:paperSelection}
-----------------
To complement our interviews, we conducted a literature survey and selected white papers, experience reports, and opinion papers that discuss practices, challenges, and solutions to problems related to software certification. Our paper selection is targeted, since we focus on papers that *reflect* on either social, technical, or economic aspects of software certification. In total, we selected [13]{} papers, seven papers discussing Common Criteria and six papers discussing DO-178C (see Table \[tab:literaturesurvey\]).
We searched the web (Google Scholar) and digital libraries (IEEE Xplore, ACM), using “*Common Criteria*” and “*DO-178C*” as the main keywords and went through the first 100 results and read each paper’s title and abstract, discarding clearly out-of-scope items. That is, we intentionally surveyed papers that *critically reflect* on certification standards and their processes and discarded many papers that:
- only provide an overview (and explain the basics) of each standard,
- only lists changes in certification processes overtime, or
- only discuss narrow technical aspects of a particular standard.
Furthermore, we used snowball sampling to identify further relevant papers from the reference list of papers as we read them and added two papers suggested by our interviewees. The distinctiveness of the standards’ names reduces the risks of missing important papers. After having downloaded each selected paper, we transform them into text and analyze them as interview transcripts.
Threats to Validity
-------------------
Our study may suffer from threats to validity commonly found in qualitative studies.
Regarding external validity, one needs to be careful when generalizing beyond the results of analysis of the two standards. The differences between the standards may be limited since the reasons they were selected were the same—their community, their popularity, and the availability of data about them.
Regarding internal validity, one needs to be careful about potential theory, researcher, and selection biases. Our *initial set of criteria* to compare standards—obtained at early stages of research as a result of informal conversations with stakeholders—guided our entire collection and analysis processes. We, however, have not forced the opinion data obtained in interviews and literature survey to match the initial set of criteria, allowing new criteria to emerge and old criteria to be refined in our analysis. Our theoretical background about certification processes, and more specifically about the two certification efforts, could affect the researcher interpretation during standard document analysis, data collection, and data analysis. When analyzing standard documents with fresh eyes—like we do in this study—we increase the chances of a researcher to perceive differences across cases, but also increase the potential for misunderstandings about the studied topic. Even though we have not observed substantial coding disagreements and have worked together to settle small ones, one needs to be careful when generalizing the reliability of coding results since only a pair of researchers was involved in each transcript analysis.
Our results may be affected by selection bias, since the opinions from who have not agreed to be interviewed—who found the matter too sensitive to speak with researchers— and from who have not written papers about their experiences may have had different opinions and insights about the certification standards. The distribution of participants is slightly skewed toward Common Criteria. When analyzing the distribution of interviewees roles, the distribution is skewed toward evaluators for Common Criteria and toward developers for DO-178C. This was not intentional and can be possibly explained by the availability of public information about testing laboratories and by our broader personal network of software engineers working on aerospace industry. The qualitative nature of our analysis and results should only be mildly affected by this potential bias.
Certification Quality Aspects {#sec:correctness}
=============================
From our combined analysis of interviews, standard documents, and literature, we identified [seven]{} *design dimensions* and [ten]{} *design qualities* that affect certification efforts. The set of dimensions and qualities as well as their relationships were derived from the top-level categories of our resulting coding frame, as explained in Section \[sec:researchMethod\]. In this study, *design dimensions* refer to ranges of alternatives in the design space from which a designer can explicitly make decisions about properties of the software products being certified, the certification processes and the roles vendors and evaluators played in them, and the standards themselves. Alternatively, design qualities refer to ranges of outcomes in a design decision-making process. That is, *design qualities* can be interpreted as independent variables of the design process that uses *design dimensions* as dependent variables. Table \[tab:dimensions\] describes the ranges for the found *design dimensions*.
The final codes in our analysis included both design dimensions and qualities. We chose to organize and present our results in terms of the relationships between them, using design qualities as indexes. Each following sub-section of the paper discusses a design quality, in which we discuss the studied standards in context and provide grounded data about current practices and trends around the identified *design dimensions*. Table \[tab:dimensionsQualities\] summarizes the relationship between the identified dimensions and qualities, where rows represent design qualities and the columns represent dimensions. The presence of an [ ]{} or [ ]{} in the table indicate a positive or negative interaction between them. For example, in a hypothetical situation where one wants to maximize the reusability of evidence across product evaluations, explicitly choosing to increase evaluation frequency can facilitate it. The [ ]{} indicates that no clear relationship was identified, and further investigation is necessary. The absence of an arrow/discussion between a dimensions and a quality does not imply that an interaction does not exist (neither implies that it exists), but only that the topic was not identified in our interviews or literature for the two studied standards. The following sub-sections contain both nuanced discussions of the results—which include viewpoints collected from [13]{} papers and [18]{} interviews—and our interpretation of the results. Table \[tab:dimensionsQualities\] intends only to roughly outline the findings—which is consistent with case study research [@flyvbjerg:2006].
After presenting our results, we discuss implications about the actual development and evolution of certification efforts and explain how stakeholders could benefit from our analytical framework in Section \[sec:discussion\].
**Name** **Description**
----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Formality** How formal are the types of evidence supported by the standard; ranges from informal types often produced manually by developers (e.g., documentation, informal diagrams) to testing, to more formal and sound techniques (e.g., proof-carrying code and proof checkers).
\[.4em\] **Automation** How automated is the process of producing and evaluating evidence; ranges from manual (involving interpretation and subjective judgments) to fully automated (being directly extracted from software artifacts).
\[.4em\] **Composition** How much support to composition is defined by the standard; ranges from none, to coarse-grained (e.g., OS+DB), to fine-grained (e.g., plugins).
\[.4em\] **Access to Evidence** How much access to evidence evaluators have; ranges from incomplete (e.g., sample-based or black-box testing) to full access (e.g., source code).
\[.4em\] **Involvement Style** How early in the development process are evaluators expected to be involved; ranges from early pre-development involvement to after-the-fact.
\[.4em\] **Evaluation Frequency** How frequent are evaluations performed; ranges from one-time-snapshot evaluations to continuous monitoring where recertification is performed more frequently.
\[.4em\] **Standard Rigidity** How much flexibility vendors and evaluators have in creating alternatives to meet standard objectives; ranges from strict standard compliance to flexible compliance where they can innovate with alternative forms of evidence.
: Design dimensions and their range of options.
\[tab:dimensions\]
[1]{}[.2]{}
[rp[0.001cm]{}p[0.001cm]{}p[0.001cm]{}p[0.001cm]{}p[0.001cm]{}p[0.001cm]{}p[0.001cm]{}]{} & & & & & & &\
\
Validity & [ ]{}& [ ]{}& & [ ]{}& & & \
Skill Requirements & [ ]{}& & & & & & \
Reliability & & & & [ ]{}& & & [ ]{}\
Timely Certification & [ ]{}& [ ]{}& & & [ ]{}& & \
Certification Risks & & & & & [ ]{}& & \
Costs with Suppliers & & & [ ]{}& & & & \
Reusability of Evidence & & & & & & [ ]{}& \
Return on Investment & [ ]{}& [ ]{}& & & & & \
Trust Issues & & & & [ ]{}& & & \
Innovation & & & & & & & [ ]{}\
\
\[tab:dimensionsQualities\]
Validity {#sec:validity}
--------
Validity, that is, whether evaluations reach a sound assurance judgment, is of central importance and may depend significantly on the formality of evidence available to evaluators, on how automated the process to evaluate evidence is, and on how complete the evidence is available for evaluators to make that judgments.
**Formality [ ]{}** It is broadly recognized that more formal evidence and analyses generate more confidence in judgements validity, since it enables direct traceability between software artifacts and claimed properties [@swForDependableSystemsBook]. However, in practice, we found that these are seldom used, even though they are supported by standards (CC4, DO4). For example, the documentation of Common Criteria loosely specifies the form of evidence that developers are supposed to generate, but it mostly includes many forms of *informal evidence* (often produced manually by vendors)[^1], such as textual documentation describing requirements and informal design and architectural models, but also more formal evidence such as testing evidence, both test protocols submitted by developers and independent (black-box) test results conducted by evaluators (CC1, CC3, CC5). A current trend is to reduce the expectations toward textual documentation in favor of testing, decreasing the amount of informal evidence produced (CC3, CC8), and consequently increasing the validity of evaluation results. For DO-178C, testing-based evidence plays a major role in practice [@faa:SoftwareAssuranceSurvey]. The focus on testing is to provide evidence for code coverage (DO1, DO2, [@rushby:2011]) and traceability between source code and requirements (DO1, DO2, DO3, DO4). The absence of ‘dead code’, obtained either with line or structural coverage, is a highly valued property to support safety claims of higher criticality software products [@rushby:2011]. While testing cannot provide sound guarantees and should not be used alone in assurance judgements [@swForDependableSystemsBook], interviewees stated that it is effective in revealing issues in products (DO4, DO6, DO8). Formal methods and model-based approaches, although supported by the standard, are less common in practice, because they are expensive to be applied and until recently could not completely replace testing efforts (DO1, DO2, DO4, [@moy:2013testingFormalVerif]).
**Automation [ ]{}** Typically, multiple types of evidence are produced for evaluation reasons and evaluators have to simultaneously handle all of them to verify how security or safety requirements are met. We conjecture that automation can support evaluators in these tasks and increase the validity of judgements by mitigating the amount of human error when manually checking multiple evidence. For Common Criteria, participants state it is typical for evaluators to verify how good or complete the documentation is (both documentation on the system’s requirements, structure, documentation of process aspects) and to independently test the products’ security functionalities in a black-box fashion (CC1, CC2, CC4, CC5). The evaluation process is mainly manual, but one participant highlighted that some tests can be automated as long as they are not artificially creating results (CC4). DO-178C interviewees indicated that evaluators typically witness the execution of tests and check the traceability between requirements and implementation in the code (DO4, DO8). The strong traceability requirements defined in the standard enable the evaluation process to be more automated. As DO8 puts it: [“*the process must be repeatable and the traceability is an activity that you can redo.*”]{} **Access to Evidence [ ]{}** When evaluating products, evaluators need access to evidence to make sound assurance judgments. We conjecture that access to a more diverse and complete set of evidence increases the validity of judgments. For Common Criteria, despite many opposite claims we heard before this study, multiple participants from the private sector reported being fairly open with access to source code and other artifacts (CC1, CC9, CC10). That is, usually, they provide evaluators with access to any artifact they judge relevant for the evaluation. For DO-178C, *evaluators are seen in a stronger position than vendors*, since, by the mandated process, they must have access to all evidence produced by developers (DO3, DO5, DO6, DO7, DO8). As DO5 puts it: [“*The certification authority, they’re just in a strong position. They can say, ‘well, unless you provide the evidence, you won’t get the certification,’ So, the commercial company will make reasonable effort to provide the evidence.*”]{} In practice, to follow the mandated process while still protecting their intellectual property, vendors permit access to source code only in small samples (DO4, [@dodd:2012]) and at the development site (DO2, DO3, DO4) or forbid access to source code and make black-box testing mechanisms based on program inputs and acceptance criteria available for evaluators.
Skill Requirements and Training Costs {#sec:skillReqs}
-------------------------------------
The professional background, academic training, and experience of both developers and evaluators influence the quality of the evidence produced, the usefulness of evidence available for judgments, and the thoroughness in which the evaluation process is conducted [@voas:1998triangle]. We explored incentives vendors have to hire developers with specific skills to work on products and the average profile expected for evaluators to work on testing laboratories and certification authorities. This lays a foundation for discussing whether practitioners are ready to manipulate the types of evidence defined by standards and how (see Section \[sec:validity\]).
Our analysis does not show any particular concern about developers skills beyond current development practices used in industry. To work with Common Criteria, network engineering, informatics, computer science, and software engineering degrees are among the preferred ones for developers (CC4, CC5, CC9). Security certifications, experience as a vendor or in “hacking or studying programs” are also highly valued (CC3, CC4, CC5). In line with Common Criteria’s original heavy focus on producing informal evidence such as textual documentation (see Section \[sec:validity\]), *verbal and written competency* as well as *endurance* were also mentioned as important skills.
Concerning skills for evaluators, interviewees from both standards indicate that evaluators usually have from five to ten years of experience on average, although there is no experience requirement. Also, they mention that evaluators often receive training for acclimation to the testing laboratories processes, being especially important for newcomers (DO1, DO3, DO5, DO7, CC3, CC10).
**Formality [ ]{}** It is known that manipulation of more formal evidence and analysis requires specific skills or additional training from developers and evaluators [@swForDependableSystemsBook]. However, we found no indication that developers are hired primarily based on skills that align with a standard. Instead, it is more common to provide additional training when developers and evaluators need to develop specific skills to produce or manipulate evidence. For example, training is provided to teach DO-178C developers about strict programming practices that are important to meet safety requirements, such as deterministic resource consumption and nonexistence of dead code (DO1, DO7). Model-driven approaches and simulation are supported by the DO-178 and developers are usually prepared to use them to reduce testing effort. However, they often need to teach evaluators about these approaches and convince them the safety requirements are sill met (DO4, DO6). Interviewee DO4 stated: [“*as they are not part of the industry and not involved in any development, it’s very difficult to keep on the track of the industry.*”]{}
Reliability {#sec:reliability}
-----------
When standards allow assurance judgments to have a subjective component, it is important to assure that multiple evaluators reach consistent judgments, especially when they are competing on a market (see also Section \[sec:relationshipLabVendor\]). *Inter-evaluator reliability* especially becomes an issue when scaling the evaluation process to provide assurance for many products in a market that cannot be assessed by a single testing laboratory. The failure to achieve reliability might lead vendors to seek evaluators that facilitate the evaluation process but compromise its quality. We explored how evaluators, whether from different laboratories or countries, assure that they reach the same outcome for a particular evaluation.
Despite much effort, Common Criteria seems to struggle to achieve reliability among the different private testing laboratories, as indicated by interviewees that acknowledge observable differences between practices in the U.S and Europe (CC4, CC6, [@lipner:1999]) The standard is explicitly designed for mutual recognition of certification results, replacing the quest for mutual recognition of product evaluations ended in 1998 [@lipner:1999]. Hearn [@hearn:2004] mentions international harmonization and national investments as the main barriers for comparability of evaluations. In fact, some of our interviewees criticized the mutual recognition scheme as not functional (CC4, CC8) and infeasible for political and economic reasons (CC2). It is specially difficult to reach consistency with high-complexity systems and EAL-based evaluations (CC2, CC4, CC7, CC8), indicating a lot of variance in the judgments made by evaluators (CC2). Not even the oversight structure defined by the certification scheme (described in Section \[sec:commonCriteria\]) solves the problem. As CC2 states: [“*Vendors may give an argument, it may be wrong, but if you don’t have the design evidence to back up the argument then from an oversight perspective they look the same. You know the arguments are fine where one may be protecting the information and the other may not.*”]{} For DO-178C, interviewees paint a much more positive picture of inter-rater reliability. One interviewee reports perceiving evaluators from different countries [“*as doing the same things*”]{} (DO3), as a consequence of the explicit effort of testing laboratories, both from private companies and from public agencies, across the world to be more consistent. **Access to Evidence [ ]{}** We conjecture that by having access implementation artifacts, evaluators can eliminate the potential imprecision that emerge from the level of indirection and subjectivity present in informal evidence, potentially increasing reliability among assurance judgments. From the interviews, we observed that the use of implementation artifacts depends directly on the experience of evaluators (CC2, CC3, CC5, CC9, CC10), but most of them prefer not to use implementation artifacts in their judgements. CC8 explains: [“*Source code is not providing – source code review does not provide us an adequate return on investment for the risk associated*”]{}. CC8 continues: [“*We decided that review of source code was risky to vendors, was time-consuming and expensive to evaluation facilities, and it really did not give us the confidence that we needed because we had no sense of consistency*”]{}. In an effort to improve reliability among evaluators, Protection Profiles—and the test baselines defined by them—are becoming more common for evaluations (CC2, CC4, CC8). CC8 explains: [“*We really had to kind of come to a place where we looked at really kind of crystallizing what exact test activities did we want conducted as part of these evaluations.*”]{}\
**Standard Rigidity [ ]{}** We argue that by being more specific about how evaluation activities should be conducted and by investing in *harmonization* practices, certification efforts can achieve higher reliability. For DO-178C practitioners, the use of implementation artifacts does not seem to be an issue, since they feel safety properties can be more objectively assessed in the source code (e.g. in terms of code coverage) (DO4, DO7). In addition, participants mentioned many strategies that are used to promote common understanding between evaluators: policies and position papers that define the use of specific technologies, face-to-face meetings and workshops every year among evaluators from different countries, and continuous training are used to ensure everyone has the required competency to perform evaluations (DO4, DO5, DO7).
\
Timely Certification {#sec:time}
--------------------
Interviewees of the two standards had different views on the urgency of releasing products and on whether the evaluation process duration is an issue, with Common Criteria developers much more concerned about timely certification than DO-178C stakeholders.
**Involvement [ ]{}**. We conjecture that an early involvement of evaluators in the certification process can increase the chance of developing products that are already compliant to a standard, and consequently, reduce certification time.
For DO-178C, the evaluation time is aligned with the time required to develop complex aviation products, such as airplanes or satellites. The development can take years, usually from three to five depending on their complexity (DO6, DO7), giving vendors enough time to think and plan the evaluation of their products. Because vendors of aviation products do not have a choice of whether to certify their products or not, evaluators are involved in the development and certification from the beginning[^2] and vendors know that they cannot rush a product to the market. In contrast, Common Criteria vendors often have finished products, and sometimes sales pending on a certificate, which sometimes gives little flexibility for vendors to re-engineer their products and for evaluators to suggest security fixes at the design level. When vendors have sales pending on a certificate, the average one-year evaluation cycle is less attractive (CC3, CC6).
\
**Automation [ ]{}** We argue that automation can support certification efforts in reducing the average time to evaluate products. DO-178C certifications can take longer than usual at higher levels of assurance (DO3, DO4, DO6). This is driven largely by the coverage requirements of the standard (DO2, DO5, DO4), *which can be reduced with existent specialized tooling to automate traceability checks* [@wolf:2015]. While the safety community that builds aerospace products seem to be more stable regarding the automation of their processes, the security community seeks constant revisions of their standard to increase the use of regression testing in the evaluation process rather than relying on manual documentation review to enable a more expedite evaluation process.
\
**Formality [ ]{}** We conjecture that informal evidence tend to require more interpretation from evaluators, which can delay the evaluation of products. In fact, among causes for long evaluation cycles observed in Common Criteria certifications, interviewees report *reviewing issues and fixing non-conformities in evidence submitted to evaluation*. For example, it is known that it is difficult to keep security documentation aligned with complex evolving systems requirements and design [@keblawi:2006]. One goal behind the recent push toward Protection Profiles in Common Criteria is to reduce certification time from years to months by replacing the extensive amount of documentation required by *domain-specific test requirements* (CC4, CC8). A policymaker, CC8, characterized this in our interview as [“*we need to do test activities that are going to give vendors a good return on investment.*”]{}
Certification Risks and Evaluation Independence
-----------------------------------------------
When defining standards and certification processes around them, a key design decision is in when to involve evaluators in the design and development process, which can directly affect the risks and independence aspects of evaluations. There is a range of possibilities, from assessing already early designs to assessing only the finished product after the fact.
**Involvement [ ]{}** We argue that early involvement can have far greater influence in the success of a certification. For example, evaluators can encourage best practices, good designs, and modern tooling, rather than reverse engineer final products. At the same time, it can harm the evaluation independence aspects of certification efforts. The Common Criteria standard documents specify that final certifications happen after the fact, but that some portion of the evaluation or preliminary evaluations can occur already during design and development. In practice, in most cases, the evaluation is conducted after the fact, often when the vendor learns that certification is required to sell on specific markets. At that point, evaluators have none or little leverage to influence in a product’s design. The evaluators job is then performing after-the-fact gap analysis to find non-conformances between the specification and implementation of the products (CC3, CC4, CC5, [@shankar:2004]) and even producing evidence on vendors’ behalf (CC3, CC4). CC3 explains: [“*The way I like to put it is product vendors are in the business of making product. They’re not in the business of writing certification documents. So, as part of Common Criteria there are still some consultancy aspects.*”]{} However, there are exceptions and sometimes testing laboratories are able to provide informal guidance to vendors about how to achieve the security requirements before or while the product is developed (CC5), specially for high-budget projects. One of the interviewed evaluators explained that especially “mature vendors”, who have experience with prior evaluations, start working with certification in mind starting very early in the development process (CC4), reducing certification re-work costs and risks. For DO-178C, interviewees confirmed what the standard only vaguely expects: audits and physical visits by evaluators are common starting early in the development of products (DO3, DO4, DO5, DO6, DO7). The frequency of audits increases as the criticality of products increases, with an average of three physical visits per year (DO6); High-criticality products receive the most attention from evaluators (DO4, DO5). Interviewee DO5 explains: [“*When we have a project that we really want to be successful, then we get involved very early in the project and look very carefully at the early stage, having the requirements and design reviewed, test readiness reports, review boards, qualification, and all that at great level of detail.*”]{}
Costs with Suppliers {#sec:composition}
--------------------
Another sore topic in our interviews was the costs involved in reusing of libraries, frameworks, and other artifacts from third-parties. A common strategy used in any software development, which includes certified products, is to reuse artifacts to reduce development time and cost. The support for composition mechanisms by certification standards is frequently discussed among practitioners and policymakers.
**Composition [ ]{}** It is well-accepted that reusing composable artifacts can reduce development time and cost. In certification, however, fine-grained composition actually increase costs and negotiation overhead with suppliers. Although challenging, the composition of functionality is common in practice and supported by both standards at a coarse level of granularity—e.g., composition of application software with a certified database system and a certified operating system (CC2, CC5, DO7, CC6, [@hatcliff:2014]). As CC5 puts it: [“*the developer is required to make a statement of compatibility and from it can be pretty much understood how the two products are connected, what functionalities the composite product uses from the platform.*”]{} In practice, composite evaluations have an expiration date to force periodic reevaluation of interactions among products (CC5). Fine-grained composition with third-party dependencies (libraries, services), though, is seriously challenging. The use of external dependencies is influenced by the size and the criticality of the products to be certified. High assurance components tend do avoid dependencies (CC1, DO1, DO2), whereas dependencies are more common in small and low-assurance products where they are not certified (CC1, DO2). DO2 exemplifies that the entertainment system in an airplane may use an uncertified streaming library. If a commercial component should be reused, a vendor can request safety or security evidence from the third-party supplier, often at a premium (DO3). If that component is not already certified, the vendor may need to provide own evidence for that component as well, increasing the cost of certification (DO7). In these cases, commonly is some negotiation between vendor and supplier, in which usually vendors end up paying suppliers for the costs of certifying their products (DO3). In other cases, for example, when vendors need to use certified libraries (e.g., math or logging), the library can be used after it has been modeled and simulated in a model-based development environment (DO2, [@heimdahl:2007]), such as SCADE [@boulanger:2015scadeBook]. For Common Criteria, policy-makers have an increased interest in having mechanisms to support fine-grained composition (CC8), for example, to enable a certified crypto module to be integrated into a larger product, such as a browser. There is already a synergy between FIPS 140 (a cryptography standard) and some Protection Profiles that support this kind of composition. However, there is still a lack of compositional assurance mechanisms to reduce the reliance on vendors to follow effective security engineering principles when composing commercial off-the-shelf products [@lipner:1991; @hearn:2004; @keblawi:2006]. Current mechanisms are limited to testing known interactions between products (CC2, CC5, CC6, CC7, CC8).
Reusability of Evidence {#sec:reuseEvidence}
-----------------------
A common concern in our interviews were issues regarding the maintenance of certified products over time, from small incremental changes to larger changes between releases. Both standards have provisions for recertification, expecting developers and evaluators to perform an impact analysis, which includes adequately documenting the changes in the product being maintained.
The degree of reuse of evidence is a result of negotiation between vendors and evaluators and it usually involves arguments about the *extent of the changes* and the *time passed since the product was evaluated*. Again, trust between vendors and evaluators plays an important role (see also Section \[sec:relationshipLabVendor\]). For minor changes in certified products, participants report [“*reusing as much evidence as possible*”]{} (CC1, DO3, CC9, CC10). Previously unmodified parts of the product are not reevaluated (DO4, DO5, CC5, DO7) and regression tests play an important role supporting the identification of artifacts impacted by changes (DO1, CC4, CC7). For major changes, a complete recertification is expected with each release (CC1, CC6, CC7). In Common Criteria, significant changes in a Protection Profile can require a complete recertification. However, grace periods exists with which a certification can be maintained despite smaller changes: [“*products can be maintained for two years before they have to be re-evaluated*”]{} (CC4). However, the situation is, at least, alarming when vulnerabilities are found in certified security products: [“*If your product uses an affected version of OpenSSL and it has already been certified or validated, you are not required to recertify it*”]{} [@corsecHeartbleedBlogPost]. Beyond the reuse of concrete evidence, the *reuse of knowledge* across evaluations emerged as a common topic in our interviews.
**Evaluation Frequency [ ]{}** We conjecture that by pushing evaluation frequency to what would be a continuous evaluation processes, rather than a one-time discrete one, could minimize the differences between versions of a certified product and potentially increase the reuse of evidence. Although provisions for recertification exists in both standards, practitioners still complain about the costs and duration of recertification (CC6, CC8, DO7, [@lipner:1991]). For example, certification is considered to have minimal value if the evaluation process takes more time than product life cycle. The current certification practices are incompatible with frequent releases that are increasingly adopted with the DevOps movement in large parts of the software industry. CC7 explains: [“*(rapid recertification) is going to matter even more because everything is going faster. My favorite example is containers. If you’re doing containers correctly, you’re talking about doing a build daily or even hourly in some cases*”]{}.
Return on Investment {#sec:returnOnInvestment}
--------------------
With certification processes being perceived as costly and slow, there is a question whether the perceived benefits justify the costs—whether certification has a positive return on investment. The literature reported that vendors do not believe that certification improves the quality of evaluated products or processes [@hearn:2004; @keblawi:2006; @maibaum:2008; @lipner:2015birthAndDeathOrangeBook]. Some of our interviewees report hearing the same complaints from vendors (CC3, CC6). At the same time, interviewees actually often have something positive to say about certification. For example, as direct benefits participants mentioned an increased understanding of the products by developers (CC1, DO1) and a noticeable quality improvement of evaluated products (CC3, CC6, CC7).
**Formality [ ]{}** We conjecture that more formal evidence would be considerably more expensive to produce and not provide good return on investment. However, DO-178C interviewees explained a positive feedback cycle in which certification costs pushed developers toward increased use of model-based approaches to verifying requirements before implementation, which also reduced rework of issues propagated to code and tests (DO3, DO4). There is also an incentive for developers to adopt such approaches to reduce testing efforts, though evaluators are not necessarily technically prepared to evaluate products using this kind of technology (see Section \[sec:skillReqs\]).
\
**Automation [ ]{}** By increasing the repeatability of processes and reducing development and evaluation costs, we conjecture automation can enable greater return on investment. For Common Criteria, some interviewees reported a significant value from the evaluation process, since test suites were expanded to satisfy more rigorous testing requirements [@shankar:2004] and many bugs were fixed during regression testing activities. (CC6, CC7). For example, CC6 mentioned how the Linux random number generator benefited greatly from going through certification and being extensively tested and reviewed in the evaluation process.
Trust Issues {#sec:relationshipLabVendor}
------------
Access to intellectual property (e.g., details of a proprietary encryption algorithm embedded in a security product), can cause real trust issues between vendors and evaluators in the certification process.
**Access to Evidence [ ]{}** We argue that requiring vendors to share more evidence, specially implementation artifacts, can generate trust issues between vendors and evaluators. For example, vendors might fear leakage of proprietary information to competitors by evaluators. However, we found that vendors can be fairly open about access to intellectual property or use other mechanisms to protect it, as discussed in Section \[sec:validity\]. Also, evaluators often prefer not to use implementation artifacts (see Section \[sec:reliability\], which potentially minimizes trust issues. One participant mentioned the use of implementation artifacts to protect testing laboratories from liabilities. CC5 explain: [“*we keep a copy of vendors’ encrypted source code to protect us in case of court disputes.*”]{} Most interviewees emphasize the importance of a trust relationship between vendors and evaluators that forms over time.
Innovation {#sec:innovation}
----------
Innovation plays an important role in certification efforts, since software represents both the means and end of certification. Software systems are frequently evolving or being replaced by more modern versions that contain new technology. Hence, it is expected that standards, process, and tools also evolve to correspond to systems being developed. There is also an interesting synergy between innovation and skills requirements. Developers and evaluators are resistant to change their practices, which can be an obstacle in evolving the standard (DO2, DO4, DO7). As discussed in Section \[sec:skillReqs\], DO-178C evaluators often have to be taught about more formal evidence and convinced by developers that the same safety guarantees hold with them. This limits the adoption of formal methods, model-driven approaches, and simulation in practice, since they expect specific technical skills from evaluators.
**Standard Rigidity [ ]{}** We conjecture that the lack of flexibility in a standard can hinder innovation and lead to its obsolescence (CC1, [@keblawi:2006]). In the past, [“*federal agencies have abandoned monolithic standards, because they lacked flexibility and led to expensive and complex acquisitions. Standards can prevent the use of highly desirable but nonconforming technologies and COTS products [@keblawi:2006].*”]{} Interviewee CC6 warns: [“*I think that is the danger is that the certification efforts don’t keep up with technology everyone’s gonna get waivers and no one’s gonna care*”]{}. In an attempt to mitigate this issue, standard revisions and policies are released to ensure that the latest technology gets out to end customers (CC8, DO7).
Related Work
============
Relevant work about certification standards is incorporated into our literature survey (see Section \[sec:paperSelection\]), discussed as part of our results (see Section \[sec:correctness\]), and summarized in this section. The literature underpinning our research design is described in sections \[sec:researchDesign\] and \[sec:relatedWorkDesignSpaces\].
Discussion of Common Criteria {#sec:relatedWorkCC}
-----------------------------
Several authors have critiqued Common Criteria since its conception, which provides context to why it has been and still is revised. Hearn [@hearn:2004] puts Common Criteria in question, sharing the pessimistic opinions of buyers and sellers about the perceived benefits of the Common Criteria certification. He suggests improvements around composition and pre-development certification to better address vendors’ needs and to enable products to be re-engineered if necessary. Keblawi and Sullivan [@keblawi:2006] provide an interesting perspective of Common Criteria being applied to aircraft traffic control systems. The paper also identifies a need for better security requirements at the system level, including composition of certified products. Lipner has long been involved in the community of security standards in the United States [@lipner:1991; @lipner:1999; @lipner:2015birthAndDeathOrangeBook]. More recently, Lipner [@lipner:2015birthAndDeathOrangeBook] presents an overview of the story of Common Criteria (and the old *Orange Book*), providing context for still current issues and aspirations for Common Criteria certification. For example, he highlighted the difficulty in achieving reliability among evaluations and frequently observed misalignment between documentation and actual product implementation. As examples of papers about Common Criteria that we excluded from the literature survey, we mention the work from Barabanov et al. [@barabanov:2014:russianCC], Kaluvuri et al. [@kaluvuri:2013:webServicesCC], and Kang et al. [@commonCriteriaForSmartTVs:2017], which discuss Common Criteria being applied by a different scheme/country and technical aspects around the evaluation of Smart TVs and Web Services, respectively. In addition, Shankar et al. [@shankar:2004] report their experience in evaluating Linux using Common Criteria. The paper mentions both challenges and positives aspects in conducting this process in open source. The frequent mismatches between code and design documentation is a barrier, but source code availability and promptness of the community in face of new vulnerabilities make evaluations of operating systems easier than in commercial settings.
Discussion of DO-178C {#sec:relatedWorkDO178C}
---------------------
Stakeholders in the aerospace domain seem much more confident in the DO-178C, but still often critique aspects of the standard, such as the exaggerated focus on hardware-level assurance, the subjectivity in certification audits, and the lack of automation in specific areas of the process. In particular, Thomas [@thomas:2007] reacts to a National Research Council report and calls attention to the infeasibility to provide the same level of assurance for software systems as it is usually done with hardware. He suggests improvements for DO-178C in three areas: requiring explicit claims about software properties, providing evidence to support claims at a practical and useful level (as also mentioned by Rushby [@rushby:2011]), and determining specific expertise to help developers/vendors in creating useful evidence for claims. Dodd et al. [@dodd:2012] discusses a set of issues regarding certification audits of airborne software, which includes subjectivity in certification processes and lack of predictability of the certification process. To mitigate these issues, they propose an statistical method for supporting certification audits based on continuous data analysis of projects’ lifecycle to trace potential deviations overtime. Moy et al. [@moy:2013testingFormalVerif] report their successful experience using formal methods to replace testing efforts in a production-like environment at Dassault-Aviation and Airbus, showing that it can be practical and faster with the support of more automated tools. More recently, Hatcliff and colleagues [@hatcliff:2014] identified current socio-technical challenges in developing and certifying safety-critical software-systems, after revisiting topics discussed earlier by Heimdahl [@heimdahl:2007]. New challenges are mentioned, but old challenges, such as requirements validity, composition, role of tools in certification, automation, and training for developers (often not prepared to produce safety evidence) are still pain points for certification. We also found other works that discuss DO-178C, but are mostly descriptive and focus on technical details. Gigante and Pascarella [@gigante:2012:formalMethodsDO178C] and Ulrich and Allen [@ulrich:2016:verificationTechniquesDO178C] are explain formal methods and verification techniques would fit the DO-178C certification process life-cycle, respectively. Hilderman [@hilderman:2014:DO178CBenefitsCosts] describes the major costs and benefits from DO-178C certification.
Other Certification Standards {#sec:relatedWorkOtherStd}
-----------------------------
As mentioned in Section \[sec:certifyingSoftSystems\], there are many certification efforts besides the two investigated in this paper, which includes NIST RMF 800 Series [@nistRMF800] for information security, IEC 62304 [@isoIEC62304] for software medical devices, IEC 60880 [@IEC60880] for nuclear software systems, IEC 15504 [@isoIEC15504] for software processes, IEC 25000 [@isoIEC25000] for software products functional quality, and many others defined by organizations such as ISO/IEC. Rodriguez et al. [@rodriguez:2015:hardLookSoftQuality; @rodriguez:2016:evalSoftProductFunctionalSuitability] report their experience in using IEC 25000 to evaluate the functional suitability of a web application for managing human resources in two opportunities: after and before some functional changes. The results shows a consistent level of compliance between functional elements evaluated and number of product requirements implemented. These standards could also be compared using a similar process and the same *initial set of criteria* we used to compare Common Criteria and DO-178C (see Table \[tab:setofCriteria\]), but the investigation of these standards are not in the scope of this paper.
Standards Comparison {#sec:relatedWorkStdComparison}
--------------------
There are also papers that perform standards comparison, but much more focused and fine-grained. Lahtinen et al. compared both IEC 60880 and IEC 61508 standards, aiming at identifying differences in strictness and scope between the “shall” requirements as defined by the two standards. The results indicate that such fine-grained comparison is difficult, but they could still identify that even though the two standards are fairly similar, they complement each other and should be used together to achieve higher safety assurance. Hawkins et al. [@hawkins:2013:assuranceCasesDO178C] investigated differences in certifying a wheel braking system when using a prescriptive approach (DO-178C) and when using assurance cases. The authors suggest linking assurance cases and DO-178C processes to increase safety assurance, since using assurance cases alone might be challenging, especially for vendors without experience in developing cases. Our study complements these papers by contrasting two distinct standards, which contributes to a broader discussion about certification efforts across communities. We are not aware of any other papers that compare standards across communities, focusing on contrasting cases to confront community-specific culture.
Design Spaces {#sec:relatedWorkDesignSpaces}
-------------
Design spaces have been widely studied by the design community, where exploring alternatives more systematically is considered good practice [@shaw:2012; @woodbury:2006:DSWhiter; @maclean:1991:DSElementsAnalysis]. Designers are often described as explorers that use their abilities to assess design options and make informed decisions based on the trade-offs that these options entail. With our study, we attempt to provide an initial contribution to building a design space for software certification standards, so that stakeholders can also make informed decisions when creating or updating standards, empowering them to reason more systematically about the options in the space, similar to how many other areas have done in the past with architectural styles [@shawClements:1997], computer input devices [@card:1990:DSInputDevices; @kern:2009:DSAutomotiveUI], wireless communication [@romer:2004:DSWirelessComm], 3D architectures [@xie:2006:DS3DArch], and self-adaptive systems [@brun:2013:DSSelfAdaptSys].
Reasoning About Certification Efforts Design
============================================
Our grounded analysis of both literature and interviews with stakeholders in two certification standards can provide initial unbiased guidance to stakeholders, including practitioners, testing laboratories, policymakers, academics, government agencies, or anyone in a position to influence decisions about certification standards and processes, regarding the many complex choices and implications involved in designing certification efforts.
As already discussed in Section \[sec:correctness\], our paper does not propose to generate a complete bounded set of design dimensions and qualities that affect certification efforts, but to contribute the foundation toward a theory that can explain the relationships between them. In this specific case, a resulting theory should resemble the contents of Table \[tab:dimensionsQualities\], which describes positive and negative interactions between design dimensions and qualities.
Even in its initial development stage, we argue a theory like this can be useful to support reasoning of the design decisions that can influence the result of certification efforts. The following outlined steps (and the hypothetical scenario described) exemplify how one could use a theory in concrete scenarios while creating or revising a certification standard:
1. select a quality of interest;\
*If a member of certification standard committee decides vendors (developers) should have freedom to innovate with new tools and assurance techniques (for example, to ensure that compliance processes do not become obsolete), they would go to Table \[tab:dimensionsQualities\] and lookup the **Innovation** quality row;\
*
2. check which dimensions affect it;\
*Then, our results would indicate a relationship between **Innovation** and **Standard Rigidity**. In this case, in order to increase the opportunity for innovation, they would have to make the standard more flexible in terms of compliance processes, tools, or technology;\
*
3. for each dimension that affects the selected quality (selected in step 1), reason about how other qualities are affected;\
*In our scenario, the results would indicate that adjusting **Standard Rigidity** (for example, by making a standard more flexible) could indirectly lead to negative implications on **Reliability**. By knowing the consequences of making a certification standard less or more rigid, one can reason about solutions that minimize reliability issues while maintaining the standard evolving along new technological trends.*
The outlined steps (and the hypothetical scenario described) shows how a theory—even in its early stages of development—can be used to reason about the trade-offs involved in designing certification. While simplistic, the described scenario highlights the potential of the theory to highlight direct and indirect relationships between design dimensions and qualities. Finally, we call for attention that stakeholders should not only use the summarized results in Table \[tab:dimensionsQualities\] to make decisions, but also consider text containing the nuanced discussions of the results and decide for themselves, considering the context they are inserted, whether the theory applies.
Conclusion {#sec:discussion}
==========
As our results shows, we have identified many dimensions and qualities that can affect the design of certification efforts. The options available in each design dimension have distinct implications and can directly influence the technical, social, and economic qualities of certification. More investigation is necessary to elicit other relevant design dimensions, disambiguate relationships between them, and confront our preliminary results. However, our grounded analysis of both literature and interviews with stakeholders in two certification standards can provide initial guidance to stakeholders about the many complex choices and consequences involved in designing certification efforts.
[**Implications.**]{} More generally, observations about one particular standard can be used by stakeholders in another standard to rethink about their own certification processes, techniques, and practices. Also, observations from individuals that play one particular role in the certification process can provide a distinct perspective to stakeholders in different roles, increasing their awareness about issues and enabling them to think about alternative incentives to address potential issues in their certification processes. Specifically,
developers and vendors of one particular standard can now have a distinct perspective of techniques used in another standard, which enables them to reason about the applicability of the techniques in their context and about how it could affect their certification processes and results quality (e.g., DO-178C requirements/code coverage could be practical for Common Criteria vendors to mitigate the subjectivity in their source code evaluation),
evaluators and meta-evaluators can now understand how developers and vendors in a different domain react to standard compliance requirements and what are their practices when producing evidence, which can enable evaluators to develop policies that can refine standards to prevent misuses or abuses of techniques to evade these compliance requirements,
policy-makers can directly use our results to understand trade-offs in certification and make decisions that affect emergent certification initiatives for IoT ecosystems, self-driving cars, wearable medical devices, and others.
New standards for self-driving cars, for example, are still being discussed. The U.S. Department of Transportation recently released guidelines to self-driving cars and highlighted the importance *“to offer solutions that the industry can implement”* [@nhtsaFederalAutomatedVehicles]. The same document describes their expectations toward software updates: *“manufacturers will likely provide software updates for motor vehicles well after they are manufactured and certified.”*, suggesting the need for fast and automated re-certification. Our results show that the studied standards are not ready to address this need, since cars often have a significant shorter development cycle when compared to airplanes and re-certification procedures still heavily rely on manual change impact analysis techniques. We hope that our analytical framework can provide a starting point into such a discussion and collaborate with initiatives of certifying software systems across recent domains such as IoT ecosystems, self-driving cars, wearable medical devices, and others constantly arising in our society.
[^1]: As opposed to *formal evidence*, usually derived from software artifacts (e.g., proofs generated from proof-carrying code or requirements coverage obtained from code coverage analysis).
[^2]: *Stages of Involvement* audits (SOIs) are expected throughout the software life cycle of a project [@faaJobAid].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The super-Neptune exoplanet WASP-107b is an exciting target for atmosphere characterization. It has an unusually large atmospheric scale height and a small, bright host star, raising the possibility of precise constraints on its current nature and formation history. We report the first atmospheric study of WASP-107b, a Hubble Space Telescope measurement of its near-infrared transmission spectrum. We determined the planet’s composition with two techniques: atmospheric retrieval based on the transmission spectrum and interior structure modeling based on the observed mass and radius. The interior structure models set a $3\,\sigma$ upper limit on the atmospheric metallicity of $30\times$ solar. The transmission spectrum shows strong evidence for water absorption ($6.5\,\sigma$ confidence), and we infer a water abundance consistent with expectations for a solar abundance pattern. On the other hand, methane is depleted relative to expectations (at $3\,\sigma$ confidence), suggesting a low carbon-to-oxygen ratio or high internal heat flux. The water features are smaller than predicted for a cloudless atmosphere, crossing less than one scale height. A thick condensate layer at high altitudes (0.1 - 3 mbar) is needed to match the observations; however, we find that it is challenging for physically motivated cloud and haze models to produce opaque condensates at these pressures. Taken together, these findings serve as an illustration of the diversity and complexity of exoplanet atmospheres. The community can look forward to more such results with the high precision and wide spectral coverage afforded by future observing facilities.'
author:
- Laura Kreidberg
- 'Michael R. Line'
- Daniel Thorngren
- 'Caroline V. Morley'
- 'Kevin B. Stevenson'
title: 'Water, Methane Depletion, and High-Altitude Condensates in the Atmosphere of the Warm Super-Neptune WASP-107'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The composition of a planet’s atmosphere depends on where and how the planet formed. By measuring the inventory of atmospheric elemental abundances, we can shed light on important aspects of the formation process such as location within the disk and the relative accretion rates of gas versus solids [@oberg11; @fortney13; @madhusudhan14; @mordasini16; @espinoza17].
The warm Neptune WASP-107b is an intriguing target for atmosphere characterization for several reasons. It has an intermediate size between ice giants and gas giants, with a mass similar to Neptune’s and a radius close to Jupiter’s [$0.12\,M_\mathrm{Jup}$, $0.94\,R_\mathrm{Jup}$; @anderson17]. Studying the atmospheres of planets in this transition region will provide additional clues in the much-debated mystery of what stunts the growth of Neptune-size planets [e.g @pollack96; @dawson16; @frelikh17].
WASP-107b also has a relatively low equilibrium temperature compared to most other exoplanets that are amenable to atmosphere characterization (780 K, assuming zero albedo). This results in a distinct atmospheric chemistry from other well-studied systems: at low temperatures, the dominant molecular reservoir for carbon transitions from carbon monoxide to methane [@moses13]. Spectral features from both water and methane are accessible with current observing facilities, enabling a spectroscopic estimate of the carbon-to-oxygen ratio (C/O). Previous measurements of C/O have been challenging because they rely on broadband photometry or narrow wavelength coverage [e.g. @madhusudhan11; @line14; @benneke15; @kreidberg15b].
In addition, WASP-107b is one of the best targets discovered to date for atmosphere characterization. Thanks to its large atmospheric scale height and small, bright host star, the expected signal-to-noise for the transmission spectrum is comparable to the best studied benchmarks in the field (e.g. HD209458b). In this paper we report the first atmosphere characterization of WASP-107b: a near-infrared transmission spectrum measured with the *Hubble Space Telescope* (*HST*; Program GO 14915, PI L. Kreidberg).
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
We observed a single transit of WASP-107b with *HST*’s Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) instrument on UT 5-6 June 2017. The transit observation consisted of five *HST* orbits. At the beginning of each 96-minute orbit, we took an image of the target with the F130N filter (exposure time = 4.2 s). This direct image is used for wavelength calibration. For the remainder of the target visibility period, we obtained time series spectra with the G141 grism, which provides low-resolution spectroscopy over the wavelength range $1.1 - 1.7\,\mu$m. We used the NSAMP=6, SPARS\_25 readout mode (exposure time = 112 s) to optimize the efficiency of the observations, as determined by the `PandExo_HST` planning tool [@batalha17]. As is standard for WFC3 observations of bright targets, we used the spatial scanning observing mode, which slews the telescope in the spatial direction over the course of an exposure. The scan rate was 0.12 arcseconds/sec.
We reduced the data with the custom pipeline described in [@kreidberg14a], which we summarize briefly here. For each exposure, we extracted the spectrum from each up-the-ramp sample (or “stripe") separately using the optimal extraction algorithm of [@horne86]. We estimated the background from the median count level of pixels uncontaminated by the target spectrum (rows $5-250$, columns $5-515$). The stripe spectra were then summed to create the final spectrum. For each stripe, the extraction box was 80 pixels high and centered on the stripe’s midpoint in the spatial direction. We corrected the spectra for the changing dispersion solution over this aperture and small drifts over time ($<0.1$ pixel).
Light Curve Analysis
====================
The data analysis had two parts: the band-integrated “white" light curve fit and the spectroscopic light curve fits.
White Light Curve
-----------------
To create the raw white light curve, we summed each spectrum over the 181 pixels in the spectral trace. The white light curve has systematic trends that are typical for WFC3 observations [@zhou17]: the flux increases asymptotically over each orbit (the “ramp" effect) and there is a visit-long linear trend. The largest ramp occurs in the initial orbit (orbit zero), so we only fit data from orbits one through four in our analysis, following common practice. We fit the light curve with the analytic model of the form $F_\mathrm{white}(t) = S_\mathrm{white}(t)\times T_\mathrm{white}(t)$, where $S_\mathrm{white}$ is a systematics model and $T_\mathrm{white}$ is a transit model. We used the same systematics model as [@kreidberg15b]. We modelled the transit with the `batman` package [@kreidberg15a]. The model parameters are the orbital period $p$, time of inferior conjunction $t_0$, transit depth $r_p/r_s$, ratio of semi-major axis to stellar radius $a/r_s$, orbital inclination $i$, and the quadratic stellar limb darkening parameters $u_1$ and $u_2$.
### Star Spot Crossing
In our initial analysis, we noticed a bump in the light curve during orbit three that was not fit well with our model. We attribute this feature to a star spot crossing event, as WASP-107 is an active star and spot crossings have been observed before [@dai17; @mocnik17]. In our subsequent analysis, we gave the data in orbit three no weight in the fit. The amplitude of the spot crossing feature is 300 ppm, as illustrated in Figure\[fig:lc\].
### Final Fit
In our final fit, we fixed the transit parameters $a/r_s$, $i$, $p$ on the precise estimates from the Kepler light curve [@dai17]. We also fixed quadratic limb darkening parameters $u_1$ and $u_2$ on predictions from a PHOENIX model for a star with effective temperature 4300 K, calculated with the `limb-darkening` package from [@espinoza15]. We checked that the values we fixed were consistent with our estimates when we allowed them to vary freely. We also checked that the uncertainty in the stellar parameters does not affect the PHOENIX model predictions at the level of precision of our data: we varied the stellar effective temperature by $\pm100$ K from the published value and found that the transmission spectrum was not significantly changed. The remaining free parameters in the fit were $t_0$, $r_p/r_s$, and the systematics parameters for the visit-long and orbit-long trends.
For the best fit white light curve, the root-mean-square (rms) residuals were 93 ppm (excluding the star spot crossing), which is somewhat larger than the expected shot noise of 50 ppm. We attribute the excess noise to loss of flux off the edge of the detector, which can occur if there is variation in the position or length of the spatial scan. There is no evidence for correlated noise in the residuals, so to account for the excess noise we simply increased the per-point uncertainties by a factor of 1.7 to achieve a $\chi^2_\nu$ value of unity. We then used the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm to estimate parameter uncertainties [@foremanmackey13]. The chain had 50 walkers which each ran for $10^4$ steps with the first 10% discarded as burn-in. We tested for convergence by dividing the chain in two halves and confirming that they gave consistent results. The transit time was $t_0 = 2457910.45407\pm6\mathrm{e}{-5}$ BJD$_\mathrm{TDB}$ and the planet/star radius was $r_p/r_s = 0.14399\pm0.00017$.
Spectroscopic Light Curve Fits
------------------------------
We binned the spectrum into 20 spectrophotometric channels from 1.12 to 1.63 $\mu$m, shown in Figure\[fig:lc\]. We fit the light curves with the `divide-white` technique, which assumes that the light curve systematics have the same morphology at all wavelengths [@stevenson14c; @kreidberg14a]. For this method, the transit model $T_\lambda(t)$ is multiplied by the systematics vector from the white light curve fit ($F_\mathrm{white}/T_\mathrm{white}$), and rescaled by a factor $C_\lambda + V_\lambda t$. One advantage of this approach is that it removes the star spot crossing feature, enabling us to use orbit three with no additional correction. The amplitude of the feature has no detectable wavelength dependence at the level of precision of our data. As for the white light curve, we fixed some of the transit parameters on the best fit values from [@dai17]. We did not put put priors on the transit parameters because varying them simply shifts the spectrum up or down by a constant value. Since the planet’s 10-bar radius is a free parameter in our analysis of the spectrum, the absolute transit depth does not affect the retrieved atmospheric properties. In addition to fixing the transit parameters, we also fixed the limb darkening on the PHOENIX model predictions (coefficients listed in Table\[tab:transit\_depths\].
The final spectroscopic light curve fits had just three free parameters per channel: $C_\lambda$, $V_\lambda$, and $r_p/r_s$.
The best fit light curves have a median $\chi^2_\nu$ value of 1.16. We conservatively rescaled the photometric uncertainties for all spectroscopic channels such that the $\chi^2_\nu$ values are unity. We performed an MCMC fit to the light curves with `emcee`. For each light curve we ran a fit with 50 walkers and 1000 steps per walker, and tested for convergence as we did for the white light curve. The median transit depths and $1\,\sigma$ uncertainties are given in Table\[tab:transit\_depths\].
We explored several alternative choices for the spectroscopic light curve fits, but found that none of them made a significant difference in the transmission spectrum. In one test, we fit the spectroscopic light curves with the same analytic model we used for the white light curve. We also tested a white light curve systematics vector $S_\mathrm{white}$ from a fit that included the star-spot crossing orbit. The results from these tests are nearly identical to our nominal transmission spectrum (differing by $<0.5\sigma$ on average), except with a small constant offset due to the uncorrected star-spot crossing feature. This offset does not affect our final analysis because it is marginalized in the atmospheric retrieval with the 10-bar radius parameter (see §\[sec:retrieval\]).
We also fit for a linear limb darkening parameter rather than fixing the limb darkening on the PHOENIX model values. We found that the fitted limb darkening coefficients are consistent with the model predictions, so we opted to fix the coefficients in our final analysis because it improves the precision on the transit depths by about 10%. We also performed an independent data reduction and fit using K. Stevenson’s pipeline and found consistent results (well within $1\,\sigma$).
[c c c c c]{} 1.121 – 1.145 & 0.020641 & 5.9e-05 & 0.38 & 0.13\
1.145 – 1.171 & 0.020733 & 5.5e-05 & 0.37 & 0.14\
1.171 – 1.196 & 0.020505 & 5.6e-05 & 0.36 & 0.14\
1.196 – 1.222 & 0.020498 & 5.4e-05 & 0.36 & 0.15\
1.222 – 1.248 & 0.020455 & 5.9e-05 & 0.36 & 0.15\
1.248 – 1.272 & 0.020492 & 5.0e-05 & 0.35 & 0.16\
1.272 – 1.298 & 0.020620 & 6.2e-05 & 0.34 & 0.17\
1.298 – 1.323 & 0.020739 & 5.0e-05 & 0.34 & 0.17\
1.323 – 1.349 & 0.020660 & 5.7e-05 & 0.33 & 0.18\
1.349 – 1.374 & 0.020858 & 4.8e-05 & 0.32 & 0.19\
1.374 – 1.401 & 0.020794 & 4.8e-05 & 0.31 & 0.20\
1.401 – 1.425 & 0.020888 & 5.2e-05 & 0.30 & 0.21\
1.425 – 1.452 & 0.020821 & 6.2e-05 & 0.29 & 0.21\
1.452 – 1.476 & 0.020691 & 5.1e-05 & 0.28 & 0.22\
1.476 – 1.502 & 0.020682 & 6.9e-05 & 0.26 & 0.23\
1.502 – 1.528 & 0.020679 & 6.7e-05 & 0.25 & 0.23\
1.528 – 1.552 & 0.020509 & 6.0e-05 & 0.23 & 0.25\
1.552 – 1.579 & 0.020480 & 6.4e-05 & 0.22 & 0.24\
1.579 – 1.603 & 0.020500 & 5.6e-05 & 0.20 & 0.24\
1.603 – 1.629 & 0.020514 & 6.5e-05 & 0.19 & 0.25\
Composition of the Atmosphere
=============================
In this section we discuss constraints on the composition of WASP-107b’s atmosphere based on interior structure modeling and atmospheric retrieval of the measured transmission spectrum.
Atmospheric Metallicity from Interior Structure Modeling {#sec:interior}
--------------------------------------------------------
Given WASP-107b’s unusually low density, we quantitatively explored the range of atmospheric metallicities that are consistent with the observed mass and radius using the structure evolution modeling of [@thorngren16]. These models assume a thermally inert heavy-element core with a convective envelope of additively mixed H/He [@saumon95] and heavy-element impurities. The heavy elements were a 50-50 rock-ice mix. We evolved the planets in time using the atmospheric models of [@fortney07]. The results are sensitive to assumptions about the stellar age, which is uncertain [either $0.6\pm0.2$ to $8.3\pm4.3$ Gyr depending on model assumptions; @mocnik17]. We therefore ran two models, with uniform age priors of either $0.2-1.0$ or $1.0-13.8$ Gyr. We used the published mass and radius estimates [$0.12\pm0.01\,M_\mathrm{J}$, $0.94\pm0.02$; @anderson17]. Based on these assumptions, we fit for envelope metallicity and core mass using an MCMC with uniform priors on both parameters. The MCMC burned in for $10^3$ steps and then collected $4\times10^6$ samples. The envelope metal mass fractions were converted to metallicities assuming the mean molecular weight of the metals was 18 (the value for water), using the approach of [@fortney13]. Figure\[fig:metal\_prior\] shows the results. We find a $3\,\sigma$ upper limit on the metallicity of $30\times$ solar for the young stellar age range. Higher metallicity envelopes are not allowed because they decrease the planet’s radius below the observed value. For the older age, the upper limit is even lower ($20\times$ solar), because planets cool and contract as they age [@fortney08]. The largest sources of uncertainty in the metallicity estimate are the unknown core mass and stellar age, which are dominant over modeling uncertainties due to the equation of state and distribution of heavy elements in the envelope [@thorngren16]. By marginalizing over the unknown physical parameters, we obtain a conservative upper limit on the envelope metallicity. Realistically, the planet probably formed with a core. Assuming a $5\,M_\oplus$ core, the upper limit on metallicity is 20 (10) $M_\oplus$ for the young (old) age.
Retrieval {#sec:retrieval}
---------
We also inferred the composition of the atmosphere directly from the transmission spectrum using the CHIMERA chemically-consistent retrieval [@line13a]. Briefly, CHIMERA solves the transmission geometry problem using the equations in [@brown01; @tinetti12]. We parameterized atmospheric composition with metallicity and carbon-to-oxygen ratio under the assumption of thermochemical equilibrium using the NASA CEA routine [@gordon94] to compute the molecular abundances for H$_2$, He, H$_2$O, CH$_4$, CO, CO$_2$, NH$_3$, H$_2$S, Na, K, HCN, C$_2$H$_2$, TiO, VO, and FeH. We updated the transmission model to use correlated-K opacities [@lacis91; @molliere15; @amundsen16] from the pre-tabulated line-by-line cross section database described in [@freedman14]. The transmission forward model is coupled with the PyMultiNest tool [@buchner16] to solve the parameter estimation and model selection problems.
Our nominal model included a temperature-pressure profile (parameterized via the @guillot10 relations), the atmospheric metallicity, the C/O, a gray cloud-top pressure, and the planet’s 10-bar radius. We fixed the T-P profile morphology but scaled the irradiation temperature to allow for the unknown albedo and heat transport efficiency. We put a uniform prior on the atmospheric metallicity of $0.01 - 30\times$ solar based on the upper limit from $\S$\[sec:interior\].
The nominal retrieval results are shown in Figure\[fig:retrieval\]. The best fit model provides a good fit to the data ($\chi^2_\nu = 1.2$). The metallicity distribution spans the full range allowed by our priors, with preference for larger values. The cloud top pressure is estimated to be $0.01 - 3$ mbar at $1\,\sigma$ confidence. The retrieved irradiation temperature is $525 - 820$ K (1 $\sigma$ confidence). We find that the C/O value is less than solar (0.54) at $2.7\,\sigma$ confidence. We tested the detection significance for water by removing water opacity from the nominal model. The Bayesian evidence favors the inclusion of water at $6.5\,\sigma$ confidence.
We explored a few retrieval scenarios with additional complexity, including the addition of cloud patchiness [@line16], a quench pressure for nitrogen and carbon species [e.g. @morley17], and a power law haze opacity. We also varied the assumed planet mass by $3\,\sigma$. These models did not significantly improve the fit quality, and the main retrieval results were unchanged. We also explored cases without the $30\times$ solar metallicity prior upper limit. Without this prior, metallicities up to $100\times$ were permitted, but other parameters were not significantly changed.
### Methane Abundance
We ran two additional retrievals to explore whether methane depletion is the underlying cause of the inferred low C/O. Even though water is the dominant absorber in the WFC3 bandpass, there is enough methane opacity to change the shape of the spectral features at a detectable level for high precision data. In one test, we assumed chemical equilibrium but excluded methane opacity. This set-up resulted in a much broader distribution of C/O values ($0.02 - 1.6$ at $1\,\sigma$).
We also performed a “free" retrieval that varied the abundances of CH$_4$, H$_2$O and NH$_3$ with no assumption of chemical equilibrium. The $3\,\sigma$ upper limit on methane abundance is $1.2\times10^{-3}$, ruling out the the predicted equilibrium methane content at photospheric temperature and pressure (700 Kelvin, 10 mbar), for a composition with solar C/O and $3\,\times$ solar metallicity. We chose $3\times$ solar as a benchmark for comparison because this is the median metallicity from the chemical equilibrium retrieval. Based on these tests, we conclude that the atmosphere of WASP-107b is depleted in methane relative to expectations for a solar abundance pattern. By contrast, the water abundance ($6\times10^{-6} - 2\times10^{-3}$) is consistent with predictions for solar composition.
Condensate Properties
---------------------
In addition to the atmospheric retrieval, we also performed forward modeling of physically motivated, self-consistent clouds and hazes using the methods described in [@fortney08; @morley15]. We model clouds that form in cool atmospheres (Na$_2$S, KCl, ZnS; see @morley12), for a range of metallicites from $1-50\times$ solar. We vary the cloud sedimentation efficiency from 3 to 0.1 (normal to highly lofted, small particulate clouds). None of the models produce sufficiently low amplitude spectral features to match the observed spectrum. This result suggests that if clouds are muting WASP-107b’s transmission spectrum, the mechanism for cloud particle formation and vertical lofting is very efficient and not captured by the modeling used here. Futher studies of cloud formation in very low gravity environments are required.
We also model an *ad hoc* photochemical “soot" layer near the top of the atmosphere. We predict the abundance of hydrocarbon haze precursors from previously published photochemical models for GJ 436b [@line11; @morley17]. With the most efficient haze production (100% of precursors form haze) and particle sizes around $0.03-0.1$ microns, the amplitude of the model water feature matches that of the observations.
These photochemical hazes are assumed to form from hydrocarbons generated by methane photolysis; however, we found in the previous section that methane is depleted. Furthermore, even if the precursors were present, it is unclear whether the 100% haze production efficiency is realistic. However, organic hydrocarbons are not the only possible photolytic haze in cool H2-rich atmospheres, as sulfur chemistry may create additional haze material [@zahnle09; @gao17]. Further modeling and laboratory work of the hazes that form in these conditions is needed for a satisfactory explanation of the data.
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec:discuss}
==========================
We analyzed the atmospheric composition of WASP-107b based on retrieval of its near-infrared transmission spectrum and interior structure models of the planet’s mass and radius. Key results from this analysis include:
- [*The upper limit on atmospheric metallicity from interior structure modeling is $30\times$ solar.* This limit is at the edge of consistency with the Solar System metal enrichment trend, which predicts a metallicity of $30\times$ solar for WASP-107b [@kreidberg14b]. Compared to results for other exoplanets of similar mass such as GJ 436b, which has a high metallicity ($>100\times$ solar) and HAT-P-26b, which is metal-poor compared to the Solar System trend, WASP-107b adds to the evidence that exoplanets exhibit a greater diversity of compositions than is present in the Solar System [@morley17; @wakeford17].]{}
- [*The methane abundance is depleted relative to expectations for a solar abundance pattern, whereas water is consistent with solar composition.* This may be due to an instrinsically low carbon-to-oxygen ratio, which could arise from accretion of water-rich planetesimals [@mordasini16; @espinoza17]. Another possibility is that the planet has a hot interior effective temperature ($\sim500$ K), and abundances are quenched at pressure levels where CO is stable [as observed in some directly imaged planets; @skemer14; @zahnle14]. Such a high internal temperature could be due to latent heat of formation if the planet is very young, and/or tidal heating [@fortney08; @morley17]. Further observations of the transmission spectrum over a broader wavelength range will refine the C/O estimate and help differentiate between these two scenarios.]{}
- [*Optically thick condensates are present at high altitudes* ($0.1 - 3$ mbar). The amplitude of the water absorption feature in the transmission spectrum is less than a third that expected for a clear atmosphere. Existing models of physically-motivated cloud and haze formation do not satisfactorily reproduce the data. All the cloud models we consider produce condensation too deep in the atmosphere. Efficient hydrocarbon haze production at high altitudes can match the data, but these require the presence of methane to serve as a haze precursor. Other precursors such as H$_2$S are a possibility and would be worth exploring in future analyses. Put in context with other systems, the muted water feature for WASP-107b agrees well with the trend in feature amplitude with temperature noted in [@crossfield17], indicating that condensates may be common in the atmospheres of the coolest planets.]{}
These results are a first look at the atmosphere of WASP-107b. It joins the ranks of two other relatively cool, relatively low mass exoplanets with detected water features [HAT-P-11b and HAT-P-26b; @fraine14; @wakeford17]. WASP-107b is already the target of additional observing programs at other wavelengths, including the WFC3/G102 grism and Spitzer 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m channels in transit and eclipse (*HST* Program GO 14916, PI J. Spake, *Spitzer* Program 13052, PI M. Werner; *Spitzer* Program 13167, PI L. Kreidberg). In addition, WASP-107b is included in the *JWST* Guaranteed Time Observations for the NIRISS, NIRCAM, and NIRSpec instruments[^1]. This spate of observing programs is sure to add to the already rich and complex picture of WASP-107b’s atmosphere presented here.
We thank Fei Dai, Jessica Spake, Ian Crossfield, Hannah Diamond-Lowe, and Jonathan Fortney for productive conversations. L.K. acknowledges support from the Harvard Society of Fellows and the Harvard Astronomy Department Institute for Theory and Computation. C.V.M. acknowledges support from NASA through the Sagan Fellowship Program.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][[\#1](#1)]{}
, D. S., [Mayne]{}, N. J., [Baraffe]{}, I., [et al.]{} 2016, , 595, A36
, D. R., [Collier Cameron]{}, A., [Delrez]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1701.03776
, N. E., [Mandell]{}, A., [Pontoppidan]{}, K., [et al.]{} 2017, , 129, 064501
, B. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1504.07655
, T. M. 2001, , 553, 1006
, J. 2016, [PyMultiNest: Python interface for MultiNest]{}, Astrophysics Source Code Library, , , ascl:1606.005
, I. J. M., & [Kreidberg]{}, L. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.00016
, F., & [Winn]{}, J. N. 2017, , 153, 205
, R. I., [Lee]{}, E. J., & [Chiang]{}, E. 2016, , 822, 54
, N., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Miguel]{}, Y., [Thorngren]{}, D., & [Murray-Clay]{}, R. 2017, , 838, L9
, N., & [Jord[á]{}n]{}, A. 2015, , 450, 1879
, D., [Hogg]{}, D. W., [Lang]{}, D., & [Goodman]{}, J. 2013, , 125, 306
, J. J., [Lodders]{}, K., [Marley]{}, M. S., & [Freedman]{}, R. S. 2008, , 678, 1419
, J. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., & [Barnes]{}, J. W. 2007, , 659, 1661
, J. J., [Mordasini]{}, C., [Nettelmann]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2013, , 775, 80
, J., [Deming]{}, D., [Benneke]{}, B., [et al.]{} 2014, , 513, 526
, R. S., [Lustig-Yaeger]{}, J., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [et al.]{} 2014, , 214, 25
, R., & [Murray-Clay]{}, R. A. 2017, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.00862
, P., [Marley]{}, M. S., [Zahnle]{}, K., [Robinson]{}, T. D., & [Lewis]{}, N. K. 2017, , 153, 139
Gordon, S., & McBride, B. J. 1994, Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions and applications, Vol. 1 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Management, Scientific and Technical Information Program)
, T. 2010, , 520, A27
, K. 1986, , 98, 609
, L. 2015, , 127, 1161
, L., [Bean]{}, J. L., [D[é]{}sert]{}, J.-M., [et al.]{} 2014, , 505, 69
—. 2014, , 793, L27
, L., [Line]{}, M. R., [Bean]{}, J. L., [et al.]{} 2015, , 814, 66
, A. A., & [Oinas]{}, V. 1991, , 96, 9027
, M. R., [Knutson]{}, H., [Wolf]{}, A. S., & [Yung]{}, Y. L. 2014, , 783, 70
, M. R., [Vasisht]{}, G., [Chen]{}, P., [Angerhausen]{}, D., & [Yung]{}, Y. L. 2011, , 738, 32
, M. R., [Wolf]{}, A. S., [Zhang]{}, X., [et al.]{} 2013, , 775, 137
, M. R., [Stevenson]{}, K. B., [Bean]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2016, , 152, 203
, N., [Amin]{}, M. A., & [Kennedy]{}, G. M. 2014, , 794, L12
, N., [Harrington]{}, J., [Stevenson]{}, K. B., [et al.]{} 2011, , 469, 64
, P., [van Boekel]{}, R., [Dullemond]{}, C., [Henning]{}, T., & [Mordasini]{}, C. 2015, , 813, 47
, C., [van Boekel]{}, R., [Molli[è]{}re]{}, P., [Henning]{}, T., & [Benneke]{}, B. 2016, , 832, 41
, C. V., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., [et al.]{} 2012, , 756, 172
—. 2015, , 815, 110
, C. V., [Knutson]{}, H., [Line]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2017, , 153, 86
, J. I., [Madhusudhan]{}, N., [Visscher]{}, C., & [Freedman]{}, R. S. 2013, , 763, 25
, T., [Hellier]{}, C., [Anderson]{}, D. R., [Clark]{}, B. J. M., & [Southworth]{}, J. 2017, , 469, 1622
, K. I., [Murray-Clay]{}, R., & [Bergin]{}, E. A. 2011, , 743, L16
, J. B., [Hubickyj]{}, O., [Bodenheimer]{}, P., [et al.]{} 1996, , 124, 62
, D., [Chabrier]{}, G., & [van Horn]{}, H. M. 1995, , 99, 713
, A. J., [Marley]{}, M. S., [Hinz]{}, P. M., [et al.]{} 2014, , 792, 17
, K. B., [Bean]{}, J. L., [Seifahrt]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2014, , 147, 161
, D. P., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Murray-Clay]{}, R. A., & [Lopez]{}, E. D. 2016, , 831, 64
, G., [Tennyson]{}, J., [Griffith]{}, C. A., & [Waldmann]{}, I. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2749
, H. R., [Visscher]{}, C., [Lewis]{}, N. K., [et al.]{} 2017, , 464, 4247
, K., [Marley]{}, M. S., [Freedman]{}, R. S., [Lodders]{}, K., & [Fortney]{}, J. J. 2009, , 701, L20
, K. J., & [Marley]{}, M. S. 2014, , 797, 41
, Y., [Apai]{}, D., [Lew]{}, B. W. P., & [Schneider]{}, G. 2017, , 153, 243
[^1]: <https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Mathematics Department, Ohio State University, 231 W. 18 Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, USA'
- 'Mathematics Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USAInstitute for Mathematical Problems in Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Moscow Region, 142292, Russia'
author:
- 'A. Silverberg'
- 'Yu. G. Zarhin'
title: Symplectic representations of inertia groups
---
Introduction and notation
=========================
The aim of this paper is to study finite inertia subgroups of symplectic groups over the field $\Q_\ell$ of $\ell$-adic numbers. A finite group is called an inertia group with respect to a given prime $p \ne \ell$ if it is a semi-direct product of a finite normal $p$-subgroup and a cyclic $p'$-group. These groups are exactly the inertia groups of finite Galois extensions of discrete valuation fields of residue characteristic $p$. The study of semistable reduction of abelian varieties over such fields leads naturally to certain finite inertia subgroups of the symplectic group $\Sp_{2g}(\Q_\ell)$ [@SZAl]. In [@SZcomp] we constructed examples for every odd prime $\ell$ of inertia subgroups of $\Sp_{2g}(\Q_\ell)$ which are not conjugate, even in $\GL_{2g}(\Q_\ell)$, to a subgroup of $\Sp_{2g}(\Z_\ell)$. However, it turns out (and this is the main result of this paper) that every finite inertia subgroup of $\Sp_{2g}(\Q_\ell)$ is [*isomorphic*]{} to a subgroup of $\Sp_{2g}(\Z_\ell)$, if $\ell>3$.
See [@Fontaine] for a study of representations of inertia groups in characteristic $0$.
Throughout this paper $\ell$ is an odd prime, $K$ is a field that is an unramified finite extension of $\Q_\ell$, and $G$ is a finite group that is a semi-direct product $G=H L$ of a normal $\ell'$-subgroup $H$ and a cyclic $\ell$-group $L$. Note that if $G$ is a finite inertia group for some prime $p$, then $G$ is of this form for every prime $\ell \ne p$ (see Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 of [@SZcomp]). We always assume that the group algebra $K[H]$ is decomposable, i.e., splits into a direct sum of matrix algebras over fields (this will automatically be the case when $G$ is an inertia group; see [@SerreArtin]). We write $\Sp_{2d}(R)$ for the group of $2d \times 2d$ symplectic matrices over a ring $R$. If $E$ is a field that is a finite extension of $\Q_\ell$, let $\O_E$ denote the ring of integers.
The following result is the main result of this paper.
Suppose $d$ is a positive integer, and there is an embedding $G \hookrightarrow \Sp_{2d}(K)$. If $\ell \ge 5$, then there is an embedding $G \hookrightarrow \Sp_{2d}(\O_K)$.
We will make use of the following result, which we prove in §\[Hproof\]. Our proof was inspired by §17.6 in [@SerreRep] and the proof of Lemma 1.1 in §1 of Chap. X in [@Feitbook].
\[Htheorem\] Suppose that $W$ is a finite dimensional $K$-vector space, $f: W \times W \to K$ is a non-degenerate alternating (resp., symmetric) $K$-bilinear form, and $\tau: H \to \Aut(W,f)$ is a group homomorphism that makes $W$ into a simple $K[H]$-module. Assume that for every $g \in G$, the representation of $H$ $$\tau_g: H \to \Aut(W), \quad h \mapsto \tau(g h g^{-1})$$ is isomorphic to $\tau$. Suppose $T$ is an $H$-stable $\O_K$-lattice in $W$. Then $$\tau: H \to \Aut(T,f) \subset \Aut(W,f)$$ can be extended to a homomorphism $$\tau_G: G \to \Aut(T,f) \subset \Aut(W,f).$$
We will say that two bilinear forms have the same parity if they are either both symmetric or both alternating. Let $\pi$ denote a uniformizer of $\O_K$.
Proof of the Extension Theorem {#Hproof}
==============================
Replacing $f$ by $\pi^i f$ if necessary, we may assume that $f(T,T)=\O_K$ and $$f: T \times T \to \O_K$$ is perfect.
Let $E$ denote the centralizer of $H$ in $\End_K(W)$. Since $K[H]$ is decomposable and $W$ is a simple $K[H]$-module, $E$ is a field that is a finite extension of $K$. It follows from Theorem 74.5 (especially a description of the center K in (ii)) of [@CR2] that $E$ is the field of definition of a certain character of $H$; in particular, $E \subseteq K(\bmu_{\# H})$. Thus $E/K$ is unramified, since $\# H$ is prime to $\ell$. Therefore $E/\Q_\ell$ is also unramified, since $K/\Q_\ell$ is unramified.
Since the $H$-module W is simple and $H$ is an $\ell'$-group, the $H$-module $T/\pi T$ is also simple. This implies that the $H$-stable $\O_K$-sublattice $\O_E T$ of $W$ is of the form $aT$ with $a \in K^*$ (see Exercise 15.2 of [@SerreRep]). Thus $T= a^{-1}(\O_E T)$ is $\O_E$-stable, i.e., $T$ is an $\O_E$-lattice in the $E$-vector space $V$.
It follows from the Jacobson density theorem that the image of $K[H]$ in $\End_K(W)$ is $\End_E(W)$. In other words, $\End_E(W)$ is the $K$-vector subspace of $\End_K(W)$ generated by the $\tau(h)$ for $h \in H$.
By the non-degeneracy of $f$, there is an involution $u \mapsto u'$ of $\End_K(W)$ characterized by $$f(ux,y)=f(x,u'y) \quad \forall x,y \in W.$$ By the $H$-invariance of $f$, $\tau(h)'=\tau(h^{-1}) \quad \forall h \in H$. Thus the involution $u\mapsto u'$ sends $\End_E(W)$ into itself, and therefore sends $E$, the center of $\End_E(W)$, into itself. Let $$E_0=\{u\in E \mid u'=u\}.$$ Then $K \subseteq E_0 \subseteq E$. Either $E=E_0$ or $E/E_0$ is a quadratic extension.
Let $c$ be a generator of $L$. The homomorphisms $$\tau: H \to \Aut_{\O_K}(T), \quad \tau_c: H \to \Aut_{\O_K}(T)$$ define $\O_K[H]$-module structures on $T$ in such a way that the corresponding $K[H]$-modules are isomorphic. Since $H$ is an $\ell'$-group, the corresponding $\O_K[H]$-modules are isomorphic (see §14.4 and §15.5 of [@SerreRep]), i.e., there exists $A \in \Aut_{\O_K}(T)$ such that $$\tau(c h c^{-1})=A \tau(h) A^{-1} \quad \forall h \in H.$$ Then $$\tau(c^i h c^{-i})=A^i \tau(h) A^{-i} \quad \forall h \in H, i \in \Z.$$ Since $c^{\# L}=1$, we have $A^{\# L} \in \O_E^*$. Further, $ A\End_E(W)A^{-1}= \End_E(W)$. Since $E$ is the center of $\End_E(W)$, $A E A^{-1} =E$. In other words, defining $\iota(c)(u)=AuA^{-1}$ for $u \in E$ induces a homomorphism $$\iota: L \to \Gal(E/K).$$ Since $[E:E_0]$ divides $2$ and $\ell$ is odd, the composition $L \to \Gal(E/K) \twoheadrightarrow \Gal(E_0/K)$ has the same kernel as $\iota$. Thus $$\label{idiv}
\#\iota(L) \text{ divides } [E_0:K].$$
Let $f_A(x,y)= f(Ax,Ay)$ for $x, y \in T$. For all $h \in H$, $$f_A(\tau(h)x,\tau(h)y)=f(A\tau(h)x, A\tau(h)y)=$$ $$f(A \tau(h) A^{-1} Ax,A \tau(h)A^{-1} Ay)=
f(\tau(c h c^{-1}) Ax, \tau(c h c^{-1}) Ay)=f_A(x,y),$$ since $c h c ^{-1} \in H$ and $f$ is $H$-invariant. Thus $f_A$ is $H$-invariant and of the same parity as $f$. Therefore there exists $a \in E_0^*$ such that $$f(Ax,Ay)= f(ax,y)=f(x,ay) \quad \forall x,y \in W.$$ Since $A\in\Aut(T)$ and $f:T\times T\to \O_K$ is perfect, we have $a\in\Aut(T)$. This implies easily that $a \in \O_{E_0}^*$.
Let $\sigma := \iota(c) \in \Gal(E/K)$. Then $aA=A\sigma^{-1}(a)$. There exists $a_1 \in \O_{E_0}^* $ such that $$a \sigma^{-1}(a)=a_1^2.$$ (Indeed, let $\eta$ be a uniformizer for $\O_{E_0}$. Then $\sigma(a)^{-1} \equiv a^{\ell^j} \pmod{ \eta}$ for some non-negative integer $j$. Since $\ell$ is odd, $\ell^j +1$ is even, so $a\sigma^{-1}(a)$ is a square modulo $ \eta$. Thus $a\sigma^{-1}(a)$ is a square, since all elements of $\O_{E_0}$ congruent to $1$ modulo $ \eta$ are squares.)
For all $x,y \in T$, $$f((A^2 a_1^{-1})x,(A^2 a_1^{-1})y)=
f(aAa_1^{-1}x,A a_1^{-1}y)=$$ $$f(A\sigma^{-1}(a)a_1^{-1} x, A a_1^{-1}y)=
f(a \sigma^{-1}(a)a_1^{-1}x, a_1^{-1}y)= f(x,y).$$ Let $A_1 = A^2a_1^{-1} \in \Aut_{\O_K}(T)$. Then $f$ is $A_1$-invariant, $\det(A_1)=1$, and conjugation by $A_1$ coincides with conjugation by $c^2$. Thus ${A_1}^{\# L}= bI$ is a scalar operator of determinant 1 on the $E_0$-vector space $W$. Therefore $b \in E_0^*$ is a root of unity, i.e., ${b}^\mu=1$ where $\mu$ is the number of roots of unity in $E_0$. Since $E_0 \subseteq E$, the extension $E_0/\Q_\ell$ is unramified, so $\ell$ does not divide $\mu$. Letting $B:={A_1}^\mu$, then conjugation by B coincides with conjugation by $b_1:=c^{2\mu}$, and $B^{\# L}=I$. Since $b_1$ is a generator of $L$, sending $b_1$ to $B$ defines the desired extension $\tau_G$ of $\tau$.
Lemmas for the Embedding Theorem
================================
Assume from now on that we are in the setting of the Embedding Theorem. Therefore there exist a $2d$-dimensional $K$-vector space $V$, a non-degenerate alternating $K$-bilinear form $$e: V \times V \to K,$$ and a faithful symplectic representation $$\rho: G \hookrightarrow \Aut(V,e).$$
\[isotype\] Suppose that $V$ is simple as a G-module but not as an $H$-module. Then either
1. the $H$-module $V$ is isomorphic to $W^r$ for some simple $H$-module $W$ and some $r>1$, or
2. there exist a normal subgroup $G_1$ of $G$, and a simple symplectic $G_1$-module $V_1$ which is a $K$-vector space of dimension $2d/[G:G_1]$, such that $H \subseteq G_1 \ne G$ and such that if $g_1$ is a non-identity element of $G_1$, then there exists $g \in G$ such that $g g_1 g^{-1}$ is not in the kernel of $G_1 \to \Aut(V_1)$.
We follow the proof of Prop. 24 of [@SerreRep]. Let $V=\oplus_{i=1}^n V_i$ be the canonical decomposition of the restriction of $\rho$ to $H$ into a direct sum of isotypic representations. Since the $G$-module $V$ is simple, $G$ permutes the $V_i$ transitively. If $V$ is some $V_i$, then the $H$-module $V$ is isotypic and (i) holds. Assume from now on that (i) does not hold. Let $$G_1=\{s\in G\mid s(V_1)=V_1\}\subset G.$$ Then $H \subseteq G_1\ne G$. Since $G_1$ contains $H$, it is normal in $G$. Thus for every $V_i$, $$G_1=\{s\in G\mid s(V_i)=V_i\}\subset G.$$ Every $V_i$ is a simple $G_1$-module, because $V$ is a simple $G$-module.
The kernels of the natural maps $G_1 \to \Aut(V_i)$ have trivial intersection and are conjugate in $G$. It follows that if $g_1$ is a non-identity element of $G_1$, then it has a conjugate which does not lie in the kernel of $G_1 \to \Aut(V_1)$.
Since $[G:G_1]$ divides $[G:H]$, it is an $\ell$-power, and therefore odd. Thus $n$ is odd, so at least one of the simple $G_1$-modules $V_i$ is self-dual. This implies easily that all the $V_i$ are self-dual. Suppose $V_1$ is not symplectic. Then none of the $V_i$ are symplectic. Since $V_i$ is a simple $G_1$-module, every $G_1$-invariant alternating bilinear form on $V_i$ is zero. Since the $V_i$ are mutually non-isomorphic simple $G_1$-modules, every $G_1$-invariant bilinear pairing beween $V_i$ and $V_j$ for $i\ne j$ induces the zero map $V_i \to V_j^* (=V_j)$, and therefore is zero. Therefore, every $G_1$-invariant alternating bilinear form on $V=\oplus_{i=1}^n V_i$ is zero, contradicting that $V$ is symplectic. Thus $V_1$ is symplectic.
We leave the next lemma as an exercise.
\[irredlem\] If $G_0$ is a finite group, $V_0$ is a finite-dimensional $K$-vector space which is also a faithful $K[G_0]$-module, and $T_0$ is a $G_0$-stable $\O_K$-lattice in $V_0$, then $$e_0((x, f),(y,g))= g(x)-f(y)
\text{ for } x, y \in T_0
\text{ and } f, g \in T_0^* := \Hom_{\O_K}(T_0,\O_K)$$ defines a perfect alternating $G_0$-invariant form on $T_0 \oplus T_0^*$, and induces a natural embedding $G_0 \hookrightarrow\Aut(T_0 \oplus T_0^*,e_0)$.
\[irred\] If the Embedding Theorem is true for all irreducible $\rho$ (and $G$) then it is valid for all $\rho$.
The $G$-module $V$ splits into a direct sum of $G$-modules $V'$ such that the restriction of $e$ to $V'$ is non-degenerate, and either $V'$ is simple or $V'=V_0\oplus V_0^*$ where $V_0$ is simple. In the latter case choose a $G$-stable $\O_K$-lattice $T_0$ in $V_0$ and apply Lemma \[irredlem\].
\[Hirred\] Suppose $V$ is simple as both a G-module and an $H$-module Suppose $T$ is a $G$-stable $\O_K$-lattice in $V$, and choose $i\in\Z$ so that $\pi^ie(T,T)=\O_K$. Then $\pi^ie: T \times T \to \O_K$ is a perfect $G$-invariant alternating bilinear form, and induces an embedding $$G \hookrightarrow \Aut(T,\pi^ie) \cong \Sp_{2d}(\O_K).$$
Let $\bar{e}: T/\pi T \times T/\pi T \to \O_K/\pi\O_K$ be the non-zero pairing induced by $\pi^ie$. Its kernel is an $H$-submodule of $T/\pi T$, so is zero by the $H$-simplicity of $T/\pi T$; i.e., $\bar{e}$ is non-degenerate. By Nakayama’s Lemma, $\pi^ie$ is perfect.
\[extenda\] Suppose $G_0$ is a finite group and $G_1$ is a normal subgroup of $G_0$. Suppose there exist a free $\O_K$-module $T_1$ of rank $2d_1$, an alternating perfect form $e_1:T_1\times T_1 \to \O_K$, and a homomorphism $f:G_1 \to \Aut(T_1,e_1)$ such that whenever $g_1$ is a non-identity element of $G_1$ then there exists $g \in G$ such that $g g_1 g^{-1}\notin\ker(f)$. Then there exist a free $\O_K$-module $T$ of rank $2d_1[G_0:G_1]$, an alternating perfect form $e: T \times T \to \O_K$, and an injective homomorphism $\psi:G_0 \hookrightarrow \Aut(T,e)$.
Let $$T=\{u:G_0\to T_1 \mid
u(xs)=s^{-1}u(x) \quad \forall s \in G_1, \forall x \in G_0\},$$ choose a section $p:G_0/G_1 \to G_0$, and let $$e(u,v)=\sum_{\gamma \in G_0/G_1}e_1(u(p(\gamma)),v(p(\gamma)))
\quad \text{for } u, v \in T.$$ Note that $e$ is independent of the choice of section $p$. Define a homomorphism $\psi: G_0 \to \Aut(T,e)$ by $\psi(g)(u)(x) = u(g^{-1}x)$ for $g\in G_0$, $u\in T$, $x \in G_0$. Then the desired conditions are all satisfied.
\[extendab\] Suppose $G_0$ is a finite group and $G_1$ is a normal subgroup of $G_0$. Suppose there exists an injective homomorphism $G_1 \hookrightarrow \Sp_{2d_1}(\O_K)$. Then there exists an injective homomorphism $G_0 \hookrightarrow \Sp_{2d_1[G_0:G_1]}(\O_K)$.
\[cyclic\] If $\Lambda$ is a finite cyclic group of order $\ell^m$, then there exists an injective homomorphism $
\Lambda \times \{\pm 1\} \hookrightarrow
\Sp_{\varphi(\ell^m)}(\Z_\ell)$.
By Lemma 3.7 of [@SZcomp] there is an injective homomorphism $\bmu_\ell \times \{\pm 1\} \hookrightarrow
\Sp_{\ell-1}(\Z_\ell)$. Now apply Corollary \[extendab\] to $G_1=\mu_\ell \times \{\pm 1\} \subseteq \Lambda \times \{\pm 1\}=G_0$.
Proof of the Embedding Theorem
==============================
By Lemmas \[irred\] and \[Hirred\], we may assume from now on that the G-module $V$ is simple and the $H$-module $V$ is not simple.
If (ii) of Proposition \[isotype\] holds, then induct on $\# G$, applying Lemma \[extenda\] to $G_1 \vartriangleleft G_0=G$.
By Proposition \[isotype\], we may now assume that $V\cong W^r$ for some simple $H$-module $W$, where $r>1$. It follows that $W$ is self-dual, i.e., there is an $H$-invariant non-degenerate alternating or symmetric $K$-bilinear form $f: W \times W \to K$. We may choose an $H$-stable lattice $T$ in $W$ and (replacing $f$ by $\pi^i f$ for suitable $i$, if necessary) we may assume that $f: T \times T \to \O_K$ is perfect. Let $$w=\dim_K(W).$$
Assume first that $w=1$. Then $H \subset \Aut_K(W)=K^*$. Since $V=W^r$ and $H \subseteq G \subseteq \Sp(V)$, we have $H \subseteq \{\pm 1\}$, and Lemma \[cyclic\] gives the desired embedding.
Assume from now on that $w \ge 2$. Let $$\tau: H \hookrightarrow \Aut(W,f) \subset \Aut(W)$$ be the injective homomorphism defining the $H$-module structure on $W$. Since $H$ is normal in $G$, the subspace $gW \subset V$ is an $H$-submodule of $V$ for every $g \in G$. The natural representation $H \to \Aut(gW)$ is isomorphic to the representation $$\tau_g: H \to \Aut(W), \quad h\mapsto\tau(g h g^{-1}).$$ On the other hand, since $V\cong W^r$ as $H$-modules, therefore $gW\cong W$ as $H$-modules. (Indeed, every $H$-submodule in $V$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $W$, and $w=\dim(gW)$.) Now apply the Extension Theorem and extend $\tau$ to a homomorphism $$\tau_G: G \to \Aut(T,f) \subseteq \Aut(V,f).$$
Since $f$ is perfect, we have $T^*=T$. If $f$ is symmetric, then Lemma \[irredlem\] gives a perfect alternating $G$-invariant form $e_0$ on $T \oplus T$, and we let $$\tau_{0}: G \to \Aut(T\oplus T,e_0) \cong \Sp_{2w}(\O_K)$$ be the direct sum of two copies of $\tau_G$.
Suppose $\tau_G$ is injective. If $f$ is alternating (resp., symmetric), then $\tau_G$ (resp., $\tau_{0}$) gives the desired embedding.
Now assume $\tau_G$ is not injective. Then $\ker(\tau_G)$ meets $H$ only at the identity, so $\ker(\tau_G)$ is a normal $\ell$-subgroup of $G$ and therefore is central, and thus contained in the Sylow $\ell$-subgroup $L$. Now retain the notation from the proof of the Extension Theorem.
Suppose $\dim_{E_0}(W) =1$. Then $H \subset E_0^*$, and for $h \in H$, $f(x,y)=f(hx,hy)=f(h^2 x,y) \quad \forall x,y \in W$. Thus $h^2=1$, i.e., $H \subseteq \{1,-1\}$, and we are done by Lemma \[cyclic\].
Now assume that $\dim_{E_0}(W) \ge 2$. Let $$L_0=\{x\in L : \tau_G(x)y=y\tau_G(x) \quad \forall y \in E\}.$$ Then $\ker(\tau_G) \subseteq L_0 \subseteq L$. By (\[idiv\]), $$\label{imiota}
\#\iota(L) \le [E_0:K] \le w/2.$$ Let $G_0= H L_0$, a normal subgroup of $G$. Since $V=W^r$, the restriction of $\tau_G$ to $G_0$ can be viewed as a homomorphism $$\tau_G: G_0 \to \Aut_E(W) \subset \Aut_E(V).$$ Then $\rho=\tau_G$ on $H \subset G_0$, and $$\rho(z)\rho(h)\rho(z)^{-1}=\tau_G(z)\tau_G(h)\tau_G(z)^{-1}
=\tau_G(z)\rho(h)\tau_G(z)^{-1}$$ for every $z \in L_0, h \in H$. Thus $$\kappa: L_0 \to \End_H(V)^*=\GL_r(E), \quad
z\mapsto \tau_G(z)\rho(z)^{-1}$$ is a homomorphism. Since $\tau_G$ is not injective on $L_0$ but $\rho$ is, thus $\kappa$ is injective, since $L_0$ is cyclic. Write $\# L_0 = \ell^t$. Then $$\label{keriota}
r \ge \varphi(\ell^t)=(\ell-1)\ell^{t-1} \ge \ell-1.$$ Since $\# L = \#\ker(\iota)\#\iota(L)=
{\ell}^t \#\iota(L)$, we have by (\[imiota\]) and (\[keriota\]): $$\varphi({\# L})=\varphi(\ell^t) \#\iota(L) \le
r{w}/{2} \le
(r- \frac{\ell -1}{2})w \le
(r- 2)w$$ since $\ell \ge 5$. Thus $$2w +\varphi({\# L}) \le rw =
\dim_K(V) =2d.$$ Let $$\psi : G/H \cong L \hookrightarrow \Sp_{\varphi(\# L)}(\O_K)$$ be the embedding from Lemma \[cyclic\].
If $f$ is alternating (resp., symmetric), we are done by taking the direct sum of $\tau_G$ (resp., $\tau_{0}$) and $\psi$.
[99]{} C. Curtis, I. Reiner, Methods of Representation Theory, Vol. II, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1987. W. Feit, The representation theory of finite groups, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam-New York, 1982. J-M. Fontaine, Sur la décomposition des algèbres de groupes, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. [**4**]{} (1971), 121–180. J-P. Serre, [*Sur la rationalité des représentations d’Artin*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**72**]{} (1960), 405–420. J.-P. Serre, Linear representations of finite groups, Translation of second French edition, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977. A. Silverberg, Yu. G. Zarhin, [*Subgroups of inertia groups arising from abelian varieties*]{}, J. Algebra [**209**]{} (1998), no. 1, 94–107. A. Silverberg, Yu. G. Zarhin, [*Polarizations on abelian varieties and self-dual $\ell$-adic representations of inertia groups*]{}, [http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Algebraic-Number-Theory/0171]{}, to appear in Comp. Math.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An automorphism $\alpha$ of a group $G$ is normal if it fixes every normal subgroup of $G$ setwise. We give an algebraic description of normal automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups. In particular, we prove that for any relatively hyperbolic group $G$, $Inn(G)$ has finite index in the subgroup $Aut_n(G)$ of normal automorphisms. If, in addition, $G$ is non-elementary and has no non-trivial finite normal subgroups, then $Aut_n(G)=Inn(G)$. As an application, we show that $Out(G)$ is residually finite for every finitely generated residually finite group $G$ with more than one end.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37240, USA.'
author:
- 'A. Minasyan'
- 'D. Osin'
title: Normal automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Recall that an automorphism $\alpha \in Aut (G)$ of a group $G$ is said to be [*normal*]{} if $\alpha(N)=N$ for every normal subgroup $N$ of $G$. The subset of normal automorphisms, denoted by $Aut_n(G)$, is clearly a subgroup of $Aut (G)$. Obviously every inner automorphism is normal. Throughout this paper we denote by $Out_n(G)$ the quotient group $Aut_n(G)/Inn(G)$.
The study of normal automorphisms originates from the result of Lubotzky stating that $Out_n(G)$ is trivial for any non-abelian free group [@Lub]. Since then similar results have been proved for many other classes of groups. For example, $Out_n(G)=\{ 1\} $ for non-trivial free products [@Nesh], fundamental groups of closed surfaces of negative Euler characteristic [@BKZ], non-abelian free Burnside groups of large odd exponent [@Cher], non-abelian free solvable groups [@Rom], and free nilpotent group of class $c=2$ (for $c\ge 3$ this is not true) [@End]. On the other hand, every group can be realized as $Out (G)$ for a suitable simple group $G$ [@DGG]. Since every automorphism of a simple group is normal, every group appears as $Out_n(G)$ for some $G$. Furthermore, every countable group can be realized as $Out_n(G)$ for some finitely generated group $G$ [@CC; @Obr].
The main goal of this paper is to study normal automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups. The notion of a relatively hyperbolic group was originally suggested by Gromov [@Gro] and has been elaborated in many papers since then [@Bow; @DS; @F; @Hru; @RHG; @Yam]. The class of relatively hyperbolic groups includes (ordinary) hyperbolic groups, fundamental groups of finite-volume complete Riemannian manifolds of pinched negative curvature [@Bow; @F], groups acting freely on $\mathbb R^n$-trees [@Gui] (in particular, limit groups arising in the solutions of the Tarski problem [@KM; @Sel]), non-trivial free products and their small cancellation quotients [@RHG], groups acting geometrically on $CAT(0)$ spaces with isolated flats [@HK], and many other examples.
In this paper we neither assume relatively hyperbolic groups to be finitely generated nor the collection of peripheral subgroups to be finite. (The reader is referred to the next section for the precise definition.) However we do assume that all peripheral subgroups are proper to exclude the case of a group hyperbolic relative to itself. Further on, we will say that a group $G$ [*non-elementary*]{}, if it is not virtually cyclic.
In general $Out_n(G)$ is not necessarily trivial even for ordinary hyperbolic groups. Indeed, it is known (see [@Sah]) that certain finite groups $L$ possess non-inner automorphisms which map every element to its conjugate. One can therefore construct many hyperbolic groups $G$ with non-trivial $Out_n(G)$ by taking any hyperbolic group $H$ and considering the direct product $G=H\times L$. The first result of our paper shows that non-trivial finite normal subgroups are essentially the only sources of non-inner normal automorphisms.
More precisely, every relatively hyperbolic group $G$ contains a unique maximal finite normal subgroup (see Corollary \[KG\]). We denote it by $E(G)$. Further let $C(G)$ denote the centralizer of $E(G)$ in $G$.
\[main\] Suppose that $G$ is a non-elementary relatively hyperbolic group and $\alpha \in Aut_n(G)$. Then there exist an element $w\in G$ and a set map ${\varepsilon }\colon G\to E(G)$ such that ${\varepsilon }(C(G))=\{ 1\}$ and $\alpha (g)=wg{\varepsilon }(g)w^{-1}$ for every $g\in G$.
In fact, Theorem \[main\] is a particular case of a more general result about normal automorphisms of subgroups of relatively hyperbolic groups (see Theorem \[NormAutSubgr\]). The corollary below follows easily from Theorem \[main\] and the observation that $C(G)$ has finite index in $G$ being the centralizer of a finite normal subgroup.
\[cor1\] Suppose that $G$ is a relatively hyperbolic group. Then the following hold.
1. $Out_n(G)$ is finite.
2. If $G$ is non-cyclic and contains no non-trivial finite normal subgroups, then $Out_n(G)=\{ 1\} $.
This corollary generalizes the results about free groups [@Lub], free products [@Nesh], and surface groups [@BKZ] cited above. It also implies the result of Metaftsis and Sykiotis [@MS] stating that for every non-elementary finitely generated relatively hyperbolic group $G$, $Inn(G)$ has finite index in the group $Aut_c(G)$ of pointwise inner automorphisms of $G$. Recall that an automorphism of $G$ is [*pointwise inner*]{}, if it preserves conjugacy classes. Clearly $Aut_c(G)\le Aut_n(G)$. Thus finiteness of $Out_n(G)$ implies that of $Aut_c(G)/Inn(G)$. The converse is not true in general. For instance, if $G$ is free nilpotent of class at least $3$, we have $Aut_c(G) = Inn(G) $ while $\left| Out_n(G) \right| = \infty$ [@End].
It is also worth noting that our methods are quite different from those of [@MS]. Indeed we use the group-theoretic version of Dehn surgery introduced in [@GM1; @GM2; @CEP] and ‘component analysis’ developed in [@RHG; @CC], while Metaftsis and Sykiotis employed the Bestvina-Paulin approach [@Best; @Pau] based on ultralimits and group actions on $\mathbb R$-trees.
In order to prove Theorem \[main\], we introduce a new subclass of automorphisms of any given group, and investigate it in the case of relatively hyperbolic groups.
Let $G$ be a group. We say that an automorphism $\varphi \in Aut(G)$ is [*commensurating*]{} if for every $g\in G$ there exist $h \in G$ and $m,n \in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus \{0\}$ such that $(\varphi (g))^n = h g^m h^{-1}$. In other words, $\varphi$ is commensurating if for each $g \in G$, $\varphi(g)$ is [*commensurable*]{} to $g$ in $G$ (see Definition \[def:commensurability\]).
It is clear that the subset $Aut_{comm}(G)$ of commensurating automorphisms of $G$ forms a subgroup of $Aut(G)$ and $Inn(G)\le Aut_c(G) \le Aut_{comm}(G)$.
In Section \[sec:comm-aut\] we study commensurating automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups and obtain a complete description of them:
\[cor:descr\_comm\_aut\] Let $G$ be a non-elementary relatively hyperbolic group and $\varphi \in Aut(G)$. The following conditions are equivalent:
1. $\varphi $ is commensurating;
2. there is a set map ${\varepsilon }: G \to E(G)$, whose restriction to $C(G)$ is a homomorphism, and an element $w \in G$ such that for every $g \in G$, $\varphi(g)=w \left( g {\varepsilon }(g) \right)w^{-1}$.
In particular, if $E(G)=\{ 1\}$, then every commensurating automorphism of $G$ is inner.
In Section \[sec:Dehn\_surgery\], using the algebraic version of Dehn filling, we show that each normal automorphism of a relatively hyperbolic group must be commensurating. After this, Theorem \[main\] follows quite quickly from the above description of commensurating automorphisms.
Our methods can also be used to prove residual finiteness of some outer automorphism groups. A well-known theorem of Baumslag states that the automorphism group of a finitely generated residually finite group is residually finite [@Bau]. In general, the analogous property does not hold for the group of outer automorphisms. Indeed, Bumagina and Wise showed that every finitely presented group is realized as $Out (G)$ for a suitable finitely generated residually finite group $G$ [@BW]. However we prove that Baumslag’s theorem does have an ‘outer’ analogue for groups with more than one end. We refer to [@Stall71] for the geometric definition of ends, and recall that the number of ends of a finitely generated group can be either $0$, $1$, $2$ or infinity.
\[infends\] Let $G$ be a finitely generated residually finite group with more than one end. Then $Out (G)$ is residually finite.
An infinite finitely generated group $G$ has two ends if and only if it is virtually cyclic; and $G$ has infinitely many ends if and only if it splits non-trivially as an amalgamated free product $A\ast _S B$ or an $HNN$-extension $A\ast_S$ over a finite group $S$ [@Stall71; @Stall68].
Note that the condition demanding residual finiteness of $G$ in Theorem \[infends\] cannot be removed. Indeed, if $H$ is any finitely generated group that has trivial center and is not residually finite, then the group $G=H * {{\mathbb Z}}$ has infinitely many ends and $H$ is embedded into $Out(G)$ ($H$ acts on itself by conjugation and trivially on ${{\mathbb Z}}$, which gives rise to an action of $H$ by outer automorphisms on the free product $H * {{\mathbb Z}}=G$). Thus $Out(G)$ is not residually finite.
The standard way of proving residual finiteness of $Out(G)$ is based on the following result of Grossman [@Gros]: if a group $G$ is finitely generated and conjugacy separable, then $Aut(G)/Aut_c(G)$ is residually finite. In particular, $Out (G)$ is residually finite whenever $G$ is finitely generated, conjugacy separable, and $Aut_c(G)=Inn(G)$. Recall that a group $G$ is said to be [*conjugacy separable*]{} if for any two non-conjugate elements $g,h\in G$ there exists a homomorphism $\varphi\colon G\to K$, where $K$ is finite, such that ${{\rm Lab }}(g)$ and $\varphi(h)$ are not conjugate in $K$.
This approach has been successfully used to prove residual finiteness of $Out(G)$, where $G$ is a free group of finite rank [@Gros], the fundamental group of a closed surface [@Gros; @AKT01], the fundamental group of a Seifert manifold with non-trivial boundary [@AKT03], etc. If $G$ is a finitely generated conjugacy separable non-elementary relatively hyperbolic group, the above mentioned result from [@MS] implies that every virtually torsion-free subgroup of $Out(G)$ is residually finite [@MS Theorem 1.1].
However there is no hope to use Grossman’s idea to prove Theorem \[infends\] since we only assume the group $G$ to be residually finite, which is much weaker than conjugacy separability. Indeed there are many examples of finitely generated residually finite groups that are not conjugacy separable (e.g., the group of unimodular matrices $GL(n,\mathbb{Z})$ for $n\ge 3$, see [@Rem]). To construct such an example with infinitely many ends, we can simply take $G=H\ast \mathbb Z$, where $H$ is finitely generated, residually finite, but not conjugacy separable. It is easy to show that $G$ will also be finitely generated, residually finite, but not conjugacy separable.
Our approach is different and is based on the following observation. Let $Aut_n^f(G)$ denote the group of automorphisms of $G$ that stabilize every normal subgroup of finite index (setwise). Then $Aut(G)/Aut_n^f(G)$ is residually finite for every finitely generated group $G$. The following result plays the crucial role in the proof of Theorem \[infends\]. It also seems to be of independent interest. Its proof essentially uses the fact that free products are hyperbolic relative to their free factors, which allows us to employ the techniques developed in the proof of Theorem \[main\].
\[fp\] Suppose that $G=A\ast B$, where $A,B$ are non-trivial residually finite groups. Then $Aut_n^f(G)=Inn(G)$.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We are grateful to A. Klyachko and V. Yedynak for useful discussions, and to the anonymous referee for his comments.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
[**Notation.**]{} Given a group $G$ generated by a subset $S\subseteq G$, we denote by ${\Gamma (G, S)}$ the Cayley graph of $G$ with respect to $S$ and by $|g|_S$ the word length of an element $g\in G$. If $p$ is a (combinatorial) path in ${\Gamma (G, S)}$, ${{\rm Lab }}(p)$ denotes its label, ${{\rm L}}(p)$ denotes its length, $p_-$ and $p_+$ denote its starting and ending vertex. The notation $p^{-1}$ will be used for the path in ${\Gamma (G, S)}$ obtained by traversing $p$ backwards. By saying that $o=p_1\dots p_k$ is a cycle in ${\Gamma (G, S)}$ we will mean that $o$ is obtained as a consecutive concatenation of paths $p_1,\dots p_k$ such that $(p_{i+1})_-=(p_i)_+$ for $i=1,\dots,k-1$ and $(p_k)_+=(p_1)_-$.
For a word $W$ written in the alphabet $S$, $\|W\|$ will denote its length. For two words $U$ and $V$ we shall write $U \equiv V$ to denote the letter-by-letter equality between them. The normal closure of a subset $K\subseteq G$ in a group $G$ (i.e., the minimal normal subgroup of $G$ containing $K$) is denoted by ${\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }K{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }^G$, or simply by ${\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }K{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }$ if omitting $G$ does not lead to a confusion. For any group elements $g$ and $t$, $g^t$ denotes $t^{-1}gt$. If $A\subseteq G$ then $A^t=\{a^t~|~a\in A\}$. For a subgroup $H\le G$, $N_G(H)$ denotes the normalizer of a $H$ in $G$. That is, $N_G(H)=\{g \in G~|~gHg^{-1}=H\}$. Similarly by $C_G(H)$ we denote the centralizer of $H$ in $G$, that is, $$C_G(H)=\{ g\in G~|~ gh=hg, \; \forall\, h\in H\} .$$ Finally for two subsets $A,B$ of $G$, their product is the subset $AB =\{ab~|~a \in A,b \in B\}$.
#### **Relatively hyperbolic groups.**
In this paper we use the notion of relative hyperbolicity which is sometimes called strong relative hyperbolicity and goes back to Gromov [@Gro]. There are many equivalent definitions of (strongly) relatively hyperbolic groups [@Bow; @DS; @F; @RHG]. We recall the isoperimetric characterization suggested in [@RHG], which is most suitable for our purposes. That relative hyperbolicity in the sense of [@Bow; @F; @Gro] implies relative hyperbolicity in the sense of Definition \[def:rel\_hyp\_gp\] stated below is essentially due to Rebbechi [@Reb]. (Indeed it was proved in [@Reb] under the additional technical condition that the groups under consideration are finitely presented.) In the full generality this implication and the converse one were proved in [@RHG].
Let $G$ be a group, ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ – a collection of [*proper*]{} subgroups of $G$, $X$ – a subset of $G$. We say that $X$ is a [*relative generating set of $G$ with respect to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$*]{} if $G$ is generated by $X$ together with the union of all $H_\lambda $. (In what follows we always assume $X$ to be symmetric.) In this situation the group $G$ can be regarded as a quotient group of the free product $$F=\left( \ast _{\lambda\in \Lambda } H_\lambda \right) \ast F(X),
\label{F}$$ where $F(X)$ is the free group with the basis $X$. If the kernel of the natural homomorphism $F\to G$ is the normal closure of a subset $\mathcal R$ in the group $F$, we say that $G$ has [*relative presentation*]{} $$\label{G}
\langle X,\; H_\lambda, \lambda\in \Lambda \; \mid \; \mathcal R
\rangle .$$ If $|X|<\infty $ and $|\mathcal R|<\infty $, the relative presentation (\[G\]) is said to be [*finite*]{} and the group $G$ is said to be [*finitely presented relative to the collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$.*]{}
Set $$\label{H}
\mathcal H=\bigsqcup\limits_{\lambda\in \Lambda} (H_\lambda
\setminus \{ 1\} ) .$$ Given a word $W$ in the alphabet $X\cup \mathcal H$ such that $W$ represents $1$ in $G$, there exists an expression $$W\stackrel{F}{=} \prod\limits_{i=1}^k f_i^{-1}R_i^{\pm 1}f_i \label{prod}$$ with the equality in the group $F$, where $R_i\in \mathcal R$ and $f_i\in F $ for $i=1, \ldots , k$. The smallest possible number $k$ in a representation of the form (\[prod\]) is called the [*relative area*]{} of $W$ and is denoted by $Area^{rel}(W)$.
\[def:rel\_hyp\_gp\] A group $G$ is [*hyperbolic relative to a collection of proper subgroups*]{} ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ if $G$ is finitely presented relative to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ and there is a constant $C>0$ such that for any word $W$ in $X\cup
\mathcal H$ representing the identity in $G$, we have $$\label{isop}
Area^{rel}
(W)\le C\| W\| .$$ The constant $C$ in (\[isop\]) is called an [*isoperimetric constant*]{} of the relative presentation (\[G\]) and ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ is called the collection of [*peripheral (or parabolic) subgroups*]{} of $G$. In particular, $G$ is an ordinary (Gromov) [*hyperbolic group*]{} if $G$ is hyperbolic relative to the trivial subgroup. Later on by saying that a group $G$ is [*relatively hyperbolic*]{}, we will mean that there exists a collection of proper subgroups $\{H_\lambda \le G~|~\lambda \in \Lambda\}$ such that $G$ is hyperbolic relative to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$.
This definition is independent of the choice of the finite generating set $X$ and the finite set $\mathcal R$ in (\[G\]) (see [@RHG]).
\[maln\] Let $G$ be a group hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. Then the following conditions hold.
1. For every $\lambda, \mu \in \Lambda $, $\lambda \ne \mu $, and every $g\in G$, we have $|H_\lambda \cap H_\mu^g |<\infty $.
2. For every $\lambda \in \Lambda $ and $g\in G\setminus H_\lambda $, we have $|H_\lambda \cap H_\lambda ^g|<\infty $.
#### **Components.**
Let $G$ be a group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. We recall some auxiliary terminology introduced in [@RHG], which plays an important role in our paper.
Let $q$ be a path in the Cayley graph ${\Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H)}$. A (non-trivial) subpath $p$ of $q$ is called an [*$H_\lambda $-component*]{} (or simply a [*component*]{}), if the label of $p$ is a word in the alphabet $H_\lambda\setminus \{ 1\} $ and $p$ is not contained in a longer subpath of $q$ with this property. Two $H_\lambda $-components $p_1, p_2$ of a path $q$ in ${\Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H)}$ are called [*connected*]{} if there exists a path $c$ in ${\Gamma (G, X\cup \mathcal H)}$ that connects some vertex of $p_1$ to some vertex of $p_2$, and ${{{\rm Lab }}(c)}$ is a word consisting of letters from $H_\lambda\setminus\{ 1\} $. In algebraic terms this means that all vertices of $p_1$ and $p_2$ belong to the same coset $gH_\lambda $ for a certain $g\in G$. Note that we can always assume that $c$ has length at most $1$, as every non-trivial element of $H_\lambda
\setminus\{ 1\} $ is included in the set of generators.
#### **Loxodromic elements and elementary subgroups.**
Recall that an element $g\in G$ is called [*parabolic*]{} if it is conjugate to an element of one of the subgroups $H_\lambda $, $\lambda \in \Lambda $. An element is said to be [*loxodromic*]{} if it is not parabolic and has infinite order. If $H$ is a subgroup of $G$, by $H^0 \subset H$ we will denote the set of all elements of $H$ that are loxodromic in $G$.
Recall also that a group is [*elementary*]{} if it contains a cyclic subgroup of finite index. The next result was obtained in [@ESBG]. The first part of the lemma is well known in the context of convergence groups [@Tuk]. In particular, it follows from [@Tuk] and [@Yam] in case $G$ is finitely generated. (The latter assumption is only essential for [@Yam].)
\[Eg\] Suppose a group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. Let $g$ be a loxodromic element of $G$. Then the following conditions hold.
1. There is a unique maximal elementary subgroup $E_G(g)\le G$ containing $g$.
2. $E_G(g)=\{ h\in G\mid \exists\, m\in \mathbb{N}~ \mbox{such that}~ h^{-1}g^mh=g^{\pm m}\} $.
3. The group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to the collection ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{ E_G(g)\} $.
For finitely generated relatively hyperbolic groups, a lemma similar to Lemma \[Eg\] (c) was also stated in [@Dah]. Namely it was claimed that if $G$ is a (finitely generated) relatively hyperbolic group and $Z$ is an infinite cyclic subgroup of $G$ such that $Z$ coincides with its normalizer, then $Z$ can be joined to the collection of peripheral subgroups of $G$ [@Dah Lemma 4.4]. We note that this is wrong even in case $G$ is an ordinary hyperbolic group.
The simplest counterexample is given by the group $$G=\langle z,c\mid c^3=1,\; zcz^{-1}=c^2\rangle$$ and the subgroup $Z=\langle z\rangle $. Obviously $G$ splits as $1\to C\to G\to \mathbb Z\to 1$, where $C=\langle c\rangle \cong \mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z$. In particular $G$ is hyperbolic (or, equivalently, hyperbolic relative to the trivial subgroup). It is straightforward to check that $Z$ coincides with its own normalizer in $G$. Indeed every element $g\in G$ has the form $z^kc^m$, where $k\in \mathbb Z$ and $m\in \{ 0,1,2\}$. If $m=1$, we have $$g^{-1}zg =(c^{-1}z^{-k})z(z^{k}c)=c^{-1}zc=c^{-1}(zcz^{-1})z=c^{-1}c^2z=cz\notin Z.$$ Similarly $g^{-1}zg\notin Z$ if $m=2$. On the other hand, $G$ is not hyperbolic relative to $Z$. Indeed $c^{-1}z^2c=z^2$ and hence $Z\cap c^{-1}Zc$ is infinite. This contradicts part (b) of Lemma \[maln\]. Similarly for every (finitely generated) group $H$, the free product $G\ast H$ is hyperbolic relative to $H$, and the subgroup $Z$ provides a counterexample. Note that $E_G(z)=E_{G\ast H}(z)=G$, so applying Lemma \[Eg\] (c) yields the correct result.
#### **Finite normal subgroups**
The following result was proved in [@AMO Lemma 3.3].
\[EH\] Let $H$ be a non-elementary subgroup of a relatively hyperbolic group $G$. Suppose that $H^0\ne \emptyset $. Then the subgroup $\displaystyle E_G(H)=\bigcap_{h \in
H^0} E_G(h)$ is the (unique) maximal finite subgroup of $G$ normalized by $H$.
\[KG\] Let $G$ be a relatively hyperbolic group. Then $G$ possesses a unique maximal finite normal subgroup $E(G)$.
If $G$ is finite then the statement is trivial. If $G$ contains an infinite normal cyclic subgroup $C$ of finite index, then denote by $K$ the union of all finite normal subgroups of $G$. It is easy to see that $K$ is a torsion normal subgroup of $G$ (because a product of two finite normal subgroups is itself a finite normal subgroup). Since $K \cap C=\{1\}$, $K$ injects into the finite quotient $G/C$, hence $K$ is finite.
Finally, if $G$ is non-elementary, then $G^0\ne \emptyset$ by [@ESBG Cor. 4.5] (if $G$ is finitely generated, this also follows from [@Tuk] and [@Yam]). It remains to apply Lemma \[EH\] to the case $G=H$.
Special elements in relatively hyperbolic groups
================================================
Let $G$ be a relatively hyperbolic group and let $H$ be a non-elementary subgroup of $G$ containing at least one loxodromic element.
We say that an element $h\in H$ is $H$-[*special*]{} if $h$ is loxodromic in $G$ and $E_G(h)=\langle h\rangle\times E_G(H)$. The set of all $H$-special elements will be denoted by $S_G(H)$.
Note that, by definition, any $g \in S_G(H)$ belongs to the centralizer ${C_H(E_G(H))}$. The result below was obtained in [@AMO Lemma 3.8].
\[SG\] If $G$ is a relatively hyperbolic group and $H \le G$ is a non-elementary subgroup such that $H^0\ne \emptyset$, then $S_G(H)$ is non-empty.
Special elements play a significant role in our approach to study automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups. They represent a useful tool that helps to deal with the technical problems which may arise when the group under consideration contains torsion. The main goal of this section is to prove the following important statement:
\[fi\] Suppose that $G$ is a relatively hyperbolic group and $H \le G$ is a non-elementary subgroup with $H^0\ne \emptyset$. Then $C_H(E_G(H))$ is generated by the set $S_G(H)$. In particular, $\langle S_G(H)\rangle $ has finite index in $H$.
Observe that the statement after ‘in particular’ follows from the fact that the centralizer of a finite subgroup of $G$, normalized by $H$, necessarily has finite index in $H$.
We begin with some auxiliary results. Let $G$ be a group hyperbolic relative to a family of proper subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. If $G$ is infinite, it always contains a loxodromic element [@ESBG Corollary 4.5]. The next lemma provides us with a tool for constructing such elements. It was proved in [@ESBG Lemma 4.4].
\[ah\] Let $G$ be a group hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. For any $\lambda \in \Lambda $ and $a\in G\setminus H_\lambda $, there exists a finite subset $\mathcal F\subseteq H_\lambda $ such that if $h\in H_\lambda \setminus \mathcal F$, then $ah$ is loxodromic.
Suppose that $\Xi$ is a finite subset of $G$. Define ${\mathcal{W}}(\Xi)$ to be the set of all words $W$ over the alphabet $X \cup {\mathcal{H}}$ that have the following form: $$W \equiv x_0h_0x_1h_1 \dots x_l h_l x_{l+1},$$ where $ l \in {{\mathbb Z}}$, $l \ge -2$ (if $l=-2$ then $W$ is the empty word; if $l=-1$ then $W \equiv x_0$), $h_i$ and $x_i$ are considered as single letters and
- $x_i \in X \cup \{1\}$, $i=0,\dots,l+1$, and for each $i=0,\dots,l$, there exists $\lambda(i) \in \Lambda$ such that $h_i \in H_{\lambda(i)}$;
- if $\lambda(i)=\lambda(i+1)$ then $x_{i+1} \notin H_{\lambda(i)}$ for each $i=0,\dots,l-1$;
- $h_i \notin \Xi$, $i=0,\dots,l$.
The statement below was proved in [@CC Lemmas 6.3, 6.5].
\[lem:conseq-conn\] There is a finite subset $\Xi$ of $G$ such that the following holds. Suppose that $o=rqr'q'$ is a cycle in $\Gamma(G,X \cup{\mathcal{H}})$ with ${{\rm Lab }}(q),{{\rm Lab }}(q') \in {\mathcal{W}}(\Xi)$. Set $C=\max\{ {{\rm L}}(r),{{\rm L}}(r')\}$.
- If $l$ is the number of components of $q$, then at least $(l-6C)$ of components of $q$ are connected to components of $q'$; and two distinct components of $q$ cannot be connected to the same component of $q'$. Similarly for $q'$.
- For any $d\in {{\mathbb N}}$ there exists a constant $L=L(C,d) \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that if ${{\rm L}}(q)\ge L$ then there are $d$ consecutive components $p_s,\dots,p_{s+d-1}$ of $q$ and $p'_{s'},\dots,p'_{s'+d-1}$ of $q'^{-1}$, so that $p_{s+i}$ is connected to $p'_{s'+i}$ for each $i=0,\dots,d-1$.
Proposition \[fi\] is an easy consequence of Lemma \[lem:spec-mod\] below. In the case when $G$ is an ordinary word hyperbolic group it was proved in [@paper3 Lemma 4.3].
\[lem:spec-mod\] Suppose that $g \in S_G(H)$ and $x \in C_H(E_G(H)) \setminus E_G(g)$. Then there exists $N_1 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $g^n x \in S_G(H)$ for any $n \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ with $|n| \ge N_1$.
By part (3) of Lemma \[Eg\], $G$ is hyperbolic relative to the collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{E_G(g)\}$. Denote $\mathcal{H}'=\left(\cup_{\lambda\in \Lambda} H_\lambda \cup E_G(g)\right)\setminus \{1\} \subset G$. After adding $x$ and $x^{-1}$ to the finite relative generating set of $G$, if necessary, we can assume that $x^{\pm 1} \in X$. Let $\mathcal F$ and $\Xi$ be the finite subsets of $G$ given by Lemmas \[ah\] and \[lem:conseq-conn\] respectively. Since $g$ has infinite order, there exists $N_1\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $g^n \notin \mathcal{F} \cup \Xi$ for any $n \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ with $|n| \ge N_1$.
Choose an arbitrary $n\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ such that $|n| \ge N_1$. By Lemma \[ah\], the element $g^nx=(xg^n)^x$ is loxodromic in $G$. Suppose that $y \in E_G(g^nx)$. By part (2) of Lemma \[Eg\], there are $m \in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $\epsilon \in \{-1,1\}$ such that $$\label{eq:m} y(g^nx)^my^{-1}=(g^nx)^{\epsilon m}.$$
Let $V$ be the letter from ${\mathcal{H}}'$ representing $g^n$ in $G$, let $W$ be the letter from $X$ representing $x$, and let $U$ be the shortest word over the alphabet $X \cup {\mathcal{H}}'$ representing $y$. Set $C=\|U\|$ and $d=1$. Now we apply Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b) to find the constant $L=L(C,d)$ from its claim. Evidently we can assume that the number $m$ from equation is larger than $L$.
Consider a cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in $\Gamma(G,X\cup{\mathcal{H}}')$ where ${{\rm Lab }}(r)\equiv U$, ${{\rm Lab }}(q) \equiv (VW)^m$, ${{\rm Lab }}(r')\equiv U^{-1}$, ${{\rm Lab }}(q') \equiv (VW)^{-\epsilon m}$. By construction, the cycle $o$ satisfies the assumptions of Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b), hence some components $p$ of $q$ and $p'$ of $q'^{-1}$ must be connected in $\Gamma(G,X\cup{\mathcal{H}}')$. That is, there is a path $s$ with $s_-=p_+$, $s_+=p'_+$ and $z={{\rm Lab }}(s)\in E_G(g)$ (see Figure \[pic:1\]). Note that ${{\rm Lab }}(p)
\equiv V$, ${{\rm Lab }}(p')\equiv V^{\epsilon}$.
Let $q_1$ be the subpath of $q$ starting at $r_+=q_-$ and ending at $p_+=s_-$; let $q_1'$ be the subpath of $q'$ starting at $s_+=p'_+$ and ending at $q'_+=r_-$. Considering the cycle $o_1=rq_1sq_1'$ in the case when $\epsilon=-1$ we get the following equality in $G$: $$(g^nx)^\xi y (g^{n}x)^\zeta= z^{-1} g^{-n} \in E_G(g^nx) \cap E_G(g)~\mbox{ for some } \xi,\zeta \in {{\mathbb Z}}.$$ Similarly, in the case when $\epsilon=1$, we get $$(g^nx)^\xi y (g^{n}x)^\zeta= g^n z^{-1} g^{-n} \in E_G(g^nx) \cap E_G(g)~\mbox{ for some } \xi,\zeta \in {{\mathbb Z}}.$$
Observe that by Lemma \[Eg\], the group $G$ is hyperbolic relatively to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{E_G(g),E_G(g^nx)\}$, hence, by Lemma \[maln\], the intersection $E_G(g^nx) \cap E_G(g)$ is finite. Since $g$ is $H$-special, any finite subgroup of $E_G(g)$ is contained in $E_G(H)$. Therefore $E_G(g^nx) \cap E_G(g) \subset E_G(H)$. Thus, whatever $\epsilon \in \{-1,1\}$ is, we always have $(g^nx)^\xi y (g^{n}x)^\zeta= h \in E_G(H)$, implying that $y=(g^nx)^{-\xi-\zeta}h$ because $g,x \in C_H(E_G(H))$. By part (2) of Lemma \[Eg\], $\langle g^n x \rangle$ and $E_G(H)$ are both contained in $E_G(g^nx)$; consequently $E_G(g^nx)=\langle g^n x \rangle \times E_G(H)$.
By Lemma \[SG\] we can find an element $g \in S_G(H)$. Note that for any $x \in Z= E_G(H) \cap C_H(E_G(H))$, the element $gx$ is also $H$-special. Since $x=g^{-1}(gx)$, we have $Z \subset
\langle S_G(H) \rangle$. It is easy to see that $E_G(g)\cap
C_H(E_G(H)) = \langle g \rangle \times Z$, hence $E_G(g)\cap
C_H(E_G(H))\subset \langle S_G(H) \rangle$. Now, if $x \in
C_H(E_G(H))\setminus E_G(g)$, then by Lemma \[lem:spec-mod\], $g^nx \in S_G(H)$ for some $n \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Consequently, $x=g^{-n} (g^n
x) \in \langle S_G(H) \rangle$.
Technical lemmas
================
Our main goal here is to prove several auxiliary lemmas, which will be used in the next section to give an algebraic description of automorphisms preserving commensurability classes of elements in relatively hyperbolic groups. We begin with a definition.
\[def:commensurability\] Let $G$ be a group. Two elements $x,y \in G$, are said to be [*commensurable*]{} if there are $z \in G$, $m,n \in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus \{0\}$ such that $y^n=zx^mz^{-1}$ in $G$. If the elements $x$ and $y$ are commensurable in $G$, we will write $x \stackrel{G}{\approx} y$; otherwise, we will write $x {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}y$.
\[rem:lox-comm\] Obviously any two elements of finite order are commensurable. Further, if $g$ and $h$ are commensurable elements of a relatively hyperbolic group $G$ and $g$ is loxodromic, then $h$ is loxodromic too. Indeed, evidently $h$ has infinite order. Suppose that $h$ is parabolic. Since $g {\stackrel{G}{\approx}}h$, there are $\lambda \in \Lambda$, $a \in G$ and $m \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $a^{-1} g^m a \in H_\lambda$. Since $g$ is loxodromic, $x=g^a \notin H_\lambda$ and the intersection $H^x \cap H$ contains an infinite order element $x^m$. The latter contradicts claim (2) of Lemma \[maln\].
Throughout the rest of this section, $G$ will denote a group hyperbolic relative to a collection of peripheral subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$, and $H \le G$ will denote a non-elementary subgroup with $H^0 \neq \emptyset$.
\[lem:non-comm\] Let $g \in G$ be a loxodromic element and $x\in G \setminus E_G(g)$. For any finite subset $Y$ of $G$ there is $N_2 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $g^n x$ is loxodromic and is not commensurable with any $y \in Y$ whenever $|n| \ge N_2$.
In view of Lemma \[Eg\].(3), we can assume that $E_G(g)$ belongs to the family of peripheral subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ of $G$ and each infinite order element $y \in Y$ is parabolic.
Now we can apply Lemma \[ah\], to find $N_2 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for any $n \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ with $|n|\ge N_2$, the element $xg^n$ is loxodromic. Therefore, so is $h=g^nx=x^{-1}(xg^n)x$. Suppose that $h$ is commensurable with some $y \in Y$. Then $y$ must also be loxodromic (by Remark \[rem:lox-comm\]), which contradicts our assumption above.
\[lem:general\] Let $\{g_1,\dots,g_l\}$, $l\ge 2$, be a finite set of pairwise non-commensurable loxodromic elements in a relatively hyperbolic group $G$. For any finite subset $F \subset G$ there exists $N_3 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for any permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1,2,\dots,l\}$ and arbitrary elements $h_i \in E_G(g_{\sigma(i)})$, $i=1,2,\dots,l$, of infinite order, the following hold.
- The element $g=g_1^{m_1}f_1g_2^{m_2}f_2\dots g_l^{m_l}f_l$ is loxodromic for any $f_i \in F$ and $m_i \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ with $|m_i|\ge N_3$, $i=1,2,\dots,l$.
- Suppose that $\left( g_1^{m_1}g_2^{m_2}\dots g_l^{m_l} \right)^\zeta$ is conjugate to $\left( h_1^{n_1}f_1 h_2^{n_2} f_2 \dots h_l^{n_l}f_l\right)^\eta$ in $G$, for some $f_i \in F$, $\zeta,\eta \in {{\mathbb N}}$, $m_i,n_i\in {{\mathbb Z}}$, $|m_i|\ge N_3$, $|n_i|\ge N_3$ for all $i=1,2,\dots,l$. Then $\zeta=\eta$, there is $k\in \{0,1,\dots,l-1\}$ such that $\sigma$ is a cyclic shift by $k$, that is $\sigma(i) \equiv i+k ~ ({\rm mod}~ l)$ for all $i \in \{1,2,\dots,l\}$, and $f_j \in E_G \left( g_{\sigma(j)} \right) E_G\left(g_{\sigma(j+1)} \right)$ when $j=1,2,\dots,l-1$, $f_l \in E_G\left( g_{\sigma(l)}\right) E_G \left( g_{\sigma(1)}\right)$.
By Lemma \[Eg\] and because $g_i {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}g_j$ when $i\neq j$, $G$ is hyperbolic relative to the extended collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{E_G(g_i)\}_{i=1}^l$. Also, the finite relative generating set $X$ can be replaced by the bigger finite set $X'=X \cup F\cup F^{-1}$ retaining the relative hyperbolicity of $G$. Denote $\mathcal{H}'=\left(\cup_{\lambda\in \Lambda} H_\lambda \cup \cup_{i=1}^l E_G(g_i)\right)\setminus \{1\} \subset G$. Let $\Xi$ be the finite subset of $G$ given by Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].
Take any $i \in \{1,\dots,l\}$. By part (1) of Lemma \[Eg\], we have $|E_G(g_i): \langle g_i \rangle|<\infty$, hence any infinite order element $h \in E_G(g_i)$ belongs to the elementary subgroup $$E^+_G(g_i)=\{x \in G~|~\exists~m \in \mathbb{N}~\mbox{such that } x^{-1}g_i^mx=g_i^m\} \le E_G(g_i).$$ Clearly, the center of $E^+_G(G_i)$ has finite index in it, hence all finite order elements of $E_G^+(g_i)$ form the maximal torsion subgroup $T \lhd E_G^+(g_i)$. Let $\alpha: E_G^+(g_i) \to E_G^+(g_i)/T$ be the natural epimorphism. The image $\alpha(E_G^+(g_i))$ is infinite cyclic (because it is virtually cyclic and torsion-free), therefore there exists $K_i \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for every non-trivial element $y \in \alpha(E_G^+(g_i))$, one has $y^{n} \notin S_i$ whenever $|n|\ge K_i$, where $S_i=\alpha(E_G^+(g_i)\cap \Xi)$ is a finite subset of $\alpha(E_G^+(g_i))$. Set $N_3=\max\{K_i~|~i=1,\dots,l\}$. By construction, for every $i$ and each infinite order element $h \in E_G(g_i)$, we have $h^{n} \notin \Xi$ whenever $|n| \ge N_3$.
Choose any elements $f_i \in F$ and integers $m_i$ with $|m_i|\ge N_3$, $i=1,\dots,l$. Let $V_i$ and $W_i$ be the letters from ${\mathcal{H}}'$ and from $X'$ representing the elements $g_i^{m_i}$ and $f_i$, $i=1,\dots,l$, respectively.
Proving claim (i) by contradiction, suppose that the element $g$ is not loxodromic.
If $g$ has finite order $t \in {{\mathbb N}}$, then set $C=0$, $d=1$ and choose $L=L(C,d)$ according to Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b). In the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G,X'\cup{\mathcal{H}}')$ consider the cycle $o=rqr'q'$, where ${{\rm Lab }}(q) \equiv(V_1W_1V_2W_2\dots V_lW_l)^{Lt}$, and $r,r'$ and $q'$ are trivial paths consisting of single vertex $q_-=q_+=1$. Since ${{\rm L}}(q) \ge Lt \ge L$, it follows from Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b) that some component of $q$ must be connected to a component of $q'^{-1}$. But $q'^{-1}$ has no components at all. A contradiction.
Therefore $g$ must have infinite order and must be parabolic, i.e., $g=aha^{-1}$ for some $h \in {\mathcal{H}}'$ and $a\in G$. Let $C=|a|_{X'\cup {\mathcal{H}}'}$, $d=2$ and $L=L(C,d)$ be given by Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b). Since $h$ has infinite order (as a conjugate of $g$), there is $n \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $n \ge L$ and $h^n \notin \Xi$. Choose a shortest word $A$ over $X'\cup {\mathcal{H}}'$ representing $a$ in $G$, and let $U$ be the letter from ${\mathcal{H}}'$ corresponding to $h^n$. Consider a cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in $\Gamma(G,X'\cup{\mathcal{H}}')$ such that ${{\rm Lab }}(r)\equiv A$, $q_-=r_+$, ${{\rm Lab }}(q)\equiv (V_1W_1V_2W_2\dots V_lW_l)^{n}$, $r'_-=q_+$, ${{\rm Lab }}(r')\equiv A^{-1}$, $q'_-=r'_+$, ${{\rm Lab }}(q')\equiv U^{-1}$. Since ${{\rm L}}(r)={{\rm L}}(r')=C$, ${{\rm L}}(q)\ge n\ge L$, we can apply Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b) to $o$, claiming that two distinct components of $q$ must be connected to two distinct components of $q'^{-1}$. But $q'^{-1}$ has only one component by definition. This contradiction concludes the proof of claim (i).
To establish claim (ii), assume that $ b\left( g_1^{m_1}g_2^{m_2}\dots g_l^{m_l} \right)^\zeta b^{-1}=
\left( h_1^{n_1}f_1 h_2^{n_2} f_2 \dots h_l^{n_l}f_l\right)^\eta$ in $G$, for some infinite order elements $h_i \in E_G(g_{\sigma(i)})$, $b \in G$, $\zeta,\eta \in {{\mathbb N}}$, $m_i,n_i\in {{\mathbb Z}}$, $|m_i|\ge N_3$, $|n_i|\ge N_3$ for $i=1,2,\dots,l$. Then for every $\varkappa \in {{\mathbb N}}$ we have $$\label{eq:b-zeta} b\left( g_1^{m_1}g_2^{m_2}\dots g_l^{m_l} \right)^{\varkappa \zeta} b^{-1}=
\left( h_1^{n_1}f_1 h_2^{n_2} f_2 \dots h_l^{n_l}f_l\right)^{\varkappa \eta} .$$ Let $V_i$ and $W_i$ be as before. Choose a letter $U_i$ from ${\mathcal{H}}'$ corresponding to $h_{i}^{n_i}$, $i=1,\dots,l$, and a shortest word $B$ over $X'\cup {\mathcal{H}}'$ representing $b$ in $G$. Set $C=\|B\|$, $d=2l$ and let $L=L(C,d)\in {{\mathbb N}}$ be the constant given by Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b). Take $\varkappa \in {{\mathbb N}}$ so that $\varkappa\zeta l \ge L$ and $\varkappa l >6C$.
In the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G,X'\cup{\mathcal{H}}')$ equation gives rise to a cycle $o=rqr'q'$, in which ${{\rm Lab }}(r)\equiv B$, $q_-=r_+$, ${{\rm Lab }}(q)\equiv (V_1V_2\dots V_l)^{{\varkappa}\zeta}$, $r'_-=q_+$, ${{\rm Lab }}(r')\equiv B^{-1}$, $q'_-=r'_+$, ${{\rm Lab }}(q')\equiv \left( U_1 W_1 U_2 W_2\dots U_l W_l \right)^{-{\varkappa}\eta}$.
By construction, the paths $q$ and $q'$ have exactly $\varkappa \zeta l$ and $\varkappa\eta l$ components respectively. Suppose that $\zeta >\eta$. By Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(a), at least $\varkappa\zeta l-6C > \varkappa l(\zeta-1)\ge \varkappa l\eta$ components of $q$ must be connected to components of $q'$, hence two distinct components of $q$ will have to be connected to the same component of $q'$, contradicting Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(a). Hence $\zeta \le \eta$. A symmetric argument shows that $\eta \le \zeta$. Consequently $\zeta=\eta$.
Since ${{\rm L}}(q)=\varkappa \zeta l \ge {{\rm L}}$, we can apply Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\].(b) to find $2l$ consecutive components of $q$ that are connected to $2l$ consecutive components of $q'^{-1}$. Therefore there are consecutive components $p_1,\dots ,p_{l+1}$ of $q$ and $p'_1,\dots, p'_{l+1}$ of $q'^{-1}$ such that $p_j$ is connected to $p'_j$ for each $j$, and ${{\rm Lab }}(p_i)\equiv V_i$ for $i=1,\dots,l$, ${{\rm Lab }}(p_{l+1})\equiv V_1$ (Figure \[pic:2\]). Therefore ${{\rm Lab }}(p_i') \in
E_G(g_i)$, $i=1,\dots,l$, ${{\rm Lab }}(p_{l+1}') \in E_G(g_1)$. From the form of ${{\rm Lab }}(q'^{-1})$ it follows that there is $k \in
\{0,1,\dots,l-1\}$ such that ${{\rm Lab }}(p_j')\equiv U_{j+k}$ for $j=1,\dots,l+1$ (indices at $U$ are taken modulo $l$). Thus $U_{j+k}= h_{j+k}^{n_{j+k}}\in E_G(g_j)$. On the other hand, $h_{j+k}^{n_{j+k}} \in E_G(g_{\sigma(j+k)})$ has infinite order. Hence the intersection $E_G(g_j) \cap E_G(g_{\sigma(j+k)})$ must be infinite, which yields (by Lemma \[maln\]) that $\sigma(j+k)=j$ for all $j$. Therefore $\sigma$ is a cyclic shift (by $l-k$) of $\{1,\dots,l\}$.
The subpath $w_i$ of $q'^{-1}$ between $(p'_i)_+$ and $(p'_{i+1})_-$ is labelled by $W_{\sigma^{-1}(i)}$. As we showed, the vertex $(p_i)_+=(p_{i+1})_-$ is connected to $(w_i)_-$ by a path $s_i$ with ${{\rm Lab }}(s_i) \in E_G(g_i)$, and to $(w_i)_+$ by a path $t_i$ with ${{\rm Lab }}(t_i) \in E_G(g_{i+1})$, $i =1,\dots,l$ (here we use the convention that $g_{l+1}=g_1$). Considering the cycle $t_i^{-1}s_i w_i$ we achieve the desired inclusion: $f_{\sigma^{-1}(i)}={{\rm Lab }}(w_i) \in E_G(g_i) E_G(g_{i+1})$, $i=1,\dots,l$. This concludes the proof.
\[lem:prod\_of\_three\] Suppose that $\varphi: H \to G$ is a homomorphism such that $\varphi(h) {\stackrel{G}{\approx}}h$ for all $h \in H^0$. Then for any $g_1,g_2,g_3 \in H^0$, satisfying $g_i \stackrel{G}{\not\approx} g_j$ for $i\neq j$, there exists $N_4 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for arbitrary $n_1,n_2,n_3 \in {{\mathbb Z}}$, with $|n_i| \ge N_4$, $i=1,2,3$, and for $g =g_1^{n_1} g_2^{n_2} g_3^{n_3}$, one has $g \in H^0$ and $(\varphi(g))^\zeta= e g^\zeta e^{-1}$, for some $e \in G$ and $\zeta \in {{\mathbb N}}$.
According to the assumptions, there exist $x_i \in G$ and $\zeta_i,\eta_i \in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus\{0\}$ such that $\left( \varphi(g_i) \right)^{\zeta_i}= x_i g_i^{\eta_i} x_i^{-1}$, $i=1,2,3$. Denote $h_i=x_i^{-1} \varphi(g_i) x_i$, $i=1,2,3$. Then $h^{\zeta_i}=g^{\eta_i}$ , hence $h_i \in E_G(g_i)$ (by part (2) of Lemma \[Eg\]) and $h_i$ has infinite order, $i=1,2,3$.
Set $f_1=x_1^{-1}x_2$, $f_2=x_2^{-1}x_3$ and $f_3=x_3^{-1}x_1$, and let $N_4 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ be the number $N_3$ from the claim of Lemma \[lem:general\] applied to the set of loxodromic elements $\{g_1,g_2,g_3\}$ and the finite set $F=\{f_1,f_2,f_3\}$. Take any $n_i \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ with $|n_i| \ge N_4$, $i=1,2,3$. By part (i) of Lemma \[lem:general\], $g =g_1^{n_1} g_2^{n_2} g_3^{n_3} \in H^0$. Hence there are $\zeta,\eta \in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus \{0\}$ and $e \in G$ such that $e g^\zeta e^{-1}=(\varphi(g))^\eta $. Since $\varphi$ is a homomorphism, we get $$e(g_1^{n_1} g_2^{n_2} g_3^{n_3})^\zeta e^{-1}= (\varphi(g))^\eta =
(x_1h_1^{n_1}x_1^{-1} x_2 h_2^{n_2} x_2^{-1} x_3 h_3^{n_3} x_3^{-1})^\eta , ~\mbox{ hence }$$ $$\label{eq:three} (x_1^{-1}e)(g_1^{n_1} g_2^{n_2} g_3^{n_3})^\zeta (x_1^{-1}e)^{-1}=
(h_1^{n_1}f_1 h_2^{n_2} f_2h_3^{n_3} f_3)^\eta .$$
Without loss of generality we can assume that $\zeta >0$. Suppose that $\eta<0$. Then $(g_3^{-n_3} g_2^{-n_2} g_1^{-n_1})^\zeta$ is conjugate to $(h_1^{n_1}f_1 h_2^{n_2} f_2h_3^{n_3} f_3)^{-\eta} $ in $G$ and $-\eta>0$. Applying part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:general\] to this situation, we get a contradiction with the fact that the transposition $(1,3)$ is not a cyclic shift of $\{1,2,3\}$. Therefore, $\eta>0$ and we can apply part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:general\] to , achieving the required equality $\zeta=\eta$.
\[lem:first\_step\] Let $a,b \in G$ be non-commensurable loxodromic elements and let $y,z \in G$. There exists $N_5\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that the following holds. Suppose that $a^{k'} y b^{l'} z\stackrel{G}{\approx} a^{k} b^{l}$ for some integers $k,l,k',l'$ with $|k|,|l|,|k'|,|l'|\ge N_5$. Then $y \in E_G(a) E_G(b)$ and $z \in E_G(b) E_G(a)$.
Choose $N_5 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ to be the number $N_3$ arising after an application of Lemma \[lem:general\] to $\{a,b\}$ and $F=\{y,z\}$. Choose any $k,l,k',l' \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ satisfying $|k|,|l|,|k'|,|l'|\ge N_5$.
Assume that there is $e \in G$, $\zeta \in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $\eta \in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus \{0\}$ for which $e\left( a^{k} b^{l}\right)^\zeta e^{-1} = \left(a^{k'} y b^{l'} z\right)^\eta$. If $\eta>0$ then the statement immediately follows from part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:general\]. So, suppose that $\eta <0$. Then $-\eta >0$ and $\left( b^{-l}a^{-k}\right)^\zeta$ is conjugate to $\left(a^{k'} y b^{l'} z\right)^{-\eta}$ in $G$. Again, by part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:general\], $y \in E_G(a) E_G(b)$, $z \in E_G(b) E_G(a)$.
\[lem:spec-image\] Assume that $g \in S_G(H)$ and $\psi: H \to G$ is a homomorphism satisfying $\psi(g^n)=g^n z$ for some $n \in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $z \in E_G(H)$. Then there is $f \in E_G(H)$ such that $\psi(g)=gf$.
After replacing $n$ with $n'=n|E_G(H)|$, we can further assume that $z=1$, because $\psi(g^{n'})=g^{n'} z^{n'}=g^{n'}$.
Now, note that $\psi(g) g^n (\psi(g))^{-1}= \psi(g^n) =g^{n}$, hence $\psi(g) \in E_G(g)$ by part (2) of Lemma \[Eg\]. Since $g$ is $H$-special, there is $k \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ and $f \in E_G(H)$ such that $\psi(g)=g^k f$. Denote $l=|E_G(H)|$. Then $g^{ln}=\psi(g^{ln})=(g^k f)^{ln}=g^{lnk}f^{ln}=g^{lnk}$, implying that $k=1$, as required.
\[lem:lox\_non-comm\] Suppose that for an automorphism $\alpha \in Aut(H)$ there is $g \in H^0$ satisfying $g {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}\alpha(g)$. Then there exists an element $a \in H$ such that both $a$ and $\alpha(a)$ are loxodromic in $G$ and $a {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}\alpha(a)$.
If $\alpha(g) \in H^0$, there is nothing to prove. Thus, we can assume that $\alpha(g)$ is parabolic in $G$, i.e., there exists a peripheral subgroup $H_\lambda$ and elements $t\in G$, $h \in H_\lambda$ such that $\alpha(g) =h^t$. Denote $x=\alpha^{-1}(g) \in H$. If $x \in E_G(g)$, then $\langle g \rangle^x \cap \langle g \rangle$ is infinite (by Lemma \[Eg\].(b)), hence $\langle \alpha(g) \rangle^{\alpha(x)} \cap \langle \alpha(g) \rangle$ is infinite. Thus $H_\lambda^{(tgt^{-1})} \cap H_\lambda$ is infinite, which implies, by Lemma \[maln\], that $tgt^{-1} \in H_\lambda$, contradicting the loxodromicity of $g$.
Therefore $x \notin E_G(g)$. Since both $g$ and $\alpha(g)$ have infinite order and $y=tgt^{-1} \in G\setminus H_\lambda$, we can apply Lemmas \[lem:non-comm\] and \[ah\] to find $N \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that for any integer $n \ge N$, the elements $g^n x$ and $h^n y$ are loxodromic in $G$. Note that $\alpha(g^n x)=(h^n y)^t$.
Suppose, first, that $$\label{eq:g^nx} g^n x {\stackrel{G}{\approx}}\alpha(g^n x)~\mbox{ for every } n \ge N.$$ By Lemma \[Eg\], $G$ is hyperbolic relative to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{E_G(g)\}$. Without loss of generality, we can also assume that $x$ and $y$ belong to the finite relative generating set $X$ of $G$. Let $\Xi \subset G$ be the finite set from Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\]. Evidently there is an integer $n \ge N$ such that $g^n,h^n \notin \Xi$. Our assumption implies that there is $b \in G$, $k,l \in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus \{0\}$ such that $b (g^n x)^k b^{-1}=(h^n y)^l$. Choose a word $B$ in the alphabet $X \cup \mathcal{H}'$ representing $b$ in $G$, where $\mathcal{H}'=(\cup_{\lambda\in \Lambda} H_\lambda \cup E_G(g))\setminus\{1\}$, and let $W,Y \in X$, $U \in E_G(g)$, $V \in H_\lambda$ be the letters corresponding to $x,y,g^n,h^n$ respectively. Set $d=1$, $C=\|B\|$ and let $L=L(C,d)$ be the constant provided by part (b) of Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\]. Without loss of generality we can assume that $|k|,|l| \ge L$.
Consider a cycle $o=rqr'q'$ in the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G,X\cup\mathcal{H}')$, where ${{\rm Lab }}(r) \equiv B$, $r_+=q_-$, ${{\rm Lab }}(q) \equiv (UW)^k$, $q_+=r'_-$, ${{\rm Lab }}(r') \equiv B^{-1}$, $q_-'=r'_+$ and ${{\rm Lab }}(q') \equiv (VY)^{-l}$. It is easy to see that $o$ satisfies all the conditions of Lemma \[lem:conseq-conn\], hence some component of $q$ must be connected to a component of $q'^{-1}$ in $\Gamma(G,X\cup\mathcal{H}')$. However, according to the construction, $q$ has only $E_G(g)$-components, and $q'^{-1}$ has only $H_\lambda$-components. Thus the assumption yields a contradiction. Hence, there exists $n \ge N$ such that for the element $a=g^nx$ we have $a \in H^0$, $\alpha(a) \in H^0$ and $a {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}\alpha(a)$.
Commensurating automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups {#sec:comm-aut}
============================================================
The purpose of this section is to study automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups preserving commensurability classes. Recall that $N_G(H)$ denotes the normalizer of a subgroup $H$ in a group $G$. Further, let $H$ be a non-elementary subgroup of a relatively hyperbolic group $G$ such that $H^0\ne \emptyset$. We denote by $\widehat H$ the product $H E_G(H)$. This is clearly a subgroup of $G$.
\[thm:comm-aut\] Let $G$ be a relatively hyperbolic group, let $H \le G$ be a non-elementary subgroup and let $\varphi \in Aut(H)$. Suppose that $H^0\ne \emptyset $ and $\varphi (h){\stackrel{G}{\approx}}h$ for every $h\in H^0$. Then there is a set map ${\varepsilon }: H \to E_G(H)$, whose restriction to ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ is a homomorphism, and an element $w \in N_G (\widehat H )$ such that for every $h \in H$, $\varphi(h)=w \left( h {\varepsilon }(h) \right)w^{-1}$.
Below is them main technical lemma of this section. It demonstrates how to construct the element $w$ and the restriction of the map ${\varepsilon }$ to ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ from the statement of Theorem \[thm:comm-aut\].
\[lem:comm-aut-centralizer\] Suppose that $G$ is a relatively hyperbolic group, $H \le G$ is a non-elementary subgroup and $\varphi \in Aut(H)$. Assume that $H^0\ne \emptyset $ and $\varphi (h){\stackrel{G}{\approx}}h$ for every $h\in H^0$. Then there is a homomorphism $\tilde {\varepsilon }: C_H \left( E_G(H) \right) \to E_G(H)$ and an element $w \in G$ such that for every $x \in C_H(E_G(H))$, $\varphi(x)=w \left( x \tilde {\varepsilon }(x) \right)w^{-1}$.
By Lemma \[SG\], $H$ contains an $H$-special element $g_1$. Since $H$ is non-elementary and ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ has finite index in it, ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ is also non-elementary. The subgroup $E_G(g_1)$ is elementary (by part (1) of Lemma \[Eg\]), thus there is an element $y \in {C_H(E_G(H))}\setminus E_G(g_1)$. By Lemma \[lem:non-comm\], there is $k_2 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $g_2=g_1^{k_2}y \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ is loxodromic and $g_2 {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}g_1$. Using the same lemma again we can find $k_3 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $g_3=g_1^{k_3}y \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ is loxodromic and $g_3 {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}g_i$, $i=1,2$. In particular, $E_G(g_2) \cap \langle g_3 \rangle = \{1\}$.
Choose $N_4 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ according to an application of Lemma \[lem:prod\_of\_three\] to $\varphi$, $g_1,g_2,g_3$, and let $n_3=N_4$. By Lemma \[lem:non-comm\], there is $n_2 \ge N_4$ such that $g_2^{n_2}g_3^{n_3} \in H^0$ is not commensurable with $g_1$ in $G$. Therefore $g_2^{n_2}g_3^{n_3}\in {C_H(E_G(H))}\setminus E_G(g_1)$, and by Lemma \[lem:spec-mod\] there is $N_1 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that the element $g_1^{n}g_2^{n_2}g_3^{n_3}$ is $H$-special for any $n\ge N_1$. Denote $n_1=\max\{N_1,N_4\}$ and apply Lemma \[lem:non-comm\] to find $m \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that the elements $a=g_1^{n_1}g_2^{n_2}g_3^{n_3}$ and $b=g_1^{n_1+m}g_2^{n_2}g_3^{n_3}$ are not commensurable with each other in $G$. In view of Lemma \[lem:prod\_of\_three\] one can conclude that the elements $a,b \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ are $H$-special and there exist $u,v \in G$, $\mu,\nu \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $\varphi(a^\mu)=u a^\mu u^{-1}$, $\varphi(b^\nu)=vb^\nu v^{-1}$.
Let $\chi: H \to G$ be the monomorphism, defined by $\chi(h)=u^{-1} \varphi(h) u$ for all $h \in H$. Then $\chi(a^\mu)=a^\mu$, $\chi(b^\nu)=(u^{-1}v)b^{\nu}(u^{-1}v)^{-1}$. Note that $\chi(h) {\stackrel{G}{\approx}}h$ for every $h \in H^0$. By part (i) of Lemma \[lem:general\], $a^{k\mu}b^{k\nu} \in H^0$ for every sufficiently large $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Therefore $$\label{eq:ab}
a^{k\mu} (u^{-1}v) b^{k\nu}(u^{-1}v)^{-1}=\chi(a^{k\mu}b^{k\nu}) {\stackrel{G}{\approx}}a^{k\mu} b^{k\nu}~\mbox{ for every sufficiently large } k \in {{\mathbb N}}.$$ Consequently, by Lemma \[lem:first\_step\], $u^{-1}v \in E_G(a)E_G(b)$, thus $u^{-1}v= a^s b^t f$ for some $s,t \in {{\mathbb Z}}$, $f \in E_G(H)$. Hence $\chi(b^\nu)=a^sb^{\nu} a^{-s}$ because $b \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$. Denote $w=ua^s \in G$ and let $\psi: H \to G$ be the monomorphism defined by the formula $\psi(h)=w^{-1} \varphi(h)w=a^{-s} \chi(h) a^s$ for all $h\in H$. By construction, we have $$\label{eq:psi} \psi(a^\mu)=a^\mu,~ \psi(b^\nu)=b^\nu ~\mbox{ and }~\psi(h) {\stackrel{G}{\approx}}h \mbox{ for each }h \in H^0.$$
Choose any element $g \in S_G(H)$. We will show that there is $f \in E_G(H)$ such that $\psi(g)=gf$.
If $g \in E_G(a)$ then there is $n \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $g^n \in \langle a^\mu \rangle$ because $|E_G(a):\langle a^\mu \rangle |<\infty$. Hence $\psi(g^n)=g^n$ and by Lemma \[lem:spec-image\], $\psi(g)=gf$ for some $f \in E_G(H)$.
Suppose, now, that $g \notin E_G(a)$. Since $g \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ and $a$ is $H$-special, we can use Lemmas \[lem:spec-mod\] and \[lem:non-comm\] to find $l \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that the element $d=a^{l\mu}g$ is $H$-special and is not commensurable with $a$ and $b$ in $G$. Arguing as in the beginning of the proof (using Lemmas \[lem:spec-mod\], \[lem:non-comm\] and \[lem:prod\_of\_three\]) we can find $m_1,m_2,m_3 \in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $c=a^{m_1 \mu} b^{m_2 \nu} d^{m_3} \in S_G(H)$, $c {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}a$, $c {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}b$ and $\psi(c^\zeta)=e c^\zeta e^{-1}$ for some $\zeta \in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $e \in G$.
By part (i) of Lemma \[lem:general\], $a^{k\mu}c^{k\zeta} \in H^0$ for every sufficiently large $k \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Hence $a^{k\mu} e c^{k \zeta} e^{-1}=\psi\left( a^{k\mu} c^{k\zeta} \right) {\stackrel{G}{\approx}}a^{k\mu} c^{k\zeta}$ whenever $k$ is sufficiently large. Applying Lemma \[lem:first\_step\] we see that $e \in E_G(a)E_G(c)$. As before, this implies that $\psi(c^\zeta)= a^p c^\zeta a^{-p}$ for some $p \in {{\mathbb Z}}$.
Similarly, there is $q \in {{\mathbb Z}}$ such that $\psi(c^\zeta)= b^q c^\zeta b^{-q}$. Hence $(a^{-p}b^q) c^\zeta (a^{-p}b^q)^{-1}=c^\zeta$, yielding that $a^{-p}b^q \in E_G(c)$.
Suppose that $p \neq 0$ and $q\neq 0$. Then the element $a^{-p}b^q$ must have infinite order (otherwise we would have $a^{-p}b^q \in E_G(H)$ since $c$ is $H$-special, hence $b^q \in a^p E_G(H) \subset E_G(a)$ contradicting to $a {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}b$). This implies that $(a^{-p}b^q)^\alpha=c^\beta$ for some $\alpha\in {{\mathbb Z}}\setminus \{0\}$ and $\beta \in {{\mathbb N}}$. Recalling , we can apply Lemma \[lem:spec-image\] to find $f_1,f_2 \in E_G(H)$ such that $\psi(a)=af_1$ and $\psi(b)=bf_2$. Since $a,b \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ we obtain $$\psi(c^\beta)=\psi \left((a^{-p}b^q)^\alpha\right)=\left(a^{-p}b^{q}\right)^\alpha f_3=c^\beta f_3~
\mbox{ for some } f_3 \in E_G(H).$$ Then for $\gamma=\beta\zeta |E_G(H)|$ we get $c^\gamma=\psi(c^\gamma)=a^p c^\gamma a^{-p}$, implying that $a^p \in E_G(c)$, which contradicts to $a {\stackrel{G}{\not\approx}}c$.
Therefore either $p=0$ or $q=0$, thus $\psi(c^\zeta)=c^\zeta$. By Lemma \[lem:spec-image\], there is $f_5 \in E_G(H)$ such that $\psi(c)=cf_5$. Since $c=a^{m_1 \mu} b^{m_2 \nu} d^{m_3}$, we can use to get $\psi(d^{m_3})=d^{m_3}f_5$. Applying Lemma \[lem:spec-image\] again, we find $f_6 \in E_G(H)$ such that $\psi(d)=df_6$. Finally, since $d=a^{l\mu}g$, in view of we achieve $\psi(g)=g f_6$, as needed.
To finish the proof, we observe that by Proposition \[fi\], ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ is generated by $S_G(H)$, therefore for each $x \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ there is $\tilde {\varepsilon }(x) \in E_G(H)$ such that $\psi(x)=x \tilde {\varepsilon }(x)$. Since $\psi$ is a homomorphism, the map $\tilde {\varepsilon }:{C_H(E_G(H))}\to E_G(H)$ will be a homomorphism too. By construction, we have $\varphi(x)=w \psi(x) w^{-1}= w x \tilde {\varepsilon }(x) w^{-1}$.
Now we are ready to prove the main result of this section.
Let $w \in G$ and $\tilde {\varepsilon }:{C_H(E_G(H))}\to E_G(H)$ be as in the claim of Lemma \[lem:comm-aut-centralizer\]. Let $\psi:H \to G$ be the monomorphism that is defined according to the formula $\psi(h)=w^{-1} \varphi(h) w$ for all $h \in H$. Denote $l=|H:{C_H(E_G(H))}|$, $m=|E_G(H)|$ and $n=ml \in {{\mathbb N}}$.
Since ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ is a normal subgroup of $H$, for any $z \in H$ we have $z^l \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ and $\psi(z^n)=z^n \tilde{\varepsilon }(z^l)^m=z^n$. Fix an arbitrary $h \in H$. For any $g \in H^0$ we see that $g^n,hg^nh^{-1} \in {C_H(E_G(H))}\cap H^0$, therefore $\psi(h) g^n \psi(h)^{-1}=\psi(hg^nh^{-1})=hg^nh^{-1}$, implying that $h^{-1}\psi(h) \in E_G(g)$. Thus, $h^{-1}\psi(h) \in \bigcap_{g\in H^0} E_G(g)=E_G(H)$. After defining ${\varepsilon }(h)=h^{-1}\psi(h)$ for each $h \in H$, one immediately sees that ${\varepsilon }:H \to E_G(H)$ is a map with the required properties. Obviously, the restriction of ${\varepsilon }$ to ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ coincides with $\tilde {\varepsilon }$.
It remains to prove that $w \in N_G(\widehat H)$. We will first show that $w \in N_G(E_G(H))$. Consider any element $f \in E_G(H)$. Since $\varphi$ is an automorphism of $H$, for any $g \in H^0$ there is $h \in H$ such that $\varphi(h)=g$. Then $h^n \in {C_H(E_G(H))}$ and $g^n=\varphi(h^n)=wh^nw^{-1}$ because ${\varepsilon }(h^n)=\tilde{\varepsilon }(h^l)^m=1$. Now we observe that $$wfw^{-1} g^n (wfw^{-1})^{-1}=w f h^n f^{-1} w^{-1}=wh^nw^{-1}=g^n.$$ Hence, $wfw^{-1} \in E_G(g)$ for every $g \in H^0$; consequently $w f w^{-1} \in E_G(H)$. The latter implies that $w E_G(H) w^{-1} \subseteq E_G(H)$ and since $E_G(H)$ is finite, we conclude that $w \in N_G(E_G(H))$.
Now, for any $h \in H$ we have $$whw^{-1}=w h {\varepsilon }(h)w^{-1} w {\varepsilon }(h)^{-1} w^{-1} = \varphi(h) \left( w {\varepsilon }(h) w^{-1} \right)^{-1} \in H E_G(H);$$ thus $w H w^{-1} \subseteq \widehat H$. Since $w^{-1} \varphi(h) w = h {\varepsilon }(h) \in H E_G(H)$ and $\varphi \in Aut(H)$, one gets $w^{-1} H w \subseteq \widehat H$. Therefore $w \widehat H w^{-1} \subseteq \widehat H w E_G(H) w^{-1}=\widehat H$, $w^{-1} \widehat H w \subseteq \widehat H w^{-1} E_G(H) w=\widehat H$, i.e., $w \in N_G(\widehat H)$.
We are now in a position to prove Corollary \[cor:descr\_comm\_aut\] mentioned in the Introduction. We establish it in a more general form:
\[cor:comm\_aut\_def\] Let $G$ be a non-elementary relatively hyperbolic group and $\varphi \in Aut(G)$. The following conditions are equivalent:
1. $\varphi $ is commensurating;
2. $\varphi (g){\stackrel{G}{\approx}}g$ for every loxodromic $g\in G$;
3. there is a set map ${\varepsilon }: G \to E(G)$, whose restriction to $C(G)$ is a homomorphism, and an element $w \in G$ such that for every $g \in G$, $\varphi(g)=w \left( g {\varepsilon }(g) \right)w^{-1}$.
In particular, if $E(G)=\{ 1\}$, then every commensurating automorphism of $G$ is inner.
\(a) implies (b) by definition, and (b) implies (c) by Theorem \[thm:comm-aut\]. It remains to show that (c) implies (a). Indeed, let $g$ be an arbitrary element of $G$, and let the automorphism $\varphi $ satisfy (c). If $g$ is of finite order, then so is $\varphi(g)$, and in this case evidently $\varphi (g){\stackrel{G}{\approx}}g$. Thus, we can suppose that $g$ has infinite order in $G$. By our assumptions, $\varphi (g)=w(g{\varepsilon }(g))w^{-1}$ for some $w\in G$ and ${\varepsilon }(g)\in E(G)$. Since $E(G)$ is finite and normal in $G$, $\langle g\rangle $ has finite index in the subgroup $\langle g\rangle E(G)$. Hence there exists a non-zero integer $k$ such that $(g{\varepsilon }(g))^k=g^l$ for some $l \in {{\mathbb Z}}$. And since the order of $g {\varepsilon }(g)=w^{-1} \varphi(g) w$ is infinite, we can conclude that $l\neq 0$. Therefore $\varphi(g)=wg{\varepsilon }(g)w^{-1}$ is commensurable with $g$ in $G$. Thus $\varphi $ in commensurating.
Recall that a result of Metaftsis and Sykiotis [@MS Lemma $2.2'$] states that for any relatively hyperbolic group $G$, one has $|Aut_c(G):Inn(G)|<\infty$, where $$Aut_c(G)=\{\alpha \in Aut(G)~|~\forall \, g\in G~\exists\, x=x(g) \in G~ \mbox{ such that } \alpha(g)=xgx^{-1}\}$$ is the group of all [*pointwise inner automorphisms*]{} of $G$. Theorem \[thm:comm-aut\] allows one to generalize their result to all non-elementary subgroups:
\[cor:conj\_aut\] Suppose that $H$ is a non-elementary subgroup of a relatively hyperbolic group $G$, with $H^0 \neq\emptyset$. Then $|Aut_c(H):Inn(H)|<\infty$. If, in addition, $E_G(H)=\{1\}$, then $Aut_c(H)=Inn(H)$.
By Theorem \[thm:comm-aut\], for any automorphism $\varphi \in Aut_c(H)$, there exist $w \in G$ and a map ${\varepsilon }:H \to E_G(H)$ such that $\varphi(h)=wh {\varepsilon }(h) w^{-1}$ for each $h \in H$. Take any element $h \in S_G(H)$. Then $h$ commutes with ${\varepsilon }(h) \in E_G(H)$, and, consequently, $(\varphi(h))^n=wh^nw^{-1}$ where $n=|E_G(H)|\in {{\mathbb N}}$.
Now, since $\varphi$ is a pointwise inner automorphism of $H$, there is $x \in H$ such that $\varphi(h)=xhx^{-1}$. Hence $x h^n x^{-1}=wh^nw^{-1}$, i.e., $w^{-1}x \in E_G(h)=\langle h \rangle \times E_G(H)$. Thus $w = f z$ for some $f \in H$ and $z \in E_G(H)$, and $w^{-1}x \in C_G(h)$ because $h$ is $H$-special. Consequently, we have $h=w^{-1}x h \left(w^{-1}x\right)^{-1}=h {\varepsilon }(h)$, which implies that ${\varepsilon }(h)=1$. Since the latter holds for any $h \in S_G(H)$, it follows from Proposition \[fi\] that ${\varepsilon }(C_H)=\{1\}$, where $C_H={C_H(E_G(H))}$.
Note that $|H:C_H|<\infty$, hence there are $h_1,\dots,h_l \in H$ such that $H=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^l C_H h_i$. For any $g \in H$ there are $a \in C_H$ and $i \in \{1,\dots, l\}$ such that $g=a h_i$. One has $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi(a) \varphi(h_i) = \varphi(g)=w g {\varepsilon }(g) w^{-1}=waw^{-1} w h_i {\varepsilon }(a h_i) w^{-1}= \\ \varphi(a)
\varphi(h_i) w ({\varepsilon }(h_i))^{-1}{\varepsilon }(a h_i) w^{-1}, \end{gathered}$$ hence ${\varepsilon }(g)={\varepsilon }(a h_i)={\varepsilon }(h_i)$, i.e., the map ${\varepsilon }$ is uniquely determined by the images of $h_1,\dots,h_l$. Thus, $\varphi(g)=f z (g {\varepsilon }(h_i)) z^{-1} f^{-1}$, implying that the automorphism $\varphi \in Aut_c(H)$, up to composition with an inner automorphism of $H$, is completely determined by the finite collection of elements $z,{\varepsilon }(h_1),\dots,{\varepsilon }(h_l) \in E_G(H)$, and since $E_G(H)$ is finite, we can conclude that $|Aut_c(H):Inn(H)|<\infty$.
Now, if $E_G(H)=\{1\}$ we obtain $w =f \in H$ and $\varphi(g)=wgw^{-1}$ for all $g \in H$, that is $\varphi \in Inn(H)$.
Group-theoretic Dehn surgery and normal automorphisms {#sec:Dehn_surgery}
=====================================================
In the context of relatively hyperbolic groups, the algebraic analogue of Dehn filling is defined as follows. Suppose that ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ is a collection of (peripheral) subgroups of a group $G$. To each collection ${\mbox{\eufm N}}=\{ N_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$, where $N_\lambda $ is a normal subgroup of $H_\lambda $, we associate the quotient-group $$G({\mbox{\eufm N}}) = G/{\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }\mbox{$\bigcup_{\lambda \in \Lambda }$} N_\lambda
{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }^G .$$
\[def:periph\_fill\] Let $G$ and ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ be as described above. We say that some assertion holds for [*most peripheral fillings of $G$*]{}, if there exists a finite subset $\mathcal F$ of non-trivial elements of $G$ such that the assertion holds for $G({\mbox{\eufm N}})$ for any collection ${\mbox{\eufm N}}=\{
N_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$ of normal subgroups $N_\lambda
\lhd H_\lambda $ satisfying $N_\lambda \cap \mathcal F=\emptyset $ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda $.
The theorem below was proved in [@CEP]. In the particular case when $G$ is torsion-free, this theorem was independently proved in [@GM1; @GM2].
\[Fill\] Suppose that a group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. Then for most peripheral fillings of $G$, the following holds.
1. For each $\lambda\in \Lambda $, the natural map $H_\lambda\
/N_\lambda \to G({\mbox{\eufm N}})$ is injective.
2. The quotient-group $G({\mbox{\eufm N}})$ is hyperbolic relative to the collection $\{H_\lambda /N_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda }$.
The following statement plays a key role in our paper.
\[conj\] Let $G$ be a relatively hyperbolic group, $H$ – a subgroup of $G$ and $\alpha \in Aut(H)$. Suppose that there exists a loxodromic element $g\in H$ such that $\alpha (g)$ is not conjugate to an element of $E_G(g)$ in $G$. Then $\alpha $ does not preserve some normal subgroup of $H$.
Suppose that $G$ is hyperbolic relatively to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. There are two cases to consider.
[**Case 1.**]{} Assume first that $\alpha (g) $ is loxodromic. Using Lemma \[Eg\] twice we obtain that $G$ is hyperbolic relatively to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{ E_G(g), E_G(\alpha (g))\} $. Since $\langle g\rangle $ has finite index in $E_G(g)$, there is $m\ne 0$ such that $\langle
g^m\rangle $ (and each of its subgroups) is normal in $E_G(g)$. Let $\mathcal F$ be the finite set provided by Theorem \[Fill\] for the peripheral system ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{ E_G(g), E_G(\alpha(g))\} $. Taking $p$ to be a sufficiently large multiple of $m$, we can ensure the condition $\langle g^p\rangle \cap \mathcal F =\emptyset $. We now consider the filling of $G$ with respect to the collection of subgroups ${\mbox{\eufm N}}$ consisting of the trivial subgroups of $H_\lambda$’s, the trivial subgroup of $E_G(\alpha (g))$, and $\langle g^p\rangle\lhd E_G(g)$. By Theorem \[Fill\] elements $g$ and $\alpha (g)$ have orders $p$ and $\infty
$, respectively, in $Q=G/{\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }g^p{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }^G$. Hence $\alpha $ does not induce an automorphism on the natural image of $H$ in $Q$, i.e., it does not preserve ${\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }g^p{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }^G\cap H$.
[**Case 2.**]{} Now suppose that $\alpha (g) $ is parabolic, i.e., it is conjugate to an element of some peripheral subgroup $H_\lambda $. Again, by Lemma \[Eg\], $G$ is hyperbolic relatively to ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{
E_G(g)\} $. The rest of the proof is identical to that in Case 1. The only difference is that Theorem \[Fill\] is applied to the collection of subgroups ${\mbox{\eufm N}}$ consisting of trivial subgroups of $H_\lambda$’s and $\langle g^p\rangle\lhd E_G(g)$ for some $p>0$.
Theorem \[main\] is a particular case of the following result. (Recall that $\widehat H=H E_G(H)$.)
\[NormAutSubgr\] Let $G$ be a relatively hyperbolic group and let $H \le G$ be a non-elementary subgroup such that $H^0\ne \emptyset $. Then for any $\varphi\in Aut_n(H)$ there exists a map ${\varepsilon }: H \to E_G(H)$, whose restriction to ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ is trivial, and an element $w \in N_G (\widehat H
)$ such that for every $h \in H$, $\varphi(h)=w h {\varepsilon }(h)
w^{-1}$.
By Lemma \[conj\], $\varphi $ maps every loxodromic element $h\in H$ to a conjugate of an element of $E_G(h)$. As $\langle h\rangle $ has finite index in $E_G(h)$, every element of infinite order in $E_G(h)$ is commensurable with $h$ in $G$. In particular, $\varphi (h){\stackrel{G}{\approx}}h$ for every $h\in H^0$. Hence by Theorem \[thm:comm-aut\] there is a map ${\varepsilon }: H \to E_G(H)$, whose restriction to ${C_H(E_G(H))}$ is a homomorphism, and an element $w \in N_G (\widehat H )$ such that for every $h \in H$, $\varphi(h)=w h {\varepsilon }(h) w^{-1}$. It remains to show that ${\varepsilon }(h)=1$ for every $h\in {C_H(E_G(H))}$.
By Proposition \[fi\], it suffices to show that ${\varepsilon }(h)=1$ for all $h\in S_G(H)$. Suppose that $\varphi (h)=whrw^{-1}$ for some $r\in E_G(H)\setminus \{ 1\}$. Take any integer $p \equiv 1~ ({\rm mod }\; |r|)$, where $|r|$ denotes the (finite) order of $r$ in $G$. Note that $h$ commutes with $r$ as $h\in S_G(H)$. Thus $\varphi
(h^p)=wh^p rw^{-1}$. Since $\varphi$ should preserve ${\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }h^p{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }^G
\cap H$, we obtain $h^p r\in {\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }h^p{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }^G$. On the other hand, $h^pr\in E_G(h)$. By Lemma \[Eg\] we can join $E_G(h)$ to the collection of the peripheral subgroups. Without loss of generality we may assume that $p \gg 1$ so that the normal subgroup $N=\langle
h^p\rangle $ of $E_G(h)$ satisfies the requirement $N\cap \mathcal
F=\emptyset$ from Theorem \[Fill\] (and Definition \[def:periph\_fill\]). Then by the first part of Theorem \[Fill\] we have $h^pr \in {\left\langle\hspace{-.7mm}\left\langle }h^p{\right\rangle\hspace{-.7mm}\right\rangle }^G \cap E_G(h)
=\langle h^p\rangle $. Hence $r\in \langle h\rangle \cap E_G(H)=\{
1\}$, which contradicts $r\ne 1$.
\[outn\] Let $H$ be a non-elementary subgroup of a relatively hyperbolic group $G$ such that $H^0\ne \emptyset $. Then the following hold.
1. If $H$ has finite index in $N_G(HE_G(H))$, then $Out_n(H)$ is finite.
2. If $H$ does not normalize any non-trivial finite subgroup of $G$, and $H=N_G(H)$, then $Out _n(H)=\{ 1\}$.
The argument is similar to the one used to prove Corollary \[cor:conj\_aut\]. Observe that by Lemma \[EH\], $E_G(H)$ is a finite subgroup of $G$ normalized by $H$. Therefore $H$ acts on $E_G(H)$ by conjugation, and $C_H=C_H(E_G(H))$ has a finite index in $H$ as a kernel of this action. Let $h_1, \dots , h_l$ be elements of $H$ such that $H=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^l C_H h_i$. By Theorem \[NormAutSubgr\] we can argue as in the proof of Corollary \[cor:conj\_aut\] to conclude that every normal automorphism $\varphi$ of $H$ is uniquely determined by the images ${\varepsilon }(h_i)$ of $h_i$, $i=1, \dots,l$, and by the conjugating element $w \in N_G(\widehat H)$. As $E_G(H)$ is finite, for each $i$ there are only finitely many possibilities for ${\varepsilon }(h_i)$, and since $|N_G(\widehat H):H|<\infty$, we can deduce that $|Aut_n(H):Inn(H)|<\infty$.
Furthermore, if $H=N_G(H)$ and $H$ does not normalize any finite normal subgroup of $G$, we obtain $E_G(H)=\{1\}$, $N_G(\widehat H)=N_G(H)=H$, and ${C_H(E_G(H))}=H$. Hence $Aut_n(H)=Inn (H)$ by Theorem \[NormAutSubgr\]. This completes the proof.
The next lemma shows that Corollary \[cor1\] holds for elementary groups.
\[vc\] Let $G$ be a virtually cyclic group. Then $Out(G)$ is finite.
If $G$ is finite the claim is trivial, so assume that $G$ is infinite. Recall that every elementary group is ether finite-by-cyclic or finite-by-(infinite dihedral) (see, for example, [@FJ Lemma 2.5]). More precisely, as $G$ is infinite, the quotient $G/E(G)$ (where $E(G)$ is the maximal finite normal subgroup of $G$ given by Corollary \[KG\]) is either infinite cyclic or infinite dihedral. In both cases we have $$\label{eq:aut(g/eg)}\left|Aut(G/E(G)):Inn(G/E(G))\right|=2.$$
Every automorphism $\alpha \in Aut(G)$ induces an automorphism $\bar\alpha \in Aut(G/E(G))$. This gives rise to a homomorphism $\xi: Aut(G)\to Aut(G/E(G))$. If $\alpha \in \ker(\xi)$, then for every $x \in G$ there is $h=h(x) \in E(G)$ such that $\alpha(x)=x h$. By our assumptions, $G$ is generated by a finite set of elements $\{x_i~|~i=1,\dots,n\}$ and the automorphism $\alpha$ is uniquely determined by the images $\alpha(x_i)$, $i=1,\dots,n$. Since $|E(G)|<\infty$, for each $i$ there are only finitely many possibilities for $h(x_i)$. Therefore the kernel of $\xi$ is finite. Evidently $\xi (Inn(G))=Inn (G/E(G))$, and by we get $|Aut(G):(Inn(G) \ker (\xi))| \le 2$ yielding that $|Out(G)|=|Aut(G):Inn(G)|<\infty$.
Let us apply Theorem \[NormAutSubgr\] to the case $G=H$. Then $E_G(H)=E(G)$, ${C_H(E_G(H))}=C(G)$, $\widehat H=N_G(\widehat H)=G$, and the claim of Theorem \[main\] follows immediately.
First, suppose that $G$ is elementary. In this case the first part of the corollary follows from Lemma \[vc\]. To derive the second claim of the corollary, we observe that since $G$ is non-cyclic and does not have non-trivial finite normal subgroups, it must be infinite dihedral (this follows from the structure of an elementary group – see the proof of Lemma \[vc\]). Hence $G \cong {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}* {{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ and, by Neshchadim’s theorem [@Nesh], $Out_n(G)=\{1\}$.
Thus we may assume that $G$ is non-elementary. In this case the corollary follows from Theorem \[main\] in the same way as Corollary \[outn\] from Theorem \[NormAutSubgr\]. Alternatively it follows immediately from Corollary \[outn\] applied to the case when $G=H$.
Free products and groups with infinitely many ends
==================================================
In order to prove Theorem \[fp\] we need two more statements below.
\[noncom\] Assume that $G$ is a relatively hyperbolic group and $g, h$ are two non-commensurable loxodromic elements. Then $g$ and $h$ are non-commensurable and loxodromic in most peripheral fillings of $G$.
Suppose that $G$ is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$. Applying Lemma \[Eg\] twice we obtain that $G$ is hyperbolic relative to the new collection ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{ E_1, E_2\}$, where $E_1=E_G(g)$, $E_2=E_G(h)$. Let $\mathcal F_1$ and $\mathcal F_2$ be the finite subsets provided by Theorem \[Fill\] for the collections of peripheral subgroups ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$ and ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }\cup \{ E_1, E_2\}$, respectively. Set $\mathcal F=\mathcal F_1\cup \mathcal F_2$.
Consider any collection of subgroups $N_\lambda \lhd H_\lambda $ such that $N_\lambda \cap \mathcal F=\emptyset$, $\lambda \in \Lambda$. By Theorem \[Fill\], the filling of $G$ with respect to the collection of normal subgroups ${\mbox{\eufm N}}$, consisting of $N_\lambda \lhd H_\lambda $ for $\lambda \in \Lambda $ and the trivial subgroups of $E_1$, $E_2$, is hyperbolic relative to $\{ H_\lambda /N_\lambda \}_{\lambda \in \Lambda }\cup \{ E_1,
E_2\}$ as well as relative to $\{ H_\lambda /N_\lambda \}_{\lambda
\in \Lambda }$. (We keep the same notation for the isomorphic images of $E_1, E_2$ in $G({\mbox{\eufm N}})$ and the elements $g, h$.)
In particular, $E_1\cap E_2^t$ is finite for every $t\in
G({\mbox{\eufm N}})$. Clearly this implies that $g$ and $h$ are not commensurable in $G$. Similarly $g$ and $h$ are not conjugate to any elements of the subgroups $H_\lambda /N_\lambda $, $\lambda \in
\Lambda $, of $G({\mbox{\eufm N}})$. Thus $g$ and $h$ are loxodromic in $G({\mbox{\eufm N}})$ with respect to the peripheral collection $\{ H_\lambda /N_\lambda
\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda }$. As $\mathcal F$ is finite, $g$ and $h$ are non-commensurable and loxodromic in most peripheral fillings of $G$ (with respect to the peripheral structure ${\{ H_\lambda \} _{\lambda \in \Lambda } }$).
The proof of Theorem \[fp\] uses the following lemma, which is an immediate corollary of [@Yed Lemma 3]. (Recall that the [*Cartesian subgroup*]{} of a free product $A*B$ is, by definition, the kernel of the natural epimorphism $A*B \to A \times B$.)
\[Yed\] Let $G=A\ast B$, where $A$ and $B$ are finite groups. Let $u$, $v$ be non-commensurable elements of the Cartesian subgroup $C$ of $G$. Suppose that $u=a^k$, $v=b^l$ for some positive integers $k,l$, where $a$, $b$ are not proper powers. Assume also that $a^k$ (respectively, $b^l$) is the smallest non-zero power of $a$ (respectively, $b$) that belongs to $C$. Then there exists a finite quotient-group $Q$ of $G$ such that the images of $u$ and $v$ have different orders in $Q$.
Let $G$ be a non-trivial free product, i.e., $G=A\ast B$, where both $A$ and $B$ are non-trivial. Then $G$ is hyperbolic with respect to $\{A,B\}$ (the finite sets $X$ and $\mathcal{R}$, from the definition of relative hyperbolicity in Section \[sec:prelim\], can be taken to be empty; the isoperimetric constant $C$ for the corresponding relative presentation of $G$ will then be equal to zero). In what follows, we will fix this as a system of peripheral subgroups of $G$.
If $|A|=|B|=2$, the proof is an easy exercise. It also follows from the main result of [@Nesh], stating that every normal automorphism of a non-trivial free product is inner, and the observation that every non-trivial normal subgroup of the infinite dihedral group is of finite index. Thus we may assume that $G$ is non-elementary. Suppose that there exists an automorphism $\alpha \in Aut_n^f(G)\setminus Inn(G)$. Note that $E(G)=\{ 1\} $ because $G$, as a non-trivial free product, cannot contain non-trivial finite normal subgroups. Since $\alpha$ is not an inner automorphism of $G$, it follows from Corollary \[cor:descr\_comm\_aut\] that $\alpha $ is not commensurating. Therefore, by Corollary \[cor:comm\_aut\_def\] and Lemma \[lem:lox\_non-comm\] (applied to the case when $H=G$), there is a loxodromic element $g\in G$ such that $h=\alpha (g)$ is also loxodromic and is not commensurable with $g$. Further, by Lemma \[noncom\] there exist finite index normal subgroups $M\lhd A$ and $N\lhd B$ such that the natural images $\bar g$, $\bar h$ of $g$ and $h$, respectively, are not commensurable in $\overline{G}=A/M\ast B/N$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $\overline{G}$ is non-elementary.
Since $\overline{G}$ is a free product of two finite groups, it is residually finite. Therefore the kernel $K$ of the natural homomorphism $G\to \overline{G}$ is an intersection of finite index normal subgroups of $G$. As $\alpha \in Aut_n^f(G)$, $\alpha
$ stabilizes $K$. Hence $\alpha $ induces an automorphism $\bar\alpha $ of $\overline{G}$.
Let $\bar g=a^k$, where $k$ is a positive integer and $a$ is not a proper power. Clearly $b=\bar\alpha (a)$ is not a proper power as well and $b^k=\bar h$. Evidently $b^p=\bar\alpha (a^p)$ is not commensurable to $a^p$ for any non-zero integer $p$. Let $C$ denote the Cartesian subgroup of $\overline{G}$. Then $|\overline{G}:C|<\infty$, and replacing $\bar g$ with another positive power of $a$, if necessary, we may assume that $k>0$ and $\bar g=a^k$ is the smallest non-zero power of $a$ that belongs to $C$. Again, since $|\overline{G}:C|<\infty $, $\bar \alpha $ preserves $C$. In particular, $\bar h=b^k$ is the smallest power of $b$ that belongs to $C$.
By Lemma \[Yed\] there exists a finite index normal subgroup $K$ of $\overline{G}$ such that the images of $\bar g$ and $\bar h$ have different orders in $\overline{G}/K$. Therefore $\bar\alpha $ does not induce an automorphism on $\overline{G}/K$. Obviously this means that $\alpha $ does not preserve the full preimage of $K$ in $G$, which contradicts our assumption that $\alpha \in Aut_n^f(G)$.
The following lemma is well known and is easy to prove (see, for example, [@GL Lemma 5.4]).
\[outnormsub\] Suppose that $G$ is a finitely generated group and $N$ is a centerless normal subgroup of finite index in $G$. Then some finite index subgroup of $Out (G)$ is isomorphic to a quotient of a subgroup of $Out (N)$ by a finite normal subgroup. In particular, if $Out(N)$ is residually finite, then $Out (G)$ is residually finite.
The next observation is trivial.
\[finorb\] Suppose that a group $G$ acts on a set $\mathcal M$ faithfully with finite orbits. Then $G$ is residually finite.
Given $g\in G$, let $s\in \mathcal M$ be an element such that $g(s)\ne s$. Then the natural map from $G$ to the symmetric group on the orbit of $s$ provides us with a finite quotient of $G$, where the image of $g$ is non-trivial.
Since the outer automorphism group of any virtually cyclic group is finite (see Lemma \[vc\]), we can assume that $G$ has infinitely many ends.
By Stallings’s Theorem ([@Stall71; @Stall68]) there is a finite group $S$ such that $G$ splits as an amalgamated free product $A\ast_S B$ or an $HNN$-extension $A\ast _S$, where $(|A:S|-1)(|B:S|-1)\ge 2$ in the first case and $|A:S_i|\ge 2$, $i=1,2$, in the second case (where $S_1$ and $S_2$ are the two associated isomorphic copies of $S$ in $A$). Since $G$ is residually finite and $S$ is finite, there exists a finite index normal subgroup $N\lhd G$ such that $N\cap S=\{1\}$ if $G=A\ast_S B$, or $N \cap S_i = \{1\}$ for $i=1,2$, if $G=A\ast _S$. Note that the quotient of the Bass-Serre tree for $G$ modulo the action of $N$ is finite and the edge stabilizers in $N$ are trivial. The Bass-Serre structure theorem for groups acting on trees (see [@Serre]) yields a splitting of $N$ into a non-trivial free product. In particular, $N$ is centerless.
The group $Aut (N)$ naturally acts on the set $\mathcal M$ of finite index normal subgroups of $N$ and $Aut_n^f(N)$ is the kernel of this action. By Theorem \[fp\], $Aut_n^f(N)=Inn(N)$. Therefore, $Aut(N)/Aut_n^f(N)=Aut(N)/Inn(N)=Out(N)$ acts on $\mathcal M$ faithfully. Since $N$ is finitely generated, there are only finitely many subgroups of a given finite index in $N$, thus all orbits of the action of $Out(N)$ on $\mathcal M$ are finite. Hence $Out(N)$ is residually finite by Lemma \[finorb\]. The claim of the theorem is now a consequence of Lemma \[outnormsub\].
[99]{} R.B.J.T. Allenby, G. Kim, C.Y. Tang, On the residual finiteness of ${\rm Out}(\pi_1(M))$ of certain Seifert manifolds, [*Algebra Colloq.*]{} [**10**]{} (2003), no. 2, 121–126.
R.B.J.T. Allenby, G. Kim, C.Y. Tang, Residual finiteness of outer automorphism groups of certain pinched 1-relator groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**246**]{} (2001), no. 2, 849–858.
G. Arzhantseva, A. Minasyan, D. Osin, The SQ-universality and residual properties of relatively hyperbolic groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**315**]{} (2007), no. 1, 165–177.
G. Baumslag, Automorphism groups of residually finite groups, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**38**]{} (1963), 117–118.
M. Bestvina, Degenerations of the hyperbolic space, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} (1) [**56**]{} (1988), 143–161.
O. Bogopolski, E. Kudryavtseva, H. Zieschang, Simple curves on surfaces and an analog of a theorem of Magnus for surface groups, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**247**]{} (2004), no. 3, 595–609.
B.H. Bowditch, Relatively hyperbolic groups, preprint, 1999.
I. Bumagin, D. Wise, Every group is an outer automorphism group of a finitely generated group, [*J. Pure App. Algebra*]{} [**200**]{} (2005), 137–147.
E.A. Cherepanov, Normal automorphisms of free Burnside groups of large odd exponents, [*Internat. J. Algebra Comput.*]{} [**16**]{} (2006), no. 5, 839–847.
F. Dahmani, Combination of convergence groups, [*Geom. & Top.*]{} [**7**]{} (2003), 933–963.
C. Druţu, M. Sapir, Tree-graded spaces and asymptotic cones of groups. With an appendix by D. Osin and M. Sapir. [*Topology*]{} [**44**]{} (2005), no. 5, 959–1058.
M. Droste, M. Giraudet, R. Göbel, All groups are outer automorphism groups of simple groups, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} (2) [**64**]{} (2001), no. 3, 565–575.
G. Endimioni, Pointwise inner automorphisms in a free nilpotent group, [*Q. J. Math.*]{} [**53**]{} (2002), no. 4, 397–402.
B. Farb, Relatively hyperbolic groups, [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**8**]{} (1998), 810–840.
F.T. Farrell, L.E. Jones, The lower algebraic K-theory of virtually infinite cyclic groups, [*K-Theory*]{} [**9**]{} (1995), 13–30.
M. Gromov, Hyperbolic groups, Essays in Group Theory, MSRI Series, Vol.8, (S.M. Gersten, ed.), Springer, 1987, 75–263.
E. Grossman, On the residual finiteness of certain mapping class groups, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**9**]{} (1974/75), no. 2, 160–164.
D. Groves, J. Manning, Dehn filling in relatively hyperbolic groups, *Israel J. Math.* **168** (2008), 317–429.
D. Groves, J. Manning, Fillings, finite generation, and direct limits of relatively hyperbolic groups, *Groups Geom. Dyn.* **1** (2007), no. 3, 329–342.
V. Guirardel, Limit groups and groups acting freely on $\mathbb R^n$-trees, [*Geom. Topol.*]{} [**8**]{} (2004), 1427–1470.
V. Guirardel, G. Levitt, The outer space of a free product, [ *Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**94**]{} (2007), no. 3, 695–714.
C. Hrushka, Relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity for countable groups, preprint. arXiv:0801.4596.
C. Hruska, B. Kleiner, Hadamard spaces with isolated flats (with an appendix by the authors and Mohamad Hindawi), [*Geom. Topol.*]{} [**9**]{} (2005), 1501–1538.
O. Kharlampovich, A. Myasnikov, Elementary theory of free non-abelian groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**302**]{} (2006), no. 2, 451–552.
A. Lubotzky, Normal automorphisms of free groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**63**]{} (1980), no. 2, 494–498.
V. Metaftsis, M. Sykiotis, On the residual finiteness of outer automorphisms of relatively hyperbolic groups, preprint. arXiv:math/0608685v2.
A. Minasyan, Groups with finitely many conjugacy classes and their automorphisms, [*Comm. Math. Helv.*]{} [**84**]{} (2009), no. 2, 259–296.
A. Minasyan, On residualizing homomorphisms preserving quasiconvexity, [*Comm. in Algebra*]{} [**33**]{} (2005), no. 7, 2423–2463.
M.V. Neshchadim, Free products of groups that do not have outer normal automorphisms, [*Algebra and Logic*]{} [**35**]{} (1996), no. 5, 316–318.
V.N. Obraztsov, Embedding into groups with well-described lattices of subgroups, [*Bull. Austral. Math. Soc.*]{} [**54**]{} (1996), no. 2, 221–240.
D.V. Osin, Elementary subgroups of relatively hyperbolic groups and bounded generation, [*Internat. J. Algebra Comput.*]{} [**16**]{} (2006), no. 1, 99–118.
D.V. Osin, Peripheral fillings of relatively hyperbolic groups, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**167**]{} (2007), no. 2, 295–326.
D.V. Osin, Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**179**]{} (2006), no. 843.
F. Paulin, Outer automorphisms of hyperbolic groups and small actions on $\mathbb R$-trees. In: Arboreal group theory (Berkeley, CA), 331–343. Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. [**19**]{}, Springer, New York, 1991.
D.Y. Rebbechi, Algorithmic properties of relatively hyperbolic groups, PhD thesis. arXiv: math/0302245.
V.N. Remeslennikov, Finite approximability of groups with respect to conjugacy. (Russian) [*Siberian Math. J.*]{} [**23**]{} (1971), 783–792.
V.A. Roman’kov, Normal automorphisms of discrete groups (in Russian), [*Sibirsk. Mat. Zh.*]{} [**24**]{} (1983), no. 4, 138–149.
C. Sah, Automorphisms of finite groups. *J. Algebra* **10** (1968), 47–68.
J.-P. Serre, Arbres, amalgames, ${\rm SL}\sb{2}$, [*Astérisque*]{}, no. [**46**]{}. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 1977. 189 pp.
Z. Sela, Diophantine geometry over groups. VI. The elementary theory of a free group, [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**16**]{} (2006), no. 3, 707–730.
J. Stallings, Group theory and three-dimensional manifolds, Yale Mathematical Monographs, [**4**]{}. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.-London, 1971.
J. Stallings, On torsion-free groups with infinitely many ends, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} (2) [**88**]{} (1968), 312–334.
P. Tukia, Convergence groups and Gromov’s metric hyperbolic spaces, [*New Zeland J. Math*]{} [**23**]{} (1994), 157–187.
A. Yaman, A topological characterization of relatively hyperbolic groups, [*J. Reine Angew. Math.*]{} [**566**]{} (2004), 41–89.
V. Yedynak, Multielement order separability in free products of groups, [*Comm. in Algebra*]{}, to appear.
[^1]: The first author was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant PP002-116899. The second author was supported by the NSF grant DMS-0605093 and by the RFBR grant 05-01-00895.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove a version of Silverman’s dynamical integral point theorem for a large class of rational functions defined over global function fields.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY); 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA'
author:
- Wade Hindes
title: Integrality estimates in orbits over function fields
---
Introduction
============
Let $K=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$, let $\phi(x)\in K(x)$ be a rational function of degree $d\geq2$, and let $$\phi(x)=\frac{a_d(t)x^d+a_{d-1}(t)x^{d-1}+\dots a_0(t)}{b_d(t)x^d+b_{d-1}(t)x^{d-1}+\dots b_0(t)}.$$ To every $\phi$ we associate an explicit $7\times 6$ matrix with coefficients in $K$:\
$$\hspace*{-1.05cm}
M_\phi:={\scalebox{0.5}{$\begin{pmatrix}
-a_d^2 &\dots & 0&0\\
-2a_da_{d-1}& \dots & a_db_{d-1} - a_{d-1}b_d & 0 \\
-2a_da_{d-2} - a_{d-1}^2 & \dots &2a_db_{d-2} - 2a_{d-2}b_d & a_db_{d-1}-a_{d-1}b_d \\
-2a_da_{d-3} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-2}& \dots & 3a_db_{d-3} + a_{d-1}b_{d-2} - a_{d-2}b_{d-1} - 3a_{d-3}b_d& 2a_db_{d-2} - 2a_{d-2}b_d \\
-2a_da_{d-4} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-3} - a_{d-2}^2 & \dots & 4a_db_{d-4} + 2a_{d-1}b_{d-3} - 2a_{d-3}b_{d-1} - 4a_{d-4}b_d & 3a_db_{d-3} + a_{d-1}b_{d-2} - a_{d-2}b_{d-1} - 3a_{d-3}b_d \\
-2a_da_{d-5} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-4} - 2a_{d-2}a_{d-3} & \dots & 5a_db_{d-5} + 3a_{d-1}b_{d-4} + a_{d-4}b_{d-3} - a_{d-3}b_{d-2} - 3a_{d-4}b_{d-1} - 5a_{d-5}b_d & 4a_db_{d-4} + 2a_{d-1}b_{d-3} - 2a_{d-3}b_{d-1} - 4a_{d-4}b_d \\
-2a_da_{d-6} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-5} - 2a_{d-2}a_{d-4} - a_{d-3}^2& \dots & 6a_db_{d-6} + 4a_{d-1}b_{d-5} + 2a_{d-2}b_{d-4} - 2a_{d-4}b_{d-2} - 4a_{d-5}b_{d-1} - 6a_{d-6}b_d& \;\;5a_db_{d-5} + 3a_{d-1}b_{d-4} + a_{d-2}b_{d-3} - a_{d-3}b_{d-2} - 3a_{d-4}b_{d-1} - 5a_{d-5}b_d\;
\end{pmatrix}$}}$$\
See the proof of Lemma \[lem:Riccati\] for the three remaining columns. Our main result is the following:
\[thm:Silv\] Let $K=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ and suppose that $\phi(x)\in K(x)$ of degree $d\geq2$ has the following properties:
1. The overdetermined system of linear equations corresponding to the augmented matrix $(M_\phi|R_\phi)$, with column vector $R_\phi=(r_n)$ defined by $$r_n=\sum_{i=0}^na_{d-i}b_{d-n+i}'-\sum_{i=0}^nb_{d-i}a_{d-n+i}'$$ for $0\leq n\leq6$, is inconsistent (i.e. has no solutions).
2. $\infty\not\in{\operatorname{PostCrit}}_\phi$, i.e. $\infty$ is not in the forward orbit of any of the critical points of $\phi$.
Let $\alpha\in K$ be any wandering point for $\phi$, and write $$\phi^n(\alpha)=\frac{a_n(t)}{b_n(t)}$$ for some polynomials $a_n(t), b_n(t)\in\mathbb{F}_q[t]$ in lowest terms. Then $${\label{silvlim}}
\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\, \frac{\deg(a_n)}{\deg(b_n)}\leq 2.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Orb}}_\phi(\alpha):=\{\phi^n(\alpha)\}_{n\geq1}$ contains finitely many polynomials. Additionally, $${\label{liminf}}
\frac{1}{2}\leq\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\, \frac{\deg(a_n)}{\deg(b_n)}\leq\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\, \frac{\deg(a_n)}{\deg(b_n)}\leq 2 \vspace{.1cm}$$ whenever the rational function $1/\phi(1/x)$ also satisfies assumptions and .
We make the convention that any coefficients defining $M_\phi$ and $R_\phi$ with negative indices are zero. Moreover, we say that $\alpha\in K$ is a *wandering point* for $\phi$ if the dynamical orbit ${\operatorname{Orb}}_\phi(\alpha):=\{\phi^n(\alpha)\}_{n\geq1}$ is an infinite set. For examples and computations related to Lattés maps and elliptic curves, see Section \[sec:lattes\].
Diophantine Approximation Over Function Fields
==============================================
For number fields $K/\mathbb{Q}$ and rational functions $\phi(x)\in K(x)$, the main result on diophantine approximation of iterates is due to Silverman [@Silv-Int]. Loosely speaking, this result states that if $0$ and $\infty$ are not totally ramified fixed points of the second iterate of $\phi$ (in particular, we do not consider polynomials), then the numerator and denominator of the iterates of any wandering point $\alpha\in K$ have roughly the same height. We state this precisely over the rational numbers:
[\[Silv-NF\]]{} Let $\phi(x)\in\mathbb{Q}(x)$ be a rational map with the property that both $\phi^2(x)$ and $1/\phi^2(1/x)$ are not polynomials. Let $\alpha\in\mathbb{Q}$ be a wandering point for $\phi$, and write $$\phi^n(\alpha)=\frac{a_n}{b_n}$$ for some integers $a_n,b_n\in\mathbb{Z}$ in lowest terms. Then $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{\log|a_n|}{\log|b_n|}=1.$$ In particular, ${\operatorname{Orb}}_\phi(\alpha)$ contains only finitely many integers.
Theorem \[Silv-NF\] generalizes a result of Siegel [@Siegel] regarding the height of the numerator and denominator of the $x$-coordinate of large point on an elliptic curve [@Silv-Dyn Theorem 3.39].
The main obstruction to generalizing Silverman’s proof in characteristic zero to positive characteristic is the failure of Roth’s theorem. For instance, it was known to Mahler [@Mahler] that the algebraic function $\beta=\sum_{j=0}^\infty t^{-q^j}$, satisfying the equation $\beta^q-\beta-t^{-1}=0$, has a large diophantine approximation exponent: $$E(\beta):=\limsup\Big(-\frac{\log_q|\beta-P/Q|}{\log_q|Q|}\,\Big)=q=d(\beta):=[K(\beta):K];$$ here $P, Q\in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ and $|\cdot|$ is an extension of the absolute $|P/Q|:=q^{\deg(P)-\deg(Q)}$ to $K(\beta)$. In particular, such $\beta$ never satisfies the Roth Bound, i.e. $E(\beta)=2$, in odd characteristic. Nevertheless, any improvement of the Liouville bound $E(\beta)\leq d(\beta)$ often leads to nontrivial arithmetic consequences, and we exploit this principal here to prove our main result.
The first such improvement in characteristic $p$ is due to Osgood [@Osgood Theorem 3]:
[\[Osgood\]]{} Let $K=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ and let $\beta\in\overline{K}{\mathbin{\fgebackslash}}\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$. Then $$E(\beta)\leq \big\lfloor\frac{1}{2}(d(\beta)+3)\big\rfloor,$$ unless $\beta\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$ and $\beta$ satisfies: $${\label{eq:Ricatti}}
\beta'=a\beta^2+b\beta+c, \;\;\; \text{for some}\;\, a,b,c\in K;$$ such a differential equation is called a generalized Riccati equation:
For $f\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$, we define the derivative $f'\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$ by extending the usual derivative $\frac{d}{dt}$ on $K$ via implicit differentiation.
Therefore, the technical condition (1) of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] comes from our attempt to grapple with iterated preimages of infinity satisfying a generalized Riccati equation. To that end, we have the following fundamental lemma:
[\[lem:Riccati\]]{} Let $K=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$, and let $\phi(x)\in K(x)$ satisfy the following assumption:
1. The overdetermined system of linear equations corresponding to the augmented matrix $(M_\phi|R_\phi)$, with column vector $R_\phi=(r_n)$ defined by $$r_n=\sum_{i=0}^na_{d-i}b_{d-n+i}'-\sum_{i=0}^nb_{d-i}a_{d-n+i}'$$ for $0\leq n\leq6$, is inconsistent (i.e. has no solutions).
If $\beta\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$ is such that $\beta$ and $\phi(\beta)$ both satisfy a Riccati equation, then $[K(\beta):K]\leq 2d$.
Let $\phi(x)=F(x)/G(x)$ for some polynomials $F,G\in K[x]$ and suppose that $\beta\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$ is such that $${\label{diff1}}
\beta'=a\beta^2+b\beta+c\;\;\; \text{and}\;\;\; \phi(\beta)'=e\phi(\beta)^2+f\phi(\beta)+g$$ for some $a,b,c,e,f,g\in K$, i.e. assume that $\beta$ and $\phi(\beta)$ both satisfy a Riccati equation.
Note that we may assume that $G(\beta)\neq0$, since otherwise $[K(\beta):K]\leq d$ and we are finished. On the other hand, if $G(\beta)\neq0$ and $\beta\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$, then we can differentiate the expression $F(\beta)=\phi(\beta)\cdot G(\beta)$ via the product rule to obtain $${\label{diff2}}
F_1(\beta)+F_2(\beta)\cdot \beta'=\phi(\beta)\cdot\big[G_1(\beta)+G_2(\beta)\cdot\beta'\big]+G(\beta)\cdot\phi(\beta)'\,;$$ here, the polynomials $F_1$ and $F_2$, associated to $F(x)=a_dx^d+\dots +a_1x+a_0$, are defined by $$F_1(x)=a_d'x^d+\dots+a_1'x+ a_0'\,\;\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\;\, F_2(x)=da_dx^{d-1}+(d-1)a_{d-1}x^{d-2}+\dots+ a_1,$$ and we define $G_1$ and $G_2$ (associated to $G$) in a similar manner. In particular, after substituting $\phi(\beta)=F(\beta)/G(\beta)$ and the differential equations in (\[diff1\]) into (\[diff2\]), we see that $$\begin{gathered}
{\label{poly}}
\begin{split}
\big[G(\beta)F_2(\beta)-F(\beta)G_2(\beta)\big]&(e\beta^2+f\beta+g)-F(\beta)G_1(\beta)+G(\beta)F_1(\beta)\\[5pt]
&- aF(\beta)^2-bF(\beta)G(\beta)-cG(\beta)^2=0,
\end{split} \end{gathered}$$ and we obtain a polynomial $P_{\phi,\beta}\in K[x]$ that vanishes at $\beta$. One easily verifies that the $x^{2d+1}$ term above vanishes, so that $P_{\phi,\beta}$ is a polynomial of degree $\leq 2d$. Therefore, it suffices to show that $P_{\phi,\beta}$ is non-zero, to prove the lemma. To do this, we assume for a contradiction that $P_{\phi,\beta}$ is the zero polynomial.
Now let us view the Riccati coefficients $(a,b,c,e,f,g)$ as indeterminates, and let $E_i(\phi)\in K[a,b,c,e,f,g]$ be the coefficient of $x^{2d-i}$ in the polynomial $P_{\phi}\in K[a,b,c,e,f,g,x]$ defined by (\[poly\]) for $0\leq i\leq2d$; that is, $P_{\phi,\beta}\in K[x]$ is the polynomial in one variable obtained from $P_\phi$ via specializing the specific values $v_\beta:=(a,b,c,e,f,g)$ coming from the Riccati equations in (\[diff1\]). In particular, each $E_i(\phi)$ is *linear* in the variables $(a,b,c,e,f,g)$. Therefore, if $P_{\phi,\beta}$ is identically zero, we see that the vector $v_\beta\in K^6$ is a solution to the system of equations $E_i(\phi)=0$ for all $0\leq i\leq2d$.
Of course, it is likely that for a generic $\phi$ of degree $d\geq4$, this system of equations has $\emph{no solutions}$, since the number of equations exceeds the number of variables. However, most $E_i(\phi)$ become quite complicated in large degree, and so in the interest of being as explicit as possible, we ignore all but the first seven equations, $E_i(\phi)=0$ for all $0\leq i\leq 6$. They are given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
E_0(\phi) :{}& (-a_{d}^2)a + (-a_{d}b_{d})b + (-b_{d}^2)c + (a_{d}b_{d-1} - a_{d-1}b_{d})e =r_0.
\end{split}\\[7pt]
\begin{split}
E_1(\phi) :{}&(-2a_{d}a_{d-1})a + (-a_{d}b_{d-1} - a_{d-1}b_{d})b + (-2b_{d}b_{d-1})c + (2a_{d}b_{d-2} - 2a_{d-2}b_{d})e \\
&+ (a_{d}b_{d-1} - a_{d-1}b_{d})f =r_1.
\end{split}\\[7pt]
\begin{split}
E_2(\phi) :{} &(-2a_{d}a_{d-2} - a_{d-1}^2)a + (-a_{d}b_{d-2} - a_{d-1}b_{d-1} - a_{d-2}b_{d})b\\
&+ (-2b_{d}b_{d-2} - b_{d-1}^2)c + (3a_{d}b_{d-3} + a_{d-1}b_{d-2} - a_{d-2}b_{d-1} - 3a_{d-3}b_{d})e\\
&+ (2a_{d}b_{d-2} - 2a_{d-2}b_{d})f + (a_{d}b_{d-1} - a_{d-1}b_{d})g= r_2.
\end{split}\\[7pt]
\begin{split}
E_3(\phi) :{}& (-2a_da_{d-3} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-2})a + (-a_db_{d-3} - a_{d-1}b_{d-2} - a_{d-2}b_{d-1} - a_{d-3}b_d)b \\
& + (-2b_db_{d-3} -2b_{d-1}b_{d-2})c+ (4a_db_{d-4} + 2a_{d-1}b_{d-3} - 2a_{d-3}b_{d-1} - 4a_{d-4}b_d)e\\
& + (3a_db_{d-3} + a_{d-1}b_{d-2} -a_{d-2}b_{d-1} - 3a_{d-3}b_d)f + (2a_db_{d-2} - 2a_{d-2}b_d)g = r_3
\end{split}\\[7pt]
\begin{split}
E_4(\phi) :{}& (-2a_da_{d-4} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-3} - a_{d-2}^2)a + (-a_db_{d-4} - a_{d-1}b_{d-3} - a_{d-2}b_{d-2} - a_{d-3}b_{d-1}\\
& - a_{d-4}b_d)b + (-2b_db_{d-4} - 2b_{d-1}b_{d-3} - b_{d-2}^2)c + (5a_db_{d-5} + 3a_{d-1}b_{d-4} + a_{d-2}b_{d-3}\\
& - a_{d-3}b_{d-2}- 3a_{d-4}b_{d-1} - 5a_{d-5}b_d)e + (4a_db_{d-4} + 2a_{d-1}b_{d-3} - 2a_{d-3}b_{d-1} - 4a_{d-4}b_d)f \\
& + (3a_db_{d-3} + a_{d-1}b_{d-2} - a_{d-2}b_{d-1} - 3a_{d-3}b_d)g= r_4.
\end{split}\\[7pt]
\begin{split}
E_5(\phi) :{}& (-2a_da_{d-5} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-4} - 2a_{d-2}a_{d-3})a + (-a_db_{d-5} - a_{d-1}b_{d-4} - a_{d-2}b_{d-3} - a_{d-3}b_{d-2}\\
&- a_{d-4}b_{d-1} -a_{d-5}b_d)b + (-2b_db_{d-5} - 2b_{d-1}b_{d-4} - 2b_{d-2}b_{d-3})c + (6a_db_{d-6} + 4a_{d-1}b_{d-5} \\
& + 2a_{d-2}b_{d-4} - 2a_{d-4}b_{d-2} - 4a_{d-5}b_{d-1} - 6a_{d-6}b_d)e + (5a_db_{d-5} + 3a_{d-1}b_{d-4} + a_{d-2}b_{d-3}\\
& - a_{d-3}b_{d-2} - 3a_{d-4}b_{d-1} - 5a_{d-5}b_d)f + (4a_db_{d-4} + 2a_{d-1}b_{d-3} - 2a_{d-3}b_{d-1} - 4a_{d-4}b_d)g\\
& = r_5.
\end{split}\\[7pt]
\begin{split}
E_6(\phi) :{} & (-2a_da_{d-6} - 2a_{d-1}a_{d-5} - 2a_{d-2}a_{d-4} - a_{d-3}^2)a + (-a_{d}b_{d-6} - a_{d-1}b_{d-5} - a_{d-2}b_{d-4}\\
& - a_{d-3}b_{d-3} - a_{d-4}b_{d-2} - a_{d-5}b_{d-1} - a_{d-6}b_d)b + (-2b_db_{d-6} - 2b_{d-1}b_{d-5} - 2b_{d-2}b_{d-4}\\
& - b_{d-3}^2)c + (7a_db_{d-7} + 5a_{d-1}b_{d-6} + 3a_{d-2}b_{d-5} + a_{d-3}b_{d-4} - a_{d-4}b_{d-3} - 3a_{d-5}b_{d-2}\\
&- 5a_{d-6}b_{d-1}- 7a_{d-7}b_d)e+ (6a_db_{d-6}+ 4a_{d-1}b_{d-5} + 2a_{d-2}b_{d-4} - 2a_{d-4}b_{d-2} - 4a_{d-5}b_{d-1}\\
&- 6a_{d-6}b_d)f+ (5a_db_{d-5} + 3a_{d-1}b_{d-4} + a_{d-2}b_{d-3}- a_{d-3}b_{d-2} - 3a_{d-4}b_{d-1} - 5a_{d-5}b_d)g= r_6.
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ Here the $r_n\in K$ for $0\leq n\leq 6$ are defined as in Lemma \[lem:Riccati\]. In particular, since this system of equations, corresponding to the augmented matrix $(M_\phi| R_\phi)$, is assumed to be inconsistent, there can be no solutions $(a,b,c,e,f,g)\in K^6$. Hence, the polynomial $P_{\phi,\beta}\in K[x]$ is non-zero and $[K(\beta):K]\leq2d$ as claimed.
Now let $K_v$ be a completion of the absolute value $|\cdot|$ on $K$ corresponding to the valuation $v={\operatorname{ord}}_\infty$ on $K$. We can associate the *chordal metric* $\rho:\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v)\times\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v) \rightarrow [0,1]$ given by $$\rho\big([X_1,Y_1], [X_2,Y_2]\big)=\frac{|X_1Y_2-X_2Y_1|}{\max\{|X_1|,|Y_1|\}\, \max\{|X_2|,|Y_2|\}}$$ A nice property that we use in the proof of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] is that rational maps are Lipschitz with respect to the chordal metric:
[\[lem:lip\]]{} Let $\phi(x)\in K(x)$ be a rational map. Then $\phi$ is Lipschitz with respect to the chordal metric. Specifically, $$\rho(\phi(P_1),\phi(P_2))\leq |{\operatorname{Res}}(\phi)|^{-2}\,\rho(P_1,P_2)\;\;\;\;\; \text{for all}\;\, P_1,P_2\in\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v);$$ here ${\operatorname{Res}}(\phi)$ is the resultant of $\phi$; see [@Silv-Dyn §2.4] for a definition.
However, as in the proof of Silverman’s limit theorem over number fields [@Silv-Int], we also need to control the chordal metric under taking preimages of rational functions; see Lemma 3.51 and Excercise 4.43 of [@Silv-Dyn] for a proof of the following fact.
\[lem:inv\] Let $\phi(x)\in K(x)$ be a map of degree $d\geq2$. For $Q\in\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v)$, let $$\textbf{e}_Q(\phi):=\max_{Q'\in\phi^{-1}(Q)} e_{Q'}(\phi)$$ be the maximum of the ramification indices of the points in the inverse image of $Q$. Then there is a positive constant $C_v=C_v(\phi,Q)$ such that $$\min_{Q'\in\phi^{-1}(Q)}\rho(P,Q')^{\textbf{e}_Q(\phi)}\leq \frac{1}{C_v}\,\rho(\phi(P),Q)\;\;\;\;\text{for all}\;\,P\in\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v).$$\
In other words, if $\phi(P)$ is close to $Q$, then there is a point in the inverse image of $Q$ that is close to $P$, but ramification affects how close.
Finally, we need an elementary lemma that compares the chordal metric $\rho(x,y)$ to the usual distance $|x-y|$ for certain $x,y\in\overline{K}_v$; see [@Silv-Dyn Lemma 3.53] for a proof of the following:
[\[lem:comp\]]{} Let $\rho$ be the chordal metric on $\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v)$ and suppose that $x,y\in\overline{K}_v$ satisfy $\rho(x,y)\leq\frac{1}{2}\,\rho(y,\infty)$. Then $$\rho(x,y)\geq|x-y|\cdot \frac{\rho(y,\infty)^2}{2}.$$
With these auxiliary estimates in place, we are now ready to prove our main result.
Main Argument
=============
[\[sec:Main\]]{}
To prove statement (\[silvlim\]), it suffices to show that for all $\epsilon>0$ there exist only finitely many iterates $n$ satisfying $\deg(a_n)\geq (2+\epsilon)\deg(b_n)$. Equivalently, we wish to show that the set $${\label{set}}
N(\phi,\alpha, \epsilon)=\big\{n\,:\; |a_n|\geq |b_n|^{2+\epsilon}\big\}\vspace{.1cm}$$ is finite. To do this, suppose that $0< \epsilon\leq\frac{1}{5}$ and that $n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$. Then for such $\epsilon$, $${\label{ineq1}}
\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq \frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1+\epsilon}{2+\epsilon}}}=\frac{\;\;\;\,|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2+\epsilon}}}{|a_n|\;}\geq\frac{|b_n|}{|a_n|}=\rho(\phi^n(\alpha),\infty).\\$$ Now let us assume, for a contradiction, that $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is infinite. Lemma \[lem:inv\] implies that for all $m\geq1$ and $n>m$ there exists $\beta_m\in\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v)$ such that: $${\label{ineq2}}
\phi^m(\beta_m)=\infty\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \rho(\phi^n(\alpha),\infty)\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot \rho(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha), \beta_m)$$ for some constant $C(\phi,m)=C(\phi^m,\infty)$; here we use crucially that $\infty\not\in{\operatorname{PostCrit}}_\phi$, which implies that the ramification indices $$e_\beta(\phi^m)=e_\beta(\phi) e_{\phi(\beta)}(\phi)\dots \,e_{\phi^{m-1}(\beta)}(\phi)=1$$ for all $\beta\in \mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K}_v)$ satisfying $\phi^m(\beta)=\infty$. To see this, note that if $e_\beta(\phi^m)>1$, then the product above implies that $\phi^{j}(\beta)=\gamma_j$ is a ramification point of $\phi$ for some $0\leq j<m$; hence, $$\phi^{m-j}(\gamma_j)=\phi^{m-j}(\phi^{j}(\beta))=\phi^m(\beta)=\infty,$$ which contradicts assumption (2) of Theorem \[thm:Silv\]. In particular, if $m>0$, then (\[ineq1\]) and (\[ineq2\]) together imply that $${\label{ineq3}}
\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot\rho(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha), \beta_m)$$\
for all $n>m$ and $n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$. Now fix, once and for all, an integer $${\label{m}}
m\geq\max\Big\{\log_d\Big(\frac{3}{2\epsilon^2}\Big)+1,4\Big\}.$$ Since $\alpha$ is wandering, it follows that $\{\deg({a_n})\}_{n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)}$ is an unbounded sequence: otherwise, $h(\phi^n(\alpha))=\deg(a_n)$ is bounded over all $n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$, and since there are only finitely many points of $K$ of bounded height by Northcott’s theorem [@Silv-Dyn Theorem 3.7], we must have that $\phi^{n_1}(\alpha)=\phi^{n_2}(\alpha)$ for some $n_1\neq n_2$, a contradiction. Therefore, (\[ineq3\]) implies that $\rho(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha), \beta_m)\rightarrow0$ as $n$ grows, and so we may choose $n$ sufficiently large so that $$\rho(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha), \beta_m)\leq \frac{1}{2}\, \rho(\beta_m,\infty).$$ Therefore, if $\beta_m\neq\infty$, then Lemma \[lem:comp\] and (\[ineq3\]) imply that $${\label{ineq4}}
\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot \big|\phi^{n-m}(\alpha)-\beta_m\big| \cdot \frac{\rho(\beta_m,\infty)^2}{2}.$$ We now proceed in cases: in Cases (1)-(3), we assume that $\beta_m$ is not the point at infinity.\
**Case (1):** Suppose that $\beta_m\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ and write $\beta_m=p/q$ for some polynomials $p, q \in \overline{\mathbb{F}}_q[t]$. Since $\alpha$ is wandering and $m$ is fixed, we may choose $n$ sufficiently large so that $\phi^{n-m}(\alpha)\neq \beta_m$. In particular, (\[ineq4\]) reduces to $$\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot \bigg|\frac{a_{n-m}q-b_{n-m}p}{qb_{n-m}}\bigg| \cdot \frac{\rho(\beta_m,\infty)^2}{2}\geq \kappa_1(\phi,m)\cdot\frac{1}{|b_{n-m}|}$$ for some constant $\kappa_1(\phi,m)$; here we use the trivial lower bound $|a_{n-m}q-b_{n-m}p|\geq1$, which holds since $a_{n-m}q-b_{n-m}p$ is a nonzero polynomial. After applying $\log_q(\cdot)$ to both sides of the inequality above, we see that $$(1/2+\epsilon^2)\deg(a_n) \leq \deg(b_{n-m})+\log_q(\kappa_1(\phi,m))\leq h(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha))+\log_q(\kappa_1(\phi,m)).$$ On the other hand, $$\deg(a_n)=\max\{\deg(a_n),\deg(b_n)\}=h(\phi^n(\alpha))\;\;\;\;\;\;\text{for all}\;\;n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon),$$ and it follows from standard properties of the canonical height [@Silv-Dyn Theorem 3.20]: $$h=\hat{h}_\phi +O(1)\;\;\; \text{and}\;\;\; \hat{h}_\phi(\phi^k(P))=d^k\cdot\hat{h}_\phi(P)$$ for all $P\in\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K})$, that $$d^n\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\leq d^{n-m+1}\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)+\kappa_2(\phi,m,\epsilon);$$ here we use also that $d\geq2$ and $\epsilon$ is positive. In particular, since $\hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\neq0$, we may divide this term out and obtain $$d^n\leq d^{n-m+1}+\kappa_3(\phi,\alpha, m,\epsilon)\leq d^{n-3}+\kappa_3(\phi,\alpha, m,\epsilon),$$ since $m$ is at least $4$. Therefore, $d^3\geq 8$ implies that $$n\leq \log_d\bigg(\frac{\kappa_3(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon)}{7}\bigg)+3,$$ and $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is finite as claimed.\
**Case (2):** Suppose that $\beta_m\not\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ and $[K(\beta_m):K]\leq 2d$. Then the ordinary Liouville bound for $\beta_m$ established by Mahler [@Mahler] and the upper bound in (\[ineq4\]) imply that $$\begin{aligned}
(1/2+\epsilon^2)\deg(a_n) &\leq 2d\cdot\deg(b_{n-m})+\log_q\Big( C(\phi,m)\,\frac{\rho(\beta_m,\infty)^2}{2}\,\Big)\\[5pt]
&\leq 2d\cdot h(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha))+\kappa_4(\phi,m)\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $\kappa_4(\phi,m)$. On the other hand, $\deg(a_n)=h(\phi^n(\alpha))$ for all $n\in N(\phi,\alpha, \epsilon)$, and it follows from standard properties of the canonical height [@Silv-Dyn Theorem 3.20] that $$(1/2+\epsilon^2)\cdot\hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\cdot d^n\leq d^{n-m+2}\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)+\kappa_5(\phi,m,\epsilon).$$ Moreover, since $\hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\neq0$, $d\geq2$ and $\epsilon>0$, we can deduce that $$d^n\leq d^{n-m+3}+\kappa_6(\phi,\alpha, m,\epsilon).$$ On the other hand, $m\geq4$ by assumption, so that the bound above implies that $$n\leq\log_d(\kappa_6(\phi,\alpha, m,\epsilon))+1.$$ Therefore, $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is finite as claimed.\
**Case (3):** Now suppose that $\beta_m\not\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ and $[K(\beta_m):K]> 2d$. Then Lemma \[lem:Riccati\] and assumption (1) of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] imply that $\beta_m$ and $\phi(\beta_m)$ cannot both satisfy a Riccati equation (whenever $\beta_m$ is separable).
We assume first that $\beta_m$ does not satisfy such an equation. Then (\[ineq4\]) and [@Osgood Theorem 3] applied to $\beta_m$ (separable or inseparable) imply that $$\begin{aligned}
(1/2+\epsilon^2)\deg(a_n) \leq& \Big(\frac{d(\beta_m)+3}{2}\Big)\deg(b_{n-m})+\log_q\Big( C(\phi,m)\,\frac{\rho(\beta_m,\infty)^2}{2}\,\Big)+\kappa_7(\phi,m)\\[8pt]
\leq & \Big(\frac{d^m+3}{2}\Big)h(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha)) + \kappa_8(\phi,m);\end{aligned}$$ recall that $d(\beta_m)=[K(\beta_m):K]$ is the algebraic degree of $\beta_m$ over $K$, and hence $d(\beta_m)\leq d^m$. On the other hand, $h(\phi^n(\alpha))=\deg(a_n)$ for all $n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$, so that $$(1/2+\epsilon^2)\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\cdot d^n \leq \Big(\frac{d^m+3}{2}\Big)\cdot d^{n-m}\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha) + \kappa_9(\phi,m,\epsilon)$$ follows from properties of the canonical height [@Silv-Dyn Theorem 3.20]. Since $\hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\neq0$, we may divide this term out and simplify to $$d^n\leq \frac{3}{2\epsilon^2}\,d^{n-m}+ \kappa_{10}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon)\leq d^{n-1}+\kappa_{10}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon);$$ here we use our assumption that $m\geq\max\big\{\log_d\big(\frac{3}{2\epsilon^2}\big)+1,4\big\}$. In particular, we deduce that $$n\leq\log_d\big(\kappa_{10}(\phi,\alpha, m,\epsilon)\big)+1,$$ and that $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is again finite.
Likewise, if $\phi(\beta_m)$ does not satisfy a Riccati equation, then the fact that rational maps are Lipschitz with respect to the chordal metric (see Lemma \[lem:lip\] above), together with (\[ineq3\]), imply that $$\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot{\operatorname{Res}}(\phi)^2\cdot\rho\big(\phi^{n-m+1}(\alpha),\, \phi(\beta_m)\big).$$ On the other hand, Lemma \[lem:comp\] and the fact that $\deg(a_n)\rightarrow \infty$ for increasing $n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ imply that we may choose $n$ sufficiently large so that $${\label{ineq5}}
\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot{\operatorname{Res}}(\phi)^2\cdot \big|\phi^{n-m+1}(\alpha)-\phi(\beta_m)\big|\cdot \frac{\rho(\phi(\beta_m),\infty)^2}{2}.$$ From here, the argument proceeds as in the first part of Case (3). Specifically, (\[ineq5\]) and the Osgood bound [@Osgood Theorem 3] applied to the algebraic function $\phi(\beta_m)$ yield : $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{-.75cm}
(1/2+\epsilon^2)\deg(a_n) \leq& \bigg(\frac{d(\phi(\beta_m))+3}{2}\bigg)\deg(b_{n-m+1})+\log_q\bigg( C(\phi,m)\,{\operatorname{Res}}(\phi)^2\,\frac{\rho(\phi(\beta_m),\infty)^2}{2}\,\bigg)+\kappa_{11}(\phi,m)\\[8pt]
\leq & \Big(\frac{d^{m-1}+3}{2}\Big)h(\phi^{n-m+1}(\alpha)) + \kappa_{12}(\phi,m); \vspace{.01cm} \end{aligned}$$ recall that $d(\phi(\beta_m))$ is the degree of $\phi(\beta_m)$ over $K$, and note that we have the trivial bound $d(\phi(\beta_m))\leq d^{m-1}$, since $$\phi^{m-1}(\phi(\beta_m))=\phi^m(\beta_m)=\infty$$ and $\phi^{m-1}$ is a map of degree $d^{m-1}$. On the other hand, $h(\phi^n(\alpha))=\deg(a_n)$ for $n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$, so that $$(1/2+\epsilon^2)\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\cdot d^n \leq \Big(\frac{d^{m-1}+3}{2}\Big)\cdot d^{n-m+1}\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha) + \kappa_{13}(\phi,m,\epsilon)$$ follows from properties of the canonical height [@Silv-Dyn Theorem 3.20]. Finally, since $\hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\neq0$, we may divide this term out and simplify to $$d^n\leq \frac{3}{2\epsilon^2}\,d^{n-m}+ \kappa_{14}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon)\leq d^{n-1}+\kappa_{14}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon);$$ here again we use our assumption that $m\geq\max\big\{\log_d\big(\frac{3}{2\epsilon^2}\big)+1,4\big\}$. In particular, we deduce that $$n\leq\log_d\big(\kappa_{14}(\phi,\alpha, m,\epsilon)\big)+1,$$ and that $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is finite.\
**Case (4):** Finally, suppose that $\beta_m$ is the point at infinity; in particular, $\phi^m(\infty)=\infty$ and $\infty$ is a periodic point of $\phi$. Then (\[ineq3\]) implies that $$\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot \frac{|b_{n-m}|}{\max\big\{|a_{n-m}|\,,|b_{n-m}|\big\}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot\frac{1}{H(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha))};$$ here $H(P)=q^{\,h(P)}$ is the multiplicative Weil height of $P\in \mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K})$. Note that we may assume that $b_{n-m}\neq0$ for all $n$ sufficiently large, since $\alpha$ is wandering. In particular, we see that $$(1/2+\epsilon^2)h(\phi^n(\alpha))=(1/2+\epsilon^2)\deg(a_n)\leq h(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha))+ \log_q(C_m).$$ It follows from standard properties of canonical heights and that $d\geq2$, that $$d^n\leq d^{n-m+1}+\kappa_{15}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon)\leq d^{n-3}+\kappa_{15}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon);$$ here we use our assumption that $m$ is at least $4$. Therefore, $$n\leq \log_d\bigg(\frac{\kappa_{15}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon)}{7}\bigg)+3,$$ and $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is finite; note that in this case, we have proven the $\limsup$ part of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] without the use of the Mahler [@Mahler] or Osgood [@Osgood] bound on the diophantine exponent. Finally, let $\pi(x):=1/\phi(1/x)$ and note that $\pi^n(1/\alpha)=b_n/a_n$. In particular, by repeating the argument above for $\pi$, we obtain the lower bound in Theorem \[thm:Silv\].
It is likely that one can improve the limit bound in Theorem \[thm:Silv\] to the optimum bound of $1$ in Case (1), Case (2) and Case (4) above. However, these cases are extremely rare (in fact, it is not even clear to the author that Case (1) and Case (2) can occur for all $m$ sufficiently large, given the assumptions in Theorem \[thm:Silv\] and conjectures related to eventual stability [@Rafe]), and we have chosen to keep our arguments consistent across all cases.
We conclude this section with a family of rational maps in every degree $d\geq6$ satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:Silv\]. For a fixed degree $d$, this family likely has moderate codimension in ${\operatorname{Rat}}_d$, the space of all rational maps of degree $d$; for more on ${\operatorname{Rat}}_d$, see [@Silv-Dyn §4.3]
[\[prop:example\]]{} Let $K=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ have characteristic $p>5$, and let $d\geq6$. If $h(x)\in K[x]$ is a polynomial of degree at most $d-6$ such that $x^d+t^2x^{d-1}+tx^{d-2}+tx^{d-5}+h(x)$ is irreducible over $K$, then $${\label{eg1}}
\phi(x):=\frac{x^{d}}{x^d+t^2x^{d-1}+tx^{d-2}+tx^{d-5}+h(x)}$$ satisfies hypothesis and of Theorem \[thm:Silv\]. In particular, this statement holds for $h(x)=t$ by Eisenstein’s criterion.
Let $M_{\phi}'$ and $R_\phi'$ be the matrices obtained from $M_\phi$ and $R_\phi$ by deleting their bottom rows. Since $M_\phi'$ has determinant $-12t^6\neq0$, we see that the subsystem of linear equations $(M_\phi',R_\phi')$ has a unique solution $$(a,b,c,e,f,g)=\bigg(\frac{1/2t^3 + 7/2}{t},\, \frac{-6}{t},\, \frac{5}{2t},\, \frac{1}{2},\, 0,\, \frac{5}{2}t\bigg).$$ On the other hand, after substituting this solution into the deleted equation corresponding to the bottom row of $(M_\phi,R_\phi)$, we see that $\frac{15}{2}t^2=0$, a contradiction. In particular, the system $(M_\phi,R_\phi)$ has no solutions and assumption (1) of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] holds.
As for ramification, since $\phi$ is not defined over $\mathbb{F}_q(t^p)$, it follows from [@Silv-Dyn Exercise 1.10] that $\phi$ is a separable. Likewise, since the denominator $g(x)=x^d+t^2x^{d-1}+tx^{d-2}+tx^{d-5}+h(x)$ is not defined over $\mathbb{F}_q[t^p]$ and irreducible, the poles of $\phi$ are not critical points. Similarly, $\infty$ is not a critical point of $\phi$ by [@Silv-Dyn Exercise 1.6(b)]. Therefore, any critical points of $\phi$ must be a root of $x^{d-1}\big(t^2x^{d-1}+2tx^{d-2}+5tx^{d-5}+d\cdot h(x)-xh'(x)\big)$, the numerator of the formal derivative of (\[eg1\]). In particular, if $\gamma$ is a critical point of $\phi$, then $[K(\gamma):K]\leq d-1$.
Now suppose that $\phi^n(\gamma)=\infty$ for some $n\geq1$. Then $\phi(\phi^{n-1}(\gamma))=\infty$, and $\phi^{n-1}(\gamma)$ must be a root of $g$. However, $g$ is irreducible over $K$, and hence the smallest degree extension of $K$ over which $g$ has a root is $d$. But $\phi^{n-1}(\gamma)\in K(\gamma)$, and thus $$[K(\phi^{n-1}(\gamma)):K]\leq [K(\gamma):K]\leq d-1,$$ a contradiction. Therefore, $\infty\not\in{\operatorname{PostCrit}}_\phi$ and assumption (2) of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] holds.
Lattés Maps and Elliptic Curves
===============================
[\[sec:lattes\]]{} Unfortunately, Theorem \[thm:Silv\] does not apply directly to Lattés maps, i.e. the rational maps on the projective line associated to endomorphisms on elliptic curves [@Silv-Dyn §6.4]. The reason is that infinity is usually contained in the post-critical orbit of these maps; see [@Silv-Dyn Lemma 6.38] and [@Silv-Dyn Proposition 6.45]. However, our methods can be adapted to Lattés maps of degree $4$, an we use this to study canonical heights on elliptic curves [@Silv-Ell VIII.9].
[\[thm:lattes\]]{} Let $K=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ have characteristic at least $5$, let $E: y^2=x^3+Ax+B$ be an elliptic curve over $K$, and let $$\phi_{E,2}(x)= \frac{x^4-2Ax^2-8Bx+A^2}{4x^3+4Ax+4B}$$ be the associated Lattés map of degree $4$ on $\mathbb{P}^1$ corresponding to multiplication by $2$ on $E$. For non-torsion points $P\in E(K)$, write $$x\big([2^n]P\big)=\phi_{E,2}^n(x(P))=\frac{a_n(t)}{b_n(t)}$$ for some polynomials $a_n(t), b_n(t)\in\mathbb{F}_q[t]$ in lowest terms. If $2AB'-3BA'\neq0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\cdot \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\deg(a_n)}{4^n}\leq\;&\hat{h}_E(P)\leq2\cdot \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\deg(a_n)}{4^n}\\[5pt]
&\;\;\,\textup{and}\\[5pt]
\frac{1}{2}\cdot \liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\deg(b_n)}{4^n}\leq\;&\hat{h}_E(P)\leq2\cdot \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\deg(b_n)}{4^n}. \end{aligned}$$ In other words, the canonical height of a non-torsion point on $E$ can be well approximated by the degree of the numerator (or denominator) of a large multiple of the point.
To avoid overly cumbersome notation, we simply write $\phi$ for the Lattés map corresponding to multiplication by $2$. To prove Theorem \[thm:lattes\], we proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:Silv\]. However, there are two differences. First, the point at infinity is always in the post-critical orbit of $\phi$. Therefore, we must show that the ramification index $e_{\phi^m}(\beta)$ for any $\beta\in\overline{K}$ satisfying $\phi^m(\beta)=\infty$, is not too large.
[\[ram:lattes\]]{} Let $E$ be an elliptic curve and let $\phi_{E,n}=\phi$ be a Lattés map associated to multiplication by $n$ on $E$. Fix $Q\in\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K})$, and suppose that $\beta\in\mathbb{P}^1(\overline{K})$ satisfies $\phi^m(\beta)=Q$ for some iterate $m\geq1$. Then $e_{\phi^m}(\beta)\leq2$.
It is known that $\phi$ has the following properties: every critical point of $\phi$ is simple (ramification degree $2$) and $\phi$ has exactly four post-critical points, non of which is also critical; In fact, in characteristic zero, these properties completely characterize the Lattés maps [@Milnor P. 247, Remark 3.6 ]. Now suppose that $\phi^{n_1}(\beta)=\gamma_1$ and $\phi^{n_2}(\beta)=\gamma_2 $ for some integers $0\leq n_1<n_2\leq m-1$ and some critical points $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ of $\phi$. Then $$\phi^{n_2-n_1}(\gamma_1)=\phi^{n_2-n_1}(\phi^{n_1}(\beta))=\phi^{n_2}(\beta)=\gamma_2,$$ a contradiction of the fact that no critical points of $\phi$ are post-critical. On the other hand, ramification indices are multiplicative: $$e_\beta(\phi^m)=e_\beta(\phi) e_{\phi(\beta)}(\phi)\dots \,e_{\phi^{m-1}(\beta)}(\phi).$$ Therefore, at most one term in the product above is larger than $1$, and if such a term exists, then it must be equal to $2$ (since every critical point of $\phi$ is simple).
The second difference between the proof of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] and the proof of Theorem \[thm:lattes\] is that we must adapt Lemma \[lem:Riccati\] to include information about $\phi$ and its second iterate. The reason is that the system of linear equations $(M_{\phi},R_{\phi})$ has a unique solution in this case (essentially because $\phi$ has small degree and relatively non-generic coefficients). However, we can remedy this by passing to a larger iterate.
[\[riccati:lattes\]]{} Let $E$ and $\phi$ be as in Theorem \[thm:lattes\] and assume that $2AB'-3BA'\neq0$. If $\beta\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$ is such that $\beta$, $\phi(\beta)$ and $\phi^2(\beta)$ all satisfy a Riccati equation, then $[K(\beta):K]\leq 32$.
Suppose that $\beta$, $\phi(\beta)$ and $\phi^2(\beta)$ all satisfy a Riccati equation, and that $[K(\beta):K]>32$. In particular, since $\beta$ and $\phi(\beta)$ both satisfy a Riccati equation, the proof of Lemma \[lem:Riccati\] implies that the polynomial $P_{\phi,\beta}$ of degree at most $8$ defined in (\[poly\]) must be identically zero. Hence, the system of equations $(M_\phi, R_\phi)$ must have a solution. On the other hand, the submatrix $M_E^{(1)}$ obtained from $M_\phi$ by deleting the bottom row is given by $$M_E^{(1)}:=
\begin{pmatrix}
-1&0 & 0&4&0&0\\
0&-4&0&0&4&0\\
4A&0 &-16 &20A &0 &4\\
16B &4A &0 & 80B &20A &0\\
-6A^2& 28B& 32A&-20A^2& 80B&20A\\
-32AB& 4A^2& -32B&-16AB &-20A^2& 80B
\end{pmatrix}$$ and we compute that the determinant of $M_E^{(1)}$ is $2^{15}3^{4}B(4A^3+27B^2)\neq0$; note that this quantity is nonzero since $E$ is non-singular, $K$ does not have characteristic $2$ or $3$, and $2AB'-3BA'\neq0$. In particular, there are unique coefficients $(a,b,c,e,f,g)\in K^6$, defined by (\[diff1\]), that force the polynomial $P_{\phi,\beta}$ to be identically zero. Specifically, $\beta$ must satisfy the differential equation $${\label{diff:lattes1}}
\beta'=\frac{(-6AB' + 9BA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\beta^2+\frac{(2A^2A' + 9BB')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\beta+\frac{(-4A^2B' + 6ABA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}, \vspace{.1cm}$$ and $\phi(\beta)$ must satisfy the equation $${\label{diff:lattes2}}
\;\;\;\; \phi(\beta)'=\frac{(-3/2AB' + 9/4BA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\phi(\beta)^2+\frac{(2A^2A' + 9BB')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\phi(\beta)+\frac{(-5/2A^2B' + 15/4ABA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}.$$\
We now repeat this argument for $\phi(\beta)$ and $\phi^2(\beta)$. Namely, since $\phi(\beta)$ and $\phi^2(\beta)$ both satisfy a Riccati equation and $[K(\beta):K]> 32$, the proof of Lemma \[lem:Riccati\] implies that the polynomial $P_{\phi,\phi(\beta)}\in K[x]$ of degree at most eight must be identically zero; to see this, note that $$32< [K(\beta):K]=\big[K(\beta):K(\phi(\beta)\big]\cdot \big[K(\phi(\beta)):K\big]\leq 4\cdot \big[K(\phi(\beta)):K\big],\vspace{.1cm}$$ and hence $\phi(\beta)$ has degree at least $9$ over $K$. Therefore, the Riccati coefficients associated to $\phi(\beta)$ and $\phi^2(\beta)$ must also solve the linear system $(M_\phi, R_\phi)$. On the other hand, we have shown that this system has a unique solution, from which we deduce that $\phi(\beta)$ must satisfy the differential equation: $${\label{diff:lattes3}}
\phi(\beta)'=\frac{(-6AB' + 9BA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\phi(\beta)^2+\frac{(2A^2A' + 9BB')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\phi(\beta)+\frac{(-4A^2B' + 6ABA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}. \vspace{.05cm}$$ We now equate (\[diff:lattes2\]) and (\[diff:lattes3\]) and see that $\phi(\beta)$ satisfies the algebraic equation $${\label{alg:lattes1}}
0=\frac{(-9/2AB' + 27/4BA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\phi(\beta)^2+\frac{(-3/2A^2B' + 9/4ABA')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}. \vspace{.1cm}$$ However, the leading term above is non-zero since $2AB'-3BA'\neq0$. Hence, (\[alg:lattes1\]) contradicts the lower bound $[K(\phi(\beta)):K]>8$. In particular, we deduce that if $\beta$, $\phi(\beta)$ and $\phi^2(\beta)$ all satisfy a Riccati equation, then $[K(\beta):K]\leq32$ as claimed.
We now proceed with the proof of Theorem \[thm:lattes\] much as in Section \[sec:Main\]. Specifically, we will show that the set $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$, defined in (\[set\]), is finite for $\alpha=x(P)$ and all $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small. To do this, note that Lemma \[lem:inv\] and Lemma \[ram:lattes\] applied to $Q=\infty$, together imply that for all $m\geq1$ and $n>m$ there exists $\beta_m\in\overline{K}_v$ such that: $${\label{ineq:lattes1}}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\phi^m(\beta_m)=\infty\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \rho(\phi^n(\alpha),\infty)\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot \rho(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha), \beta_m)^2$$ for some constant $C(\phi,m)=C(\phi^m,\infty)$. Now suppose for a contradiction that $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is infinite and that $0<\epsilon\leq\frac{1}{5}$. In what follows, we fix a large integer $$m\geq\max\Big\{\log_4\Big(\frac{48}{\epsilon^2}\Big)+1,5\Big\}.$$ Now, as in $(\ref{ineq4})$, if $\beta_m\neq\infty$, then for all $n\in N(\phi,\alpha, \epsilon)$ sufficiently large, $${\label{ineq:lattes2}}
\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot \big|\phi^{n-m}(\alpha)-\beta_m\big|^2 \cdot \frac{\rho(\beta_m,\infty)^2}{2}.$$ This fact follows from Lemma \[lem:comp\], $(\ref{ineq:lattes1})$ and the fact that $N(\phi,\alpha, \epsilon)$ is infinite.
On the other hand, if $\beta_m\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$, $[K(\beta_m):K]\leq 32$ or $\beta_m=\infty$, then the proof of Theorem \[thm:lattes\] follows the proof of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] nearly verbatim; see Cases (1), (2) and (4) of the proof of Theorem \[thm:Silv\] above. As in these cases, the Liouville bound [@Mahler] on the diophantine approximation exponent of $\beta_m$ suffices to prove that $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is finite: the fact that $|\phi^{n-m}(\alpha)-\beta_m|$ appears to a square factor in (\[ineq:lattes2\]) in the Lattés case only changes the relevant bounds by a constant factor. Specifically, we obtain bounds of the form $$(1/2+\epsilon^2)\cdot h(\phi^n(\alpha))\leq 64 \cdot h(\phi^{n-m}(\alpha))+\kappa_{16}(\phi,m)$$ (or a stronger bound with $64$ replaced with $2$), in any of these special cases. In particular, standard properties of the (dynamical) canonical height $\hat{h}_\phi$ in [@Silv-Dyn Theorem 3.20] imply that $$n\leq \log_4\bigg(\frac{\kappa_{17}(\phi,\alpha,m,\epsilon)}{3}\bigg)+1.$$ Hence, $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is finite as claimed.
Therefore, we may assume that $\beta_m\neq\infty$, $\beta_m\not\in\overline{\mathbb{F}}_q(t)$ and $[K(\beta_m):K]>32$. In particular, Lemma \[riccati:lattes\] implies that at least one of the algebraic functions $\beta_m$, $\phi(\beta_m)$ or $\phi^2(\beta_m)$ does not satisfy a Riccati equation; we now follow Case (3) of the the proof of Theorem \[thm:Silv\]. Fix $0\leq i\leq2$ so that $\beta_m^{(i)}:=\phi^i(\beta_m)$ does not satisfy a Riccati equation. Then Lemma \[lem:lip\], Lemma \[lem:comp\], and the bound in (\[ineq:lattes1\]) imply that $$\frac{1}{|a_n|^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon^2}}\geq C(\phi,m)\cdot{\operatorname{Res}}(\phi^i)^2\cdot \big|\phi^{n-m+i}(\alpha)-\beta_m^{(i)}\big|^2 \cdot \frac{\rho(\beta_m^{(i)},\infty)^2}{2}\vspace{.1cm}$$ for all $n\in N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ sufficiently large. In particular, we deduce $${\label{ineq:lattes3}}
(1/2+\epsilon^2)\cdot h(\phi^n(\alpha))\leq (d(\beta_m^{(i)})+3)\cdot h(\phi^{n-m+i}(\alpha))+\kappa_{18}(\phi,m,i)\vspace{.1cm}$$ from the Osgood bound for $\beta_m^{(i)}$ in Theorem \[Osgood\]; here $d(\beta_m^{(i)})$ is the algebraic degree of $\beta_m^{(i)}$ over $K$. Normally, one cannot improve the trivial bound $d(\beta_m^{(i)})\leq \deg(\phi)^{m-i}$ for generic rational functions $\phi$. However, Lattés maps are special in many ways. In particular, it follows from properties of division polynomials that $${\label{degree}}
d(\beta_m^{(i)})\leq\frac{1}{2}\deg(\phi)^{m-i},$$ whenever $\phi$ is a Lattés map associated to multiplication on an elliptic curve [@Silv-Ell Exercise 3.7]. Therefore, we see that (\[ineq:lattes3\]) and basic properties of the canonical height imply that $$(1/2+\epsilon^2)\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\cdot 4^n\leq 1/2\cdot\hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\cdot 4^n+ 3\cdot \hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)\cdot 4^{n-m+i} + \kappa_{19}(\phi,m,i,\epsilon).$$ After dividing by $\hat{h}_\phi(\alpha)$, a non-negative quantity since $P\in E(K)$ is non-torsion, we see that $$4^n\leq \frac{3}{\,\epsilon^2}\cdot 4^{n-m+i}+\kappa_{20}(\phi,\alpha,m,i,\epsilon)\leq \frac{3}{\,\epsilon^2}\cdot 4^{n-m+2}+\kappa_{20}(\phi,\alpha,m,i,\epsilon) \vspace{.1cm}$$ since $0\leq i\leq 2$. On the other hand, $m>\log_4(48/\epsilon^2)+1$ by assumption, so that the bound above implies that $$4^n\leq 4^{n-1}+\kappa_{20}(\phi,\alpha,m,i,\epsilon).\vspace{.1cm}$$ However, such an inequality forces $n\leq \log_4\big(\kappa_{20}(\phi,\alpha,m,i,\epsilon)/3\big)+1$. Hence, $N(\phi,\alpha,\epsilon)$ is finite as claimed.
To finish the proof, we apply the same argument above to the rational map $\pi(x):=1/\phi(1/x)$ and the basepoint $\alpha:=1/x(P)$. Note first that Lemma \[ram:lattes\] follows immediately for $\pi$ since ramification indices are invariant under conjugation; see [@Silv-Dyn Exercise 1.5]. Specifically, $e_{\pi^m}(\beta)\leq2$ for all $\beta\in \overline{K}$ satisfying $\pi^m(\beta)=\infty$, follows from Lemma \[ram:lattes\] applied to $Q=0$.
Likewise, as was the case for $\phi$, the linear system $(M_\pi, R_\pi)$ has a unique solution vector $(a,b,c,e,f,g)\in K^6$. In particular, if $\beta\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$ is such that $\beta$ and $\pi(\beta)$ both satisfy a Riccati equation and $[K(\beta):K]> 32$, then $${\label{diff:lattes4}}
\beta'=\frac{(4A^2B' - 6AA'B)}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\beta^2+\frac{(-2A^2A' - 9BB')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\beta+\frac{(6AB' - 9A'B)}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}, \vspace{.075cm}$$ and $\pi(\beta)$ must satisfy the equation $${\label{diff:lattes5}}
\;\;\;\; \pi(\beta)'=\frac{(5/2A^2B' - 15/4AA'B)}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\pi(\beta)^2+\frac{(-2A^2A' - 9BB')}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\pi(\beta)+\frac{(3/2AB' - 9/4A'B)}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}. \vspace{.075cm}$$ Repeating this argument for $\pi(\beta)$, we see that if $\beta\in K^{{\operatorname{sep}}}$ is such that $\beta$, $\pi(\beta)$ and $\pi^2(\beta)$ all satisfy a Riccati equation and $[K(\beta):K]>32$, then $\pi(\beta)$ satisfies the algebraic equation, $${\label{alg:lattes}}
0=\frac{(3/2A^2B' - 9/4AA'B)}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}\pi(\beta)^2+\frac{(9/2AB' - 27/4A'B)}{(4A^3 + 27B^2)}. \vspace{.075cm}$$ However, the leading term above is non-zero since $2AB'-3BA'\neq0$; hence the equation above contradicts the lower bound $[K(\beta):K]>32$. In particular, if the first three terms of ${\operatorname{Orb}}_\pi(\beta)$ all satisfy a Riccati equation, then $\beta$ has bounded degree over $K$. From here, the integrality estimates for the $\pi$-orbit of $\alpha=1/x(P)$ follow exactly as the estimates for the $\phi$-orbit of $\alpha=x(P)$.
Most of the proof of Theorem \[thm:lattes\] holds for general Lattés maps. For instance the key facts, Lemma \[ram:lattes\] and (\[degree\]), are true in general. On the other hand, it is unlikely that one can establish a version of Lemma \[riccati:lattes\] without explicit formulas (more than just recursive definitions [@Silv-Ell Exercise 3.7]). However, it may be possible to side-step this problem using Galois representations. More specifically, the author wonders whether Serre’s open image theorem (established by Igusa [@Igusa] in this setting) implies that the $x$-coordinates of large $\ell$-powered torsion points cannot satisfy a Riccati equation; here $\ell$ is a prime number coprime to $p$, the characteristic of $K$. Such a statement, coupled with our techniques, likely implies Theorem \[thm:lattes\] for all Lattés maps. Alternatively, a strong form of Siegel’s theorem for non-isotrivial elliptic curves in characteristic $p$ likely follows from [@Voloch Theorem 2] for all isogenies of degree prime to $p$.
**Acknowledgements:** It is a pleasure to thank Joseph Silverman, Lucien Szpiro, and Felipe Voloch for the useful discussions related to the work in this paper.
[1]{} J. Igusa, Fibre systems of jacobian varieties (III. Fibre systems of elliptic curves), *Amer. J. Math.* 81 (1959): 453-476. R. Jones and A. Levy, Eventually stable rational functions, (preprint) arXiv:1603.00673, March 2016. K. Mahler, On a theorem of Liouville in fields of positive characteristic, *Canad. J. Math* 1 (1949): 397-400. J. Milnor, Collected Papers of John Milnor: VII. Dynamical Systems (1984-2012), American Mathematical Society, 2014. C. Osgood, Effective bounds on the “diophantine approximation" of algebraic functions over fields of arbitrary characteristic and applications to differential equations, *Indagationes Mathematicae* (Proceedings). Vol. 78. No. 2. North-Holland, 1975. C. Siegel, Über einige Anwendungen diophantischer Approximationen. In *Collected Works*, pages 209-266. Springer, Berlin, 1966. J. Silverman, *The arithmetic of dynamical systems*. Springer- Verlag, GTM 241, 2007. J. Silverman, *The arithmetic of elliptic curves*. Springer- Verlag, GTM 106, 1986. Expanded 2nd Edition, 2009. J. Silverman, Integer points, Diophantine approximation, and iteration of rational maps, *Duke Math. J.* 71.3 (1993): 793-829. J. F Voloch, Diophantine approximation on abelian varieties in characteristic $p$, *Amer. J. Math.* 117.4 (1995): 1089-1095.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Phil Trinder, Natalia Chechina, Nikolaos Papaspyrou,</span>'
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Konstantinos Sagonas, Simon Thompson, Stephen Adams, Stavros Aronis,</span>'
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Robert Baker, Eva Bihari, Olivier Boudeville, Francesco Cesarini,</span>'
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maurizio Di Stefano, Sverker Eriksson, Viktoria Fordos, Amir Ghaffari,</span>'
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Aggelos Giantsios, Rockard Green, Csaba Hoch, David Klaftenegger,</span>'
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Huiqing Li, Kenneth Lundin, Kenneth MacKenzie, Katerina Roukounaki,</span>'
- |
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yiannis Tsiouris, Kjell Winblad</span>\
RELEASE EU FP7 STREP (287510) project\
[www.release-project.eu/](www.release-project.eu/)
date: 'April 25, 2017'
title: 'Scaling Reliably: Improving the Scalability of the Erlang Distributed Actor Platform'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Context {#sec:context}
=======
Benchmarks for scalability and reliability {#sec:benchmarks}
==========================================
Erlang Scalability Limits {#sec:erlang-scalability}
=========================
Improving Language Scalability {#sec:language-scalability}
==============================
Improving VM Scalability {#sec:improving-vm-scalability}
========================
Scalable Tools {#sec:scalable-tools}
==============
Systemic Evaluation {#sec:case-studies}
===================
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Appendix A: Architecture Specifications {#sec:platforms .unnumbered}
=======================================
The specifications of the clusters used for measurement are summarised in Table \[tab:clusters\]. We also use the following NUMA machines. (1) An AMD Bulldozer with 16M L2/16M L3 cache, 128GB RAM, four AMD Opteron 6276s at 2.3 GHz, 16 “Bulldozer” cores each, giving a total of 64 cores. (2) An Intel NUMA with 128GB RAM, four Intel Xeon E5-4650s at 2.70GHz, each with eight hyperthreaded cores, giving a total of 64 cores.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank the entire RELEASE project team for technical insights and administrative support. Roberto Aloi and Enrique Fernandez Casado contributed to the development and measurement of WombatOAM. This work has been supported by the European Union grant RII3-CT-2005-026133 “SCIEnce: Symbolic Computing Infrastructure in Europe”, IST-2011-287510 “RELEASE: A High-Level Paradigm for Reliable Large-scale Server Software”, and by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant EP/G055181/1 “HPC-GAP: High Performance Computational Algebra and Discrete Mathematics”.
[10]{}
Gul Agha. . PhD thesis, MIT, 1985.
Gul Agha. An overview of [A]{}ctor languages. , 21(10):58–67, 1986.
Bulldozer (microarchitecture), 2015. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)>.
. Liblcoud, 2016. <https://libcloud.apache.org/>.
C. R. Aragon and R. G. Seidel. Randomized search trees. In [*Proceedings of the 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 540–545, October 1989.
Joe Armstrong. . Pragmatic Bookshelf, 2007.
Joe Armstrong. Erlang. , 53:68–75, 2010.
Stavros Aronis, Nikolaos Papaspyrou, Katerina Roukounaki, Konstantinos Sagonas, Yiannis Tsiouris, and Ioannis E. Venetis. A scalability benchmark suite for [E]{}rlang/[OTP]{}. In Torben Hoffman and John Hughes, editors, [*Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 33–42, New York, NY, USA, September 2012. ACM.
Thomas Arts, John Hughes, Joakim Johansson, and Ulf Wiger. . In [*Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 2–10, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
Robert Baker, Peter Rodgers, Simon Thompson, and Huiqing Li. . In [*[Visual Languages and Computing (VLC): The 19th International Conference on Distributed Multimedia Systems (DMS 2013)]{}*]{}, 2013.
Luiz Andr[é]{} Barroso, Jimmy Clidaras, and Urs H[ö]{}lzle. . Morgan and Claypool, 2nd edition, 2013.
. , 2014. [http://docs. basho.com/riak/latest/ops/building/benchmarking/](http://docs. basho.com/riak/latest/ops/building/benchmarking/).
J. E. Beasley. : Distributing test problems by electronic mail. , 41(11):1069–1072, 1990. Datasets available at <http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~mastjjb/jeb/orlib/wtinfo.html>.
Cory Bennett and Ariel Tseitlin. Chaos monkey released into the wild. Netflix Blog, 2012.
Robert D Blumofe, Christopher F Joerg, Bradley C Kuszmaul, Charles E Leiserson, Keith H Randall, and Yuli Zhou. Cilk: An efficient multithreaded runtime system. In [*Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming*]{}, pages 207–216. ACM, 1995.
Olivier Boudeville. Technical manual of the sim-diasca simulation engine. , 2012.
Istv[á]{}n Boz[ó]{}, Vikt[ó]{}ria F[ö]{}rd[ő]{}s, D[á]{}niel Horp[á]{}csi, Zolt[á]{}n Horv[á]{}th, Tam[á]{}s Kozsik, Judit K[ő]{}szegi, and Melinda T[ó]{}th. Refactorings to enable parallelization. In Jurriaan Hage and Jay McCarthy, editors, [*Trends in Functional Programming: 15th International Symposium, TFP 2014. Revised Selected Papers*]{}, volume 8843 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 104–121. Springer, 2015.
Irina Calciu, Dave Dice, Yossi Lev, Victor Luchangco, Virendra J. Marathe, and Nir Shavit. -aware reader-writer locks. In [*Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming*]{}, pages 157–166, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
Francesco Cesarini and Simon Thompson. . O’Reilly Media, 1st edition, 2009.
Rohit Chandra, Leonardo Dagum, Dave Kohr, Dror Maydan, Jeff McDonald, and Ramesh Menon. . Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001.
Natalia Chechina, Huiqing Li, Amir Ghaffari, Simon Thompson, and Phil Trinder. Improving the network scalability of [Erlang]{}. , 90(C):22–34, 2016.
Natalia Chechina, Kenneth MacKenzie, Simon Thompson, Phil Trinder, Olivier Boudeville, Viktória Fördős, Csaba Hoch, Amir Ghaffari, and Mario Moro Hernandez. Evaluating scalable distributed [Erlang]{} for scalability and reliability. , 2017.
Natalia Chechina, Mario Moro Hernandez, and Phil Trinder. A scalable reliable instant messenger using the [SD Erlang]{} libraries. In [*Erlang’16*]{}, pages 33–41, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.
Koen Claessen and John Hughes. . In [*Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming*]{}, pages 268–279, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM.
H. A. J. Crauwels, C. N. Potts, and L. N. van Wassenhove. Local search heuristics for the single machine total weighted tardiness scheduling problem. , 10(3):341–350, 1998. The datasets from this paper are included in Beasley’s ORLIB.
Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. Mapreduce: Simplified data processing on large clusters. , 51(1):107–113, 2008.
David Dewolfs, Jan Broeckhove, Vaidy Sunderam, and Graham E. Fagg. , fault-tolerant metacomputing and generic name services: A case study. In [*EuroPVM/MPI’06*]{}, pages 133–140, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer-Verlag.
Alan AA Donovan and Brian W Kernighan. . Addison-Wesley Professional, 2015.
Marco Dorigo and Thomas Stützle. . Bradford Company, Scituate, MA, USA, 2004.
Faith Ellen, Yossi Lev, Victor Luchangco, and Mark Moir. : scalable [NonZero]{} indicators. In [*Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing*]{}, pages 13–22, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
Jeff Epstein, Andrew P. Black, and Simon Peyton-Jones. Towards [Haskell]{} in the [C]{}loud. In [*Haskell ’11*]{}, pages 118–129. ACM, 2011.
Martin Fowler. . Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1999.
Ana Gainaru and Franck Cappello. Errors and faults. In [*Fault-Tolerance Techniques for High-Performance Computing*]{}, pages 89–144. Springer International Publishing, 2015.
Martin Josef Geiger. New instances for the [Single Machine Total Weighted Tardiness Problem]{}. Technical Report Research Report 10-03-01, March 2010. Datasets available at <http://logistik.hsu-hh.de/SMTWTP>.
Guillaume Germain. Concurrency oriented programming in termite scheme. In [*Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 20–20, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM.
Amir Ghaffari. De-bench, a benchmark tool for distributed erlang, 2014. <https://github.com/amirghaffari/DEbench>.
Amir Ghaffari. Investigating the scalability limits of distributed [E]{}rlang. In [*Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 43–49. ACM, 2014.
Amir Ghaffari, Natalia Chechina, Phip Trinder, and Jon Meredith. Scalable persistent storage for [Erlang]{}: Theory and practice. In [*Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 73–74, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch. Brewer’s conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. , 33:51–59, 2002.
Andrew S Grimshaw, Wm A Wulf, and [the Legion team]{}. The [Legion]{} vision of a worldwide virtual computer. , 40(1):39–45, 1997.
Carl Hewitt. Actor model for discretionary, adaptive concurrency. , abs/1008.1459, 2010.
Carl Hewitt, Peter Bishop, and Richard Steiger. A universal modular [ACTOR]{} formalism for artificial intelligence. In [*IJCAI’73*]{}, pages 235–245, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1973. Morgan Kaufmann.
Rich Hickey. The [C]{}lojure programming language. In [*DLS’08*]{}, pages 1:1–1:1, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM.
Zolt[á]{}n Horv[á]{}th, L[á]{}szl[ó]{} L[ö]{}vei, Tam[á]{}s Kozsik, R[ó]{}bert Kitlei, Anik[ó]{} Nagyn[é]{} V[í]{}g, Tam[á]{}s Nagy, Melinda T[ó]{}th, and Roland Kir[á]{}ly. . In [*[Workshop on Advanced Software Development Tools and Techniques, WASDETT 2008]{}*]{}, 2008.
Laxmikant V Kale and Sanjeev Krishnan. Charm++: a portable concurrent object oriented system based on c++. In [*ACM Sigplan Notices*]{}, volume 28, pages 91–108. ACM, 1993.
David Klaftenegger, Konstantinos Sagonas, and Kjell Winblad. On the scalability of the [Erlang]{} term storage. In [*Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 15–26, New York, NY, USA, September 2013. ACM.
David Klaftenegger, Konstantinos Sagonas, and Kjell Winblad. Delegation locking libraries for improved performance of multithreaded programs. In [*Euro-Par 2014 Parallel Processing.*]{}, volume 8632 of [ *LNCS*]{}, pages 572–583. Springer, 2014.
David Klaftenegger, Konstantinos Sagonas, and Kjell Winblad. Queue delegation locking. , 2017. To appear.
Rusty Klophaus. Riak core: Building distributed applications without shared state. In [*ACM SIGPLAN Commercial Users of Functional Programming*]{}, CUFP ’10, pages 14:1–14:1, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
Avinash Lakshman and Prashant Malik. Cassandra: A decentralized structured storage system. , 44(2):35–40, April 2010.
J. Lee et al. Python actor runtime library, 2010. osl.cs.uiui.edu/parley/.
Huiqing Li and Simon Thompson. . In Tim Menzies and Motoshi Saeki, editors, [*[Automated Software Engineering, ASE’12]{}*]{}. IEEE Computer Society, 2012.
Huiqing Li and Simon Thompson. . In [*Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Erlang*]{}, 2013.
Huiqing Li and Simon Thompson. . In [*[9th International Workshop on Automation of Software Test]{}*]{}, 2014.
Huiqing Li and Simon Thompson. . In [*PEPM ’15*]{}. ACM SIGPLAN, January 2015.
Huiqing Li, Simon Thompson, Gy[ö]{}rgy Orosz, and Melinda T[ö]{}th. . In [*[ACM SIGPLAN Erlang Workshop]{}*]{}, volume 2008, 2008.
Frank Lubeck and Max Neunhoffer. Enumerating large [O]{}rbits and direct condensation. , 10(2):197–205, 2001.
Andreea Lutac, Natalia Chechina, Gerardo Aragon-Camarasa, and Phil Trinder. Towards reliable and scalable robot communication. In [*Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Erlang*]{}, Erlang 2016, pages 12–23, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.
LWN.net. The high-resolution timer [API]{}, January 2006. <https://lwn.net/Articles/167897/>.
Kenneth MacKenzie, Natalia Chechina, and Phil Trinder. Performance portability through semi-explicit placement in distributed [Erlang]{}. In [*Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 27–38. ACM, 2015.
Jeff Matocha and Tracy Camp. A taxonomy of distributed termination detection algorithms. , 43(221):207–221, 1998.
Nicholas D Matsakis and Felix S Klock II. The [Rust]{} language. In [*ACM SIGAda Ada Letters*]{}, volume 34, pages 103–104. ACM, 2014.
Robert McNaughton. Scheduling with deadlines and loss functions. , 6(1):1–12, 1959.
Martin Odersky et al. The [S]{}cala programming language, 2012. www.scala-lang.org.
William F. Opdyke. . PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992.
Nikolaos Papaspyrou and Konstantinos Sagonas. On preserving term sharing in the [E]{}rlang virtual machine. In Torben Hoffman and John Hughes, editors, [*Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGPLAN Erlang Workshop*]{}, pages 11–20. ACM, 2012.
. , 2015. <http://www.release-project.eu>.
Konstantinos Sagonas and Thanassis Avgerinos. . In [*[Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP’09)]{}*]{}, pages 13–24. ACM, 2009.
Konstantinos Sagonas and Kjell Winblad. More scalable ordered set for [ETS]{} using adaptation. In [*Proc. ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang*]{}, pages 3–11. ACM, September 2014.
Konstantinos Sagonas and Kjell Winblad. Contention adapting search trees. In [*Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Computing*]{}, pages 215–224. [IEEE]{} Computing Society, 2015.
Konstantinos Sagonas and Kjell Winblad. Efficient support for range queries and range updates using contention adapting search trees. In [*Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing - 28th International Workshop*]{}, volume 9519 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 37–53. Springer, 2016.
Marc Snir, Steve W. Otto, D. W. Walker, Jack Dongarra, and Steven Huss-Lederman. . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
Sriram Srinivasan and Alan Mycroft. Kilim: Isolation-typed actors for [J]{}ava. In [*ECOOP’08*]{}, pages 104–128, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer-Verlag.
Don Syme, Adam Granicz, and Antonio Cisternino. . Springer, 2015.
Simon Thompson and Huiqing Li. Refactoring tools for functional languages. , 23(3), 2013.
Marcus V[ö]{}lker. Linux timers, May 2014.
WhatsApp, 2015. <https://www.whatsapp.com/>.
Tom White. . O’Reilly, 2012.
Ulf Wiger. . In [*[Implementing Functional Languages (IFL’00)]{}*]{}, Aachen, Germany, September 2000. Springer-Verlag.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The odd $A$ proton drip line nucleus $^{17}$F has been studied in a semi-microscopic model which couples proton quasiparticle motion to the vibrational motion of the neighbouring even-even $^{18}$Ne core. The experimentally observed low lying excitation spectrum, electric quadrupole moment, magnetic dipole moment, $B(E1)$ and $B(E2)$ values have been fairly well reproducd. The calculated rms radius of the first excited state is well reproduced and is found to be larger than that of the ground state which agrees with the experimental observation.'
address: |
$^1$Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar, Calcutta - 700 064, India\
$ ^2$Gurudas College, Calcutta - 700 054, India
author:
- 'K. Krishan$^1$, P. Banerjee$^1$ and R. Bhattacharya$^2$'
title: 'Structure of the proton drip line nucleus $^{17}$F'
---
Introduction
============
With the advent of radioactive ion beam facilities, new experimental data concerning exotic nuclei are becoming available. Some of the exotic nuclei show halo structures which has generated a lot of interest, in recent times, among various theoretical and experimental groups. Experimental investigations have shown the enhancement of sub-barrier fusion cross-section in reactions involving exotic nuclei [@e1; @e11], which is thought to be related to the sizes and structure of such nuclei. Thus the understanding of the structure of such nuclei is of utmost importance to the study of various phenomena involving these nuclei.
It is well known that the very low binding energy of the last unpaired nucleon is responsible for the large matter radii of one-nucleon halo nuclei. A number of one-neutron halo nuclei have been identified and studied in recent times. In a similar way, one-proton halo nuclei ought to exist except for the fact that the proton wave function, unlike the neutron wave function, is squeezed due to the Coulomb barrier. The nucleus $^{17}$F may be a good candidate for a proton halo nucleus since the binding energy of the last proton is only 0.60 MeV. Experimental studies [@e2; @e3; @e4] have revealed that the spin-parity of the ground state of $^{17}$F is ${5\over 2}^+$ and has spectroscopic strength equal to 0.93. The first excited state is known to be ${1\over 2}^+$, with a dominant $2s_{1/2}$ single particle (s.p.) configuration having binding energy equal to 0.1 MeV. However, the root mean square (rms) radius of the ground state is 3.78 fm whereas that of the first excited state, at 500 keV excitation, is observed to be 5.33 fm [@e5]. Considering the ground state and the first excited state to be pure single particle configurations of 1d$_{5/2}$ and 2s$_{1/2}$, respectively, the rms radii of the last proton, using Harmonic oscillator wave functions, turn out to be the same, which is contrary to the experimental findings. This indicates that coupling of the odd proton motion and that of the core may modify the wave function of $^{17}$F sufficiently to affect the rms radius of the ground state and that of the first excited state. The neighbouring even-even cores for this nucleus are $^{16}$O and $^{18}$Ne. The first, $^{16}$O, is a doubly closed shell nucleus without any vibrational structure, whereas the second, $^{18}$Ne, shows a well developed vibrational structure with the first 2$^+$ state at 1.88 MeV [@ne]. As such, the behaviour of the core changes abruptly if one goes from O to Ne. Therefore, the nature of the $^{17}$F nucleus is in between the two extremes and the structure of this nucleus needs to be explored. Furnstahl and Price [@furn], through a relativistic Hartree calculation, found the rms charge radius to be 2.76 fm and the magnetic dipole moment to be 4.87 $\mu_N$. On the other hand, the density functional method of Lombard [@lomb] provided the total binding energy (B.E. = 126.6 MeV). However, the detailed structure information regarding the excitation mechanism is lacking at present.
We have shown earlier [@be11] that the structures of the one-neutron halo nuclei $^{11}$Be and $^{19}$O could be explained satisfactorily through the coupling of collective vibrations of the respective even-even cores with the motion of the odd valence neutron. In the present work, we have shown that similar idea can be applied in explaining the important features of the excitation spectrum of the proton rich exotic nucleus $^{17}$F by coupling single proton qusiparticle motion to the collective vibrational motion of the even-even $^{18}$Ne core. In this paper, we present the results of our calculations for the studies of the low lying excitation spectrum and the electromagnetic (EM) properties of the $^{17}$F nucleus. The model used in the present calculations is discussed briefly in section II. The method of calculation is given in section III. Section IV contains the results and discussion and finally the conclusions are given in section V.
MODEL
=====
The model used in the present calculations is given in our earlier work [@be11; @k12] and here we are giving it just for the sake of completeness. The total Hamiltonian for a coupled system of a quasiparticle and collective excitation of the core may be written as
$${ \it H = H_{core} + H_{s.p.} + H_{int}\\}$$
where ${\it H_{core}}$ describes the harmonic collective vibrations of the even-even core. [*${H_{s.p.}}$*]{} describes the motion of the valence nucleon (-hole) in an effective potential. The basis states, which are eigen functions of ${\it H_0 = H_{core} + H_{s.p.} }$, can be written as $\{[N_2 V_2 L_2, N_3 V_3 L_3]^L (n l {1/2})^j \}^{JM}$, where $(N_\lambda
V_\lambda L_\lambda)$ is the totally symmetric state of $N_\lambda$ phonons of multipolarity $\lambda$ coupled to angular momentum $L_\lambda$ and $V_\lambda$ represents all the additional quantum numbers necessary for complete specification of the state; $L_2$ and $L_3$ are coupled to the angular momentum $L$ of the core which is then coupled to $j$ of the quasiparticle to form the resultant $J$. ($ n l 1/2$) represents a quasiparticle state having radial quantum number ${\it n}$, orbital qauntum number ${ l}$ and spin ${ 1/2}$. The eigen values of ${\it H_0}$ are the sum of the single particle energies $\epsilon_p$ and the core energies. The core particle interaction is given by
$$H_{int} =
\sum_{\lambda}^{2,3} K_{\lambda}(r) \sum_{\mu = -\lambda}^\lambda
\alpha_{\lambda\mu}^* Y_{\lambda\mu} (\theta_p, \phi_p),$$
$Y_{\lambda\mu}$ are the spherical harmonics corresponding to the particle coordinates. The collective coordinates $\alpha_{\lambda\mu}$ can be expressed as a linear combination of the phonon creation and destruction operators $b^+, \ b$ respectively, for the core. The matrix elements of the interaction Hamiltonian, after taking care of the pairing effects, are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
&&<\{[N_2 V_2 L_2, N_3 V_3 L_3]^L (nl1/2)^j \}^{JM}|H_{int}| \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2cm} \{[N'_2 V'_2 L'_2, N'_3 V'_3 L'_3]^{L'}(n'l'1/2)^{j'} \}^{JM}>\nonumber\\
&&= \sum_\lambda^{2,3} X_\lambda <nl||[{({{m \omega_0}\over {\hbar}})}^{1/2}
r_p]^{\lambda}||n'l'> (-1)^{J-1/2+{\lambda}}\nonumber\\
&&\times {1\over 2} \times
\left\{ [L] [L'] [j] [j'] \right\}^{1\over 2} \times
\left ({1 + (-1)^{l+l'+\lambda}\over 2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left(\delta_{\lambda,2} + \delta_{\lambda,3} (-1)^{L+L'+L_3+L'_3}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
j'& \lambda& j\\
1/2& 0& -1/2
\end{array} \right)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
L& L'& \lambda\\
L'_{\lambda}& L_{\lambda}& L_{\eta}
\end{array}\right\}
\times (U'_j U_j - V'_j V_j) \delta_{N_\eta N_{\eta'}} \delta_{L_{\eta}
L_{\eta'}} \delta_{V_{\eta} V_{\eta'}} \nonumber\\
&&\times \Bigl[ \delta_{N_{\lambda} N'_{\lambda -1}} \times (-1)^{L_2 + L_3}
\times <N_{\lambda} L_{\lambda}|| b_{\lambda}^+ || N_{\lambda'}
L_{\lambda'}>\nonumber\\
&& + \delta_{N'_{\lambda} N_{\lambda+1}} \times (-1)^{L'_2 + L'_3}
<N'_{\lambda} L'_{\lambda}|| b_{\lambda}^+ ||
N_{\lambda} L_{\lambda}>\Bigr]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the above, $X_2$ and $X_3$ are the quadrupole and octupole interaction strengths respectively, and $\eta = 2$ when $\lambda = 3$ and vice versa. $X_\lambda$’s are given by
$$X_{\lambda} = K_\lambda \sqrt {2(\lambda + 1)}
\sqrt{ {\hbar \omega_\lambda} \over {2 \pi C_\lambda}},
\label{ki}$$
where $K_\lambda$ are the average values of the radial integrals. The quantities $V_j$’s and $U_j$’s are the occupation and non-occupation probabilities of the respective single particle states. Diagonalising the Hamiltonian of the coupled system in the basis space of ${\it H_0}$, one obtains the eigen values and the eigen vectors. The eigen vectors, thus obtained, are used to calculate the static electric quadrupole and magnetic dipole moments, the electric and the magnetic multipole transitions. The expressions for the static magnetic dipole and the electric multipole operators for the coupled system are [@bo53]
$$O(M1,\mu) = {(3/4\pi )}^{1/2}\left(g_{l}l_{\mu }+g_{s}s_{\mu }+g_{R}R \right), \\
\label{mag}$$
$$O(E\lambda ,\mu ) = {3 \over {4\pi}} Ze {R_0}^\lambda \
{({{\hbar \omega _\lambda} \over {2C_\lambda}})^{1\over2}} \
(b^{+ }_{\lambda ,\mu } + (-)^{\mu }b_{\lambda ,-\mu }) + (e_p + {Ze \over A^2}) \ r_{p}^{\lambda }
\ Y_{\lambda ,\mu }(\theta ,\phi )
\label{QM}$$
where $Z$, $A$ and $R_{0}$ are the charge, mass and the radius of the core, respectively. The quantity $C_{\lambda}$ refers to the stiffness constant of the vibrating core. The magnetic dipole moment $\mu$ and the electric quadrupole moment (QM) $Q$ of a state $ | J, M, \alpha>$ are defined as
$$\mu = < J, M=J, \alpha| \ {({4\pi \over 3})}^{1/2} O(M1, 0) \ | J, M=J,\alpha>\\$$
and $$Q = < J, M=J, \alpha| \ {({16\pi \over 5})}^{1/2} O(E2, 0) \ | J, M=J,\alpha>\\.$$ The reduced eletromagnetic transitions are given as $$B(E\lambda : J_{i} \to J_{f}) = <J_{f} || \ O (E\lambda ) \ || J_{i}>^{2} {(2J_{i} + 1)}^{-1}$$
The detailed expressions, after carrying out angular momentum algebra, are given in Heyde and Brussaard [@hyde] except for a multiplicative factor in the particle part invoving $V_j$’s and $U_j$’s. The rms radius of a state is obtained by taking the expectation value of the operator $r_p^2$, in the respective state. The core contribution to the rms radius is either taken from the experiment, if available. Otherwise, it is taken as ${R_0}^{2} = {(1.2 A^{1/3})}^2$.
Method of Calculation
=====================
There are several parameters in this calculation viz. (i) the quasiparticle energies $\epsilon_j$, (ii) the $U_j (V_j) $ factors and (iii) the interaction coupling strengths $X_2$ and $X_3$. The vibrational energies for the $^{18}$Ne core are taken from the experimental data [@ne]. The experimental excitation spectrum of $^{18}$Ne shows the behavior of a vibrator. The first $2^{+}$ excited state occurring at 1.887 MeV can be identified as one quadrupole phonon excited state. The second $0^{+}$ , $2^{+}$ states and the first $4^+$ state occurring at 3.576 MeV, 3.616 MeV and 3.376 MeV, respectively, can be taken as the members of the multiplet of two quadrupole phonon excitations. The calculations have been restricted to only two quadrupole phonon space as the calculated spectra have been found to be insensitive to the inclusion of octupole phonons. Therefore, $X_3$ is kept equal to zero. The single particle space, in the present calculations, is confined to $1d_{5/2}$, $2s_{1/2}$ and $1d_{3/2}$ orbitals for the positive parity states and $1p_{3/2}$, $1p_{1/2}$ orbitals for the negative parity states. The $U_j (V_j) $ factors for the $1d_{5/2}$, $2s_{1/2}$ and $1d_{3/2}$ single particle states are available from the ($\alpha ,t$) and ($^3He,d$) reaction studies [@yasu; @e3] . However, the experimental spectroscopic information for the $1p_{3/2}$ and $1p_{1/2}$ single particle states is not very clear. From the ($d,^3{He}$) reaction, Firestone et al. [@fire] overestimated the strengths for the $1p_{3/2}$ and $1p_{1/2}$ single particle states by $30 - 40 \%$ and, to the best of our knowledge, no other data are available. Therefore, we have taken them as free parameters. The $U_j (V_j) $ factors used in the present calculation to reproduce the experimental data are given in Table I. The relative quasiparticle energies, $\epsilon_j$, with respect to the lowest single particle state in the conventional shell model basis and the interaction coupling strength $X_2$ are treated as free parameters. These are varied to fit the experimental level scheme and the spectroscopic factors. The set of best fit parameters used in the present calculations are given in Table \[parameter\].
The wave function of a state with angular momentum $J$ with $z$-component $M$ and energy $E^{\alpha}$ ($\alpha$ distinguishes between states of same spin and parity) is given by
$$|E^{\alpha} , JM> = \sum_{N_2,L_2,j} C_{\alpha} (N_2 L_2,j,J) |N_2 L_2,j;J M>,$$
and the spectroscopic factor is defined as
$$S^\alpha (l,j=J) = U^2_j | C_\alpha (00,j,J) |^2 .$$
Results and Discussion
======================
Even parity states
-------------------
For the even parity states, the odd quasiparticle motion was restricted to be in the $1d_{5\over 2}$, $2s_{1\over 2}$ and $1d_{3\over 2}$ orbitals. The collective states of $^{18}$Ne, used in the present calculation, to which the quasiparticle couples, were taken from the experimental data [@ne]. The calculated low lying levels and the spectroscopic factors are shown in Fig.1, along with the experimental data, [@till], for the sake of comparison. It is seen from this figure that the present calculation is able to reproduce the positive parity level spectrum quite well. The present calculation predicts two weak ${5\over 2}^+$ and ${1\over 2}^+$ states, not observed experimentally, at $\sim$2 MeV excitation with the spectroscopic strengths 0.05 and 0.06, respectively (not shown in Fig. 1). . The calculated spectrum is found to have three ${3\over 2}^+$ states lying between 4.50 and 4.75 MeV excitation with single particle strengths equal to 0.05, 0.51 and 0.07, respectively. The state at 4.63 MeV with a spectroscopic strength of 0.51 may correspond to the experimentally observed ${3\over 2}^+$ state at 5 MeV excitation with spectroscopic strength 0.54. Whereas, the calculated state at 4.75 MeV may correspond to the observed state at 5.82 MeV. The calculated ${1\over
2}^+$ and ${3\over 2}^+$ states at 6.83 MeV and 6.84 MeV may correspond to the observed levels at 6.56 MeV and 7.36 MeV, respectively. It is conjectured that the experimentally observed ${5\over 2}^+$ state at 8.07 MeV may be associated with the calculated state at 8.20 MeV.
There is an overall good agreement between the calculated and the experimental level energies and the spectroscopic factors. However, almost all the calculated ${3\over 2}^+$ states are depressed in energy by 500 keV as compared to the correponding experimentally observed states. The observed $1d_{5\over
2}$ single particle strength is found to be almost totally concentrated on the ${5\over 2}^+_1$ state though the present calculation predicts a ${5\over 2}^+$ state at 2 MeV with a very small spectroscopic strength. A similar situation is observed with the $1d_{3\over 2}$ single particle strength distributions. The available $1d_{3\over 2}$ single particle strength is found to be fragmented amongst three states lying between 4.50 MeV and 4.75 MeV, the major part of strength being concentrated on the state at 4.63 MeV excitation.
Odd parity states
------------------
For generation of the odd parity states, the single particle space considered in the present calculation is spanned by $1p_{1\over 2}$ and $1p_{3\over
2}$ states. The quadrupole interaction coupling strength $X_2$ was kept identical to that used in the case of the even parity states and the single particle energies $\epsilon_{1p_{1\over 2}}$ and $\epsilon_{1p_{3\over 2}}$ were treated as free parameters. The calculated level spectrum of the low lying odd parity states is shown in Fig. 2 alongwith the experimental one [@till]. It is seen from this figure that there is an overall good agreement between the calculated and the experimental spectra except for the ${5\over 2}^-$ states which are overpredicted by $\sim$ 1 MeV. The calculation predicts that almost the total available $1p_{1\over 2}$ single particle strength is concentrated on the ${1\over 2}^-$ state at 3.186 MeV. The $1p_{3\over 2}$ single particle strength is predicted to be fragmented into three ${3\over 2}^-$ states lying at 4.74 MeV, 5.20 MeV and 7.33 MeV with major part of the strength going to the state at 4.74 MeV. The structure of the calculated ${5\over 2}^-$ state at 4.86 MeV is found to be mainly consisting of a $2^+$ collective state coupled to the $1p_{1\over 2}$ single particle orbital. Similar are the structures of the ${7\over 2}^-$ and ${9\over 2}^-$ states. However, no experimental data are available for the spectroscopic strengths for the odd parity states of $^{17}$F to compare with.
RMS radii, EM moments and Transition probabilities
---------------------------------------------------
The stringent test of the wave functions obtained by diagonalising the Hamiltonian is to see whether they are able to reproduce the electromagnetic moments and the multipole electromagnetic transition probabilities. However, in the case of the exotic nuclei an important aspect of structure study is the reproduction of the experimentally observed rms radius of proton or neutron distribution which provides a measure of the proton or neutron halo. The rms radii of the ground state and the excited states of $^{17}$F contains two parts - (i) from the core and (ii) from the extra quasiparticle. In order to evaluate the proton rms radii of these two states, initially, we performed our calculation with the Harmonic Oscillator (H.O.) wave functions to extract the contribution from the quasiparticle part. The calculated values of the proton rms radius for the ${5
\over 2}^+$ ground state and the ${1 \over 2}^+$ first excited state were found to be 4.01 fm and 4.15 fm, respectively. Though the experimental trend for the rms radii for these two states is reproduced, the calculated values are not in agreement with the experimentally observed values of 3.78 fm and 5.33 fm, respectively [@e5]. This discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that the H.O. wave functions do not carry any effect of the low binding enegy of the last valence nucleon. This behaviour of the H.O. wave functions, through the radial integrals, consequently affects the calculated values of the electric quadrupole moment and the electromagnetic transition rates (Eq.\[QM\]).
To overcome this difficulty, we have used a generalised average one-body potential of Woods-Saxon type [@cal] to generate the s.p. wave functions. Keeping all the parameters fixed, the depth $V_0$ and the radius parameter $r_0$ were varied to reproduce the experimentally observed binding energies, 0.600 MeV and 0.105 MeV of the $1d_{5\over 2}$ and $2s_{1\over 2}$ s.p. states, respectively. The parameters of the single particle potential are given in Table \[wspot\]. These W-S wave functions could be used for calculating the rms radius and the electromagnetic properties of the states of $^{17}$F but for the wave function of the $1d_{3\over 2}$ state, which is unbound.
In order to circumvent this problem to get the wave function of the unbound $1d_{3\over 2}$ s.p. state, we developed the W-S wave function in the H.O. basis (WSHO). This was done by digonalising the W-S potential (Table \[wspot\]) for each ($ l,j$) state in H.O. basis states ($n,l,j$) with nodal quantum number $ n$=10 and properly picking up the $1d_{5\over 2}$, $2s_{1\over 2}$, $1d_{3\over 2}$, $1p_{3\over 2}$ and $1p_{1\over 2}$ states. The $<r^2>$ values for the even parity s.p. states, thus developed, are given in Table \[integral\]. From the table it is observed that $<r^2>$ values calculated with the W-S wave function in the H.O. basis are smaller than those calculated with the W-S wave functions and quite larger than those calculated with the H.O. wave functions. The calculated values of the rms radii of $^{17}$F using the quasiparticle wave functions WSHO are given in Table \[qmr\]. For the first excited state, the calculated value of the rms radius agrees quite well with the experimental one. However, for the ground state the calculated value of the rms radius overestimates the corresponding experimental value.
The same quasiparticle wave functions, as used in the calculation of the rms radii, have been used to calculate the electric quadrupole moment of the ground state and the EM transition probabilities among the various states of $^{17}$F obtained earlier. Effective proton charge, ${(e_p)}_{eff} = 1.5 \ e$ and effective charge of the core, $Z_{eff} = 0.2 \ e $ have been used in the present calculation ($e$ being the charge of proton). However, we made a rough estimate of the value of $Z_{eff}$ (defined as $Z {(\hbar \omega_2/2
C_2)}^{1/2}$) from the value of the quadrupole interaction strength parameter $X_2$ ( see Eq. \[ki\] ) used earlier. Taking value of $\hbar \omega_2$, the quadrupole phonon energy $\approx$ 2 MeV, and of $<K>$, the average radial integral $\approx$ 40 MeV, the calculated value of $Z_{eff}$ is found to be equal to 0.20 $e$, almost same as the one used in the calculations of the QM and the EM transition probabilities. The calculated values of the QM of the ground state and the reduced transition probabilities $B(E2)$ and $B(E1)$ are given in Tables \[qmr\] and \[BE\] along with their corresponding experimentally measured values [@till]. For evaluation of the magnetic dipole moment, the values of $g_s$, $g_l$ and $g_R$ were 5.585, 1.0 and 1.0, respectively [@hydb]. The calculated values of the electric quadrupole moment and the magnetic dipole moment are 0.108 eb and 4.708 $\mu_N$, respectively and they compare very well with the experimental values of 0.10 $\pm$0.02 eb and 4.72130 $\pm$ 0.00025 $\mu_N$, respectively (see Table \[qmr\]). The calculation is able to reproduce well the observed reduced transition probabilities, $B(E2)$ and $B(E1)$ (Table \[BE\]). However, the calculated $B(E1)$ value between the ${1\over2}_1^-$ and ${1\over2}_1^+$ states underestimate the experimental value by an order of magnitude.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
The low lying excitation spectrum of the proton drip line nucleus $^{17}$F has been studied in the quasiparticle-core coupling model in which the motion of the odd quasiparticle is coupled with the neighbouring even-even vibrating core. The core excitation energies, which take into account all the correlations arising out of the many particle core system, were taken from the experiment. The relative single particle energies and the quadrupole interaction strength were treated as parameters. The calculated energies and the spectroscopic factors for both the even and the odd parity states agree quite well with the corresponding experimental results. The calculated values of the rms radii of the ground state and the first excited state using single particle H.O. wave functions follow the experimental trend but are grossly underestimated (particularly the rms radius of the first excited state). However, the value of the rms radius of the first excited state is well reproduced by using the WSHO single particle wave functions. The calculated values of the electric quadrupole moment of the ground state and the reduced transition probabilities using the WSHO wave functions compare quite well with the corresponding experimental values. The calculated value of the ground state magnetic dipole moment agrees very well with that of the experimental one.
In conclusion, it may be inferred that within a simple quasiparticle-vibration coupling model, one can very well reproduce the experimental observables associated with the structure of the light proton drip line nucleus $^{17}$F without going into sophisticated calculations.
acknowledgements
================
The authors acknowledge fruitful discussions with S. Sen. One of the authors (P.B.) thanks Bikash Sinha for moral support and J. N. De for his encouragement during the work.
M. Trotta et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2342 (2000) M. Dasgupta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1395 (1999) R. W. Anderson et. al. , Phys. Rev. [**C 6**]{}, (1972) 1513 H. T. Fortune, L. R. Medsker, J. D. Garret and H. G. Bingham, Phys. Rev. [**C 12**]{}, (1975) 1723 Y.-W. Lui, D. Karban, S. Roman, R. K. Bhowmik, J. M. Nelson and E. C. Pollacco, Nucl. Phys. [**A333**]{}, (1980) 221 R. Morlock, R. Kunz, A. Mayer, A. Jaeger, A. Muller and J.W.Hammer, P. Mohr, H. Oberhummer, G. Staudt and V. Kolle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 3837 (1997) F. Ajzenberg-Selove, Nucl. Phys. [**A475**]{}, 1 (1987) R. J. Furnstahl and C. E. Price, Phys. Rev. [**C 40**]{}, (1989) 1398
R. J. Lombard, J. Phys. [**G 16**]{}, (1990) 1311
R. Bhattacharya and K. Krishan, Phys. Rev. [**C 56**]{} (1997) 212 K. Krishan, S. K. Basu and S. Sen, Phys. Rev. C [**13**]{}, 2055 (1976)
A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, Mat. Phys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk., 27, No. 14 (1953) K. Heyde and P. J. Brussard, Nucl. Phys. [**A104**]{}, 81 (1967) M. Yasue et al., Phys. Rev. [**46**]{}, 1242 (1992) M. A. Firestone, J. Janecke, A. Dudek-Ellis, P. J. Ellis and T. Engeland, Nucl. Phys. [**A258**]{}, 317 (1976) D. R. Tilley, H. R. Weller and C. M. Cheves, Nucl. Phys. [**A564**]{}, 1 (1993) R. Bhattacharya and K. Krishan, Phys. Rev. [**C48**]{}, 577 (1993) P. J. Brussard and P. W. M. Glaudemans, Shell Model Applications in Nuclear Spectrpscopy, North-Holland (1977) p. 219
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----- --
$X_2$
$1d_{5\over2}$ $2s_{1\over2}$ $1d_{3\over2}$ $1p_{3\over2}$ $1p_{1\over2}$ $1d_{5\over2}$ $2s_{1\over2}$ $1d_{3\over2}$ $1p_{3\over2}$ $1p_{1\over2}$
0.985 0.866 0.800 0.142 0.313 0.0 0.550 4.500 4.800 3.00 0.5
---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----- --
: Parameters of the Calculation
\[parameter\]
-------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- --
$V_0$ $r_0$ $a_0$ $V_s$ $r_s$ $a_s$
49.091 1.404 0.685 23.937 0.819 1.060
-------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ------- --
: Parameters of Woods-Saxon s.p. potential
\[wspot\]
---------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- -------------------- --
$<r^2>$ W-S wave fuction in H.O.Basis W.S wave function H.O. wave function
$1d_{5\over2}$ 14.154 16.012 8.819
$2s_{1\over2}$ 19.342 29.925 8.819
$1d_{3\over2}$ 17.690 8.819
---------------- ------------------------------- ------------------- -------------------- --
: Mean square radius for single particle orbitals
\[integral\]
--------------- ------- --------------- -------- --------------------- ------- ------- --
$J^{\pi}$
Calc. Expt. Calc. Expt. Calc. Expt.
${5\over2}^+$ 0.108 0.10$\pm$0.02 4.7080 4.72130$\pm$0.00025 4.83 3.78
${1\over2}^+$ 2.7706 5.34 5.33
--------------- ------- --------------- -------- --------------------- ------- ------- --
: Electromagnetic moments and rms radius
\[qmr\]
--------------- --------------- ------------ ------------ ------- -------------------- ------------------------------ --
$J_i^\pi$ $J_f^\pi$ $E_i$(MeV) $E_f$(MeV) Mult. Calc. (W.u.) Expt. (W.u.)
${1\over2}^+$ ${5\over2}^+$ 0.517 0.0 E2 21.9 25.0$\pm0.5$
${1\over2}^-$ ${1\over2}^+$ 3.087 0.517 E1 0.2$\times10^{-3}$ (1.5$\pm$0.3)$\times10^{-3}$
${5\over2}^-$ ${5\over2}^+$ 4.848 0.0 E1 6.1$\times10^{-3}$ (4.3$\pm$0.8)$\times10^{-3}$
--------------- --------------- ------------ ------------ ------- -------------------- ------------------------------ --
: Reduced Electric transitions probabilities $B(E2)$ and $B(E1)$
\[BE\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Wannier function expansions are well suited for the description of photonic-crystal-based defect structures, but constructing maximally localized Wannier functions by optimizing the phase degree of freedom of the Bloch modes is crucial for the efficiency of the approach. We systematically analyze different locality criteria for maximally localized Wannier functions in two-dimensional square and triangular lattice photonic crystals, employing (local) conjugate-gradient as well as (global) genetic-algorithm-based, stochastic methods. Besides the commonly used second moment (SM) locality measure, we introduce a new locality measure, namely the integrated modulus (IM) of the Wannier function. We show numerically that, in contrast to the SM criterion, the IM criterion leads to an optimization problem with a single extremum, thus allowing for fast and efficient construction of maximally localized Wannier functions using local optimization techniques. We also present an analytical formula for the initial choice of Bloch phases, which under certain conditions represents the global maximum of the IM criterion and, thus, further increases the optimization efficiency in the general case.'
author:
- Tobias Stollenwerk
- 'Dmitry N. Chigrin'
- Johann Kroha
title: |
Efficient construction of maximally localized photonic Wannier functions:\
locality criterion and initial conditions
---
\[sec:Introduction\]Introduction
================================
Photonic crystals (PhCs) remain to attract a considerable attention of the scientific community due to their unique properties and potential technological applications [@sak]. To a large extent, PhCs applications are based on the photonic bandgap effect and involve sophisticated defect structures, cavities and wave guides in the periodic crystal host. The full dynamics of the electromagnetic field in such structures may be studied in principle rigorously by direct numerical solution of Maxwell’s equations using the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method [@Taflove2000]. For the calculation of stationary modes, however, the numerical effort may be substantially reduced by using the Galerkin method [@Fletcher1984], i.e., by expanding the electromagnetic field in terms of an appropriate orthonormal set of basis functions which renders the stationary electromagnetic wave equation as a discrete matrix eigenvalue problem. In this case the proper choice of the set of basis functions is crucial in order to obtain an accurate description while keeping the dimension of the eigenvalue problem minimal.
While for extended wave problems an expansion in terms of Bloch functions, the eigenmodes of the unperturbed PhC, is natural [@Chigrin2009; @Kremers2009a; @Kremers2009], for the description of defect structures the use of Wannier functions as a basis set [@LEUNG1993; @Lidorikis98; @Albert2000; @Albert2002] is in principle superior, because Wannier functions may be constructed as being localized in space and are still an exact representation of the point symmetry group of the host PhC. Effective solutions developed for the electronic case, namely, maximally localized generalized Wannier functions [@marzari1; @marzari2], have been applied only recently to the electromagnetic case [@whittaker; @busch2]. Since then, the theory of photonic Wannier functions has been applied to the analysis of 2D PhC cavities, waveguides [@busch2; @Busch2003], waveguide crossings [@Jiao2005] and PhC heterostructures [@Istrate2006]. The generalization of the approach to the case of 2D slab PhCs and 3D PhCs has been also reported in [@McGurn2005; @Takeda2006]. However, the construction of well-localized Wannier functions involves a multidimensional optimization problem [@WanProb2], with the arbitrary phase of each Bloch mode (defined below) as optimizations parameters. Therefore, the practical importance of this approach has been fairly limited up to now. In the present work we systematically analyze this optimization problem employing local as well as global optimization procedures. We propose a novel locality measure for the Wannier functions which allows for a highly efficient optimization of the locality of the Wannier function.
Wannier functions are defined as the Fourier transform of the Bloch modes $${{\mathbf{B}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})={\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}}}{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \mathbf{k} \mathbf{r}}}{{\mathbf{u}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})
\label{eq:bloch_def}$$ with respect to the wave vector ${\mathbf{k}}$, $${{\mathbf{W}}_{n \mathbf{R}}}({\mathbf{r}})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}\in\text{BZ}}{\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \mathbf{k} \mathbf{R}}}{{\mathbf{B}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}}).\label{eq:wan_def}$$ The Bloch mode is a solution of the corresponding wave equation in a periodic medium, where ${{\mathbf{u}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})$ is a lattice-periodic envelope function, and we have explicitly denoted the arbitrary phase $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}$ of the Bloch function, the Bloch phase. $n$ is the band index. For simplicity, in the present work we do not consider mixing of different bands [@Jiao2005; @john] in the construction of Wannier functions from Bloch modes.
From the definitions (\[eq:bloch\_def\]), (\[eq:wan\_def\]) it is seen that the Wannier functions would be $\delta ({\mathbf{r}})$-localized in space only if the envelopes ${{\mathbf{u}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})$ were constant. By contrast, for arbitrary Bloch phases $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}$ the Wannier functions have actually a rather large spatial extension due to the oscillatory character of the ${{\mathbf{u}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})$, a feature which becomes more and more pronounced for higher band indices $n$. However, the gauge freedom in the Bloch phases may be employed to adjust, for each ${\mathbf{k}}$, the value of $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}$ so as to construct maximally localized Wannier functions with respect to some locality criterion. This constitutes a complex, multidimensional optimization problem. The choice of the locality measure is not unique. The common choice used in the literature [@busch; @whittaker; @john] is to minimize the second moment (SM) of the modulus square of the Wannier function [@marzari1; @marzari2]. Unfortunately, it turned out that the SM, as a functional of the set of Bloch phases $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}$, has multiple local minima, so that local optimization procedures, like the conjugate gradient method, tend not to find the global minimum and the locality of the Wannier function optimized in this way depends sensitively on the initial set of Bloch phases. Global optimization procedures are, on the other hand, slow and computationally exceedingly expensive.
The purpose of this paper is a systematic analysis of different locality measures using both local and global optimization methods. In Section \[sec:SM\] we construct SM optimized maximally localized Wannier functions, comparing conjugate gradient (local) and genetic-algorithm-based (global) methods. This analysis leads us in Section \[sec:IM\] to propose a new locality measure, namely the integrated modulus square (IM) measure, resulting in an optimization problem with a single extremum only. This allows one to use fast and efficient local optimization techniques to construct maximally localized Wannier functions. In Section \[sec:BC\] we show that, if the Bloch modes conform certain conditions, it is possible to find an optimal set of Bloch phases with respect to the IM locality measure analytically. Although the required constrains will not be fulfilled in the general case, the Wannier functions calculated using such an analytical set of phases show strong tendency towards localizations and can be used as an efficient starting point for the numerical optimization. In Section \[sec:Applications\] using several examples of PhC defect structures, the quality of the constructed Wannier functions is demonstrated. Section \[sec:Conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Second moment optimization\[sec:SM\]
====================================
Definitions
-----------
In what follows, we limit ourselves to the two-dimensional (2D) case, which is characterized by the periodic dielectric functions $\epsilon({\mathbf{r}})=\epsilon({\mathbf{r+R}})$, $\forall{\mathbf{R}}\in\mathcal{L}$, with ${\mathbf{r}}=(x,y)$ denoting a 2D vector in the $x$-$y$-plane and ${\mathbf{R}}$ being a lattice vector of some 2D lattice $\mathcal{L}$. In this case, the wave equation for time harmonic TM (transverse magnetic), $E({\mathbf{r}},t)={\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \omega t}}E({\mathbf{r}})$, and TE (transverse electric), $H({\mathbf{r}},t)={\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \omega t}}H({\mathbf{r}})$, polarization reads, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{E}E({\mathbf{r}})=-\frac{1}{\epsilon({\mathbf{r}})}\nabla^{2}E({\mathbf{r}}) & = & \frac{\omega^{2}}{\mathrm{c}^{2}}E({\mathbf{r}})\label{eq:waveeqn_TM}\\
\mathcal{L}_{H}H({\mathbf{r}})=-\nabla\frac{1}{\epsilon({\mathbf{r}})}\nabla H({\mathbf{r}}) & = & \frac{\omega^{2}}{\mathrm{c}^{2}}H({\mathbf{r}}).\label{eq:waveeqn_TE}\end{aligned}$$ The wave operators $\mathcal{L}_{E}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{H}$ are hermitian with respect to the corresponding inner products: $$\langle f|g\rangle_E=\int_{V}d^{2}r{f^{*}({\bf r)\epsilon({\bf r)}}}g({\bf r)}\label{eq:innerProd_TM}$$ $$\langle f|g\rangle_H=\int_{V}d^{2}rf^{*}({\mathbf{r}})g({\mathbf{r}}). \label{eq:innerProd_TE}$$ $V$ is the 2D volume of the crystal. It is important to mention, that the completeness and orthogonality of the Bloch modes $E_{n{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})$ and $H_{n{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})$ translates into the completeness and orthogonality of Wannier functions ${W_{n \mathbf{R}}}({\mathbf{r}})$ with respect to the corresponding inner product: $${\langle {W_{n \mathbf{R}}} | {W_{n' \mathbf{R'}}} \rangle}_{E/H}=\delta_{nn'}\delta_{{\mathbf{RR'}}}.\label{eq:orth_WannierTM}$$ Moreover, the translation property of the Wannier functions, $${W_{n \mathbf{R}}}({\mathbf{r}})={W_{n \mathbf{0}}}({\mathbf{r-R}})\label{eq:wan_translationBehavior},$$ follows from the periodicity of the envelope functions ${u_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})$.
In this work four different two-dimensional photonic crystals are analyzed for both fundamental polarizations. Square (Sq) and triangular (Tr) lattices of dielectric rods in air (D) and air rods in dielectric (A) are considered. In what follows we will refer to these systems as Sq-D, Tr-D, Sq-A and Tr-A, respectively. The radius of rods and the dielectric constant of dielectric material and air are chosen to be $r_0/a=0.2$, $\epsilon=12$ and $\epsilon=1$, respectively. We adopt the following definition of the second moment of the Wannier function ${W_{n \mathbf{R}}}({\mathbf{r}})$: $$\mathcal{S}_{n}(\{\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}\})={\langle {W_{n \mathbf{R}}} |}({\mathbf{r}}-{\mathbf{r}}_{0})^{2}{|{W_{n \mathbf{R}}} \rangle}_{E/H},\label{eq:def_SM}$$ with ${\mathbf{r}}_{0}$ being the Wannier center. Two positions of the Wannier center will be analyzed further, (i) in the center of the scatterer (“on-site”) and (ii) in the geometrical center between four (three) scatterers in the case of square (triangular) lattices (“between”). For example, in a square lattice with lattice constant $a$, the Wannier center can be set to ${\mathbf{r}}_{0}={\mathbf{R}}$ (on-site) or ${\mathbf{r}}_{0}={\mathbf{R+T}}$ (between), where ${\mathbf{T}}=(0.5a,0.5a)$.
![Second moments $\mathcal{S}_n$ (inverse locality) of the Wannier functions in the $n$th band, minimized by using the conjugate gradient method. Four different, randomly chosen initial sets of Bloch phases, A, B, C, D, were used for the CG optimization. Top: Sq-D crystal, TM polarization. Bottom: Tr-D crystal, TE polarization.[]{data-label="fig:cg_results_sm"}](sm){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Conjugate gradient method
-------------------------
The commonly adopted way of finding maximally localized Wannier functions is to minimize the corresponding second moment $\mathcal S_n$ with respect to the set of Bloch phases $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}$ in the $n$th band. Note that, by definition of the SM, the regions far away from the Wannier center (where the Wannier functions usually have an increasingly complex structure) contribute to the SM with quadratically increasing weight. For this optimization we first apply a standard conjugate gradient (CG) method. This method tends to get trapped in the local extrema and, hence, requires a careful choice of the initial set of Bloch phases [@john]. In figure \[fig:cg\_results\_sm\] representative examples of the locality of the SM-optimized Wannier functions are shown for Sq-D (TM polarization) and Tr-D (TE polarization) structures. Here and in the following, the Bloch modes have been calculated using the plane wave expansion method [@mpb-art]. The minimized SM (i.e., the inverse locality) of the Wannier functions in the first eight bands are displayed for four different, random distributions of the initial Bloch phases. As expected, the optimal locality obtained using the CG method depends crucially on the choice of the initial phases. This is an indication that the SM of the Wannier functions possesses several local minima.
![Locality ($1/\mathcal{S}_{n}$) of the SM-optimized Wannier functions as a function of GA generation for the Sq-D structure, TM polarization, 3rd band (top) and for the Sq-A structure, TE polarization, 5th band (bottom). The dashed, green line shows the locality of the best-localized Wannier function in each generation. Every 100 generations, these Wannier functions served as a starting point for the subsequent CG optimization step (red crosses). On the right hand side, the modulus square of the SM-optimized Wannier function is shown for an early (top: 40000th, bottom: 38300th) and a later (top: 60000th, bottom: 100000th) generation, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ga_sm"}](all-g-tm-sm "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}\
![Locality ($1/\mathcal{S}_{n}$) of the SM-optimized Wannier functions as a function of GA generation for the Sq-D structure, TM polarization, 3rd band (top) and for the Sq-A structure, TE polarization, 5th band (bottom). The dashed, green line shows the locality of the best-localized Wannier function in each generation. Every 100 generations, these Wannier functions served as a starting point for the subsequent CG optimization step (red crosses). On the right hand side, the modulus square of the SM-optimized Wannier function is shown for an early (top: 40000th, bottom: 38300th) and a later (top: 60000th, bottom: 100000th) generation, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ga_sm"}](all-g-te-sm "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Genetic algorithm
-----------------
The proper choice of the initial set of Bloch phases is in general not trivial [@john]. Even if such a choice can be justified, one can never be sure that the resulting SM-optimized Wannier functions indeed correspond to the global minimum of the SM. To solve the global optimization problem and to examine the validity of the SM optimization in more detail, we have applied a global, stochastic-based optimization technique, namely a genetic algorithm (GA) method [@MIT99]. Taking the biologic evolution in nature as a model, the GA method works with a population of individuals which pass through a selection procedure and can reproduce themselves. Each Wannier function represents an individual. The set of Bloch phases, which determines the Wannier function, is represented as a large, binary string. The GA method starts with a population of random Wannier functions and passes them through a selection procedure where only that one half of the Wannier functions are retained which are most strongly localized with respect to the given locality criterion (“most fit individuals). In a second step, these survived individuals are allowed to reproduce themselves by randomly mixing their strings of phases, thus passing their attributes to the offsprings. Together with their off-springs, the survived individuals, which correspond to better localized Wannier functions, comprise the new generation. By iterating this procedure over several thousands of generations the algorithm will converge slowly but definitely towards the global extremum. Once the GA procedure has reached the valley of the global extremum, the CG method should be applied subsequently to the GA algorithm in order to accelerate the convergence and improve the accuracy of the solution [@MIT99].
In figure \[fig:ga\_sm\] the evolution of the GA results is depicted for two representative systems and polarizations. Every 100 generations a Wannier function with highest locality in the current population was taken as a starting point for the subsequent CG optimization. Over the first several thousand generations the locality of the resulting Wannier functions is varying strongly, indicating hopping of the solution among different local minima due to the stochastic nature of the algorithm. At the top panel of figure \[fig:ga\_sm\] one can observe how the algorithm is stuck in a local minimum over several thousands of generations, before it escapes and reaches the global minimum valley at around the 50000th generation. An improvement of the locality for later generations is clearly seen from the modulus square of the optimized Wannier functions (figure \[fig:ga\_sm\], right panels). The discontinuous nature of the GA method ensures with stochastic certainty that the global minimum of the SM is found, providing the best localization of the Wannier functions with respect to a given locality measure. At the same time, however, the numerical load of the GA method exceeds the one of the CG method by far, making it inappropriate for routine application for an efficient construction of maximally localized Wannier functions.
Integrated modulus optimization\[sec:IM\]
=========================================
![Locality ($\mathcal{I}_{n}$) of the Wannier functions optimized with respect to the IM locality measure using the CG method. Four different randomly chosen initial sets of Bloch phases were used for the CG optimization. Top: Sq-D crystal, TM polarization. Bottom: Tr-D crystal, TE polarization.[]{data-label="fig:cg_results_im"}](im){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The complicated structure of the Wannier functions at large distances, which is expressed by several local minima of their SMs and the associated difficulties in the construction of maximally localized Wannier functions, motivates the search for a simpler criterion for the locality of Wannier functions. Here, we introduce a new criterion, the integrated modulus square (IM), defined as $$\mathcal{I}_{n}(\{\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}\})=\int_{\text{UC}}d^{2}r{\mathbf{W}_{n \mathbf{R}}}^{*}({\mathbf{r}})X({\mathbf{r}}){\mathbf{W}_{n \mathbf{R}}}({\mathbf{r}}),\label{eq:def_IM}$$ where the integration region is the first unit cell (UC) around the Wannier center (UC). We choose the function $X({\mathbf{r}})$ in such a way, that the IM is equal to unity for a Wannier function which is completely confined within such a unit cell. i.e., $$X({\mathbf{r}})=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\epsilon({\mathbf{r}}) & \quad\mbox{for TM}\\
1 & \quad\mbox{for TE}\end{array}\right. \ .
\label{eq:IMnormalization}$$ A well localized Wannier function corresponds to a large IM, and one needs to maximize the IM in order to obtain the maximally localized Wannier functions. The IM is a very sharp criterion, since it does not depend on the structure of the Wannier functions outside of the integration region at all.
We examined the IM locality measure as a localization criterion for the same four different physical systems and both polarizations as it was done in the SM case. To that end we construct maximally localized Wannier functions using the same four different, randomly chosen initial sets of Bloch phases as in Section \[sec:SM\]. Representative examples of CG optimization are shown in figure \[fig:cg\_results\_im\]. In contrast to the SM case, the localities of the resulting Wannier functions coincide for all four sets of phases. This is the case for all considered systems and polarizations, strongly indicating that the IM locality measure does not possess any local extrema.
![Locality ($\mathcal{I}_{n}$) of the IM-optimized Wannier functions as a function of GA generation for the Sq-D structure, TM polarization, 3rd band (top) and for the Sq-A structure, TE polarization, 5th band (bottom). The dashed green line shows the locality of the best-localized Wannier function in each generation. Every 100 generations these Wannier functions served as a starting point for the subsequent CG optimization step (red crosses). On the right-hand side, the modulus square of the SM-optimized Wannier functions is shown for an early (20000th) and a later (60000) generation, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ga_im"}](all-g-tm-im "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}\
![Locality ($\mathcal{I}_{n}$) of the IM-optimized Wannier functions as a function of GA generation for the Sq-D structure, TM polarization, 3rd band (top) and for the Sq-A structure, TE polarization, 5th band (bottom). The dashed green line shows the locality of the best-localized Wannier function in each generation. Every 100 generations these Wannier functions served as a starting point for the subsequent CG optimization step (red crosses). On the right-hand side, the modulus square of the SM-optimized Wannier functions is shown for an early (20000th) and a later (60000) generation, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ga_im"}](all-g-te-im "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
To support this hypothesis, we applied the GA method to solve the optimization problem. For all considered structures no significant variation of the locality has been observed for different GA generations. Representative examples are shown in figure \[fig:ga\_im\]. One can clearly see, that over many thousands of generations the locality of the Wannier functions optimized with respect to IM criterion stays constant. This proves numerically that the considered optimization problem possesses a single extremum, making the procedure independent on the choice of the initial set of Bloch phases. As a consequence, the use of the IM as a locality criterion together with the CG as an optimization method represents a fast as well as reliable method for the construction of maximally localized Wannier functions. Figures \[fig:MLWF\_dielRods\_tm\] and \[fig:MLWF\_airRods\_te\] show the maximally localized Wannier functions for the first several bands of the Sq-D (TM polarization) and Sq-A (TE polarization) structures, respectively. In both cases the IM criterion was used along with the CG method. The optimized Wannier functions demonstrate good locality which degrades slowly with increasing band indices, since the envelope functions become more and more oscillatory, reflecting the not-plane-wave like nature of Bloch modes. It is worth noting, that the Wannier functions optimized with respect to the IM and SM criteria are in general not equal, even if the global minimum of the SM or the global maximum of the IM has been reached. For example for the system of dielectric rods in air (TM polarization) the SM- and IM-optimized Wannier functions coincide for the 1st and the 2nd band (not shown), but not for the third band (top right Wannier function in figures \[fig:ga\_sm\] and \[fig:ga\_im\]).
![Modulus square of the maximally localized Wannier functions (with respect to the IM) for the Sq-D structure (TM polarization). The Wannier center was chosen as ’on-site’ for the 1st and 5th band and as ’between’ for the 2nd and 4th band.[]{data-label="fig:MLWF_dielRods_tm"}](mlwf_dielRods_tm){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ Modulus square of the maximally localized Wannier functions (with respect to the IM) for Sq-A structure (TE polarization). The Wannier center was chosen as ’on-site’ for the 1st band and as ’between’ for the 2nd, 4th and 5th band. []{data-label="fig:MLWF_airRods_te"}](mlwf_airRods_te){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Sometimes, it is beneficial to use the time-reversal symmetry of wave operators $\mathcal{L}_{E}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{H}$ to construct real Wannier functions. This is possible, since the envelope functions of the Bloch modes transform as $${u_{n \mathbf{-k}}}({\mathbf{r}})={u_{n \mathbf{k}}}^{*}({\mathbf{r}})$$ under time reversal (inversion of the reciprocal space), and the Bloch phases can be constrained by the condition $$\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}=-\phi_{n{\mathbf{-k}}}\ .\label{eq:phaseInversion}$$ By restricting the parameter space of the optimization problem in such a way, we found that both SM and IM optimization criteria possess multiple extrema, making the use of local optimization method not efficient without special choice of the initial Bloch phases. However, using real-valued Wannier functions is of advantage for the considerations of the next section.
Choice of initial conditions\[sec:BC\]
======================================
Here we propose an analytical expression for a generic set of Bloch phases to be used as a starting point for the optimization procedure. It is based on the following theorem.
[*Theorem:*]{} Suppose that (i) the Wannier functions are real-valued, i.e., $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}=-\phi_{n{\mathbf{-k}}}$, and the Bloch functions ${{\mathbf{B}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})={\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}}}
{{\mathbf{\tilde B}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})$ conform to the following conditions: $\text{Re}({{\mathbf{B}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}}))$ has the same sign (i) for all points ${\mathbf{r}}$ in the unit cell and (ii) for all wave vectors ${\mathbf{k}}$ in the first Brillouin zone (for each component of the vector Bloch function). Then maximizing the IM of the Wannier functions, $$\mathcal{I}^W_{n}(\{\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}\})=\int_{\text{UC}}d^{2}r
\left|{\mathbf{{\mathbf{W}}}_{n \mathbf{R}}}({\mathbf{r}})\right|^2$$ with respect to the Bloch phases $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}$ is equivalent to maximizing the IM of the real part of the Bloch functions in the first unit cell around the Wannier center, $$\mathcal{I}^B_n(\{\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}\})=\int_{\text{UC}}d^{2}r\left(\text{Re}({\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_{{\mathbf{k}}}}}{\mathbf{\tilde{B}}}_{n\mathbf{k}})\right)^{2}
\label{eq:blochCrit}$$ for each wave vector in the first Brillouin zone separately. This theorem holds in any spatial dimension, even though in this paper we consider two-dimensional systems only. Note that in the above expressions we have set the weight factor $X({\mathbf{r}})$ appearing in Eq. (\[eq:def\_IM\]) equal to unity for simplicity.
The proof is straightforward. Due to the translation property of the Wannier function, , it is sufficient to prove the equivalence for ${\mathbf{R}}={\mathbf{0}}$ only. In this case $${{\mathbf{W}}_{n \mathbf{0}}}({\mathbf{r}})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}\in\text{BZ}}
{{\mathbf{B}}_{n \mathbf{k}}}.$$
![Modulus square of Bloch-criterion (Eq. \[eq:blochCrit\]) optimized Wannier functions for a square lattice of dielectric rods in air (TM polarization). For n=1,2,4 the Bloch criterion is equivalent to the IM-criterion for real Wannier functions. For n=3,5,6 the Wannier functions show at least a tendency to localize around the Wannier center.[]{data-label="fig:blochOptWF"}](blochCritWF){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
It is easy to recognize that the equality $$\int_{\text{UC}}d^{2}r\left|\text{Re}({{\mathbf{W}}_{n \mathbf{0}}}({\mathbf{r}}))\right|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}\in\text{BZ}}\int_{\text{UC}}d^{2}r\left|\text{Re}({{\mathbf{B}}_{n \mathbf{k}}})\right|$$ holds, if the conditions (ii) and (iii) are fulfilled. Since the Wannier functions are chosen to be real-valued (i), the functional on the left-hand side is maximized by the same set of $\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}$ as $\mathcal{I}^W_{n}(\{\phi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}\})$, which proves the theorem.
The maximization problem can be solved analytically leading to the following set of Bloch phases $$\tan(2\phi_{{\mathbf{k}}})=\frac{-\int_{\text{UC}}d^{2}r2\text{Re}(\tilde{B}_{n\mathbf{k}})\text{Im}(\tilde{B}_{n\mathbf{k}})}{\int_{\text{UC}}d^{2}r\{\text{Re}(\tilde{B}_{n\mathbf{k}})^{2}-\text{Im}(\tilde{B}_{n\mathbf{k}})^{2}\}},
\label{eq:blochCrit_solution}$$ where $\tilde B_{n{\mathbf{k}}} =
\left[{\mathbf{\tilde B}}_{n{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})\cdot{\mathbf{\tilde B}}_{n{\mathbf{k}}}({\mathbf{r}})\right]^{1/2}$ is the (complex) amplitude of the vector Bloch function. Relation defines the Bloch optimization criterion. Note that the phases which are transformed by $\phi_{{\mathbf{k}}}\rightarrow\phi_{{\mathbf{k}}}+\pi$, or equivalently ${\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_{{\mathbf{k}}}}}\rightarrow{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} (\phi_{{\mathbf{k}}}+\pi)}}=-{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_{{\mathbf{k}}}}}$, also fulfill . Furthermore, the phases which fulfill also obey and, therefore, the Wannier functions optimized with respect to the Bloch criterion are real-valued, as initially assumed.
Due to the strongly oscillatory nature of Bloch functions in coordinate space (especially for the higher order bands), condition (ii) will hardly be fulfilled exactly in a realistic system. But the conditions (i) and (iii) can always be fulfilled simply by correct choice of the phase factor sign. In figure \[fig:blochOptWF\] an example of the Bloch criterion optimization is shown for the Sq-D structure (TM polarization). For the 1st, 2nd and 4th bands Bloch functions fulfill Bloch criterion conditions at least approximately, and an analytical set of Bloch phases leads to well localized Wannier functions. Even in the case when the Bloch functions do not maximize the Bloch criterion Eq. (\[eq:blochCrit\]) exactly, the Wannier functions optimized with respect to exhibit a tendency to localize around its Wannier center. The same tendency has been obtained for all four test structures in both fundamental polarizations. This suggests to use the analytical set of Bloch phases as an initial set of phases for the numerical optimization, using either second moment or integrated modulus methods. This should help avoiding the local minima trapping problem and can reduce the computation time considerably.
Wannier function quality\[sec:Applications\]
============================================
![Frequencies of the modes in a point defect consisting of a single rod with differing permittivity $\epsilon_{def}$ in a a square lattice of dielectric rods in air (TM polarization). The dots indicate the results of the Wannier function approach by taking the first eight bands into account. They are in complete agreement with plane wave calculations (red line) [@mpb-art]. At the bottom the real part of two defect modes with $\epsilon_{def}=1$ and $\epsilon_{def}=30$ is shown.[]{data-label="fig:pointDefect"}](defect-all){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In this section the quality of IM optimized Wannier functions is demonstrated by using them as a basis set for photonic crystal defect structure analysis. In figure \[fig:reprBS\] the reconstructed tight-binding band structure of a square lattice of dielectric rods in air (TM polarization) is shown. The number of lattice sites taken into account in the nearest neighbor approximations were increased successively. The deviation of the reconstructed band structure from the original band structure decreases by increasing the number of next neighbors taken into account. By restricting to lattice sites separated by up to four lattice constants the band structure is reproduced well except for small deviation at higher bands and symmetry points. The slight mismatch for higher bands is due to the fact that the higher band Wannier functions are not as well localized as the lower ones.
We further calculated the modes and frequencies of a point defect structures which consist of a single rod with deviating permittivity $\epsilon_{def}$ at ${\mathbf{R}}_{def}$ in the Sq-D structure. The light propagation inside the band gap between the first and the second band is forbidden and the formation of a localized defect mode is possible. We split up the total permittivity $\epsilon({\mathbf{r}})=\epsilon_{p}({\mathbf{r}})+\delta\epsilon({\mathbf{r}}),$ into a periodic term $\epsilon_{p}({\mathbf{r}})$ which corresponds to the unperturbed system, and a defect term $\delta\epsilon({\mathbf{r}})=(\epsilon_{def}-\epsilon_{p})\Theta(r-|{\mathbf{R}}_{def}-{\mathbf{r}}|)$. An expansion of the $z$-component of the electric field in terms of maximally localized Wannier functions leads to a generalized eigenvalue problem with sparse matrices [@Busch2003]. The defect mode frequencies are obtained from the solution of this sparse system (Fig. \[fig:pointDefect\]). The first eight Wannier functions have been taken into account. There are monopole like defect modes for a defect rod permittivity of $\epsilon_{def}<12$ and doubly degenerated, dipole like modes for higher permittivities in the defect rod $\epsilon_{def}>12$. The results are in complete agreement with plane wave calculations [@mpb-art]. To analyze contribution of the individual Wannier functions to the defect mode, the band index contribution $$C_{n}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{{\mathbf{R}}}|{E_{n \mathbf{R}}}|^{2}$$ where the normalization factor is given by $M=\sum_{n{\mathbf{R}}}|{E_{n \mathbf{R}}}|^{2}$ is shown in figure \[fig:bandContri\] for the defect modes $\epsilon_{def}=1$ and $\epsilon_{def}=30$. One can see, that $C_{n}$ rapidly decrease for higher band indices. Since the defect mode frequencies are in between the 1st and the 2nd band, only the lower band Wannier functions contribute to the defect modes. Therefore it is justified to cut of the band index which reduces the numerical load.
Conclusion\[sec:Conclusion\]
============================
The procedure to construct maximally localized Wannier functions by Bloch phase optimization was analyzed for several two dimensional photonic crystals for both fundamental polarizations, using two different locality measures. Although the stochastic, genetic algorithm is numerically too costly for routine application, it has, as a global optimization method, provided us an important benchmark to judge under which conditions the faster and less memory intensive, but local conjugate gradient method finds the global optimum of a given locality measure. We found that the commonly used second moment locality measure has generically multiple extrema, which makes it difficult to construct maximally localized Wannier functions by local optimization techniques. One may conjecture that this multiplicity results from the complex oscillatory behavior of the (not yet optimized) Wannier functions at large distances from the Wannier center, which makes the dominant contribution to the second moment. This led us to propose a new locality measure which is controlled by the behavior close the Wannier center, the integrated modulus square measure. We showed numerically by comparison of conjugate gradient and genetic algorithm optimization that this measure does not feature multiple extrema and is, therefore, suitable for fast and efficient local optimization techniques, like the standard conjugate gradient method. Because this result presumably originates from the local nature of the integrated modulus measure, it should hold generally, not only for two-dimensional systems, but also in three dimensions for photonic as well as electronic lattices.
We also presented and tested an analytical formula for the set of Bloch phases to be used as a starting point of the optimization process. This initial set of Bloch phases is suggested because, albeit it does not solve the optimization problem in general, it does generate maximally localized Wannier functions in special cases where the optimization problem can be solved analytically. We expect that these two main results may significantly increase the efficiency of the Wannier function approach for the description of defect structures in photonic lattices.
This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (FOR 557).
[10]{}
K. Sakoda, *Optical Properties of Photonic Crystals* (Springer, 2001).
A. Taflove and S. C. Hagnes, *[Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method]{}* (Artech House, 2000).
C. A. J. Fletcher, *[Computational Galerkin Methods]{}* (Springer, 1984).
D. N. Chigrin, “[Spatial distribution of the emission intensity in a photonic crystal: Self-interference of Bloch eigenwaves]{},” Physical Review A **79**, 1–9 (2009).
C. Kremers, D. N. Chigrin, and J. Kroha, “[Theory of Cherenkov radiation in periodic dielectric media: Emission spectrum]{},” Physical Review A **79**, 1–10 (2009).
C. Kremers and D. N. Chigrin, “[Spatial distribution of Cherenkov radiation in periodic dielectric media]{},” Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics **11**, 114008 (2009).
K. M. Leung, “Defect modes in photonic band structures - a green-function approach using vector wannier functions,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B-Opt. Phys. **10**, 303–306 (1993).
E. Lidorikis, M. M. Sigalas, E. N. Economou, and C. M. Soukoulis, “Tight-binding parametrization for photonic band gap materials,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 1405–1408 (1998).
J. Albert, C. Jouanin, D. Cassagne, and D. Bertho, “Generalized wannier function method for photonic crystals,” Phys. Rev. B **61**, 4381–4384 (2000).
J. Albert, C. Jouanin, D. Cassagne, and D. Monge, “Photonic crystal modelling using a tight-binding wannier function method,” Opt. Quantum Electron. **34**, 251–263 (2002).
N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, “Maximally localized generalized [W]{}annier functions for composite energy bands,” Phys. Rev. B **56**, 12847 (1997).
I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt, “Maximally localized [W]{}annier functions for entangled energy bands,” Phys. Rev. B **65**, 035109 (2002).
D. M. Whittaker and M. P. Croucher, “Maximally localized [W]{}annier functions for photonic lattices,” Phys. Rev. B **67**, 085204 (2003).
A. Garcia-Martin, D. Hermann, F. Hagmann, K. Busch, and P. Wölfle, “Defect computations in photonic crystals: a solid state theoretical approach,” Nanotechnology **14**, 177 (2003).
K. Busch, S. Mingaleev, A. Garcia-Martin, M. Schillinger, and D. Hermann, “The wannier function approach to photonic crystal circuits,” J. Phys.-Condes. Matter **15**, R1233–R1256 (2003).
Y. Jiao, S. Mingaleev, M. Schillinger, D. Miller, S. Fan, and K. Busch, “Wannier basis design and optimization of a photonic crystal waveguide crossing,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. **17**, 1875–1877 (2005).
E. Istrate and E. H. Sargent, “Photonic crystal heterostructures and interfaces,” Rev. Mod. Phys. **78**, 455–481 (2006).
A. McGurn, “Impurity mode techniques applied to the study of light sources,” J. Phys. D-Appl. Phys. **38**, 2338–2352 (2005).
H. Takeda, A. Chutinan, and S. John, “Localized light orbitals: Basis states for three-dimensional photonic crystal microscale circuits,” Phys. Rev. B **74** (2006).
J. des Cloizeaux, “Analytical properties of $n$-dimensional energy bands and [W]{}annier functions,” Phys. Rev. A **135**, 698 (1964).
H. Takeda, A. Chutinan, and S. John, “Localized light orbitals: Basis states for three-dimensional photonic microscale circuits,” Phys. Rev. B **74**, 195116 (2006).
K. Busch, S. F. Mingaleev, A. Garcia-Martin, M. Schillinger, and D. Hermann, “[W]{}annier function approach to photonic crystal circuits,” Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter **15**, R1233 (2003).
S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, “Block-iterative frequency-domain methods for maxwell’s equations in a planewave basis,” Opt. Express **8**, 173–190 (2001).
M. Mitchell, *An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms* (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study effective models of chiral fields and Polyakov loop expected to describe the dynamics responsible for the phase structure of two-flavor QCD at finite temperature and density. We consider chiral sector described either using linear sigma model or Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model and study the phase diagram and determine the location of the critical point as a function of the explicit chiral symmetry breaking (i.e. the bare quark mass $m_q$). We also discuss the possible emergence of the quarkyonic phase in this model.'
author:
- 'T. Kähärä'
- 'K. Tuominen[^1]'
title: 'Effective models of two-flavor QCD: finite $\mu$ and $m_q$-dependence'
---
Introduction
============
Hadronic matter undergoes a phase transition from hadronic matter into a partonic matter at high temperatures or densities. To predict the equation of state, study the existence of possible critical point(s) in the $(T,\mu)$– phase diagram and the properties of the phase transitions presents a theoretical challenge on studies based on the fundamental theory of strong interactions, QCD. To obtain some insight into the QCD dynamics of quarks in the nonperturbative domains, models like the Nambu–Jona–Lasinio (NJL) model have been developed. These models are based on the chiral symmetry of light quarks.
Based on generic effective theory methods, identification of relevant degrees of freedom and symmetries, effective models able to account for the two most important features of QCD, deconfinement and chiral symmetry breaking, have been developed and studied [@Mocsy:2003qw; @Sannino:2004ix]. These models include both chiral fields and the Polyakov loop as relevant degrees of freedom. The chiral symmetry is effectively represented by a NJL model or linear sigma model (LSM), while the $Z_3$ symmetry relevant for deconfinement in pure gauge theory is described by a mean field potential for Polyakov loop. The key role is played by the interactions coupling these two sectors. In the limit of light quarks the dynamics are driven by the chiral degrees of freedom and the decrease in the chiral condensate as the temperature is increased results in increase of the Polyakov loop which in turn results in deconfinement and explains the intertwining of these two seemingly unrelated features to a single phase transition [@Fukushima:2003fw; @Ratti; @Rossner:2007ik; @Ciminale:2007ei; @Costa:2008yh]. On the other hand, if the current quark masses are taken large, chiral symmetry broken explicitly, the dynamics is close to that of pure gauge theory, i.e. dominated by the Polyakov loop. Nevertheless, at deconfimenent the interactions now lead to decrease in the chiral condensate and the two transitions again coincide. In real QCD approximate chiral symmetry is typically expected to play the dominant role.
In an earlier work we have compared the models of two-flavor QCD where the chiral sector is represented either with LSM or NJL model [@Kahara:2008yg] at finite temperature and density. We found that while at zero chemical potential both cases give practically coincident results, the relative uncertainties increase when finite quark densities are considered. In particular the predictions for the location of the possible critical point in the $(T,\mu)$–plane differ widely [@Kahara:2008yg]. As a further direction to study and constrain these models we considered the dependence on explicit chiral symmetry breaking, i.e. the value of the quark mass $m_q$, in these models [@Kahara:2009sq]. In this brief report we complete this previous study by extending the analysis to finite density. We briefly comment also on the possible emergence of a quarkyonic phase introduced in recent literature [@McLerran:2007qj].
The paper is organized as follows: in section \[models\] we briefly recall the basic definitions of the two models we consider and explain the model parameters which allow for arbitrary pion mass. In section \[results\] we present our main results and in section \[checkout\] our conclusions and outlook.
The models {#models}
==========
Models at the physical point $m_\pi \approx 140$ MeV
----------------------------------------------------
As explained in the introduction, in this work we continue our study [@Kahara:2009sq] of the quark (or pion) mass dependence of the QCD phase diagram. We consider the PNJL and PLSM models which consist of a chiral part, a lattice fitted Polyakov potential and a simple interaction between the two. The study of these models is done in the mean field approximation. For a detailed description of the derivation see [@Kahara:2009sq], here we will simply state the resulting grand potential $$\Omega = U_{\rm{chiral}}+U_\ell+\Omega_{\bar{q}q}.
\label{Omega}$$
The two models differ only in the chiral part which corresponds either to the NJL or LSM models. The linear sigma model (LSM) consist of the sigma meson and the pions with their mutual interactions, and interactions with quarks. The NJL model on the other hand describes only quarks with an effective four-fermion interaction. In both models, the explicit chiral symmetry breaking is taken into account. The deconfining phase transition is included in both models through the mean field potential $$\begin{aligned}
U_\ell\equiv U(\ell,\ell^\ast,T) = T^4 \left(-\frac{b_2(T)}{2}|\ell|^2-\frac{b_3}{6}(\ell^3+
\ell^{\ast 3})+\frac{b_4}{4}(|\ell|^2)^2\right),
\label{polyakov_potential}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
b_2(T)=a_0+a_1\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)+a_2\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)^2+a_3\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)^3,\end{aligned}$$ and the constants $a_i$,$b_i$ are fixed to reproduce pure gauge theory thermodynamics with phase transition at $T_0=270$ MeV; We adopt the values determined in [@Ratti], and shown for completeness in table \[parametertable\]. Here $\ell$ is the gauge invariant Polyakov loop in the fundamental representation. Instead of the polynomial form for the Polyakov loop potential (\[polyakov\_potential\]), also other possibilities exist. An example is the one introduced in [@Roessner:2006xn] which has the advantage that $\ell$ is always confined to the values between zero and one. However as discussed in [@Fukushima:2008wg] these two possible forms for the potential do not differ significantly at temperatures below 300 MeV, the region we are interested in. Further improvement to the potential would be the inclusion of $\mu$–dependence in the $T_0$ parameter as is done for example in [@Schaefer:2007pw] and [@Abuki:2008nm]; we will discuss this briefly in Sec. \[resultsC\].
The chiral potentials in (\[Omega\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
U_{\rm{chiral}} &=& \frac{\lambda^2}{4}\left(\left(\frac{M}{g}\right)^2-v^2\right)^2 - \frac{HM}{g}, {\rm{\quad for\,\,LSM}} \\
U_{\rm{chiral}} &=& \frac{(m_q-M)^2}{2G}, {\rm{\quad for\,\,NJL}}. \end{aligned}$$ At the physical pion mass the parameters in the above equations are fixed by the physical vacuum properties. In the LSM model $H=f_\pi m_\pi^2$ and $v^2 = f_\pi^2 - m^2_\pi/\lambda^2$, where $f_\pi=93$ MeV and $m_\pi=138$ MeV. The coupling $\lambda^2 \approx 20$ is determined by the tree level mass $m_\sigma^2=2\lambda^2f_\pi^2+m_\pi^2$, which is set to be 600 MeV. In the NJL model we fix the bare quark mass to be $m_q=5.5$ MeV and the coupling $G=10.08 $ GeV$^{-2}$. The constituent masses $M$ are related to the $\bar{q}q$ and $\sigma$ expectation values throught the relations $M=m_q-G\langle\bar{q}q\rangle$ in NJL and $M = g\langle\sigma\rangle$ in LSM. In the latter case the coupling constant $g$ is fixed to 3.3 corresponding to the baryon mass $\sim 1$ GeV.
The final term in (\[Omega\]) includes the interaction between the chiral and Polyakov sectors and reads $$\label{omegaqqbar1}
\Omega_{\bar{q}q} =
-2N_fT\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\left({\rm{Tr}}_c\ln\left[1+Le^{-(E-\mu)/T}\right]+{\rm{Tr}}_c\ln\left[1
+L^\dagger e^{-(E+\mu)/T}\right]\right),$$ where the Polyakov loop matrix is $L = \exp[-g_s A_0/T]$. The above contribution is of the same basic form for both PLSM and PNJL models with $E = \sqrt{\vec{p}^{\,\,2} + M^2}$, where $M$ is the constituent mass of the model in question as defined above. The trace over color remains and using the definition of the Polyakov loop $\ell=\langle{\rm{Tr}}_c(L)\rangle/N_c$ and taking the Polyakov loop matrix $L$ corresponding to a static background field $A_0$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\bar{q}q} &=&
-2N_fT\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\left(\ln\left[1+3(\ell+\ell^\ast e^{-(E-\mu)/T})e^{-(E-\mu)/T}+e^{-3(E-\mu)/T}\right]\right.\nonumber \\
&& \left.+\ln\left[1+3(\ell^\ast+\ell e^{-(E+\mu)/T})e^{-(E+\mu)/T}+e^{-3(E+\mu)/T}\right]\right).
\label{omegaqqbar2}\end{aligned}$$ The interaction potential $\Omega_{\bar{q}q}$ includes also a vacuum term omitted from equations (\[omegaqqbar1\]) and (\[omegaqqbar2\]) $$-6N_f\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}E\theta(\Lambda^2-|\vec{p}|^2).$$ This term is neglected in the PLSM model, but included in the PNJL model where it is controlled by the cut-off $\Lambda$, which we set at 651 MeV. A summary of the parameters at the physical point is shown in table \[parametertable\].
The thermodynamics of the models are determined by solving the equations of motion for the order parameters, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\Omega}{\partial M}=0, ~~\frac{\partial\Omega}{\partial\ell}=0,
~~\frac{\partial\Omega}{\partial\ell^\ast}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and then the pressure is given by evaluating the potential on the minimum, $p=-\Omega(T,\mu)$. We have chosen the constituent mass $M$ as a basic variable since this most conveniently allows us to discuss both models simultaneously. It is also straightforward to write the results in terms of the condensates $\langle\sigma\rangle$ and $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle$ since these are linearly related to $M$ in each case. At finite chemical potential the mean field potential $\Omega$ is complex due to the Polyakov loops and minimizing such a potential is meaningless. A simple way to overcome this problem is to treat the Polyakov loop parameters $\ell$ and $\ell^\ast$ as independent real variables, which will be a sufficient approximation for our current analysis. Inaccuracies of this treatment as well as improved methods have been discussed for example in [@Rossner:2007ik; @Roessner:2006xn].
----------------------- --------- ---------------- -----------------------------------------------
[**[LSM:]{}**]{} $f_\pi$ $m_\pi$ $m_\sigma$
93 MeV 138 MeV 600 MeV
$g$ $\lambda$ $H$
3.3 $\approx$ 4.44 $\approx 1.77 \cdot 10^{-3}$ $\textrm{GeV}^3$
[**[NJL:]{}**]{} $m_q$ $\Lambda$ $G$
5.5 MeV 651 MeV 10.08 (GeV)$^{-2}$
[**[Polyakov:]{}**]{} $a_0$ $a_1$ $a_2$
6.75 -1.95 2.625
$a_3$ $b_3$ $b_4$
-7.44 0.75 7.5
----------------------- --------- ---------------- -----------------------------------------------
: The parameters used for the effective potential
\[parametertable\]
Models away from the physical point
-----------------------------------
To explore the region of parameter space in which the pion mass differs from its physical value, we need a consistent way of setting the model parameters in a such region. In the PNJL model this is quite easy since the bare quark mass is a direct input parameter that controls the amount of chiral symmetry breaking in the model and the pion mass is then calculated from the model. In the PLSM case the situation is not so simple since we have four parameters, $f_\pi$, $m_\pi$, $m_\sigma$ and $g$, which are connected with each other. To make the comparison with the PNJL model easier we introduced in [@Kahara:2009sq] a parametrization based on lattice results [@Chiu:2003iw; @Kunihiro:2003yj; @Procura:2003ig] which relates the above parameters directly to the bare quark mass $m_q$. Here we will give a brief summary of this parametrization.
The lattice data connects the pion decay constant, pion mass and sigma mass through the equations $$\begin{aligned}
m_\pi^2a^2 &=& (A_1(m_q a)^{\frac{1}{1+\delta}} + B(m_q a)^2) \\
\sqrt{2}f_\pi a &=& 0.06672 + 0.221820\times (m_q a) - \sqrt{2}Ca \\
m_\sigma &=& \xi m_\pi^2 + D\end{aligned}$$ obtained from [@Chiu:2003iw] and [@Kunihiro:2003yj]. The parameters in the above equations are shown in table \[parametertableII\] and chosen to reproduce the physical vacuum values for the PLSM model parameters i.e. $f_\pi = 93$ MeV, $m_\pi = 138$ MeV and $m_\sigma = 600$ MeV when the quark mass $m_q$ is set to 5 MeV.
----------------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------ ----------
$a$ $A_1$ $\delta$ $B$ $C$
0.505306 (GeV)$^{-1}$ 0.82725 0.16413 1.88687 1.18 MeV
$D$ $\xi$ $M_0$ $C_1$ $g_A$
565.15 MeV 1.83 (GeV)$^{-1}$ 868 MeV 0.9 (GeV)$^{-1}$ 1.267
----------------------- ------------------- ---------- ------------------ ----------
: The lattice parameters
\[parametertableII\]
The PLSM model parameter $g$ is determined through the relation $gf_\pi = M_N/3$, where the nucleon mass $M_N$ is parametrized in the form $$M_N = M_0 + 4C_1 m_\pi^2 - \frac{3g_A^2}{32\pi f_{\pi}^2}m_{\pi}^3.
\label{nuc_mass_par}$$ This is a chiral perturbation theory fit truncated to ${\mathcal{O}}(m_\pi^3)$. In [@Procura:2003ig] it has been shown that for a good description of nucleon mass one should keep terms up to and including ${\mathcal{O}}(m_\pi^4)$, but for simplicity we have chosen the truncated fit. Previously, in [@Kahara:2009sq], we used the same nucleon mass formula truncated to ${\mathcal{O}}(m_\pi^2)$ but this exaggerated the strength of the coupling $g$ at larger $m_q$ to an extent that was found to have a large effect on the phase diagram; we chose to improve by adding the ${\mathcal{O}}(m_\pi^3)$-term. The parameters are chosen so that the PLSM model vacuum values are reproduced and the corresponding parameter values are shown in table \[parametertableII\].
A comparison between the PNJL model and the PLSM model, now equipped with our lattice based parameter fit, is shown in Figure \[mqvsmp\]. Both the pion masses and the pion decay constants agree very well between the two models at low quark masses. As the bare quark mass, i.e. the amount of explicit chiral symmetry breaking is increased, the models start to deviate. At $m_q = 250$ MeV, the largest quark mass shown in Figure \[mqvsmp\], the deviation is around 20 $\%$ for both the pion masses and decay constants and keeps increasing as one increases bare quark mass further. This growing deviation is a natural indication that the models, based on approximate chiral symmetry, start to fail as the explicit chiral symmetry breaking becomes large. It should be noted that the comparison between the PNJL and PLSM models includes no tuning of the coupling $G$ or the cut-off $\Lambda$ of the PNJL model. Actually we have checked numerically that the agreement between the PNJL and the lattice fitted PLSM pion mass curves in Figure \[mqvsmp\] cannot be improved by altering the values of $G$ or $\Lambda$ from those shown in Table \[parametertable\].
In the following section we will study mainly the effect of explicit chiral symmetry breaking on the thermodynamics of the models. We focus in particular on the $(T, \mu)$– phase diagram including possible critical points.
-1.2truecm -0.4truecm
------- ---------- -------------- ------- --------- --------------
$m_q$ $m_\pi $ CP $(T,\mu)$ $m_q$ $m_\pi$ CP $(T,\mu)$
0.1 26 None 0.1 19 (147, 270)
2 93 None 2 85 (111, 306)
5 138 (196, 135) 5.5 140 (88, 329)
15 222 (168, 235) 15 231 (59, 364)
50 377 (120, 353) 50 421 (58, 435)
100 518 (30, 455) 100 603 (92, 496)
150 629 None 150 752 (120, 536)
------- ---------- -------------- ------- --------- --------------
: Bare quark masses with corresponding pion masses and critical points for both models. All values are in MeV.
\[mqmpitable\]
Results
=======
By construction, in these models there are a priori two transitions: The chiral transition due to the (approximate) restoration of chiral symmetry and the deconfinement transition encoded into the Polyakov potential. The transitions can be studied through their respective order parameters, the constituent quark mass $M$ and the thermal average of the Polyakov field, $\ell$. To both transitions one can assign their own critical temperatures. The definition of the critical temperature, however, is vague especially in the regions where the transition is a crossover and the order parameter shifts continuously. Since this is the case over large portion of the $(T,\mu)$–plane, in this work we primarily define the transition temperature as the temperature at which the temperature derivative of the order parameter has a maximum. Even this definition has some problems, since in some cases the derivative has several local maxima indicating rapid changes at several different temperatures. The critical temperature is identified with the maximum at which the change in the absolute value of the corresponding order parameter is largest. Alternatively one could use the susceptibilities to define the critical temperature.
The chiral phase diagram and the critical point {#resultsA}
-----------------------------------------------
The chiral transition can be determined by finding the temperature corresponding to the fastest change in the constituent quark mass $M$ at fixed chemical potential $\mu$ (or vice versa). This transition temperature corresponds in most cases to the temperature at which the constituent mass drops below $50 \%$ of its vacuum value, only at large $m_q$ and $\mu$ does the fastest change occur at a different temperature than the one where the decrease in the absolute value of the constituent mass takes place. Figure \[CMPDG\] shows the chiral transition lines in the $(T,\mu)$–plane for different quark masses for both models; also the critical points are shown. The critical points indicate the points where a line of first order (discontinuous) transitions ends and turns into a crossover (continuous).
As seen in Figure \[CMPDG\] the qualitative features of the phase diagrams in the two models are very similar: As the quark mass rises, the area under the transition line expands and the critical point moves towards larger $\mu$. The quantitative difference in the transition temperature between the models is below $15 \%$ for the shown quark masses. However the critical points appear to be located quite differently in the models as we already noted for the physical value of $m_q$ in [@Kahara:2008yg]. In the PLSM the transition for the lowest quark masses shown in Figure \[CMPDG\] is first order all the way so there is no critical point in the $(T,\mu)$–plane, the same holds for the largest quark mass but now the transition is a crossover throughout the plane. Therefore, in the PLSM model the critical point is present only at a finite $m_q$ interval and outside this interval the transition is either entirely crossover or entirely of first order. In [@Schaefer:2008hk] a qualitatively similar result has been obtained for a three flavor linear sigma model. The fact that the transition in PLSM is of first order over the entire $(T,\mu)$–plane in chiral limit is due to neglect of the fermion vacuum energy [@Skokov:2010sf].
In the PNJL case, where the fermion vacuum contribution is included, the critical points persist even for the smallest quark masses shown and the transitions at zero chemical potential remain crossovers. Also the critical temperature at the critical point starts to rise again at larger quark masses and does not disappear as in the PLSM case. A similar effect has been observed in [@Roessner:2006xn], where a saturation of the critical point temperature was mentioned and attributed to a diquark dominated phase. Since our work does not include diquark degrees of freedom, we conclude that the behaviour of the critical point at large quark masses is a more generic feature of the PNJL model.
It has been suggested in [@Bowman:2008kc] that there might be, especially at small quark masses, multiple critical points in the $(T,\mu)$–plane. We, however, found no evidence in either model to suggest that this is the case. In our previous work [@Kahara:2009sq] we noted that at large quark masses the PLSM transition was first order at $\mu = 0$ giving some credence to the idea of multiple critical points at large quark masses. As mentioned in the previous paragraph and evident from Figure \[CMPDG\], this is not the case in our present work and the first order transition at $\mu = 0$ observed in [@Kahara:2009sq] was caused by the overestimation of the nucleon mass $M_N$ at large pion masses and the resulting overestimation of the coupling $g$. Now, with the more precise formula (\[nuc\_mass\_par\]) for the nucleon mass, the transition is a crossover for all quark masses above the physical mass $m_q = 5$ MeV.
-1.2truecm -0.4truecm
The deconfinement transition {#resultsB}
----------------------------
The deconfinement of the system is quantified by the Polyakov loop order parameter $\ell$ and its conjugate $\ell^\ast$, which we treat as independent real variables. As with the chiral transition the transition temperatures could be determined locating the maxima of the temperature derivatives. However, as noted in our previous works [@Kahara:2008yg; @Kahara:2009sq], there is in some cases a double peak structure in the derivatives with one peak coinciding with the chiral transition and caused by the interaction between the chiral and Polyakov sectors of the models. The second peak is a softer one and is related to the the transition present in the parametrization of the Polyakov loop mean field potential. Generally, the softer peaks occur at the values $\ell = 1/2$ and $\ell^\ast = 1/2$, so they could be considered as measures of the system becoming deconfined. This is a reasonable statement since confinement in the models is due to numerical suppression of quarks states through the order parameters $\ell$ and $\ell^\ast$. This means that alternatively the deconfinement could be considered to occur when the suppressing order parameters reach large enough value in order not to provide suppression anymore. Since the Polyakov loop order parameters $\ell$ and $\ell^\ast$ obtain, with our choice of potential, values roughly from 0 to 1, the values $\ell = 1/2$ and $\ell^\ast = 1/2$ are a natural choice to be the indicator of when the system turns from a mostly confined state to a mostly deconfined state, bearing in mind that the transition is a crossover. To further simplify the analysis and readability of the figures we will, since $\ell$ and $\ell^\ast$ do not coincide at finite $\mu$, define single deconfinement transition temperature as the average of the transition temperatures determined by $\ell=1/2$ and $\ell^\ast=1/2$.
In Figures \[QNDG\] and \[QNDG50\] the averaged deconfinement transition lines are shown for the physical quark mass $m_q \approx 5$ MeV and a larger quark mass $m_q = 50$ MeV along with the corresponding chiral transitions. The first observation is that, defined this way, the deconfinement transition is independent of the chiral model and also of the amount of explicit chiral symmetry breaking i.e. the quark mass. This means that tuning the Polyakov potential, so that one obtains a coincidence of the deconfining and chiral transitions for one chiral model and a specific quark mass, will not give the same outcome in other cases. Furthermore, the deconfinement transition line, $T_{c,\rm{dec}}(\mu)$, depends only very weakly on $\mu$. This means that deconfinement and chiral restoration can be made to coincide only at $\mu=0$. However, on the basis of symmetries one does not expect deconfinement and chiral restoration to become independent at finite $\mu$. Hence one is led to study possible $\mu$-dependence in the Polyakov loop potential.
-1.2truecm -0.4truecm
-1.2truecm -0.4truecm
To illustrate the effects of $\mu$–dependence of the Polyakov potential on the deconfinement transition, we adopt the formulation from [@Schaefer:2007pw] with the following modifications: In [@Schaefer:2007pw] the $\mu$–dependence of the Polyakov potential was through the critical temperature $T_0$, which could be described by the following parametrization $$T_0(\mu) = T_\tau e^{-1/(\alpha_0 b(\mu))},$$ with the coefficient $b(\mu)$ depending on the number of colors, massless flavors and the chemical potential, $$b(\mu) = \frac{11N_c - 2N_f}{6\pi} - \frac{16N_f}{\pi} \frac{\mu^2}{T_\tau^2}.$$ The parameters $\alpha_0 = 0.304$ and $T_\tau = 1.770$ GeV were fixed to reproduce the $N_f = 0$ lattice result $T_0(\mu = 0) = 270$ MeV. For two massless flavors this would mean $T_0(\mu = 0) = 208$ MeV. However, since we want to make a comparison between the the $\mu$–dependent and the $\mu$–independent cases, we keep the $\mu = 0$ point as a reference point for the two cases. Hence we use $$b(\mu) = \frac{11N_c}{6\pi} - \frac{16N_f}{\pi} \frac{\mu^2}{T_\tau^2}.
\label{our_b}$$ This modification does not alter the fixing of the parameters $\alpha_0$ and $T_\tau$, which we fix to their above mentioned values. Our parametrization implies $T_0(\mu = 0) = 270$ MeV for any number of flavors. However, we are not interested in $N_f$-dependence since will exclusively consider the case $N_f=2$ and we want to only use the $\mu$-dependent Polyakov loop potential to illustrate the uncertainties which may arise in our consideration of $(T,\mu)$– phase diagrams. The $N_f$-dependence in (\[our\_b\]) also neglects the effect of quark masses, which will suppresses $T_0$ as discussed in [@Schaefer:2007pw]. This effect is not large for two light flavors, but grows more significant when considering larger quark masses. We stress that our intention here is simply to illustrate the effect of $\mu$-dependent Polyakov potential on the phase diagram and for that purpose the simple parametrization we have chosen is sufficient.
The phase diagrams obtained using the $\mu$–dependent Polyakov potential are shown in Figures \[QNDGMD\] and \[QNDG50MD\]. The deconfinement transition now appears very different: The main new feature is that the deconfinement temperature follows the chiral restoration critical temperature more closely. Of course one may argue that this feature is put in by hand into the models of this type, but one the other hand the deconfinement phase transition is put in by hand already into the $\mu=0$ Polyakov potential. Lattice determination of the coincidence of the chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement at finite $\mu$ would provide strong motivation to use $\mu$-dependent Polyakov potential in these effective modes. However, on the basis of the symmetries of the underlying gauge dynamics, one would indeed expect deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration to coincide also at finite $\mu$.
-1.2truecm -0.4truecm
-1.2truecm -0.4truecm
As a final application we will discuss the possibility of describing the quarkonic phase with these models.
Quarkyonic matter? {#resultsC}
------------------
Recently there has been some interest towards a novel form of matter conjectured to exist in the QCD phase diagram [@McLerran:2007qj]. To briefly recall, the conjecture is based on considerations at ’t Hooft large $N_c$ limit and rests mainly on the following two features: First, since the free energy scales with the number of degrees of freedom, one has hierarchical contributions from the quarks and gluons, of the order of $N_c$ and $N_c^2$, respectively. Second, while the mesons and glueballs become free in the large $N_c$ limit, their cubic and quartic interactions vanishing as $1/\sqrt{N_c}$ and $1/N_c$ respectively, the baryons remain strongly coupled. Both these features are, however, valid in the large $N_c$ limit while for QCD $N_c=3$. Furthermore, as we will now briefly discuss, the large $N_c$ limit is not unique [@Corrigan:1979xf] .
In the ’t Hooft limit of large $N_c$ the fermions are taken to transform according to the fundamental representation. This leads to the well known features at large $N_c$: Planar diagrams dominate, and among these diagrams quark loops are suppressed relative to gluonic ones. As the dimension of fermion representation is $N_c$ while the one for gluons is $N_c^2-1\simeq N_c$, different orders of magnitude for the free energies emerge as $N_c$ is taken large.
However, consider the following redefinition of the quark fields $$Q^a = \epsilon^{abc} Q^{bc},\,\,\,Q^{bc}=-Q^{cb},$$ i.e. consider quarks to transform in the two index anti-symmetric representation, which for SU(3) conceptually corresponds to renaming antiquarks as quarks. While this changes nothing in the dynamics for $N_c=3$, the large $N_c$ limit is entirely different. This is due to the fact that quarks in the anti-symmetric representation are counted similarly to gluons and hence they do not decouple at large $N_c$. The free energies of quarks and gluons are both of the order of $N_c^2$. The different behavior between mesons and baryons is similar to ’t Hooft limit.
These different large $N_c$ limits emphasize different phenomenological features, and t is difficult to argue that either would be more realistic; more probably both are somewhat idealized and equally far from real three color QCD. And these two do not even exhaust the possible large $N_c$ limits. For example, one can also consider the possibility of having a hybrid large $N_c$ limit where out of three flavors one quark flavor transforms in the two-index antisymmetric representation while the other two are taken to transform in the fundamental representation. In this case it is possible to construct color singlet states consisting of three quarks at any $N_c$. These baryons are very different in comparison to baryons of the other two large $N_c$ limits considered above: their masses do not grow with $N_c$ and their Regge slopes coincide with the Regge slopes of mesons.
We do not embark on a thorough analysis of the phenomenology associated with these large $N_c$ limits; see e.g. [@Cherman:2009fh]. From the above discussion we simply remark that the extrapolations from large $N_c$ limits to real three color QCD should be taken with a grain of salt. A lattice study considering the quarkyonic phase in two-color QCD has recently appeared [@Hands:2010gd].
It has been suggested that that the quarkyonic phase can be characterized by a non-vanishing baryon density while the system is still in a confined phase [@McLerran:2007qj]. In our models we have access to the quark number density $$n_q = \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial \mu}$$ which we can use as a measure of the baryon density.
If we first consider the case of a $\mu$–independent Polyakov potential, illustrated in Figures \[QNDG\] and \[QNDG50\], there is a sharp rise in the quark number density simultaneously with the chiral transition. As with the deconfinement transition, the absolute magnitude of this rise is not great, it is around 0.6 fm$^{-3}$, but the relative increase is about a factor of four. So it could be argued that at the point of the chiral transition also the number density changes from a nearly zero value to a non-zero one. Another way of characterizing this ’quarkyonic transition’ is to assign a threshold value for $n_q$ which separates the phases. This, however, is more arbitrary since the threshold value of $n_q$ one could choose is not in any way unique. In Figures \[QNDG\] and \[QNDG50\] we have plotted the chiral transition line, which corresponds to the rise in quark number density, along with the deconfinement transition line, obtained as explained in the previous section, and two curves which correspond to values of 1 and 2 fm$^{-3}$ of $n_q$. If one naively expects a baryon to have quark density around 3 fm$^{-3}$ then one should have nonzero net baryon density not later than when the average quark density hits 3 fm$^{-3}$, most likely even sooner. Seeing also that the deconfinement line lies at large temperatures, there is a substantial window for the quarkyonic matter to exist realizing the picture envisioned in [@McLerran:2007qj].
However, this picture changes considerably if the Polyakov loop potential depends explicitly on $\mu$. This case is shown in Figures \[QNDGMD\] and \[QNDG50MD\]. First of all the quantitative behaviour of the quark number density changes quite drastically: Now $n_q=1$ and $n_q=2$ fm$^{-3}$ lines are well inside the chirally broken phase, but also the rise in quark number density associated with the chiral transition becomes significantly larger, in particular at large $\mu$. But more importantly, the change in the deconfining transition, which now follows the chiral transition more closely, significantly decreases the area where possible quarkyonic matter could reside. Here one should remember that when implementing the $\mu$–dependence to the Polyakov potential, we neglected effects from number of flavors and quark masses, which would bring the deconfinement lines down even faster than in Figures \[QNDGMD\] and \[QNDG50MD\] and thus practically closing the window for the existence of quarkyonic matter.
Conclusions {#checkout}
===========
We have considered the $(T,\mu)$– phase diagram of two-flavor QCD in effective models which take into account both chiral degrees of freedom relevant for the restoration of the chiral symmetry and Polyakov loop relevant for deconfienement. Earlier these studies have been performed by constraining these models to reproduce the physical vacuum, in the two flavor case essentially determined by the bare quark mass $m_q=m_u=m_d$ (or alternatively by the pion mass $m_\pi$). We have relaxed this assumption and treated $m_q$ as a free parameter of the model in order to study how the explicit chiral breaking manifests in the thermodynamics.
We considered, side by side, two different models PNJL and PLSM which differ by the choice of the effective realization for the chiral sector. In earlier studies these two models have been shown to lead to qualitatively similar results for the thermodynamics both at finite temperature and density; the main quantitative difference has been shown to be in the location of the critical point in the $(T,\mu)$– phase diagram. In this paper we have shown that, as a function of $m_q$, a qualitative difference arises: while in PNJL model the critical point exists for any $m_q$, in PLSM model the critical point exists only for a range of values of $m_q$. In both models we find, for any $m_q$, at most one critical point in contrast to the results in [@Bowman:2008kc] where multiple critical points were observed for LSM model at non-physical values of the pion mass.
Finally, we applied these effective models to consider the quarkyonic phase in two flavor QCD. The theoretical motivations on the existence of this novel phase are based on large $N_c$-limit of QCD and sensitive to [*[which]{}*]{} large $N_c$ limit is considered model studies are required. Furthermore, the existence of this novel state of matter was shown to depend sensitively on the parametrization of the Polyakov loop potential at finite $\mu$. In particular, for $\mu$–independent Polyakov loop potential there appears a wide window in the $(T,\mu)$– phase diagram for quarkyonic matter to exist while if $\mu$ dependence in the Polyakov loop is introduced to obtain coincidence of chiral symmetry restoration and deconfinement similarly as at $\mu=0$, the window for quarkyonic matter practically closes.
The financial support for T.K. from the Väisälä foundation is gratefully acknowledged.
[20]{}
A. Mocsy, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 182302 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0308135\]; A. Mocsy, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, JHEP [**0403**]{}, 044 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0306069\]; A. Mocsy, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 092004 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0301229\]. F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 034019 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0403175\]. K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B [**591**]{}, 277 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0310121\]; K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 045004 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0303225\]; K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B [**553**]{}, 38 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0209311\]. C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 014019 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0506234\]; C. Ratti, S. Roessner and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B [**649**]{} (2007) 57 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0701091\]. S. Roessner, T. Hell, C. Ratti and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A [**814**]{} (2008) 118 \[arXiv:0712.3152 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Ciminale, G. Nardulli, M. Ruggieri and R. Gatto, Phys. Lett. B [**657**]{} (2007) 64 \[arXiv:0706.4215 \[hep-ph\]\]. P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo and C. A. de Sousa, arXiv:0801.3417 \[hep-ph\], P. Costa, C. A. de Sousa, M. C. Ruivo and H. Hansen, arXiv:0801.3616 \[hep-ph\]. T. Kahara and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 034015 \[arXiv:0803.2598 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Kahara and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 114022 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.0890 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. McLerran and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A [**796**]{} (2007) 83 \[arXiv:0706.2191 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Roessner, C. Ratti and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 034007 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609281\]. K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{} (2008) 114028 \[Erratum-ibid. D [**78**]{} (2008) 039902\] \[arXiv:0803.3318 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 074023 \[arXiv:0704.3234 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. Abuki, R. Anglani, R. Gatto, G. Nardulli and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 034034 \[arXiv:0805.1509 \[hep-ph\]\]. T. W. Chiu and T. H. Hsieh, Nucl. Phys. B [**673**]{}, 217 (2003) \[Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**129**]{}, 492 (2004)\] \[arXiv:hep-lat/0305016\]. T. Kunihiro, S. Muroya, A. Nakamura, C. Nonaka, M. Sekiguchi and H. Wada \[SCALAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 034504 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0310312\]. M. Procura, T. R. Hemmert and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 034505 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0309020\]. B. J. Schaefer and M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{} (2009) 014018 \[arXiv:0808.1491 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. Skokov, B. Friman, E. Nakano, K. Redlich and B. J. Schaefer, arXiv:1005.3166 \[hep-ph\]. E. S. Bowman and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 015202 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.0042 \[nucl-th\]\]. E. Corrigan and P. Ramond, Phys. Lett. B [**87**]{}, 73 (1979). A. Cherman, T. D. Cohen and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 036002 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.2400 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Hands, S. Kim and J. I. Skullerud, arXiv:1001.1682 \[hep-lat\].
[^1]: On leave of absence from Department of Physics, University of Jyväskylä
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For data sampled from an arbitrary density on a manifold embedded in Euclidean space, we introduce the *Continuous k-Nearest Neighbors* (CkNN) graph construction. We prove that CkNN is the unique unweighted construction that is consistent with the connected components of the underlying manifold in the limit of large data, for compact Riemannian manifolds and a large class of non-compact manifolds. More precisely, we show that CkNN is geometrically consistent in the sense that the unnormalized graph Laplacian converges to the Laplace-Beltrami operator, spectrally as well as pointwise. We demonstrate that CkNN produces a single graph that captures all topological features simultaneously, in contrast to persistent homology, which represents each homology generator at a separate scale. As applications we derive a new fast clustering algorithm and a method to identify patterns in natural images topologically. Finally, we conjecture that CkNN is topologically consistent, meaning that the homology of the Vietoris-Rips complex (implied by the graph Laplacian) converges to the homology of the underlying manifold (implied by the Laplace-de Rham operators) in the limit of large data.'
address: 'Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030'
author:
- 'Tyrus Berry ([email protected]) and Timothy Sauer'
bibliography:
- 'berrysauer.bib'
title: Consistent Manifold Representation for Topological Data Analysis
---
topological data analysis ,Laplace-de Rham operator ,manifold learning ,spectral clustering ,geometric prior
Introduction {#intro}
============
Building a discrete representation of a manifold from a finite data set is a fundamental problem in machine learning. Particular interest pertains to the case where a set of data points in a possibly high-dimensional Euclidean space is assumed to lie on a relatively low-dimensional manifold. The field of topological data analysis (TDA) concerns the extraction of topological invariants such as homology from discrete measurements.
Currently, there are two major methodologies for representing manifolds from data sets. One approach is an outgrowth of Kernel PCA [@scholkopf1998nonlinear], using graphs with [*weighted*]{} edges formed by localized kernels to produce an operator that converges to the Laplace-Beltrami operator of the manifold. These methods include versions of diffusion maps [@belkin2003laplacian; @diffusion; @localk; @BH14] that reconstruct the geometry of the manifold with respect to a desired metric. Convergence of the weighted graph to the Laplace-Beltrami operator in the large data limit is called [*consistency*]{} of the graph construction. Unfortunately, while such constructions implicitly contain all topological information about the manifold, it is not yet clear how to use a weighted graph to build a simplicial complex from which simple information like the Betti numbers can be extracted.
A second approach, known as persistent homology [@carlsson2009topology; @edels2010; @ghrist2008], produces a series of [*unweighted*]{} graphs that reconstructs topology one scale at a time, tracking homology generators as a scale parameter is varied. The great advantage of an unweighted graph is that the connection between the graph and a simplicial complex is immediate, since the Vietoris-Rips construction can be used to build an abstract simplicial complex from the graph. However, the persistent homology approach customarily creates a family of graphs, of which none is guaranteed to contain all topological information. The goal of a consistent theory is not possible since there is not a single unified homology in the large data limit.
In this article we propose replacing persistent homology with consistent homology in data analysis applications. In other words, our goal is to show that it is possible to construct a single unweighted graph from which the underlying manifold’s topological information can be extracted. We introduce a specific graph construction from a set of data points, called continuous k-nearest neighbors (CkNN), that achieves this goal for any compact Riemannian manifold. Theorem \[consgeom\] states that the CkNN is the unique unweighted graph construction for which the (unnormalized) graph Laplacian converges spectrally to a Laplace-Beltrami operator on the manifold in the large data limit. Furthermore, this is true even when the manifold is not compact, with some mild added conditions.
The proof of consistency for the CkNN graph construction is carried out in Section \[background\] for both weighted and unweighted graphs. There we complete the theory of graphs constructed from variable bandwidth kernels, computing for the first time the bias and variance of both pointwise and spectral estimators. This analysis reveals the surprising fact that the optimal bandwidth for spectral estimation is significantly smaller than the optimal choice for pointwise estimation (see Fig. \[figureApp\]). This is crucial because existing statistical estimates [@SingerEstimate; @BH14] imply very different parameter choices that are not optimal for the spectral convergence desired in most applications. Moreover, requiring the spectral variance to be finite allows us to specify which geometries are accessible on non-compact manifolds. Finally, combining our statistical estimates with the theory of [@von2008consistency], we provide the first proofs of spectral convergence for graph Laplacians on non-compact manifolds. Details on the relationship of our new results to previous work are given in Section \[background\].
As mentioned above, the reason for focusing on unweighted graphs is their relative simplicity for topological investigation. There are many weighted graph constructions that converge to the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to various geometries [@belkin2003laplacian; @diffusion; @localk; @BH14]. Although these methods are very powerful, they are not convenient for extracting topological information. For example, to determine the zero homology from a weighted graph requires numerically estimating the dimension of the zero eigenspace of the graph Laplacian. Alternatively, in an unweighted graph construction, one can apply the depth first search algorithm to determine the zero homology, which is significantly more efficient than the eigensolver approach. Secondly, determination of the number of zero eigenvalues requires setting a nuisance parameter as a numerical threshold. For higher-order homology generators, the problem is even worse, as weighted graphs require the construction of the Laplace-de Rham operators which act on differential forms. (We note that the $0$-th Laplace-de Rham operator acts on functions ($0$-forms) and is called the Laplace-Beltrami operator.) In contrast, the unweighted graph construction allows the manifold to be studied using topological data analysis methods that are based on simplicial homology (e.g. computed from the Vietoris-Rips complex).
The practical advantages of the CkNN are: (1) a single graph representation of the manifold that captures topological features at multiple scales simultaneously (see Fig. \[clusteringFig3\]) and (2) identification of the correct topology even for non-compact manifolds (see Fig. \[clusteringFig2\]). In CkNN, the length parameter $\epsilon$ is eliminated, and replaced with a unitless scale parameter $\delta$. Our consistent homology in terms of $\delta$ uses the same efficient computational homology algorithms as conventional persistent homology. Of course, for some applications, the unitless parameter $\delta$ may be a disadvantage; for example, if the distance scale of a particular feature is explicitly sought. However, in most cases, we feel this potential disadvantage is outweighed by the increased efficiency and accuracy for determination of the homology generators. Finally, for a fixed data set, the consistent homology approach requires choosing the parameter $\delta$ (which determines the CkNN graph) and we re-interpret the classical persistence diagram as a tool for selecting $\delta$.
We introduce the CkNN in Section \[sec2\], and demonstrate its advantages in topological data analysis by considering a simple but illustrative example. In Section \[TDA\] we show that consistent spectral estimation of the Laplace-de Rham operators is the key to consistent estimation of topological features. In particular, the key to estimating the connected components of a manifold is spectral estimation of the Laplace-Beltrami operator. In Section \[uniqueconstruction\], these results are used to show that the CkNN is the unique unweighted graph construction which yields a consistent geometry via the Laplace-Beltrami operator on functions. These results guarantee consistency of the connected components (clustering) and we conjecture consistency of the higher order homology. We give several examples that demonstrate the consistency of the CkNN construction in Section \[spectralclustering\], including a fast and consistent clustering algorithm that allows more general sampling densities than existing theories. Theoretical results are given in Section \[background\]. We conclude in Section \[conclusion\] by discussing the relationship of CkNN to classical persistence. In this article, we focus on applications to TDA, but the theoretical results will be of independent interest to those studying the geometry as well as topology of data.
Continuous scaling for unweighted graphs {#sec2}
========================================
We begin by describing the CkNN graph construction and comparing it to other approaches. Then we discuss the main issues of this article as applied to a simple example of data points arranged into three rectangles with nonuniform sampling.
Continuous k-Nearest Neighbors
------------------------------
Our goal is to create an unweighted, undirected graph from a point set with interpoint distances given by a metric $d$. Since the data points naturally form the vertices of a graph representation, for each pair of points we only need to decide whether or not to connect these points with an edge. There are two standard approaches for constructing the graph:
1. [**Fixed $\epsilon$-balls**]{}: For a fixed $\epsilon$, connect the points $x,y$ if $d(x,y) < \epsilon$.
2. [**k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN)**]{}: For a fixed integer $k$, connect the points $x,y$ if either $d(x,y) \leq d(x,x_{k})$ or $d(x,y) \leq d(y,y_{k})$ where $x_{k}, y_k$ are the $k$-th nearest neighbors of $x,y$ respectively.
The fixed $\epsilon$-balls choice works best when the data is uniformly distributed on the manifold, whereas the kNN approach adapts to the local sampling density of points. However, we will see that even when answering the simplest topological questions, both standard approaches have severe limitations. For example, when clustering a data set into connected components, they may underconnect one part of the graph and overestimate the number of components, while overconnecting another part of the graph and bridging parts of the data set that should not be connected. Despite these drawbacks, the simplicity of these two graph constructions has led to their widespread use in manifold learning and topological data analysis methods [@carlsson2009topology].
Our main point is that a less discrete version of kNN sidesteps these problems, and can be proved to lead to a consistent theory in the large data limit. Define the *Continuous k-Nearest Neighbors* (CkNN) graph construction by
1. [**CkNN**]{}: Connect the points $x,y$ if ${\displaystyle d(x,y) < \delta \sqrt{ d(x,x_k)d(y,y_k)}}$
where the parameter $\delta$ is allowed to vary continuously. Of course, the discrete nature of the (finite) data set implies that the graph will change at only finitely many values of $\delta$. The continuous parameter $\delta$ has two uses. First, it allows asymptotic analysis of the graph Laplacian in terms of $\delta$, where we interpret the CkNN graph construction as a kernel method. Second, it allows the parameter $k$ to be fixed for each data set, which allows us to interpret $d(x,x_k)$ as a local density estimate.
The CkNN construction is closely related to the “self-tuning" kernel introduced in [@ZP] for the purposes of spectral clustering, which was defined as $$\label{zpkernel} K(x,y) = \exp\left(-\frac{d(x,y)^2}{d(x,x_k)d(y,y_k)}\right).$$ The kernel (\[zpkernel\]) leads to a weighted graph, but replacing the exponential kernel with the indicator function $$\label{cutoffkernel} K(x,y) = \mathbbm{1}_{\left\{\frac{d(x,y)^2}{d(x,x_k)d(y,y_k)}<1 \right\}}$$ and introducing the continuous parameter $\delta$ yields the CkNN unweighted graph construction. The limiting operator of the graph Laplacian based on the kernels and was first analyzed pointwise in [@Ting2010; @BH14]. In Sec. \[background\] we provide the first complete analysis of the spectral convergence of these graph Laplacians, along with the bias and variance of the spectral estimates.
The CkNN is an instance of a broader class of multi-scale graph constructions:
1. [**Multi-scale**]{}: Connect the points $x,y$ if $d(x,y) < \delta \sqrt{\rho(x)\rho(y)}$
where $\rho(x)$ defines the local scaling near the point $x$. In Section \[uniqueconstruction\] we will show that $$\label{densityBandwidth} \rho(x) \propto q(x)^{-1/m}$$ is the unique multi-scale graph construction that yields a consistent limiting geometry, where $q(x)$ is the sampling density and $m$ is the intrinsic dimension of the data.
Note that if we are given a data set, neither $q(x)$ nor $m$ may be known beforehand. Fortunately, for points on a manifold embedded in Euclidean space, the kNN itself provides a very simple density estimator, which for $k$ sufficiently small approximately satisfies $$\label{kNNdensity} ||x-x_k|| \propto q(x)^{-1/m}$$ where $x_k$ is the $k$-th nearest neighbor of $x$ and $m$ is the dimension of the underlying manifold [@loftsgaarden65]. Although more sophisticated kernel density estimators could be used (see for example [@ScottVBK]), a significant advantage of is that it implicitly incorporates the exponent $-1/m$ without the need to explicitly estimate the intrinsic dimension $m$ of the underlying manifold.
In the next section, we demonstrate the advantages of the CkNN on a simple example before turning to the theory of consistent topological estimation.
Example: Representing non-uniform data {#largedata}
--------------------------------------
In this section we start with a very simple example where both the fixed $\epsilon$-ball and simple kNN graph constructions fail to identify the correct topology. Fig. \[figure7\] shows a simple “cartoon” of a non-uniformity that is common in real data, and reveals the weakness of standard graph constructions. All the data points lie in one of the three rectangular connected components outlined in Fig. \[figure7\](a). The left and middle components are densely sampled and the right component is more sparsely sampled. Consider the radius $\epsilon$ indicated by the circles around the data points in Fig. \[figure7\](a). At this radius, the points in the sparse component are not connected to any other points in that component. This $\epsilon$ is too small for the connectivity of the sparse component to be realized, but at the same time is too large to distinguish the two densely sampled components. A graph built by connecting all points within the radius $\epsilon$, shown in Fig. \[figure7\](b), would find many spurious components in the sparse region while simultaneously improperly connecting the two dense components. We are left with a serious failure: The graph cannot be tuned, with any fixed $\epsilon$, to identify the “correct” three boxes as components.
The kNN approach to local scaling is to replace the fixed $\epsilon$ approach with the establishment of edges between each point and its $k$-nearest neighbors. While this is an improvement, in Fig. \[figure8\] we show that it still fails to reconstitute the topology even for the very simple data set considered in Fig. \[figure7\]. Notice that in Fig. \[figure8\](a) the graph built based on the nearest neighbor ($k=1$) leaves all regions disconnected, while using two nearest neighbors ($k=2$) incorrectly bridges the sparse region with a dense region, as shown in Fig. \[figure8\](b). Of course, using kNN with $k>2$ will have the same problem as $k=2$. Fig. \[figure8\] shows that simple kNN is not a panacea for nonuniformly sampled data.
Finally, we demonstrate the CkNN graph construction in Fig. \[figure9\]. An edge is added between points $x$ and $y$ when $d(x,y) < \delta \sqrt{d(x,x_k) d(y,y_k)}$. We denote the $k$th-nearest neighbor of $x$ (resp., $y$) by $x_k$ (resp., $y_k$). The coloring in Fig. \[figure9\](a) exhibits the varying density between boxes. Assigning edges according to CkNN with $k=10$ and $\delta=1.15$, shown in Fig. \[figure9\](b), yields an unweighted graph whose connected components reflect the manifold in the large data limit. Theorem \[consgeom\] guarantees the existence of such a $\delta$, that yields an unweighted CkNN graph with correct topology.
Although we have focused on the connected components of the point set, the CkNN graph in Fig. \[figure9\] fully triangulates all regions, which implies that the $1$-homology is correctly identified as trivial. Clearly, the graph constructions in Figures \[figure7\] and \[figure8\] are very far from identifying the correct $1$-homology.
To complete our analysis of the three-box example, we compare CkNN to a further alternative. Two crucial features of the CkNN graph construction are (1) symmetry in $x$ and $y$ which implies an undirected graph construction, and (2) introduction of the continuous parameter $\delta$ which allows $k$ to be fixed so that $\rho(x)=||x-x_k||$ is an estimator of $q(x)^{-1/m}$. There are many alternative ways of combining the local scaling function $\rho(x)$ with the continuous parameter $\delta$. Our detailed theoretical analysis in Sec. \[background\] shows that the geometric average $\delta\sqrt{\rho(x)\rho(y)}$ is consistent, but it does not discount all alternatives.
For example, we briefly consider the much less common ‘AND’ construction for kNN, where points are connected when $d(x,y) \leq \min\{d(x,x_k),d(y,y_k)\}$ (as opposed to standard kNN which uses the $\max$). Intuitively, the advantage of the ‘AND’ construction is that it will not incorrectly connect dense regions to sparse regions because it takes the smaller of the two kNN distances. However, on a non-compact domain, shown in Fig. \[SkNN2\], this construction does not identify the correct homology whereas the CkNN does. We conclude the ‘AND’ version of kNN is not generally superior to CkNN. Moreover, our analysis in Sec. \[background\] does not apply, due to the fact that the $\max$ and $\min$ functions are not differentiable, making their analysis more difficult than the geometric average used by CkNN.
Multiscale Homology {#multiscaleSection}
-------------------
In Section \[uniqueconstruction\] we will see that the geometry represented by the CkNN graph construction captures the true topology with relatively little data by implicitly choosing a geometry which is adapted to the sampling measure. The CkNN construction yields a natural multi-scale geometry, which is assumed to be very smooth in regions of low density and can have finer features in regions of dense sampling. Since all geometries yield the same topology, this multi-scale geometry is a natural choice for studying the topology of the underlying manifold, and this advantage is magnified for small data sets. In Fig. \[clusteringFig3\] we demonstrate the effect of this geometry on the persistent homology for a small data set with multiple scales. Following that, in Fig. \[clusteringFig2\] we show how the CkNN graph construction can capture the homology even for a non-compact manifold.
\
\
\
To form the data set in Fig. \[clusteringFig3\] we sampled 60 uniformly random points on a large annulus in the plane centered at $(-1,0)$ with radii in $[2/3,1]$ and another 60 uniformly random points on a much smaller annulus centered at $(1/5,0)$ with radii in $[1/5,3/10]$. Together, these 120 points form a “figure eight” with a sparsely sampled large hole and a densely sampled small hole as shown in Fig. \[clusteringFig3\](b)(d). We then used the JavaPlex package [@Javaplex] to compute the $H^1$ persistence diagram for the VR complex based on the standard $\epsilon$-ball graph construction, shown in Fig. \[clusteringFig3\](a). Note that two major generators of $H^1$ are found along with some “topological noise”, and the generators do not exist for a common $\epsilon$.
Since JavaPlex can build the VR complex persistence diagram for any distance matrix, we could easily compute the CkNN persistence diagram, shown in Fig. \[clusteringFig3\](c), by using the ‘distance’ matrix $d(x,y) = \frac{||x-y||}{\sqrt{||x-x_k|| \, ||y-y_k||}}$, and we used $k=10$ to form the matrix. Notice how the CkNN captures both scales simultaneously, giving a multi-scale representation, whereas the standard $\epsilon$-ball graph captures only one scale at a time. Fig. \[clusteringFig3\](d) shows the edges for $\delta = 0.1$, at which the graph captures the correct topology in all dimensions. In addition, the CkNN construction is more efficient, requiring only 934 edges to form a single connected component, whereas the $\epsilon$-ball construction requires 2306 edges.
The CkNN construction has a marked advantage over the fixed-$\epsilon$ construction for non-compact data. To form the data set in Fig. \[clusteringFig2\](a) we sampled 150 points from a 2-dimensional Gaussian distribution and then removed the points of radius between $[1/4,3/4]$, leaving 120 points lying on two connected components with a single non-contractible hole. In this case the standard $\epsilon$-ball persistence does not even capture the correct 0-homology for the manifold, due to the decreasing density near the outlying points, as shown in Fig. \[clusteringFig2\](c-d). Furthermore, since the true manifold is non-compact, there is no reason to expect the $\epsilon$-ball construction to converge to the correct topology even in the limit of large data. In fact, as the amount of data is increased, the outlying points will become increasingly spaced out, leading to worse performance for the fixed $\epsilon$-ball construction, even for the $H^0$ homology. In contrast, the CkNN construction is able to capture all the correct topological features for a large range of $\delta$ values, as shown in Fig. \[clusteringFig2\](e-f).
In Sections \[TDA\] and \[uniqueconstruction\] we prove that the CkNN is the unique graph construction that provides a consistent representation of the geometry of the underlying manifold in the limit of large data. An immediate consequence is the consistency of the connected components.
Manifold topology from graph topology {#TDA}
=====================================
In this section we delineate our notion of graph consistency. Assume that the vertices of the graph are data points that lie on a manifold embedded in Euclidean space. Our goal is to access the true topology of the underlying manifold using an abstract simplicial complex on the finite data set. The Vietoris-Rips complex is constructed inductively, first adding a triangle whenever all the faces are in the graph and then adding a higher order simplex whenever all the faces of the simplex are included. We say that a graph construction on these vertices is *topologically consistent* if the homology computed from the VR complex converges to the homology of the underlying manifold in the limit of large data.
Topological consistency has been shown directly for the $\epsilon$-ball graph construction on compact manifolds without boundary [@VRcomplex]. An in depth analysis in [@SmaleWeinberger] shows that for compact manifolds the probability of obtaining the correct homology from a sampling set can be bounded in terms of the curvature and nearness to self-intersection of the manifold. The results of [@VRcomplex; @SmaleWeinberger] are analogous to a result of [@diffusion], which shows that the graph Laplacian associated to $\epsilon$-ball graph construction converges to the Laplace-Beltrami operator on compact manifolds when the data points are sampled uniformly. In fact, [@diffusion] proves pointwise convergence on compact manifolds for any smooth sampling density, but their construction requires a weighted graph in general. For graph Laplacian methods (including the results developed here), the dependence on the curvature and nearness to self-intersection appears in the bias term of the estimator as shown in [@diffusion; @heinthesis].
In the special case of uniform sampling, the theory of [@diffusion] is equivalent to the unweighted $\epsilon$-ball construction (using the kernel $K_{\epsilon}(x,y) = \mathbbm{1}_{||x-y||<\epsilon}$). In Sec. \[background\], combined with a result of [@von2008consistency], we prove spectral convergence of this graph Laplacian to the Laplace-Beltrami operator, which we refer to as *spectral consistency* of the graph Laplacian. We should note that the result of [@von2008consistency] requires several extra conditions and in Sec. \[background\] we prove that these conditions are superfluous. In particular, for a manifold without boundary or with a smooth boundary, the CkNN graph construction the spectral convergence is guaranteed. This is the bottom arrow in the following diagram:
$$\def{1.4}{.3} \begin{array}[c]{ccc}
\textup{Graph VR Homology }H_n(G)& {\ext@arrow 0359\rightarrowfill@@{\textup{consistency}}{\ \ \textup{topological} \ \ }}
&\textup{Manifold Homology }H_n(\mathcal{M})\\ \\
\hspace{0pt}\scriptstyle{\textup{Graph Theory}}\left\updownarrow\rule{0cm}{1cm}\right. &&\left\updownarrow\rule{0cm}{1cm}\right. \scriptstyle{\textup{Hodge Theory}}\\ \\
\textup{Graph Laplacian }L_{\rm un}=\partial\partial^\top &\xrightarrow[\textup{consistency}]{\ \ \ \textup{spectral} \ \ \ }& \textup{Laplace-Beltrami }\Delta = \delta d
\end{array}$$
The left vertical arrow corresponds to the fact that the graph Laplacian $L_{un} = D-W$ can trivially be used to reconstruct the entire graph since the non-diagonal entries are simply the negative of the adjacency matrix. Since the graph determines the entire VR complex, the graph Laplacian completely determines the VR homology of the graph. This connection is explicitly spectral for the zero homology, since the zero-homology of a graph corresponds exactly to the zero-eigenspace of the graph Laplacian [@von2007tutorial].
The right vertical arrow follows from the fact that from the Laplace-Beltrami operator, it is possible to analytically reconstruct the metric on a Riemannian manifold which completely determines the homology of the manifold. To make this connection explicit, in coordinates $x^1,...,x^m$ we can compute the Riemannian metric by $$g_{ij} = g_x(\nabla x^i,\nabla x^j) = \frac{1}{2}(\Delta(x^i x^j) - x^i \Delta x^j - x^j\Delta x^i).$$ The Riemannian metric lifts to an inner product on forms $g(\omega,\nu)$ which defines the Hodge inner products $$\left<\omega,\nu\right> = \int_{\mathcal{M}} g(\omega,\nu) \, dV$$ on differential forms. From the Hodge inner products, we define the codifferential operators $\delta^k$ as the formal adjoint of the exterior derivative $d^k$ on $k$-forms. Finally, we can define the Laplace-de Rham operator on differential $k$-forms by $\Delta^k = \delta^{k+1}d^k + d^{k-1}\delta^k$, and the Hodge theorem [@laplacianBook] states that the kernel of $\Delta^k$ is isomorphic to the $k$-th de Rham cohomology group and the $k$-th singular cohomology group, $\textup{ker}(\Delta^k) \cong H^k_{\textup{dR}}(\mathcal{M}) \cong H^k_{\textup{sing}}(\mathcal{M})$. For closed manifolds without boundary, Poincare duality relates the homology to the cohomology $H_{n-k}(\mathcal{M}) \cong H^k(\mathcal{M})$. In general, cohomology is considered a stronger invariant.
To summarize the above discussion, just as the discrete Laplacian completely determines the graph VR homology, the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ completely determines the manifold homology. In perfect analogy to the discrete case, the zero-homology of the manifold corresponds to the zero-eigenspace of the Laplace-Beltrami operator. This connection is explicitly spectral, and generalizes to higher-order homology groups via the Laplace-de Rham operators on differential forms.
By establishing spectral convergence of the graph Laplacian to the Laplace-Beltrami operator (the bottom horizontal arrow) we complete the first step of the connection between the graph homology and the limiting manifold homology (the top horizontal arrow). This is the first step towards establishing topological consistency on non-compact manifolds with arbitrary sampling. Moreover, this crucial first step also strongly suggests the consistency of the higher-order homology. However, for the higher-order homology, the consistency is not yet explicitly spectral, so the top horizontal arrow in the above diagram remains a conjecture for the higher-order homology. Establishing this connection via explicit spectral convergence requires defining a discrete analog of differential forms and discrete analogs of the higher-order Laplace-de Rham operators and then showing spectral convergence to the corresponding operators on the manifold. One promising construction is the discrete exterior calculus [@DEC1; @DEC2] but no consistency results have been shown yet.
The goal of this paper is to provide a general unweighted graph construction that is spectrally consistent (and therefore consistent on connected components) for any smooth sampling density. Additionally, we wish to avoid the restriction to compact manifolds. Using more complicated weighted graph constructions, recent results show that for a large class of non-compact manifolds [@heinthesis] with smooth sampling densities that are allowed to be arbitrarily close to zero [@BH14], the graph Laplacian can converge pointwise to the Laplace-Beltrami operator. These results require weighted graph constructions due to several normalizations which are meant to remove the influence of the sampling density on the limiting operator. In Sec. \[background\] we analyze a construction similar to [@BH14], but without using any normalizations. We extend the results of [@BH14] to include spectral convergence using [@von2008consistency].
In the next section we show that continuous k-nearest neighbors (CkNN) construction is the unique unweighted graph construction that yields a consistent unweighted graph Laplacian for any smooth sampling density on manifolds of the class defined in [@heinthesis], including many non-compact manifolds.
The unique consistent unweighted graph construction {#uniqueconstruction}
===================================================
Consider a data set $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$ of independent samples from a probability distribution $q(x)$ that is supported on a $m$-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{M}$ embedded in Euclidean space. For a smooth function $\rho(x)$ on $\mathcal{M}$, we will consider the CkNN graph construction, where two data points $x_i$ and $x_j$ are connected by an edge if $$\label{multiscale} d(x_i,x_j) < \delta \sqrt{\rho(x_i)\rho(x_j)}.$$ This construction leads to the $N\times N$ weight matrix $W$ whose $ij$th entry is $1$ if $x_i$ and $x_j$ have an edge in common, and $0$ otherwise. Let $D$ be the diagonal matrix of row sums of $W$, and define the “unnormalized” graph Laplacian $L_{\rm un} = D-W$. In Sec. \[background\] we show that for an appropriate factor $c$ depending only on $\delta$ and $N$, in the limit of large data, $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ converges both pointwise and spectrally to the operator defined by $$\label{LunOperator} \mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f \equiv q \rho^{m+2} \left(\Delta f - \nabla \log\left(q^2\rho^{m+2}\right) \cdot \nabla f \right),$$ where $\Delta$ is the positive definite Laplace-Beltrami operator and $\nabla$ is the gradient, both with respect to the Riemannian metric inherited from the ambient space. In fact, pointwise convergence follows from a theorem of [@Ting2010], and the pointwise bias and a high probability estimate of the variance was first computed in [@BH14]. Both of these results follow for a larger class of kernels than we consider here.
Although the operator in appears complicated, we now show that it is still a Laplace-Beltrami operator on the same manifold $\mathcal{M}$, but with respect to a different metric. A [*conformal*]{} change of metric corresponds to a new Riemannian metric $\tilde g \equiv \varphi g$, where $\varphi(x)>0$, and which has Laplace-Beltrami operator $$\label{Deltilde} \Delta_{\tilde g}f = \frac{1}{\varphi}(\Delta f - (m-2)\nabla \log \sqrt{\varphi} \cdot \nabla f).$$ For expressions and to match, the function $\varphi$ must satisfy $$\label{conformal}\frac{1}{\varphi} = q\rho^{m+2} \ \ \ \ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ \ \ \varphi^{\frac{m-2}{2}} = q^2\rho^{m+2}.$$ Eliminating $\varphi$ in the two equations results in $q^{-(m+2)} = \rho^{m(m+2)}$, which implies $\rho \equiv q^{-\frac{1}{m}}$ as the only choice that makes the operator equal to a Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\tilde g}$. The new metric is $\tilde g = q^{2/m} g$. Computing the volume form $d\tilde V$ of the new metric ${\tilde g}$ we find $$\label{volform} d\tilde V = \sqrt{|\tilde g|} = \sqrt{|q^{2/m}g|} = q \sqrt{|g|} = q\, dV$$ which is precisely the sampling measure. Moreover, the volume form $d\tilde V$ is exactly consistent with the discrete inner product $$\mathbb{E}\left[\vec f \cdot \vec f \right] = \mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{i=1}^N f(x_i)^2\right] = N\int f(x)^2q(x)\, dV = N\left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}.$$ This consistency is crucial since the discrete spectrum of $L_{\rm un}$ are the minimizers of the functional $$\Lambda(f) = \frac{\vec f \,^\top c^{-1}L_{\rm un} \vec f}{\vec f \,^\top \vec f} \to_{N\to\infty} \frac{\left<f,\Delta_{\tilde g}f \right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}}$$ where $c$ is a constant (see Theorem \[pointwiseLun\] in the Sec. \[background\]). If the Hilbert space norm implied by $\vec f \,^\top \vec f$ were not the volume form of the Riemannian metric $\tilde g$, then the eigenvectors of $L_{\rm un}$ would not minimize the correct functional in the limit of large data. This shows why it is important that the Hilbert space norm is consistent with Laplace-Beltrami operator estimated by $L_{\rm un}$.
Another advantage of the geometry $\tilde g$ concerns the spectral convergence of $L_{\rm un}$ to $\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}$ shown in Theorem \[spectralconv\] in Sec. \[background\], which requires the spectrum to be discrete. Assuming a smooth boundary, the Laplace-Beltrami operator on any manifold with finite volume will have a discrete spectrum [@cianchi2011]. This insures that spectral convergence always holds for the Riemannian metric $\tilde g = q^{2/m}g$ since the volume form is $d\tilde V = q dV$, and therefore the volume of the manifold is exactly $$\textup{vol}_{\tilde g}(\mathcal{M}) = \int_{\mathcal{M}} d\tilde V = \int_{\mathcal{M}} q \, dV = 1.$$ Since all geometries on a manifold have the same topology, this shows once again that the metric $\tilde g$ is extremely natural for topological investigations since spectral convergence is guaranteed, and spectral convergence is crucial to determining the homology.
The fact that $\rho=q^{-1/m}$ is the unique solution to along with the spectral consistency implies the following result.
\[consgeom\] Consider data sampled from a Riemannian manifold, not necessarily compact, having either a smooth boundary or no boundary. Among unweighted graph constructions , $\rho = q^{-1/m}$ is the unique choice which yields a consistent geometry in the sense that the unnormalized graph Laplacian converges spectrally to a Laplace-Beltrami operator. Thus, CkNN is the unique graph construction that yields a consistent clustering in the limit of large data.
Based on the discussion in the previous section, and in particular the fact that the Laplace-Beltrami operator determines the entire cohomology of the manifold, we propose the following conjecture:
CkNN is the unique graph construction with an associated VR complex that is topologically consistent in the limit of large data.
As mentioned in the previous section, completing the proof of this conjecture would require explicit estimation of the Laplace-de Rham operators, $\Delta^k$, and corresponding spectral convergence proofs. In this paper we establish this fact for the Laplace-Beltrami operator, $\Delta =\Delta^0$, which is the key first step and strongly supports the conjecture.
The above theorem and conjecture have practical ramifications since (as shown in the previous section) a consistent graph construction will have the same limiting topology as the underlying manifold. In Examples \[ex2\] and \[ex3\] we will empirically illustrate the consistency of the CkNN choice $\rho=q^{-1/m}$ as well as the failure of alternative constructions.
The unnormalized graph Laplacian is not the only graph Laplacian. With the same notation as above, the “normalized”, or “random-walk” graph Laplacian is often defined as $L_{\rm rw} = I - D^{-1}W = D^{-1}L_{\rm un}$, and has the limiting operator $$c^{-1}L_{\rm rw} \equiv c^{-1}D^{-1}L_{\rm un} \to_{N\to\infty} \rho^{2} \left(\Delta - \nabla \log\left(q^2\rho^{m+2}\right) \cdot \nabla \right) = q^{\frac{4}{m-2}}\rho^{\frac{4m}{m-2}} \Delta_{\tilde g}$$ (see for example [@Ting2010; @BH14]; the constant $c$ is different from the unnormalized case). Note that again $\rho = q^{-1/m}$ is the unique choice leading to a Laplace-Beltrami operator. This choice implies that to leading order $D\vec f \approx q\rho^m f = f$, so the corresponding Hilbert space has norm $\vec f\,^\top D \vec f \to_{N\to\infty} \left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}$. This implies spectral consistency since $L_{\rm rw}\vec f = \lambda \vec f$ is equivalent to $L_{\rm un}\vec f = \lambda D\vec f$, which is related to the functional $$\Lambda(f) = \frac{\vec f \,^\top c^{-1}L_{\rm un} \vec f}{\vec f \,^\top D \vec f} \to_{N\to\infty} \frac{\left<f,\Delta_{\tilde g}f \right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}}.$$ Therefore, for the choice $\rho = q^{-1/m}$, both the unnormalized and normalized graph Laplacians are consistent with the same underlying Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric $\tilde g$.
The consistency of graph Laplacian constructions in terms of spectral convergence to operators was explored in a very general context in [@von2008consistency]. Their goal was to justify spectral clustering algorithms that use the first nontrivial eigenfunction of the graph Laplacian to segment data sets. In Sec. \[background\] we apply the theory of [@von2008consistency] to show spectral convergence of kernel-based graph Laplacians to Laplace-Beltrami operators for a large class of manifolds and geometries. A significant restriction of the theory of [@von2008consistency] is that the desired eigenvalue must be isolated from the essential spectrum, which includes the range of the *degree* function. This limitation appears to suggest superior convergence for the normalized Laplacian, where the range of the degree function is always a single value. In Sec. \[background\] we show that the range of the degree function is $\{\infty\}$ for all the kernel based constructions of [@belkin2003laplacian; @diffusion; @heinthesis; @BH14; @localk] including the unnormalized graph Laplacians used here. This removes a significant barrier to spectral convergence for a large class of graph Laplacian constructions, and for this class the normalized and unnormalized graph Laplacians have the same spectral convergence properties. Finally, we show that (assuming a smooth boundary or no boundary) the geometry implied by the CkNN graph construction has a Laplace-Beltrami operator with a discrete spectrum, even when the manifold is not compact. These results allow us to make a broad statement of spectral convergence, especially for the special geometry implied by the CkNN graph construction.
We emphasize that we are not using either graph Laplacian directly for computations. Instead, we are using the convergence of the graph Laplacian to show convergence of the graph connected components to those of the underlying manifold. Since this consistency holds for an unweighted graph construction, we can make use of more computationally efficient methods to find the topology of the graph, such as depth-first search to compute the zero-level homology. More generally we compute the higher order homology from the VR complex of the graph, which our conjecture suggests should converge to that of the underlying manifold. A wider class of geometries are accessible via weighted graph constructions (see for example [@diffusion; @BH14; @localk]), but fast algorithms for analyzing graph topology only apply to unweighted graphs.
Further applications to Topological Data Analysis {#spectralclustering}
=================================================
The fundamental idea of extracting topology from a point cloud by building unweighted graphs relies on determining what is considered an edge in the graph as a function of a parameter, and then considering the graph as a VR complex. In the $\epsilon$-ball, kNN and CkNN procedures, edges are added as a parameter is increased, from no edges for extremely small values of the parameter to full connectivity for sufficiently large values. From this point of view, the procedures differ mainly by the order in which the edges are added.
Classical persistence orders the addition of possible edges by $||x-y||$, whereas the CkNN orders the edges by $\frac{||x-y||}{\sqrt{||x-x_k|| \, ||y-y_k||}}$. More generally, a multi-scale graph construction with bandwidth function $\rho(x)$ orders the edges by $\frac{||x-y||}{\sqrt{\rho(x)\rho(y)}}$. Our claim is that CkNN gives an order that allows graph consistency to be proved. In addition, we have seen in Figs. \[clusteringFig3\] and \[clusteringFig2\] that the CkNN ordering is more efficient. In this section we show further examples illustrating this fact. We will quantify the persistence or stability of a feature by the percentage of edges (out of the total $N(N-1)/2$ possible in the given ordering) for which the feature persists. This measure is an objective way to compare different orderings of the possible edges.
The consistent homology approach differs from the persistent homology approach by using a single graph construction to simultaneously represent all the topological features of the underlying manifold. This requires selecting the parameter $\delta$ which determines the CkNN graph. The asymptotically optimal choice of $\delta$ in terms of the number of data points is derived in Sec. \[background\], however the constants depend on the geometry of the unknown manifold. There are many existing methods of tuning $\delta$ for learning the geometry of data [@epsilontuning; @BH14]. As a practical method of tuning $\delta$ for topological data analysis, we can use the classical persistence diagram to find the longest range of $\delta$ values such that all of the homological generators do not change. In a sense we are using the classical persistence diagram in reverse, looking for a single value of $\delta$ where all the homology classes are stable. In Examples \[ex2\] and \[ex3\] below we validate this approach by showing that the percentage of edges which capture the true homology is longest when using ordering defined by $\rho=q^{-1/m}$ which is equivalent to the CkNN.
A fast graph-based clustering algorithm {#clustering}
---------------------------------------
We consider the problem of identifying the connected components of a manifold from a data set using the connected components of the CkNN graph construction. While clustering connected components is generally less difficult than segmenting a connected domain, outliers can easily confuse many clustering algorithms. Many rigorous methods, including any results based on existing kernel methods [@heinHighDensity2; @ZP; @von2008consistency; @heinCuts1], require the sampling density to be bounded away from zero. In other words, rigorous clustering algorithms require the underlying manifold to be compact. A common work-around for this problem is the estimate the density of the data points and then remove points of low density. However, this leaves the removed points unclustered [@highdensity1rigourous; @highdensity2; @highdensity3; @heinHighDensity1]. We have shown that the CkNN method is applicable to a wide class of non-compact manifolds, and in particular the connected components of the CkNN graph will converge to the connected components of the underlying manifold.
Here we use the CkNN to put an ordering on the potential edges of the graph. While the full persistent homology of a large data set can be computationally very expensive, the 0-homology is easily accessible using fast graph theoretic algorithms. First, the connected components of a graph can be quickly identified by the depth-first search algorithm. Second, unlike the other homology classes, the 0-homology is monotonic; as edges are added, the number of connected components can only decrease or stay the same. This monotonicity allows us to easily identify the entire 0-homology $\delta$-sequence by only finding the transitions, meaning the numbers of edges where the $0$-th Betti number changes. We can quickly identify these transitions using a binary search algorithm as outlined below.
**Inputs:** Ordering of the $N(N-1)/2$ possible edges (pairs of points), number of clusters $C>1$.
**Outputs:** Number of edges such that the graph has $C$ components and adding an edge yields $C-1$ compnonent.
1. Initialize the endpoints $L=0$ and $R=N(N-1)/2$
2. while $L < R-1$
1. Set $M = \textup{floor}((L+R)/2)$
2. Build a graph using the first $M$ edges from the ordering
3. Use depth-first search to find the number of components $\tilde C$
4. If $\tilde C \geq C$ set $L=M$ otherwise set $R=M$
3. return $L$.
When the goal is to find all of the transition points, Algorithm 1 can easily be improved by storing all the numbers of clusters from previous computations and using these to find the best available left and right endpoints for the binary search.
In Fig. \[spiralsFig\], we illustrate the use of Algorithm 1 on a point set consisting of the union of three spiral-shaped subsets with nonuniform sampling. In fact, the density of points falls off exponentially in the radial direction. Fig. \[spiralsFig\](a) shows the original set, and panel (b) shows the number of components as a function of the proportion of edges. When the number of edges is between one and two percent of the possible pairs of points, the persistence diagram in (b) detects three components, shown in (c) along with the edges needed. A three-dimensional version of three spiral-shaped subsets is depicted in Fig. \[spiralsFig\](d)-(f), with similar results.
In the next two examples, we illustrate the theoretical result that the choice of $\beta = -1/m$ in the bandwidth function $\rho = q^{\beta}$ is optimal, where $m$ is the dimension of the data.
\[ex2\] We begin with the zero-order homology. We will demonstrate empirically that the choice $\beta = -1/m$ maximizes the persistence of the correct clustering, for $1 \leq m \leq 4$. Consider data sampled from an $m$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with a gap of radial width $w=0.1^{1/m}$ centered at radius $w+3m/10$. (The dependence on the dimension $m$ is necessary to insure that there are two connected components for small data sets.) The radial gap separates $\mathbb{R}^m$ into two connected components, the compact interior $m$-ball, and the non-compact shell extending to infinity with density decaying exponentially to zero.
Given a data set sampled from this density, we can construct a graph using the multi-scale graph construction which connects two points $x,y$ if $||x-y|| < \sqrt{\rho(x)\rho(y)}$. Since the true density is known, we consider the bandwidth functions $\rho = q^{\beta}$ for $\beta \in [-3/2,-1/8]$. For each value of $\beta$ we used the fast clustering algorithm to identify the minimum and maximum numbers of edges which would identify the correct clusters. We measured the persistence of the correct clustering as the difference between the minimum and maximum numbers of edges which identified the correct clusters divided by the total number of possible edges $N(N-1)/2$. We then repeated this experiment for 500 random samples of the distribution and averaged the persistence of the correct clustering for each value of $\beta$ and the results are shown in Fig. \[clusteringFig1\]. Notice that for each dimension $m=1,...,4$ the persistence has a distinctive peak centered near $\beta = -1/m$ which indicates that the true clustering is the most persistent using the multi-scale graph construction that is equivalent to the CkNN.
\[ex3\] Next, we examine the discovery of the full homology for a 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional example using Javaplex [@Javaplex]. To obtain a one-dimensional example with two connected components we generated a set of points from a standard Gaussian on the $t$-axis with points with $0.4<t<0.8$ removed, and then mapped these points into the plane via $t\mapsto (t^3-t,1/(t^2+1))^\top$. The embedding induces a loop, and so there is non-trivial 1-homology in the 1-dimensional example. The correct homology for this example has Betti numbers $\beta_0=2$ and $\beta_1=1$, which is exactly the same as the true homology for the 2-dimensional cut Gaussian from Fig. \[clusteringFig1\], which will be our 2-dimensional example. In Fig. \[clusteringFig2H1\] we show the persistence of the correct homology in terms of the percentage of edges as a function of the parameter $\beta$ that defines the multi-scale graph construction. As with the clustering example, the results clearly show that the correct homology is most persistent when $\beta$ is near $-1/m$ which corresponds to the CkNN graph construction.
Identifying patterns in images with homology
--------------------------------------------
In this section we consider the identification of periodic patterns or textures from image data. We take a topological approach to the problem, and attempt to classify the orbifold (the quotient of the plane by the group of symmetries) by its topological signature. Note that to achieve this, we will not need to learn the symmetry group, but will directly analyze the orbifold by processing the point cloud of small $s\times s$ pixel subimages of the complete image in $\mathbb{R}^{s^2}$ without regard to the original location of the subimages.
\
\
In Fig. \[patternFig\](a) we show four simple patterns that can be distinguished by homology. To make the problem more difficult, the patterns are corrupted by a ‘brightness’ gradient which makes identifying the correct homology difficult. From left to right the patterns are: First, stripes have a single periodicity so that $\beta_1=1$; second, a pattern that is periodic in both the vertical and horizontal directions, implying $\beta_1=2$; third, a checkerboard pattern also has only two periodicities $\beta_1=2$, but they have different periods than the previous pattern; fourth, a hexagonal pattern has 3 periodicities so that $\beta_1=3$. To see the three periodicities in the fourth pattern, notice that the pattern repeats when moving right two blocks, or down three blocks, or right one block and down two blocks; each of these periodicities yields a distinct homology class.
To identify the pattern in each image, we cut each full image into 9-by-9 sub-images, yielding 121 points in $\mathbb{R}^{81}$. In Fig. \[patternFig\](b) we show the results of applying the fixed $\epsilon$-ball graph construction to each of the four sets of sub-images. In order to choose $\epsilon$ we used JavaPlex [@Javaplex] to compute the persistent homology and then chose the region with the longest persistence (meaning the region of $\epsilon$ where the homology went the longest without changing). In the title of each plot we show first two betti numbers for the graph constructed with this value of $\epsilon$, we also show the length of the persistence in terms of the percentage of edges for which the homology is unchanged. In Fig. \[patternFig\](c) we repeated this experiment using the CkNN construction, choosing $\delta$ from the region with the longest unchanging homology. In this set of examples, the CkNN construction is more efficient, and finds the correct orbifold homology.
When the ‘brightness’ gradient is removed, both the fixed $\epsilon$-ball and CkNN constructions identify the correct homology in the most persistent region. However, the ‘brightness’ gradient means that the patterns do not exactly meet (see the leftmost panels in Figs. \[patternFig\](b,c)). For the simple stripe pattern, the $\epsilon$-ball construction can still bridge the gap and identify the correct homology; however, for the more complex patterns, the $\epsilon$-ball construction finds many spurious homology classes which obscure the correct homology.
\
\
We applied the CkNN graph construction to identify patterns in real images of zebra stripes and fish scales in Figure \[patternFig2\]. The images shown in Fig. \[patternFig2\] were taken from larger images [@Zebra; @Fish]. In order to analyze the subimage spaces we first decimated the images to reduce the resolution, (by a factor of 2 for the stripes and factor of 25 for the scales) in each case to yield a $40\times 40$ pixel image. We then formed the set of all 23-pixel by 23-pixel subimages shifting by two pixels in the vertical and horizontal directions to obtain 136 subimages, considered as points in $\mathbb{R}^{529}$. We built the rescaled distance matrix $\frac{||x-y||}{\sqrt{||x-x_k||\,||y-y_k||}}$ using $k=5$. In Fig. \[patternFig2\](b,e) we show the persistent homology of the VR complex associated to the respective distance matrices in terms of the parameter $\delta$ of the CkNN. Using this diagram, we chose the maximal interval of $\delta$ for which the homology was stable. In Fig. \[patternFig2\](c,f) we show the CkNN graph for $\delta$ chosen from this region along with the correct Betti numbers.
Convergence of Graph Laplacians {#background}
===============================
We approach the problem of consistent graph representations of manifolds by assuming we have data points which are sampled from a smooth probability distribution defined on the manifold. We view this assumption as establishing a “geometric prior” for the problem. Our main goal is to approximate the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the manifold, independent of the sampling distribution, and using as little data as possible. This is a natural extension of ideas developed by [@belkin2003laplacian] and Coifman and collaborators [@diffusion; @nadler2005diffusion; @diffcoords; @nadler2008diffusion; @NadlerCluster].
The proof of consistency for any graph construction has three parts, two statistical and one analytic: (1) showing that the (discrete) graph Laplacian is a consistent statistical estimator of a (continuous) integral operator (either pointwise or spectrally), (2) showing that this estimator has finite variance, and (3) an asymptotic expansion of the integral operator that reveals the Laplace-Beltrami operator as the leading order term. The theory of convergence of kernel weighted graph Laplacians to their continuous counterparts was initiated with [@belkin2003laplacian] which proved parts (1) and (3) for uniform sampling on compact manifolds, and part (2) was later completed in [@SingerEstimate]. Parts (1) and (3) were then extended to non-uniform sampling in [@diffusion], and part (2) was completed in [@BH14]. The extension to noncompact manifolds was similarly divided. First, [@heinthesis] provided the proof of parts (1) and (3), and introduced the necessary additional geometric assumptions which were required for the asymptotic analysis on non-compact manifolds. However, [@BH14] showed that the pointwise errors on non-compact manifolds could be unbounded and so additional restrictions had to be imposed on the kernel used to construct the graph Laplacian. In order to construct the desired operators on non-compact, [@BH14] showed that variable bandwidth kernels were required (part (1) for variable bandwidth kernels was previously achieved in [@Ting2010]). In all of this previous work, parts (1) and (2) are always proven pointwise, despite the fact that most applications require spectral convergence.
The geometric prior assumes that the set of points that have positive sampling density is a smooth manifold $\mathcal{M} \equiv \{x \in \mathbb{R}^n \, : \, q(x)>0\}$ where $q$ is a smooth sampling density. Some weak assumptions on the manifold $\mathcal{M}$ are required. The theory of [@belkin2003laplacian; @diffusion] assumes that the manifold is compact, implying that the density $q$ must be bounded away from zero on $\mathcal{M}$. The theory of [@heinthesis; @Hein1; @hein2] showed that this assumption could be relaxed, and together with the statistical analysis in [@BH14] allows a large class of noncompact manifolds with densities that are not bounded below. In this article we require $\mathcal{M}$ to have injectivity radius bounded below and curvature bounded above; these technical assumptions hold for all compact manifolds and were introduced to allow application to noncompact manifolds in [@heinthesis].
There are several algorithms for estimating the Laplace-Beltrami operator, however a particularly powerful construction in [@BH14] is currently the only estimator which allows the sampling density $q$ to be arbitrarily close to zero. Since we are interested in addressing the problem of non-uniform sampling, we will apply the result of [@BH14] for variable bandwidth kernels. However, the method of [@BH14] used a special weighted graph Laplacian in order to approximate the Laplace-Beltrami operator. The weighted graph Laplacian uses special normalizations which were first introduced in the diffusion maps algorithm [@diffusion] in order to reverse the effect of the sampling density. The goal of this paper is to use an unweighted graph Laplacian to approximate the Laplace-Beltrami operator, since this allows us to compute the topology of the graph using fast combinatorial algorithms. In fact, the unweighted graph Laplacian will converge to the Laplace-Beltrami operator of the embedded manifold in the special case of uniform sampling. The power of our new graph construction is that we can recover a Laplace-Beltrami operator for the manifold from an unweighted graph Laplacian, even when the sampling is not uniform.
Let $q(x)$ represent the sampling density of a data set $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N \subset \mathcal{M}\subset \mathbb{R}^n$. We combine a global scaling parameter $\delta$ with a local scaling function $\rho(x)$ to define the combined bandwidth $\delta \rho(x)$. Then consider the symmetric variable bandwidth kernel $$\label{e1b}
W_\delta(x,y) = h\left(\frac{||x-y||^2}{\delta^2\rho(x)\rho(y)}\right)$$ for any shape function $h:[0,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$ that has exponential decay. For a function $f$ and any point $x\in \mathcal{M}$ we can form a Monte-Carlo estimate of the integral operator $$\label{mc} \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N W_{\delta}(x,x_j)f(x_j) \right] = \int_{\mathcal{M}}W_{\delta}(x,y)f(y)q(y)\, dV(y).$$ From [@BH14] the expression in has the asymptotic expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bh14eq} \hspace*{.3in}\delta^{-m}\int_{\mathcal{M}}&&\hspace*{-.3in}W_{\delta}(x,y)f(y)q(y)\, dV(y) = m_0 f q \rho^m
+ \delta^2 \frac{m_2 \rho^{m+2}}{2}\left[\omega f q \rho^{-2} + \mathcal{L}(fq) \right] + \mathcal{O}(\delta^4) \end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{L}h \equiv -\Delta h + (m+2)\nabla \log(\rho) \cdot \nabla h,$$ $\Delta$ is the positive definite Laplace-Beltrami operator, and $\nabla$ is the gradient operator, both with respect to the Riemannian metric that $\mathcal{M}$ inherits from the ambient space $\mathbb{R}^n$. (Note that in [@BH14] the expansion is written with respect to the negative definite Laplace Beltrami operator, whereas here we consider the positive definite version.) In the right-hand side of , all functions are evaluated at $x$. The function $\omega = \omega(x)$ depends on the shape function $h$ and the curvature of the manifold at $x$.
Pointwise and integrated bias and variance
------------------------------------------
The standard graph Laplacian construction starts with a symmetric affinity matrix $W$ whose $ij$ entry quantifies similarity between nodes $x_i$ and $x_j$. We assume in the following that $W=W_\delta$ from , which includes the CkNN construction as a special case. Define the diagonal normalization matrix $D$ as the row sums of $W$, i.e. $D_{ii} = \sum_j W_{ij}$. The unnormalized graph Laplacian matrix is then $$\label{defLun}
L_{\rm un} = D-W.$$ We interpret this matrix as the discrete analog of an operator. Given a function $f$, by forming a vector $\vec f_j = f(x_j)$ the matrix vector product is $$\label{LunDef} \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i = f_i D_{ii} - \sum_{j=1}^N W_{ij}f_j = \sum_{j\neq i} W_{ij}(f_i - f_j)$$ so that $L_{\rm un}\vec f$ is also a vector that represents a function on the manifold. Theorem \[pointwiseLun\] below makes this connection rigorous by showing that for an appropriate factor $c$ that depends on $N$ and $\delta$, the vector $c^{-1}(L_{\rm un}\vec f)_i$ is a consistent statistical estimator of the differential operator $$\label{LunOp} \mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f \equiv \rho^{m+2} \left[ f\mathcal{L}q - \mathcal{L}(fq) \right] = q \rho^{m+2} \left[\Delta f - \nabla \log\left(q^2\rho^{m+2}\right) \cdot \nabla f \right]$$ where all functions are evaluated at the point $x_i$. The last equality in follows from the definition of $\mathcal{L}$ and applying the product rules for positive definite Laplacian $\Delta(fg) = f\Delta g + g\Delta f - 2\nabla f \cdot \nabla g$ and the gradient $\nabla(fg) = f\nabla g+g\nabla f$. Theorem \[pointwiseLun\] shows that $L_{\rm un}$ is a *pointwise* consistent statistical estimator of a differential operator. In fact consistency was first shown in [@Ting2010] and the bias of this estimator was first computed in [@BH14]. Here we include the variance of this estimator as well.
\[pointwiseLun\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an $m$-dimensional Riemannian manifold embedded in $\mathbb{R}^n$, let $q:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a smooth density function, and define $L_{\rm un}$ as in . For $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$ independent samples of $q$, and $f\in C^3(\mathcal{M})$ we have $$\label{pwLun} \mathbb{E}\left[ c^{-1} \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right] = \mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f(x_i) + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lunvar} \textup{var}\left[c^{-1} \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right] = a \frac{\delta^{-m-2}}{N-1} \rho(x_i)^{m+2} q(x_i) ||\nabla f(x_i)||^2 + \mathcal{O}(N^{-1},\delta^2) \end{aligned}$$ where $c \equiv \frac{m_2}{2}(N-1) \delta^{m+2}$ and $a \equiv \frac{4 m_{2,2}}{m_2^2}$ are constants.
Before proving Theorem \[pointwiseLun\], we comment on the constants such as $m_0, m_2$ and $m_{2,2}$, which depend on the shape of the kernel function. It was originally shown in [@diffusion] that the expansion holds for any kernel with exponential decay at infinity. A common kernel used in geometric applications is the Gaussian $h(||z||^2) = \exp(-||z||^2/2)$, due to its smoothness. For topological applications, we are interested in building an unnormalized graph, whose construction corresponds to a kernel defined by the indicator function $\mathbbm{1}_{||z||^2<1}$. The sharp cutoff function enforces the fact that each pair of points is either connected or not. (The indicator kernel satisfies since it has compact support and thus has exponential decay.)
In the table below we give formulas for all the constants which appear in the results, along with their values for the Gaussian and indicator functions (note that $B_m$ is the unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^m$).
Constant Formula $h(x)=e^{-x/2}$ $h(x) = \mathbbm{1}_{x<1}$
----------- ----------------------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------
$m_0$ $\int_{\mathbb{R}^m} h(||z||^2)\, dz$ $(2\pi)^{m/2}$ $\textup{vol}(B_m)$
$m_2$ $\int_{\mathbb{R}^m} z_1^2 h(||z||^2)\, dz$ $(2\pi)^{m/2}$ $(m+2)^{-1}\textup{vol}(B_m)$
$m_{2,2}$ $\int_{\mathbb{R}^m} z_1^2 h(||z||^2)^2\, dz$ $2^{-1}\pi^{m/2}$ $(m+2)^{-1}\textup{vol}(B_m)$
$a$ $4 m_{2,2}(m_2)^{-2}$ $2^{1-m}\pi^{-m/2}$ $4(m+2)\textup{vol}(B_m)^{-1}$
It turns out that the variance of the statistical estimators considered below are all proportional to the constant $a$. As a function of the intrinsic dimension $m$, the constant $a$ decreases exponentially for the Gaussian kernel. On the other hand, since the volume of a unit ball decays like $m^{-m/2-1/2}$ for large $m$, the constant $a$ increases exponentially for the indicator kernel.
[Proof of Theorem \[pointwiseLun\]]{}. Notice that the term $i=j$ is zero and can be left out of the summation, this allows us to consider the expectation of $L_{\rm un}\vec f$ only over the terms $i\neq j$ which are identically distributed. From the $i$-th entry of the vector $\left(L_{\rm un}\vec f\right)_i$ has expected value $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right] = \frac{m_2}{2}(N-1)(\delta \rho)^{m+2} \left( f\mathcal{L}q - \mathcal{L}(fq) \right) + \mathcal{O}(N\delta^{m+4})$$ and by we have $\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho} \equiv \rho^{m+2}(f\mathcal{L}q - \mathcal{L}(fq))$. Dividing by the constant $c$ yields , which shows that $L_{\rm un}$ is a pointwise consistent estimator with bias of order $\delta^2$.
We can also compute the variance of this estimator defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{var}\left(c^{-1} \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right) &\equiv \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( c^{-1} \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i - \mathbb{E}\left[ c^{-1}\left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right] \right)^2 \right] = c^{-2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{j\neq i, j=1}^N f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j - \mathbb{E}\left[ f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j \right] \right)^2\right]. \end{aligned}$$ Since $x_j$ are independent we have $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{var}\left(c^{-1} \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right) &= c^{-2}(N-1) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left(f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j - \mathbb{E}\left[ f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j \right] \right)^2\right] \nonumber \\
&= c^{-2}(N-1) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left(f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j \right)^2 \right] - c^{-2}(N-1)\mathbb{E}\left[ f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j \right]^2 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Notice that for the last term we have $$\begin{aligned}
c^{-2}(N-1)\mathbb{E}\left[ f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j \right]^2 &= \frac{1}{N-1} \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{N-1}{c} \left(f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j\right) \right]^2 = \frac{1}{N-1} (\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f(x_i))^2 + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ this term will be higher order so we summarize it as $\mathcal{O}(N^{-1},\delta^2)$. Computing the remaining term we find the variance to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{th1eq1} \textup{var}\left(c^{-1} \left(L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right) &= c^{-2}(N-1) \mathbb{E}\left[ \left(f_i W_{ij} - W_{ij}f_j \right)^2\right] + \mathcal{O}(N^{-1},\delta^2) \nonumber \\
&= c^{-2}(N-1) \mathbb{E}\left[ f_i^2 W_{ij}^2 - 2 f_i W_{ij}^2 f_j + W_{ij}^2f_j^2 \right] + \mathcal{O}(N^{-1},\delta^2) \end{aligned}$$ Since $W_{ij}^2$ is also a local kernel with moments $m_{0,2}$ and $m_{2,2}$ the above asymptotic expansions apply and we find $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ f_i^2 W_{ij}^2 - 2 f_i W_{ij}^2 f_j + W_{ij}^2f_j^2 \right] &= \frac{m_{2,2}}{2}(\delta \rho)^{m+2} \left( f^2 \mathcal{L}q - 2 f\mathcal{L}(fq) + \mathcal{L}(f^2q) \right) + \mathcal{O}(\delta^{m+4}) \nonumber \\
&= m_{2,2}(\delta \rho)^{m+2} q ||\nabla f||^2 + \mathcal{O}(\delta^{m+4}) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from the applying the product rule. Substituting the previous expression into verifies .
Theorem \[pointwiseLun\] is a complete description of the pointwise convergence of the discrete operator $L_{\rm un}$. While the expansion shows that the matrix $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ approximates the operator $\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}$, it does not tell us how the eigenvectors of $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ approximate the eigenfunctions of $\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}$. That relationship is the subject of Theorem \[spectralLun\] below.
Since $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ is a symmetric matrix, we can interpret the eigenvectors $\vec f$ as the sequential orthogonal minimizers of the functional $$\label{functional} \Lambda(f) = \frac{\vec f \,^\top c^{-1}L_{\rm un} \vec f}{\vec f \,^\top \vec f}.$$ By dividing the numerator and denominator by $N$, we can interpret the inner product $N^{-1} \vec f \,^\top \vec f$ as an integral over the manifold since $$\mathbb{E}\left[N^{-1} \vec f \,^\top \vec f\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N f(x_i)^2 \right] = \int_{\mathcal{M}} f(x)^2 q(x)\, dV(x) = \left<f^2,q\right>_{dV}.$$ It is easy to see that the above estimator has variance $N^{-1}\left[\left<f^4,q\right>_{dV} - \left<f^2,q\right>^2_{dV}\right]$. Similarly, in Theorem \[spectralLun\] we will interpret $\frac{1}{N}\vec f^\top c^{-1}L_{\rm un} \vec f$ as approximating an integral over the manifold.
\[spectralLun\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an $m$-dimensional Riemannian manifold embedded in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let $q:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a smooth density function. For $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$ independent samples of $q$, and $f\in C^3(\mathcal{M})$ we have $$\label{pwLunInt} \mathbb{E}\left[ (cN)^{-1} \vec f \,^\top L_{\rm un}\vec f \right] = \left<f,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f \right>_{dV} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LunvarInt} \textup{var}\left((cN)^{-1} \vec f \,^\top L_{\rm un}\vec f \right) = a \frac{ \delta^{-m-2}}{N(N-1)} \left<f^2,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}(f^2) \right>_{dV} + \frac{4}{N} \left<f^2 ,q (\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f)^2 \right>_{dV} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2). \end{aligned}$$ So assuming the inner products are finite (for example if $\mathcal{M}$ is a compact manifold) we have $ \textup{var}\left((cN)^{-1} \vec f \,^\top L_{\rm un}\vec f \right) = \mathcal{O}(N^{-2}\delta^{-m-2},N^{-1},\delta^2)$.
By definition we have $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right] = \mathbb{E}\left[c^{-1} \sum_{i \neq j} \left( L_{\rm un}\right)_{ij} \vec f_i \vec f_j \right] =
\mathbb{E}\left[f(x_i) c^{-1}\left( L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \right]$$ where the term $i=j$ is zero and so the sum is over the $N(N-1)$ terms where $i\neq j$. Since $x_i$ are sampled according to the density $q$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right] &= \int f q^2 \rho^{m+2} \left( \Delta f + \nabla \log(q^2\rho^{m+2}) \cdot \nabla f \right) dV + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2) \nonumber \\ &= \left<f,q^2\rho^{m+2}\left( \Delta f + \nabla \log(q^2\rho^{m+2}) \cdot \nabla f \right) \right>_{L^2(\mathcal{M},dV)} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2) \nonumber \\
&= \left<f,q \mathcal{L}_{q,\rho} f\right>_{dV} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2). \end{aligned}$$ We can now compute the variance of the estimator $ \frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f$ which estimates $\left<f,q \mathcal{L}_{q,\rho} f\right>_{dV}$. To find the variance we need to compute $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ES} \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right)^2 \right] = \frac{c^{-2}}{N^2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{i \neq j} \left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{ij}f_i f_j \right)\left( \sum_{k \neq l} \left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{kl}f_k f_l \right) \right]\end{aligned}$$ Notice that when $i,j,k,l$ are all distinct, by independence we can rewrite these terms of as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_1}{N^2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{i\neq j} c^{-1}\left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{ij}f_i f_j \right] \mathbb{E}\left[ \sum_{k\neq l}c^{-1}\left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{kl}f_k f_l \right] = a_1\left<f,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f\right>^2_{dV}. \end{aligned}$$ The constant $a_1 \equiv \frac{(N-2)(N-3)}{N(N-1)}$ accounts for the fact that of the $N^2(N-1)^2$ total terms in , only $N(N-1)(N-2)(N-3)$ terms have distinct indices. Since $i\neq j$ and $k\neq l$, we next consider the terms where either $i\in\{k,l\}$ or $j\in \{k,l\}$ but not both. Using the symmetry of $L_{\rm un}$, by changing index names we can rewrite all four combinations as $i=k$ so that these terms of can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
4 \mathbb{E}_{x_i} &\hspace{-1pt} \left[ \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_i \left( \mathbb{E}_{x_j}\left[ \sum_{j} c^{-1}\left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{ij}f_i f_j \right] \mathbb{E}_{x_l}\left[ \sum_{l}c^{-1}\left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{il}f_i f_l \right] \right) \right] = \frac{4}{N^2}\mathbb{E}_{x_i}\left[\sum_i f(x_i)^2 (\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f(x_i))^2 \right] \nonumber \\
&= \frac{4}{N} \left<f^2,q(\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f)^2 \right>_{dV} \end{aligned}$$ Finally, we consider the terms where $i\in\{k,l\}$ and $j\in \{k,l\}$. By symmetry we rewrite the two possibilities as $i=k$ and $j=l$ and these terms become, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2c^{-2}}{N^2}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \sum_{i \neq j} \left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{ij}f_i f_j \left(L_{\rm un}\right)_{ij}f_i f_j \right) \right] = \frac{2 a_2 c^{-1}}{N} \left<f^2,q \mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}(f^2) \right>_{dV} \end{aligned}$$ where the constant $a_2 \equiv \frac{m_{2,2}}{m_2}$ is the ratio between the second moment $m_2$ of the kernel $W$ and the second moment $m_{2,2}$ of the squared kernel $W^2$.
We can now compute the variance of the estimator $$\begin{aligned}
\textup{var}\left(\frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right) &= \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right)^2 \right] - \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right]^2 = \mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right)^2 \right] - \left<f,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f\right>^2_{dV} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{-4N+6}{N(N-1)} \left<f,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f\right>^2_{dV} + \frac{4}{N} \left<f^2 ,q (\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f)^2 \right>_{dV} + 4 a_2 m_2^{-1}\frac{ \delta^{-m-2}}{N(N-1)} \left<f^2, q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}(f^2) \right>_{dV} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In particular this says that $$\textup{var}\left(\frac{c^{-1}}{N}\vec f \,^\top L_{\rm un} \vec f \right) = \mathcal{O}\left(N^{-2} \delta^{-m-2},N^{-1},\delta^2 \right)$$ assuming that all the inner products are finite.
We should note that determining whether the inner product is finite is nontrivial when the manifold in question is unbounded and when the sampling density $q$ is not bounded away from zero. We will return to this issue below. First, we compute the bias and variance of the spectral estimates. For wider applicability, we consider the generalized eigenvalue problem, $c^{-1}L_{\rm un} \vec f = \lambda M \vec f$ for any diagonal matrix $M_{ii} =\mu(x_i)$ which corresponds to the functional $$\Lambda(f) = \frac{\vec f \,^\top c^{-1}L_{\rm un} \vec f}{\vec f \,^\top M \vec f}.$$ Notice that $N^{-1}\mathbb{E}[\vec f \,^\top M \vec f \, ] = \left<f^2,\mu q \right>_{dV}$ and this estimator has variance $$\textup{var}\left(N^{-1}\vec f \,^\top M \vec f \right) = N^{-1}\left(\left<f^4,\mu^2 q\right>_{dV} - \left<f^2, \mu q\right>_{dV}^2 \right) = \mathcal{O}(N^{-1}).$$ A particular example which draws significant interest is the so-called ‘normalized graph Laplacian’ where $M=D$, implying that $\mu(x_i) = q(x_i)\rho(x_i)^m + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2)$.
\[spectral\] Under the same assumptions as Theorem \[spectralLun\] we have $$\label{LunSpecBias} \mathbb{E}[\Lambda(f)] = \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{ \vec f \,^\top c^{-1} L_{\rm un}\vec f}{\vec f\,^\top M \vec f} \right] = \frac{\left<f,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f \right>_{dV}}{\left<f^2,\mu q\right>_{dV}} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2,N^{-1})$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LunSpecVar} \textup{var}\left(\Lambda(f) \right) = a \frac{ \delta^{-m-2}}{N(N-1)} \frac{\left<f^2,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}(f^2) \right>_{dV}}{\left<f^2,\mu q\right>_{dV}^2} + \frac{4}{N} \frac{\left<f^2 ,q (\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f)^2 \right>_{dV}}{\left<f^2,\mu q\right>_{dV}^2} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2,N^{-1}). \end{aligned}$$ So assuming the inner products are finite (for example if $\mathcal{M}$ is a compact manifold) we have $ \textup{var}\left((cN)^{-1} \vec f \,^\top L_{\rm un}\vec f \right) = \mathcal{O}(N^{-2}\delta^{-m-2},N^{-1},\delta^2)$.
We consider $\Lambda(f)$ to be a ratio estimator of the form $\Lambda(f) = \frac{a}{b}$ where $a = N^{-1}\vec f \,^\top c^{-1} L_{\rm un}\vec f$ and $b = N^{-1} \vec f\,^\top M \vec f$. The correlation of $a$ and $b$ is given by $$\mathbb{E}[(a-\overline a)(b-\overline b)] = \frac{m_2 \delta^{m+2}}{2 N^2(N-1)} \sum_{i \neq j,k} f(x_i) ( L_{\rm un})_{ij} f(x_j) f(x_k)^2 \mu(x_k) - \overline a \overline b = \mathcal{O}(N^{-1})$$ since the sum of the terms with $k=i$ or $k=j$ is clearly order $N^{-1}$, and when both $k\neq i$ and $k\neq j$ the expectation is equal to $\overline a \overline b$ by independence. Since the variance of $b$ and the correlation are both order $N^{-1}$ by the standard ratio estimates, we have $$\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{a}{b}\right] = \frac{\overline a}{\overline b} + \mathcal{O}(N^{-1})$$ and $$\textup{var}\left(\frac{a}{b}\right) = \frac{\textup{var}(a)}{\overline b^2} + \mathcal{O}(N^{-1}).$$ Combined with Theorem \[spectralLun\], these equations yield the desired result.
Comparing Theorems \[pointwiseLun\] and \[spectral\] we find a surprising result, namely that the optimal $\delta$ for spectral approximation of the operator $\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}$ is different from the optimal $\delta$ for pointwise approximation. To our knowledge this has not been noted before in the literature. We find the optimal choice of $\delta$ by balancing the squared bias with the variance of the respective estimators. For the optimal pointwise approximation we need $\delta^4 = N^{-1}\delta^{-m-2}$ so the optimal choice is $\delta \propto N^{-1/(m+6)}$ and the combined error of the estimator is then $\mathcal{O}(N^{-2/(m+6)})$. In contrast, for optimal spectral approximation we need $\delta^4 = N^{-2}\delta^{-m-2}$ so the optimal choice is $$\delta \propto N^{-2/(m+6)}$$ and the combined error (bias and standard deviation) is $$\mathcal{O}(N^{-4/(m+6)}).$$ The one exception to this rule is the case $m=1$, where the second term in the spectral variance dominates, so that the optimal choice is obtained by setting the two terms in the spectral variance equal which yields $\delta \propto N^{-1/3}$ and the combined error is order $N^{-1}$. Since graph Laplacians are most often used spectrally (for example to find low-dimensional coordinates with the diffusion map embedding [@diffusion]) this implies that the choice of bandwidth $\delta$ should be significantly smaller than suggested in the literature [@SingerEstimate; @BH14]. We demonstrate this for the cutoff kernel on a circle in the example below.
We illustrate by example the difference in bandwidth required for pointwise versus spectral approximation that are implied by Theorems \[pointwiseLun\] and \[spectral\]. Consider data sets consisting of $N\in\{1000,5000,20000\}$ points $\{x_i = (\sin(\theta_i),\cos(\theta_i))^\top \}_{i=1}^{N}$ sampled uniformly from the unit circle and the unnormalized graph Laplacian $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ constructed using the cutoff kernel. We first chose $\delta=3N^{-1/(m+6)} = 3N^{-1/7}$ (the constant 3 was selected by hand tuning) which is optimal for pointwise estimation of the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ as shown in Figure \[figureApp\](a)(b). Next, we set $\delta=3N^{-1/3}$ which is optimal for spectral estimation as shown in Figure \[figureApp\](c)(d). This demonstrates how spectral estimation is optimal for a much smaller value of $\delta$ that pointwise estimation. Despite the extremely poor pointwise estimation when $\delta =3N^{-1/3}$, the spectral estimation, which involves an integrated quantity, is superior using this significantly smaller value of $\delta$. Notice that the relative error in the eigenvalues increases as the eigenvalues increase, this phenomenon is explained at the end of the next section.
In general we only know that the optimal choice is $\delta \propto N^{-2/(m+6)}$ for $m>1$ and $\delta \propto N^{-1/3}$ for $m=1$, and the constants for the optimal choice are quite complex. However, this does indicate the correct order of magnitude for $\delta$, especially for large data sets. Figure \[figureApp\] dramatically illustrates the differences in optimal pointwise and optimal spectral estimation. As mentioned above, graph Laplacians are often used for spectral approximation, so previous analyses which tune $\delta$ for optimal pointwise estimation [@SingerEstimate; @BH14] are misleading for many applications.
In Figure \[figureApp2\] we verify the power laws for the optimal choice of $\delta$ for pointwise and spectral estimation. For $N\in \{250,500,1000,2000,4000,8000\}$ we compute the pointwise and spectral root mean squared error (RMSE) for a wide range of values of $\delta$ and then plot the optimal value of $\delta$ as a function of $N$. To estimate the pointwise error for a fixed $N$ and $\delta$ we generated $N$ uniformly random points on a circle $\{x_i = (\sin(\theta_i),\cos(\theta_i))^\top \}_{i=1}^{N}$ and then construct the unnormalized graph Laplacian $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ using the cutoff kernel. We then multiplied this Laplacian matrix by the vector $\vec f_i = \sin(x_i)$ so that $\left(c^{-1}L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i \approx \Delta \sin(x_i) = -\sin(x_i)$ and we computed the RMSE $$\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \left(\left(c^{-1}L_{\rm un}\vec f \right)_i - (-\sin(x_i))\right)^2 \right)^{1/2}$$ between the estimator and the limiting expectation. We repeated this numerical experiment 10 times for each value of $N$ and $\delta$ and the average RMSE is shown in Figure \[figureApp2\](a). To estimate the spectral error, we computed the smallest 5 eigenvalues of $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ and founded the RMSE between these eigenvalues and the true eigenvalues $[0,1,1,4,4]$ of the limiting operator $\Delta$. This numerical experiment was repeated 10 times for each value of $N$ and $\delta$ and the average RMSE is shown in Figure \[figureApp2\](b). Finally, in Figure \[figureApp2\](c) we plot the value of $\delta$ which minimized the pointwise error (black) and the spectral error (red) for each value of $N$ and we compare these data points to the theoretical power laws for the pointwise error $\delta \propto N^{-1/7}$ (black, dashed line) and spectral error $\delta \propto N^{-1/3}$ (red, dashed line) respectively.
Limiting geometries and spectral convergence
--------------------------------------------
We now show that the operator that is approximated spectrally in Theorem \[spectral\] is a Laplace-Beltrami operator on the manifold $\mathcal{M}$, but with respect to a conformal change of metric. Consider the functional approximated spectrally by $L_{\rm un}$ as shown in which is $$\label{SpecFunctional} \Lambda(f) \to \frac{\left<f,q\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}f \right>_{dV}}{\left<f^2,\mu q\right>_{dV}} = \frac{\left<f,q^2\rho^{m+2}\left(\Delta f - \nabla \log q^2 \rho^{m+2} \cdot \nabla f \right)\right>_{dV}}{\left<f^2,\mu q\right>_{dV}}.$$ A conformal change of metric corresponds to a new Riemannian metric $\tilde g \equiv \varphi g$, where $\varphi(x)>0$, and which has Laplace-Beltrami operator $$\label{DeltildeApp} \Delta_{\tilde g}f = \frac{1}{\varphi}(\Delta f - (m-2)\nabla \log \sqrt{\varphi} \cdot \nabla f).$$ In order to rewrite the operator in as a Laplace-Beltrami operator, the function $\varphi$ must be chosen to be $\varphi^{\frac{m-2}{2}} = q^2\rho^{m+2}$. Moreover, we need to change the inner product in to $d\tilde V$ which is the volume form of the new metric given by $$\label{volform2} d\tilde V = \sqrt{|\tilde g|} = \sqrt{|\varphi g|} = \varphi^{m/2} \sqrt{|g|} = \varphi^{m/2} \, dV.$$ Changing the volume form and substituting $\Delta_{\tilde g}$ in we find $$\Lambda(f) \to \frac{\left<f,q^2\rho^{m+2} \varphi^{1-m/2} \Delta_{\tilde g}f\right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f^2,\mu q \varphi^{-m/2} \right>_{d\tilde V}} = \frac{\left<f,\Delta_{\tilde g}f\right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f^2,\mu q \varphi^{-m/2} \right>_{d\tilde V}}$$ where the second equality follows from the definition $\varphi^{\frac{m-2}{2}} = q^2\rho^{m+2}$. Finally, in order for the denominator to represent the appropriate spectral normalization we require $$\mu = q^{-1}\varphi^{m/2} = q^{\frac{m+2}{m-2}}\rho^{m\left(\frac{m+2}{m-2}\right)}.$$ which implies that $$\Lambda(f) \to \frac{\left<f,\Delta_{\tilde g}f\right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f \right>_{d\tilde V}}.$$ This immediately shows that when $m\neq 2$ we can always choose $\rho,\mu$ to estimate the operator $\Delta_{\tilde g}$ for any conformally isometric geometry $\tilde g = \varphi g$. In the special case $m=2$ this can also be achieved by setting $\rho = q^{-1/2}$ and $\mu = q\varphi^{-1}$. However, if we assume that $\rho=q^{\beta}$ for some power $\beta$, then there are three choices of $\rho,\mu$ which have the same geometry for every dimension $m$, we summarize these in the table below.
Geometry $\tilde g$ $d\tilde V$ $\rho$ $\mu$
--------------------------- ------------ ---------------- ---------------- -------------
Sampling measure geometry $q^{2/d}g$ $q\,dV$ $q^{-1/m}$ $1$
Embedding geometry $g$ $dV$ $q^{-2/(m+2)}$ $q^{-1}$
Inverse sampling geometry $q^{-1}g$ $q^{-d/2}\,dV$ $q^{-1/2}$ $q^{m/2+1}$
For the choice $\beta = -1/m$ we find $\mu = 1$, which is explored in the main body of the paper. The choice $\mu=1$ is the only one allowing an unweighted graph construction. To reconstruct the embedding geometry, one can estimate the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_g$ using $\beta = \frac{-2}{m+2}$. Finally, if we select $\beta = -1/2$ we find $\mu = q^{m/2 + 1}$, which is closely related to the results of [@BH14]. Finally,
The above construction shows that an appropriately chosen graph Laplacian is a consistent estimator of the normalized Dirichlet energy $$\Lambda(f) \to \frac{\left<f,\Delta_{\tilde g}f\right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f \right>_{d\tilde V}} = \frac{\int_{\mathcal{M}}||\nabla_{\tilde g}f||^2 d\tilde V }{\int_{\mathcal{M}} f^2 d\tilde V}$$ for any conformally isometric geometry $\tilde g = \varphi g$. The minimizers of this normalized Dirichlet energy are exactly the eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\tilde g}$, so Theorem \[spectral\] is the first step towards spectral convergence. However, in the details of Theorem \[spectral\] there is a significant barrier to spectral convergence. This barrier is a very subtle effect of the second term in the variance of the estimator. Rewriting from Theorem \[spectral\] in terms of the new geometry we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LunVarNew} \textup{var}\left(\Lambda(f) \right) &= a \frac{ \delta^{-m-2}}{N(N-1)} \frac{\left<f^2,\Delta_{\tilde g}(f^2) \right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}^2} + \frac{4}{N} \frac{\left<f^2 ,q^{-1}\varphi^{m/2}(\Delta_{\tilde g}f)^2 \right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}^2} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2,N^{-1}). \end{aligned}$$ The first term in normally controls the bias-variance trade-off since it diverges as $\delta\to 0$, and the second term is typically higher order. However, the integral which defines the constant in the second error term has the potential to be infinite when $q$ is not bounded below. Ignoring the terms which depend on $f$, we need $q^{-1}\varphi^{m/2}\,d\tilde V = q^{-1}\varphi^m \,dV$ to be integrable in order for the variance of the estimator to be well-defined, which proves the following result.
\[spec1\] Let $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$ be sampled from a density $q$. Consider a conformally equivalent metric $\tilde g = \varphi g$ such that $q^{-1}\varphi^m$ is integrable with respect to $dV$. Define the unnormalized Laplacian $L_{\rm un}$ using a kernel $K_{\delta}(x,y) = h\left(\frac{||x-y||^2}{\delta^2\rho(x)\rho(y)}\right)$ for any $h$ with exponential decay where $$\rho = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} q^{\frac{2}{m+2}}\varphi^{\frac{m-2}{m+2}} & m\neq 2 \\ q^{-1/2} & m=2 \end{array} \right.$$ and define $M_{ii}=\mu(x_i)$ where $$\mu = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} q^{-1}\varphi^{m/2} & m\neq 2 \\ q\varphi^{-1} & m=2 \end{array} \right.$$ then the functional $\Lambda(f) = \frac{\vec f \,^\top c^{-1}L_{\rm un} \vec f}{\vec f \,^\top M \vec f}$ which corresponds to the generalized eigenvalue problem $c^{-1} L_{\rm un} \vec f = \lambda M \vec f$ is a consistent estimator of the normalized Dirichlet energy functional $$\mathbb{E}[\Lambda(f)] \to_{N\to\infty} \frac{\left<f,\Delta_{\tilde g}f\right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f \right>_{d\tilde V}} = \frac{\int_{\mathcal{M}}||\nabla_{\tilde g}f||^2 d\tilde V }{\int_{\mathcal{M}} f^2 d\tilde V}$$ and the estimator $\Lambda(f)$ has bias of leading order $\delta^2$ and finite variance which is of leading order $\delta^{-m-2}N^{-2}$. The optimal choice $\delta \propto N^{-2/(m+6)}$ yields total error of order $N^{-4/(m+6)}$.
In particular, for the choice $\rho = q^{-2/(m+2)}$ we find $q^{-1}\varphi^m = q^{-1}$ which will often not be integrable on a non-compact manifold when $q$ is not bounded away from zero. This implies that we cannot spectrally approximate the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the embedding metric for many non-compact manifolds. Notice, that this variance barrier only applies to spectral convergence, so we can still approximate the operator pointwise using Theorem \[pointwiseLun\]. Similarly, when $\beta = -1/2$ we find $q^{-1}\varphi^m = q^{-1-m}$ and the exponent on $q$ is negative, also leading to the possibility of divergence on non-compact manifolds. This shows yet another advantage of the choice $\beta = -1/m$, since $q^{-1}\varphi^m = q$ which is simply the sampling measure and is always integrable with respect to $dV$ by definition.
Theorem \[spec1\] shows that the functional $\Lambda(f)$ converges to the normalized Dirichlet energy functional whose minimizers are the eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\tilde g}$. It remains only to show that vectors which minimize the discrete functional $\Lambda(f)$ converge to the minimizers of the normalized Dirichlet energy functional. In fact this has already been shown in [@von2008consistency] assuming that the spectrum of $\Delta_{\tilde g}$ is discrete.
Finally, will address an issue of spectral convergence that was introduced in [@von2008consistency], which suggests that unnormalized graph Laplacians have worse spectral convergence properties than normalized Laplacians. The theory in [@von2008consistency] is quite powerful, and indeed is the basis of our spectral convergence result below. However, a subtle detail reveals that the unnormalized Laplacian $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ does not suffer from the spectral convergence issue they consider. For an unnormalized Laplacian, $L_{\rm un}=D-W$ where $D_{ii} = \sum_{j=1}^N W_{ij}$ is the degree function, “Result 2" of [@von2008consistency] states that if the first $r$ eigenvalues of the limiting operator $\mathcal{L}_{q,\rho}$ do not lie in the range of the degree function $$d(x) = \lim_{N\to\infty} \sum_{j=1}^N W(x,x_j),$$ then the first $r$ eigenvalues of the unnormalized Laplacian $L_{\rm un}$ converge to those of the limiting operator (spectral convergence). This would suggest that the spectral convergence only holds for eigenvalues which are separated from the range of $D_{ii}$. However, notice that we divide $L_{\rm un}$ by the normalization constant $c = \mathcal{O}(N\delta^{m+2})$ whereas $\lim_{N\to\infty} \sum_{j=1}^N W(x,x_j) \propto q(x) N\delta^m$ which implies that $$c^{-1}d(x) = \mathcal{O}(\delta^{-2}).$$ Since $\delta \to 0$ as $N\to \infty$, this implies that the range of the true degree function $c^{-1}d(x)$ is $\infty$. The reason this special class of unnormalized Laplacians avoids the difficulty of [@von2008consistency] is that the first order term of the degree function in exactly cancelled by the first order term of the kernel $W_{ij}$ in the limit of large data, which is why the constant $c$ is higher order than the degree function in terms of $\delta$. This completely removes the only barrier to spectral convergence and so by the result of [@von2008consistency] we have the following result.
\[spectralconv\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[spec1\], in the limit of large data the eigenvalues of $c^{-1}M^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ converge to those of the limiting operator $\Delta_{\tilde g}$, assuming the spectrum is discrete.
In particular, for a manifold without boundary or with a smooth boundary, spectral convergence is guaranteed for the unnormalized Laplacian when $\rho = q^{-1/m}$ and $\mu=1$.
Notice that the eigenvalues of $c^{-1}M^{-1}L_{\rm un}\vec f = \lambda \vec f$ exactly correspond to the minimizers of the functional $\Lambda(f)$ in Theorem \[spec1\]. The first claim follows from the convergence of the functional $\Lambda(f)$ to the normalized Dirichlet energy combined with convergence results of [@von2008consistency].
The guarantee of spectral convergence for $\rho=q^{-1/m}$ and $\mu=1$ follows from the fact that $q^{-1}\varphi^m = q$ is always integrable. Moreover, the volume of the manifold with respect to $d\tilde V = q \, dV$ is always $\textup{vol}_{d\tilde V}(\mathcal{M}) = \int_{\mathcal{M}} q\, dV = 1$, and for any manifold of finite volume with a smooth boundary the spectrum of the Laplace-Beltrami operator is discrete [@cianchi2011].
Since the matrix $c^{-1}M^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ is not symmetric it is numerically preferable to solve the generalized eigenvalue problem $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}\vec f = \lambda M \vec f$ since both $c^{-1}L_{\rm un}$ and $M$ are symmetric.
Finally, it is often noticed empirically that the error in the spectral approximations increases as the value of the eigenvalue increases. To understand this phenomenon, we will use the variance formula . First, if $f$ is an eigenfunction with $\Delta_{\tilde g}f = \lambda f$ we note that, $$\begin{aligned}
\left<f^2,\Delta_{\tilde g}(f^2)\right>_{d\tilde V} &=\left<f^2,2f\Delta_{\tilde g}f - 2\nabla_{\tilde g}f \cdot \nabla_{\tilde g} f\right>_{d\tilde V} = 2\lambda\left<f^2,f^2\right>_{d\tilde V} - 2\left<f^2,\nabla_{\tilde g}f \cdot \nabla_{\tilde g} f\right>_{d\tilde V} \nonumber \\
&= 2\lambda\left<f^2,f^2\right>_{d\tilde V} - 2\left<-\textup{div}_{\tilde g}\left(f^2\nabla_{\tilde g} f \right),f\right>_{d\tilde V} = 2\lambda\left<f^2,f^2\right>_{d\tilde V} - \frac{2}{3}\left<-\textup{div}_{\tilde g}\left(\nabla_{\tilde g} f^3 \right),f\right>_{d\tilde V} \nonumber \\
&= 2\lambda\left<f^2,f^2\right>_{d\tilde V} - \frac{2}{3}\left<\Delta_{\tilde g}( f^3),f\right>_{d\tilde V} = 2\lambda\left<f^2,f^2\right>_{d\tilde V} - \frac{2}{3}\left<f^3,\Delta_{\tilde g}f\right>_{d\tilde V} = \frac{4}{3}\lambda \left<f^2,f^2\right>_{d\tilde V}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying this formula to we find $\hat \lambda \equiv \Lambda(f)$ is a consistent estimator of the eigenvalue $\lambda$ with relative variance $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SpecVar1} \frac{\textup{var}(\hat \lambda )}{\lambda} &= a \frac{ \delta^{-m-2}}{N(N-1)} \frac{4\left<f^2,f^2 \right>_{d\tilde V}}{3\left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}^2} + \frac{4 \lambda}{N} \frac{\left<f^2 ,q^{-1}\varphi^{m/2} f^2 \right>_{d\tilde V}}{\left<f,f\right>_{d\tilde V}^2} + \mathcal{O}(\delta^2,N^{-1}). \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Notice that although the first term (which is typically the leading order term, especially on compact manifolds) can be tuned to give a constant relative error, the second term still grows proportionally to the eigenvalue $\lambda$. We should expect the spectrum to be fairly accurate until the order of the second term is equal to that of the first term, at which point the relative errors in the eigenvalues will grow rapidly. When $\varphi = q^{2/m}$ as in the CkNN construction, the inner products in the two terms are the same, so the spectrum will be accurate when $$\lambda < \lambda_{\max} \equiv \frac{ a \delta^{-m-2} }{3(N-1)} = \frac{a N^{2(m+2)/(m+6)}}{3(N-1)} = \mathcal{O}\left(N^{\frac{m-2}{m+6}} \right)$$ where the second and third equalities hold for the optimal choice $\delta \propto N^{-2/(m+6)}$. Notice that this constraint does not apply to the case $m=1$, where the second term in dominates, or to the case $m=2$ where the second and first terms are equal order for the optimal choice of $\delta$. In all cases, the relative error increases as the eigenvalues increase.
Conclusion
==========
We have introduced a new method called continuous k-nearest neighbors as a way to construct a single graph from a point cloud, that is provably consistent on connected components. By proving the consistency of the geometry (spectral convergence of the graph Laplacian to the Laplace-Beltrami operator) we support our conjecture that CkNN is topologically consistent, meaning that correct topology can be extracted in the large data limit. For many finite-data examples from compact Riemannian manifolds, we have shown that CkNN compares favorably to persistent homology approaches. Moreover, noncompact manifolds and nonuniform sampling are handled seamlessly.
The proposed method replaces a small $\epsilon$ radius, or $k$ in the k-nearest neighbors method, with a unitless continuous parameter $\delta$. The theory proves the existence of a correct choice of $\delta$, and it needs to be tuned in specific examples. While the difference between the CkNN and the kNN constructions is fairly simple, the crucial difference is that the approximation only holds for $k$ small, relative to $N$. By varying the parameter $\delta$ and holding $k$ constant at a small value we can construct multi-scale approximations of our manifold that are still consistent with the underlying manifold. This contrasts with the standard kNN approach, where the parameter $k$ is varied and both the coarseness of the manifold approximation and the underlying manifold geometry are changing simultaneously (because the scaling function is changing).
Surprisingly, a careful analysis of the bias and variance of the graph Laplacian as a spectral estimator of the Laplace-Beltrami operator is a key element of the proof of consistency. The variance can be infinite on non-compact manifolds, depending on the geometry, creating a previously unknown barrier to spectral convergence. The variance calculation also allows us to explain why the relative error of the eigenvalue increases along with the eigenvalue, and we determine the part of the spectrum that can estimated with constant relative error, as a function of the data size $N$. These results lend further support to the choice of CkNN as a graph construction, since in this case spectral convergence holds for any Riemannian manifold, compact or non-compact, with smooth boundary or no boundary, and for any smooth sampling density.
We would like to thank D. Giannakis for helpful conversations. This research was partially supported by NSF grants DMS-1216568, DMS-1250936, and CMMI-130007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the relation between the classical ergodicity and the quantum eigenstate thermalization in the fully connected Ising ferromagnets. In the case of spin-1/2, an expectation value of an observable in a single energy eigenstate coincides with the long-time average in the underlying classical dynamics, which is a consequence of the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin approximation. In the case of spin-1, the underlying classical dynamics is not necessarily ergodic. In that case, it turns out that, in the thermodynamic limit, the statistics of the expectation values of an observable in the energy eigenstates coincides with the statistics of the long-time averages in the underlying classical dynamics starting from random initial states sampled uniformly from the classical phase space. This feature seems to be a general property in semiclassical systems, and the result presented here is crucial in discussing equilibration, thermalization, and dynamical transitions of such systems.'
author:
- Takashi Mori
title: 'Classical ergodicity and quantum eigenstate thermalization: Analysis in fully connected Ising ferromagnets'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The study of out-of-equilibrium dynamics in isolated quantum systems has received much attention triggered by experimental advance in ultra-cold atomic systems [@Kinoshita2006; @Hofferberth2007; @Trotzky2012]. One of the key problems is to understand the property of the steady state reached after sufficiently long times starting from a certain out-of-equilibrium initial state [@Neumann1929; @Berry1977; @Srednicki1994; @Deutsch1991; @Rigol2008; @Biroli2010; @Cassidy2011; @Tasaki2016_typicality; @Tasaki1998; @Berges2004; @Reimann2008; @Goldstein2010; @Calabrese2011; @Sato2012; @Caux2013; @Kaminishi2015; @Reimann2015; @Vidmar2016]. Theoretical studies on this fundamental problem have progressed in recent years due to theoretical development and rearrangement of some old fundamental ideas [@Neumann1929; @Berry1977; @Srednicki1994; @Deutsch1991]. The eigenstate thermalization hypothesis (ETH) is an important notion [@Rigol2008; @Biroli2010; @Cassidy2011; @Tasaki2016_typicality]. It insists that $\<\phi_n|\mathcal{O}|\phi_n\>\approx\mathrm{Tr}\, \mathcal{O}\rho_{\mathrm{mc}}$ for any energy eigenstate $\phi_n$ and any local observable $\mathcal{O}$, where $\rho_{\mathrm{mc}}$ is the microcanonical density matrix with the energy identical to the energy eigenvalue $E_n$ of $\phi_n$.
ETH is equivalent to the following statement: \_[T]{}\_0\^Tdt(t)||(t) \_ \[eq:ergodicity\] for any initial state picked up from the microcanonical energy shell, $|\psi(0)\>=\sum_nc_n|\phi_n\>$ with $c_n$ nonzero only for $n$ such that $E_n\in[E,E+\Delta E)$, where $\Delta E$ is the energy width in the microcanonical ensemble. The temporal fluctuation of $\<\psi(t)|\mathcal{O}|\psi(t)\>$ is typically very small for macroscopic systems [@Rigol2008; @Short2011; @Tasaki2016_typicality], so that Eq. (\[eq:ergodicity\]) implies $\<\psi(t)|\mathcal{O}|\psi(t)\>\approx\mathrm{Tr}\,\mathcal{O}\rho_{\mathrm{mc}}$ for a sufficiently large typical time $t$, which implies thermalization of the system.
From Eq. (\[eq:ergodicity\]), ETH is regarded as a quantum counterpart of ergodicity in classical systems. Naturally, it is expected that there is a close relation between classical ergodicity and quantum ETH. Indeed, in his pioneering work, Berry conjectured that the classical ergodicity implies the quantum ETH in the semiclassical regime [@Berry1977]. A recent numerical study [@Russomanno2015] demonstrated this relation in a periodically-driven system. When the classical dynamics is not ergodic, the classical phase space is divided into the regular and the chaotic regions. The property of semiclassical eigenstates in such a case has been also extensively studied [@Percival1973; @Davis1981; @Heller1984; @Tomsovic1993; @Ketzmerick2000; @Hufnagel2002; @Backer2008]. It is known (but not proved) that each energy eigenstate is classified into the regular or chaotic one, corresponding to the regular and the chaotic regions in the classical phase space [@Percival1973].
The structure of semiclassical energy eigenstates have been mainly studied in the context of quantum chaos. In recent years, it has been also investigated in the context of thermalization in isolated quantum systems [@Santos2010; @Borgonovi_review2016]. An apparent connection between the classical ergodicity and the quantum ETH motivates us to further investigate the implication of the quantum-classical correspondence to the problem of thermalization or equilibration in isolated quantum systems.
It should be pointed out that the semiclassical limit of a system with a few degrees of freedom emerges as the thermodynamic limit of a certain kind of quantum many-body systems in the totally symmetric subspace (TSS) [@Sciolla2010; @Sciolla2011], and the result on the quantum-classical correspondence is crucial for the thermalization property of such a system. A fully connected Ising (anti-)ferromagnet is one such system, and fully connected Ising (anti-)ferromagnets are available in ion-trap experiment [@Porras2004; @Britton2012; @Islam2013; @Richerme2014]. Therefore, considering the TSS of a quantum many spin system provides a good way to construct a semiclassical system, and is suited to investigate the relation between the quantum ETH and the classical ergodicity. In this paper, we study the relation between the long-time behavior of the classical dynamics and the property of energy eigenstates in the spin-1/2 and the spin-1 fully connected Ising ferromagnets, the latter of which can show nonergodic classical dynamics in the classical limit.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:setup\], the setting is explained. In Sec. \[sec:spin-1/2\], we consider the spin-1/2 case. We will see in Sec. \[sec:ergodicity\] that the ETH within the TSS is equivalent to the classical ergodicity, which is a consequence of the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation. The underlying classical dynamics is investigated in Sec. \[sec:trajectory\], and it is demonstrated that the spin-1/2 system thermalizes as a result of the ETH within the TSS in Sec. \[sec:thermalization\]. In Sec. \[sec:dynamical\_1/2\], we discuss dynamical transitions, which have been found in several fully connected models [@Sciolla2010; @Sciolla2011] and conclude that a dynamical transition is regarded as an equilibrium phase transition within the TSS in the spin-1/2 case. In Sec. \[sec:spin-1\], we study the spin-1 case. In the spin-1 case, the WKB approximation is not valid and the ergodicity of the classical dynamics is not ensured. In Sec. \[sec:statistics\], we will conjecture and numerically verify that the statistics of energy eigenstate expectation values of a local quantity coincides with the statistics of long-time averages of the same quantity in the underlying classical dynamics starting from randomly sampled initial states. This result is expected to be true for any semiclassical system. This conjecture implies that the ETH within the TSS holds in the energy region where the underlying classical dynamics is ergodic, while it does not hold in the energy region where the classical dynamics is not ergodic. Thermalization in the classically ergodic region and no thermalization in the classically nonergodic region are demonstrated in Sec. \[sec:dynamics\]. In Sec. \[sec:relaxation\_time\], the system-size dependence of the relaxation time is discussed. We also study dynamical transitions in the spin-1 model in Sec. \[sec:DPT\_spin1\], and in contrast to the spin-1/2 case, it is found that a dynamical transition cannot be necessarily interpreted as an equilibrium phase transition within the TSS because of the lack of ETH in the TSS. Summary and discussion is given in Sec. \[sec:summary\].
Fully-connected Ising ferromagnets {#sec:setup}
==================================
Model {#sec:model}
-----
The Hamiltonian is given by H=-\_[ij]{}\^N S\_i\^zS\_j\^z-h\_x\_[i=1]{}\^NS\_i\^x-h\_z\_[i=1]{}\^NS\_i\^z+D\_[i=1]{}\^N(S\_i\^z)\^2, \[eq:Ham\] where $\bm{S}_i$ is the spin-1/2 or spin-1 operator of $i$th spin; $J$ is the exchange interaction; $h_x$ and $h_z$ are the magnetic field along $x$ and $z$ directions, respectively; and $D$ is the anisotropic term, which plays the role only for the spin-1 case. Without $D$ term, this model is known as the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick (LMG) model [@Lipkin1965]. We consider the ferromagnetic coupling and put $J=1$, but essentially the same result also holds for antiferromagnetic coupling $J=-1$. We set $\hbar=1$ throughout the paper.
In fully connected spin systems, there is the permutation symmetry of any $i$th and $j$th spins. Therefore, if the initial state is totally symmetric, i.e., symmetric for any permutation of spins, the state remains in the TSS during the quantum dynamics. We assume it, and always consider it in the TSS.
It can be shown that $1/N$ plays the role of the Planck constant in the TSS, and the thermodynamic limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ corresponds to the classical limit [@Sciolla2010; @Sciolla2011]. When $N$ is large but finite, the system described by Eq. (\[eq:Ham\]) is regarded as a semiclassical system, and thus these models are good starting points to investigate the relation between the long-time classical dynamics and the property of the quantum eigenstates. Moreover, fully connected Ising (anti-)ferromagnets can be realized in ion-trap experiment [@Porras2004; @Britton2012; @Islam2013; @Richerme2014], and we can compare theoretical consequence to experiment.
Equilibration after a quench {#sec:quench}
----------------------------
We will consider the quantum dynamics after a quench, i.e., a sudden change of parameters of the Hamiltonian. The initial state at time $t=0$ is chosen as the ground state of the prequench Hamiltonian, which is in the TSS, and hence the quantum state at time $t>0$ is always in the TSS. Since the pre-quench Hamiltonian is the quantum many-body Hamiltonian and the energy per spin is independent of $N$, the fluctuation of the energy density $\delta\varepsilon$ after the quench is typically proportional to $N^{-1/2}$. Therefore, we can consider that the system has an almost definite value of the energy density $\varepsilon$ after a quench. In other words, we can consider the quantum dynamics within a suitable microcanonical energy shell of the TSS.
If the initial state $|\psi(0)\>=\sum_nc_n|\phi_n\>$ is given by a superposition of a large number of energy eigenstates, the temporal fluctuation of $\<\psi(t)|\mathcal{O}|\psi(t)\>$ is very small. It is shown that for the effective dimension $d_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of the initial state defined as $d_{\mathrm{eff}}:=\left(\sum_n|c_n|^4\right)^{-1}$, the temporal fluctuation given by $\left(\overline{\<\psi(t)|\mathcal{O}|\psi(t)\>^2}-\overline{\<\psi(t)|\mathcal{O}|\psi(t)\>}^2\right)^{1/2}$ is smaller than a quantity of $O(d_{\mathrm{eff}}^{-1/2})$ under the non-resonance condition [@Short2011]. In the case of fully connected Ising ferromagnets, the number of energy eigenstates in the TSS with the energy density between $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon+\delta\varepsilon$ is proportional to $N\delta\varepsilon$ in the case of spin-1/2 and $N^2\delta\varepsilon$ in the case of spin-1. As mentioned above, the fluctuation of the energy density after a quench is given by $\delta\varepsilon\sim N^{-1/2}$, and hence $d_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is typically very large (scaled as $d_{\mathrm{eff}}\sim N^{1/2}$ for spin-1/2 and $N^{3/2}$ for spin-1). It is therefore expected that $\<\psi(t)|\mathcal{O}|\psi(t)\>$ will reach an almost stationary value without any large fluctuation after a sufficiently long time.
In this way, fully connected ferromagnets *equilibrate* (approach to a stationary state) within the microcanonical energy shell after a quench. However, it is nontrivial whether the system thermalizes within the TSS. It depends on the property of semiclassical energy eigenstates, which will be related to the property of classical dynamics.
From now on, we investigate the property of semiclassical energy eigenstates both for spin-1/2 case and for spin-1 case and discuss its consequence in equilibration, thermalization, and dynamical transitions after a quench.
Spin-1/2 case {#sec:spin-1/2}
=============
Ergodicity and ETH {#sec:ergodicity}
------------------
Let us start from the simple spin-1/2 case. The TSS corresponds to the subspace with the maximum total spin, $\left(\sum_{i=1}^N\bm{S}_i\right)^2=(N/2)(N/2+1)$. The energy eigenstates are labeled by a single variable $z$, where \_[i=1]{}\^NS\_i\^z|z=z|z. The wave function is defined as $\psi_t(z):=\<z|\psi(t)\>$ for a state $|\psi(t)\>$, and then, it is shown that the Schrödinger equation $id|\psi(t)\>/dt=H|\psi(t)\>$ reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{i}{N}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}\psi_t(z)&=\left(-\frac{1}{2}z^2-h_zz-h_x\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}-z^2}\cos p_z\right)\psi_t(z)
\nonumber \\
&=:\tilde{H}\psi_t(z)
\label{eq:Sch}\end{aligned}$$ in the leading order in $1/N$ [@Sciolla2010; @Sciolla2011]. Here, $1/N$ plays the role of the Planck constant, and the canonical momentum conjugate to $z$ is defined as $p_z:=(-i/N){\partial}/{\partial}z$.
When $N\gg 1$, an energy eigenstate $\phi_{\varepsilon}(z)=\<z|\phi_n\>$ with an energy eigenvalue $E_n=N\varepsilon$ is given by the WKB approximation. The immediate consequence of the WKB approximation is that the eigenstate expectation value of an observable $f(z,p_z)$, where $f$ is a function independent of $N$, asymptotically equals the long-time average of the same quantity in the underlying classical dynamics for large $N$ [@Sciolla2010; @Sciolla2011], $$\begin{aligned}
\<\phi_n|f(z,p_z)|\phi_n\>&\approx\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T}\int_0^Tdtf(z(t),p_z(t))
\nonumber \\
&=:\overline{f(z(t),p_z(t))},
\label{eq:average}\end{aligned}$$ where $z(t)$ and $p_z(t)$ are the solutions of the classical equations of motion, $dz(t)/dt={\partial}\tilde{H}/{\partial}p_z$ and $dp_z(t)/dt=-{\partial}\tilde{H}/{\partial}z$. Because the equal energy surface $\tilde{H}(z,p_z)=\varepsilon$ is one dimensional in the phase space, the ergodicity of the classical dynamics is trivial as long as the equal energy surface is simply connected. As a result, \_n|f(z,p\_z)|\_nf\_, where $f_{\mathrm{eq}}$ is the equilibrium value of $f$ calculated in the microcanonical ensemble of $H$ with the energy $N\varepsilon$ within the TSS [^1]. This implies that quantum energy eigenstates $\phi_n$ satisfy ETH within the TSS [^2].
In this model, in some choice of parameters $\{h_x,h_z,\varepsilon\}$, the equal-energy surface of $\tilde{H}$ is separated into the two disconnected parts (ergodic regions), see Fig. \[fig:equal-energy\]. In that case, the energy eigenstates are also divided into the two sectors, corresponding to the two separated ergodic regions of the underlying classical dynamics, and the ETH holds for each sector although the ETH does not hold as a whole. In the spin-1/2 case, this correspondence between the long-time average in the classical dynamics and the quantum mechanical average in a single energy eigenstate is a consequence of the WKB approximation.
Classical trajectories and the eigenstate expectation values {#sec:trajectory}
------------------------------------------------------------
The classical trajectory is fully determined by the equal-energy surface $\tilde{H}(z,p_z)=\varepsilon$ because it is one dimensional in the phase space. Typical shapes of the equal-energy surfaces are given in Fig. \[fig:equal-energy\]. The parameters are chosen as $h_x=0.2$ and $h_z=0.001$. The equal energy surface $\tilde{H}(z,p_z)=\varepsilon$ with $\varepsilon=0$ is depicted by the solid line and that with $\varepsilon=-0.11$ is depicted as the dashed line. For $\varepsilon=0$, the equal-energy surface is simply connected. If any point on the equal-energy surface is chosen as an initial state, the classical trajectory passes through all the points on the same equal-energy surface, i.e. the classical dynamics is trivially ergodic. On the other hand, for $\varepsilon=-0.11$, the equal-energy surface is divided into the two disconnected regions (it is noted that $p_z=0$ is equivalent to $p_z=2\pi$). In that case, the classical orbit is given by either of the two curves depending on the initial state, and the corresponding quantum energy eigenstates are also divided into the two branches, shown in Fig. \[fig:eigenstate\].
It should be pointed out that $h_z=0$ is an exception. When $h_z=0$, two disconnected equal-energy surfaces with $\overline{m^z(t)}>0$ and $\overline{m^z(t)}<0$ appear in the classical dynamics, but the quantum expectation values of $m^z$ are zero, $\<\phi_n|m^z|\phi_n\>=0$ for all $n$ because of the inversion symmetry of the $z$ component of the magnetization. It is interpreted that the two equal-energy surfaces are connected through the resonant quantum tunneling. However, as long as $h_z$ is nonzero and there is no symmetry between the two disjoint ergodic regions, such resonant tunneling is suppressed and we can see that $\<\phi_n|m^z|\phi_n\>>0$ for some $n$ and $\<\phi_n|m^z|\phi_n\><0$ for the others when $N$ is large.
![The equal energy surfaces for $\varepsilon=0$ (solid line) and for $\varepsilon=-0.11$ (dashed line). The parameters are chosen as $h_x=0.2$ and $h_z=0.001$.[]{data-label="fig:equal-energy"}](equal-energy.eps){width="70mm"}
![The eigenstate expectation values $\<\phi_n|m^z|\phi_n\>$. The horizontal axis is the energy eigenvalue divided by $N$. The parameters are chosen as $h_x=0.2$, $h_z=0.001$, and $N=5000$.[]{data-label="fig:eigenstate"}](eigenstate.eps){width="70mm"}
Thermalization within the TSS {#sec:thermalization}
-----------------------------
We shall investigate the quantum dynamics after a quench in this model. Here, the parameters $\{h_x,h_z\}$ are suddenly quenched from $\{h_x^{(i)},h_z^{(i)}=0.1\}$ to $\{h_x^{(f)}=0.2,h_z^{(f)}=0.001\}$, and the other parameters are fixed to be the same values as in the previous section. Then, the post-quench Hamiltonian is identical to the Hamiltonian considered in the previous section.
Note that the initial value of $h_z^{(i)}=0.1$ will choose the sector of $m^z>0$ in the region of $\varepsilon\lesssim -0.1$, in which energy eigenstates are divided into the two sectors. Therefore, we can neglect the presence of the sector of $m^z<0$, and hence the ETH practically holds for the entire energy region.
In Fig. \[fig:quench\_Lipkin\], time evolutions of $m^z:=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^NS_i^z$ are shown for $h_x^{(i)}=-0.15$ (top) and $-0.05$ (bottom). Red dashed lines represent the equilibrium value within the TSS. It is clear that the system reaches equilibrium within the TSS after long times, which results from the ETH within the TSS.
The timescale in which observables reach their stationary values is numerically found to be proportional to $N^{1/2}$. In the limit of $N\rightarrow\infty$, the classical dynamics is exact forever, and the relaxation to the steady state does not occur. This size dependence of the relaxation time is consistent with the result on the exactly solvable Emch-Radin model (no $h_x$ and $D$ terms) [@Kastner2011; @Worm2013], and is also consistent with the semiclassical evaluation, see Sec. \[sec:relaxation\_time\].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Time evolutions of $\<\Psi(t)|m^z|\Psi(t)\>$ after the quenches from (top) $h_x^{(i)}=-0.15$ and (bottom) $h_x^{(i)}=-0.05$. The solid lines are the solutions of the Schrödinger equation for $N=4000$ and the dashed red lines are the equilibrium values in the TSS.[]{data-label="fig:quench_Lipkin"}](quench_Lipkin_mz1.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"}
![Time evolutions of $\<\Psi(t)|m^z|\Psi(t)\>$ after the quenches from (top) $h_x^{(i)}=-0.15$ and (bottom) $h_x^{(i)}=-0.05$. The solid lines are the solutions of the Schrödinger equation for $N=4000$ and the dashed red lines are the equilibrium values in the TSS.[]{data-label="fig:quench_Lipkin"}](quench_Lipkin_mz2.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamical phase transitions after a quench {#sec:dynamical_1/2}
------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:DPT\], we show the expectation values of $m^z$ (blue solid line) in the steady state reached after quenches for various values of $h_x^{(i)}$. The transverse axis is the energy density after the quench, which is a function of $h_x^{(i)}$. The data agree very well with the equilibrium values within the TSS (red dotted line, which is the same one as the curve of Fig. \[fig:eigenstate\]), which shows the phase transition around at $\varepsilon=-0.1$. This transition is called a *dynamical transition* because its transition point differs from the transition point in the *true thermal equilibrium* (black solid line in Fig. \[fig:DPT\]), i.e., the equilibrium state not restricted to the TSS.
![Blue (gray) solid line: Expectation values of $m^z$ in the steady state after quenches as a function of $\varepsilon$ ($\varepsilon$ is a function of $h_x^{(i)}$). Red dashed line: Expectation values of $m^z$ in the equilibrium state within the TSS, which is the same one as the curve in Fig. \[fig:eigenstate\]. Black solid line: Expectation values of $m^z$ in the true equilibrium state (not restricted to the TSS).[]{data-label="fig:DPT"}](DPT_eq.eps){width="70mm"}
Dynamical phase transitions in several fully connected systems have been studied by Sciolla and Biroli [@Sciolla2010; @Sciolla2011]. Figure \[fig:DPT\] shows that a dynamical transition is nothing but an equilibrium phase transition within the TSS *when the underlying classical Hamiltonian has only one degree of freedom*.
Spin-1 case {#sec:spin-1}
===========
Statistics of classical long-time averages and that of energy eigenstate expectation values {#sec:statistics}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
{width="55mm"} {width="55mm"} {width="55mm"}
-------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
In the spin-1 case, the situation becomes complicated. Because of the presence of the anisotropy $D\sum_{i=1}^N(S_i^z)^2$, the total spin is not conserved. The energy eigenstates in the TSS are characterized by the two variables $x$ and $y$, where {
\_[i=1]{}\^N|x,y=x|x,y,\
\_[i=1]{}\^N|x,y=y|x,y.
. \[eq:xy\] The number of the spins in $S_i^z=+1$ $(-1)$ equals $Nx$ ($Ny$). Similarly to the spin-1/2 case, by deriving the Schrödinger equation for the wave function $\psi_t(x,y):=\<x,y|\psi(t)\>$ up to the leading order in $1/N$, we obtain \_t(x,y)=|[H]{}\_t(x,y), with $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{H}(x,y,p_x,p_y)=-\frac{1}{2}(x-y)^2+D(x+y)-h_z(x-y)
\nonumber \\
-h_x\left(\sqrt{2x(1-x-y)}\cos p_x +\sqrt{2y(1-x-y)}\cos p_y\right).\end{aligned}$$ Again the effective Planck constant is given by $1/N$ and the canonical momenta are defined as $p_x=(-i/N){\partial}/{\partial}x$ and $p_y=(-i/N){\partial}/{\partial}y$. The underlying classical dynamics $\{x(t),y(t),p_x(t),p_y(t)\}$ is given by the Hamilton equation in terms of the classical Hamiltonian $\bar{H}$, but now there are two degrees of freedoms ($x$ and $y$). The equal energy surface $\bar{H}=\varepsilon$ is three dimensional, and the classical ergodicity is not trivial. In Appendix \[sec:Poincare\], some Poincare sections are presented.
As in the spin-1/2 case, it is expected that there is a close relation between the long-time average in the classical dynamics and the quantum energy eigenstate expectation value in the spin-1 case, although we cannot apply the WKB approximation.
![$P_N(m)$ for $N=240$ (shaded histogram) and $P_{\mathrm{cl}}(m)$ (points and line).[]{data-label="fig:distribution"}](Mx_full_dist.eps){width="70mm"}
Here, we shall compare the distribution of the long-time averages of some quantities in the classical dynamics with the initial states sampled randomly from the phase space to the distribution of the energy eigenstate expectation values of the same quantities. In Fig. \[fig:classical-quantum\], the results for (a) $m^z=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^NS_i^z=x-y$, (b) $m^x=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^NS_i^x\approx\sqrt{2x(1-x-y)}\cos p_x+\sqrt{2y(1-x-y)}\cos p_y$, and (c) $m^0=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^N[1-(S_i^z)^2]=1-x-y$ are shown. The transverse axis is the energy density $\varepsilon$. The red (blue) points are the long-time averages in the classical dynamics $\overline{\mathcal{O}(t)}$ (the energy eigenstate expectation values $\<\phi_n|\mathcal{O}|\phi_n\>$) for $\mathcal{O}=m^z, m^x,$ and $m^0$. They agree very well including the strongly nonergodic energy region. The distribution functions also agree very well. In Fig. \[fig:distribution\], $P_N(m)$ and $P_{\mathrm{cl}}(m)$ are shown for $N=240$, where $P_N(m)$ is the probability distribution function of $m=\<\phi_n|m^x|\phi_n\>$ obtained by all the energy eigenstates in a finite $N$ quantum system, and $P_{\mathrm{cl}}(m)$ is the probability distribution function of the long-time average of $m^x(t)$ in the underlying classical dynamics starting from randomly sampled initial states. They agree very well. We can also consider the probability distribution function of $m^z$ or $m^0$, but the result does not change.
![$\Delta_N$ as a function of $1/\sqrt{N}$. The smallest value and the largest value of $N$ are 40 and 240, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:finite-size"}](finite_size.eps){width="70mm"}
Next, we consider the finite-size scaling of the deviation of the two distributions defined as \_N:=dm |P\_N(m)-P\_(m)|. In Fig. \[fig:finite-size\], we see that $\Delta_N$ decreases towards zero as $\Delta_N\propto N^{-1/2}$ at least up to $N=240$. This finite-size analysis strongly indicates that the two distributions coincide in the limit of $N\rightarrow\infty$.
Although we only show the result for the fully connected Ising ferromangets, the similar result will hold for other semiclassical systems. Indeed, in the Dicke model, which is regarded as another semiclassical model, the same result is confirmed, see Appendix \[sec:Dicke\]. From these observations in the fully connected models, *it is conjectured that this coincidence of the distribution of the quantum eigenstate expectation values and that of the long-time averages in the underlying classical dynamics is a general feature in semiclassical systems*.
The above conjecture is consistent with the previous studies. As mentioned earlier, it is known (but not proved) that the energy eigenstates are classified into regular or irregular ones [@Percival1973] correspondingly to the regular and the irregular (chaotic) regions in the classical phase space [^3]. Intuitively, regular eigenstates will behave as ones obtained by the WKB theory, and the connection between the energy eigenstate average and the classical infinite time average is understood as the result of the WKB theory, as discussed in the spin-1/2 case. For irregular eigenstates, the coincidence of the quantum and classical averages can be viewed as a variant of Berry’s conjecture on ergodic systems.
Steady state after a quench {#sec:dynamics}
---------------------------
Let us discuss the quantum dynamics of the spin-1 fully connected Ising ferromagnet based on our conjecture on the semiclassical limit. The conjecture implies that the quantum ETH is satisfied within the TSS if the underlying classical dynamics is ergodic. On the other hand, if the classical dynamics is not ergodic, then the quantum ETH is violated. In that case, according to our conjecture, the statistics of $\<\phi_n|\mathcal{O}|\phi_n\>$ for many different $n$ such that $E_n/N\in[\varepsilon,\varepsilon']$ for arbitrary $\varepsilon<\varepsilon'$ coincides with the statistics of $\overline{\mathcal{O}(t)}$ for random initial states sampled uniformly from the phase space with the energy between $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon'$.
As argued in Sec. \[sec:quench\], the system equilibrates after a quench and the energy density after a quench is given by $\varepsilon$ with a very small fluctuation $\delta\varepsilon$. Our conjecture implies that the stationary value of the expectation value of an observable will be equal to the equilibrium value within the TSS when the classical dynamics is ergodic, but this is not the case when the classical dynamics is not ergodic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Time evolutions of $\<\psi(t)|m^x|\psi(t)\>$ for the quenches of (top) $(h_x^{(i)}=-0.3, h_x^{(f)}=0.2)$ and (bottom) $(h_x^{(i)}=-0.39, h_x^{(f)}=0.2)$. The solid lines are the solutions of the Schrödinger equation for $N=80$. The dashed red lines are the equilibrium values.[]{data-label="fig:dynamics"}](quench_mx1.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"}
![Time evolutions of $\<\psi(t)|m^x|\psi(t)\>$ for the quenches of (top) $(h_x^{(i)}=-0.3, h_x^{(f)}=0.2)$ and (bottom) $(h_x^{(i)}=-0.39, h_x^{(f)}=0.2)$. The solid lines are the solutions of the Schrödinger equation for $N=80$. The dashed red lines are the equilibrium values.[]{data-label="fig:dynamics"}](quench_mx2.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to check the above scenario on quantum dynamics for spin-1 case, we numerically calculate the dynamics of $\<m^x(t)\>:=\<\psi(t)|m^x|\psi(t)\>$ after the quench, in which $h_x$ is suddenly quenched from $h_x^{(i)}$ to $h_x^{(f)}=0.2$. Other parameters are fixed as $h_z=0.01$ and $D=0.4$, and the postquench Hamiltonian is the same as the Hamiltonian employed in Fig. \[fig:classical-quantum\]. The initial state is given as the ground state of the prequench Hamiltonian.
In the top of Fig. \[fig:dynamics\], the time evolution in the case of $h_x^{(i)}=-0.3$ is shown. In this case, the energy density after the quench is 0.07, in which the classical dynamics is ergodic, see Fig. \[fig:classical-quantum\]. Clearly, $\<m^x(t)\>$ approaches the stationary value almost identical to the equilibrium value within the TSS (the red dashed line).
In the bottom of Fig. \[fig:dynamics\], the dynamics in the quench from $h_x^{(i)}=-0.39$ is shown. The energy density after the quench is 0.21, in which the classical dynamics is strongly nonergodic, see Fig. \[fig:classical-quantum\]. In this case, as is clearly observed in the bottom of Fig. \[fig:dynamics\], $\<m^x(t)\>$ approaches a stationary value but it differs from the equilibrium value within the TSS. The absence of thermalization within the TSS is a consequence of the lack of ETH within the TSS in the classically nonergodic region.
Relaxation time {#sec:relaxation_time}
---------------
In the leading order in the (effective) Planck constant $\hbar_{\mathrm{eff}}=1/N$, it is known that the truncated Wigner approximation is valid [@Walls_text; @Polkovnikov2010]. In this approximation, the initial state is represented as a (quasi-)probability distribution in the classical phase space (Wigner function), and it obeys the classical equations of motion, i.e., the Liouville equation. Since the intensive quantities $x$, $y$, $p_x$, and $p_y$ show fluctuations proportional to $N^{-1/2}$ in the initial state after a quench, this initial state is represented as a sharply localized distribution function in the classical phase space. The classical time evolution results in the spread of the distribution over the equal energy surface, and the distribution function will reach some stationary distribution after a “mixing time” [^4]. In this picture, the relaxation time of a semiclassical system is given by the mixing time in the underlying classical dynamics.
Suppose that a region of small volume $\Delta V(0)$ in the classical phase space evolves under the classical equations of motion. According to Krylov [@Krylov_text], this region will be spread over a region with the volume $\Delta V(t)=\Delta V(0)e^{h_{\mathrm{KS}}t}$ after a time $t$ [@Dellago1997], where $h_{\mathrm{KS}}>0$ is the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy. This exponential growth is understood by the fact that the distance between two points close to each other in the phase space grows exponentially fast in the chaotic dynamics. In the initial state after a quench in our spin-1 model, $\Delta V(0)\sim 1/N^2$, and hence, the mixing time $\tau$ is evaluated as $\tau\propto\ln N$.
On the other hand, when the classical dynamics is regular, the distance between two points in the phase space grows only linearly in $t$. Since the width of the initial distribution is proportional to $N^{-1/2}$, the mixing time $\tau$ is evaluated as $\tau\propto N^{1/2}$, which is consistent with the relaxation time in the spin 1/2 case discussed in Sec. \[sec:thermalization\].
As shown in Appendix \[sec:Poincare\], the spin-1 model shows regular, chaotic, and mixed (partly regular and partly chaotic) dynamics depending on the energy. The above discussion indicates that the relaxation time scales as $\ln N$ when the initial quantum state corresponds to the classical phase-space distribution localized in the chaotic region, and as $N^{1/2}$ otherwise. Although it is hard to distinguish $\ln N$ and $N^{1/2}$ dependence in numerical calculations up to $N=240$, numerical results (not shown) look consistent with those $N$ dependencies of the relaxation times.
Dynamical transitions not interpreted as equilibrium phase transitions within the TSS {#sec:DPT_spin1}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Blue (gray) solid line: Expectation values of $m^z$ in the steady state after quenches as a function of $\varepsilon$, the energy density after the quench. Red dashed line: Expectation values of $m^z$ in the equilibrium state within the TSS. Black solid line: Expectation values of $m^z$ in the true equilibrium state (not restricted to the TSS).[]{data-label="fig:DPT_spin1"}](DPT_spin1.eps){width="70mm"}
Dynamical transitions also take place in the spin-1 model. Figure \[fig:classical-quantum\] (a) shows that energy eigenstates with nonzero magnetizations along the $z$ axis appear. Since the model with $h_z=0$ has the symmetry of the $\pi$ rotation of every spin along the $x$ axis, these symmetry-breaking energy eigenstates will result in dynamical transitions as in the spin-1/2 case (here we introduced a very small symmetry breaking field $h_z=0.01$ in order to choose the sector of the positive magnetization $m^z>0$). The difference from the spin-1/2 case is that symmetry-breaking energy eigenstates appear when the classical dynamics is not ergodic, and hence the ETH does not hold even if we restrict ourselves into the sector of the positive magnetization. As we saw in Sec. \[sec:dynamics\], the steady state reached after a quench is not fully determined by the energy density after a quench; it also depends on the choice of the prequench Hamiltonian. As a result, the nature of a dynamical transition, i.e., the location of the transition or the magnetization curve, will depend on the choice of the prequench Hamiltonian.
We consider the same quench protocol as in Sec. \[sec:dynamics\], i.e., we suddenly change the magnetic field along $x$ direction from $h_x^{(i)}$ to $h_x^{(f)}=0.2$, and other parameters are fixed as $h_z=0.01$ and $D=0.4$. We vary the value of $h_x^{(i)}$, which determines the energy density $\varepsilon$ after the quench. In Fig. \[fig:DPT\_spin1\], we show the numerical result on the expectation value of $m^z$ in the stationary state after a quench as a function of $\varepsilon$ (blue solid line). It is observed that $m^z$ takes large values in the low-energy regime ($\varepsilon\lesssim 0$) and in the intermediate energy regime ($0.1\lesssim\varepsilon\lesssim 0.3$), which shows dynamical transitions in the stationary state after the quench.
We find that the magnetization curve in the stationary state after the quench differs from the true equilibrium curve (black solid line), which implies that the stationary state is not a true equilibrium state. In addition, the magnetization curve is also deviated from the equilibrium curve within the TSS (red dashed line), which implies that the stationary state also differs from the equilibrium state within the TSS. This is due to the absence of the ETH within the TSS. Thus the dynamical transition in the spin-1 case is not interpreted as an equilibrium phase transition within the TSS in contrast to the spin-1/2 case.
Summary and discussion {#sec:summary}
======================
In summary, the relation between the property of individual energy eigenstates and the long-time behavior of the underlying classical dynamics has been investigated in fully connected Ising ferromagnets, and it has been shown that the distribution of the expectation values in the quantum energy eigenstates converges to the distribution of the long-time averages in the classical dynamics starting from random initial states sampled uniformly from the classical phase space. This result implies that a fully connected quantum many-body system equilibrates but does not thermalize within the TSS in the classically nonergoric region, as clearly demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:dynamics\].
It should be noted that the nature of an equilibrium state in the TSS strikingly differs from the true equilibrium state defined on the entire Hilbert space. In the latter, the fluctuation of any macroscopic quantity vanishes in the thermodynamic limit, while in the totally symmetric equilibrium state, the fluctuation of a macroscopic quantity cannot be neglected even in the thermodynamic limit. In order to understand this aspect, recall that the variables $x$ and $y$ originally represent the density of up and down spins, respectively, see Eq. (\[eq:xy\]), which are macroscopic intensive quantities. In the classical dynamics, $x$ and $y$ do not reach their stationary values, and the temporal fluctuations of $x$ and $y$ are $O(1)$ in the classical dynamics. Our conjecture discussed in Sec. \[sec:statistics\] implies that, in the equilibrium state within the TSS of the original quantum system, the fluctuations of the corresponding macroscopic intensive variables are also $O(1)$ and do not vanish in the limit of $N\rightarrow\infty$. Anomalously large fluctuations in an equilibrium state within the TSS are generic feature of fully connected models.
The important role played by the TSS should be emphasized. In the TSS, a fully connected Ising ferromagnet is reduced to a semiclassical system with a few-body degrees of freedom. It is unclear to what extent our result survives beyond the TSS, which is an open problem. In particular, it is very important but very difficult open problem to understand the relation between the long-time average along an individual classical trajectory and the quantum average in an individual energy eigenstate for genuinely many-body systems beyond the analysis in the TSS [@Castiglione1996].
In experiment, long-range Ising models with the pair interactions decaying as $1/r^{\alpha}$ with $0\leq\alpha<d$, where $r$ is the distance and $d$ is the spatial dimension, have been realized in trapped ions [@Porras2004; @Britton2012; @Islam2013; @Richerme2014]. Our result corresponds to the case of $\alpha=0$, but it is expected that the system with $0<\alpha<d$ would have some common feature with the system with $\alpha=0$ like in equilibrium [@Mori2011_instability; @Mori2012_equilibrium] although there is no permutation symmetry and therefore the TSS is no longer invariant in the case of $0<\alpha<d$. Thus, studying the case of $0<\alpha<d$ is an experimentally relevant interesting problem [^5], which might help us what happens when we go beyond the TSS.
We have only considered local observables, but it is also important to consider purely quantum non-local quantities like the entanglement entropy, which is a purely quantum object and whose dynamics has been studied for the LMG model [@Vidal2004].
The author thanks the anonymous referees for helpful comments. This work was financially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 15K17718.
Poincare section in the spin-1 fully connected Ising ferromagnet {#sec:Poincare}
================================================================
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
{width="50mm"} {width="50mm"} {width="50mm"}
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
In contrast to the spin-1/2 case, the classical dynamics in the spin-1 case is complicated because there are two degrees of freedom ($x$ and $y$) and the equal-energy surface is three dimensional, in which the dynamics can be regular or chaotic. In order to help the understanding of the classical dynamics in the spin-1 case, the Poincare section is presented in Fig. \[fig:Poincare\], in which the energy density is set as $\varepsilon=0.1$ (left), $\varepsilon=0.22$ (middle), and $\varepsilon=0.45$ (right). Different colors imply different initial states. The Poincare surface is defined as the surface satisfying $\sin p_y\geq 0$ and $y=0.4$. In the case of $\varepsilon=0.1$, the Poincare section implies that the dynamics is fully chaotic. In the case of $\varepsilon=0.22$, in which the ergodicity is strongly violated (see Fig. \[fig:classical-quantum\]), the chaotic region and the regular region coexist. In the case of $\varepsilon=0.45$, the classical dynamics is regular.
The result in the Dicke model {#sec:Dicke}
=============================
{width="140mm"}
We consider the Dicke model, whose Hamiltonian is given by H\_D=\_pa\^a+\_a\_[i=1]{}\^NS\_i\^z-(a+a\^)\_[i=1]{}\^NS\_i\^x, where $a$ and $a^{\dagger}$ are the annihilation and the creation operators of cavity photons, and $\bm{S}_i$ is the spin-1/2 operator of $i$th spin. The collective interaction between cavity photons and $N$ spins is given by $g$. Here we set $\omega_p=\omega_a=1$ and $g=0.6$.
In the TSS, the basis state $|x,y\>$ is characterized by the two variables $x$ and $y$, where a\^a|x,y=x|x,y, \_[i=1]{}\^NS\_i\^z|x,y=y|x,y. The Schrödinger equation for the wave function $\psi_t(x,y):=\<x,y|\psi(t)\>$, where $|\psi(t)\>$ obeys $i{\partial}|\psi(t)\>/{\partial}t=H_D|\psi(t)\>$, is obtained as, in the leading order in $N$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{i}{N}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}\psi_t(x,y)=&\Bigg[\omega_px+\omega_ay
\nonumber \\
&\left.-2g\sqrt{x\left(\frac{1}{4}-y^2\right)}\cos p_x\cos p_y\right]\psi_t(x,y)
\nonumber \\
=:&\bar{H}_D\psi_t(x,y),\end{aligned}$$ where $p_x=-(i/N){\partial}/{\partial}x$ and $p_y=(-i/N){\partial}/{\partial}y$ are the canonical momenta conjugate to $x$ and $y$, respectively. It is noted that $1/N$ plays the role of the Planck constant $\hbar$.
In the limit of $N\rightarrow\infty$, the system becomes classical, and the corresponding classical equations of motion for $\{x(t),y(t),p_x(t),p_y(t)\}$ are given by the Hamilton equations under the classical Hamiltonian $\bar{H}_D$. As in the spin-1 fully connected Ising ferromagnet, we calculate the distribution of quantum eigenstate expectation values of $n:=a^{\dagger}a/N$ and the interaction energy per spin, h\_:=, and the distribution of the long-time averages of the same quantities in the classical dynamics with random initial states sampled uniformly from the phase space. In the calculation of quantum eigenstate expectation values, the number of cavity photons is truncated at $N_{\mathrm{max}}=6N$ in order to avoid the infinite dimension of the Hilbert space. The result is presented in Fig. \[fig:Dicke\], and one can see good agreement of the two distributions for both observables. The probability distribution of $\<\phi_n|(a^{\dagger}a/N)|\phi_n\>$ (shaded histogram) and the probability distribution of the long-time average of $x(t)$ in the classical dynamics (points and line) are presented in Fig. \[fig:Dicke\_n\_dist\] for $N=60$, and the deviation $\Delta_N$ between them is shown in Fig. \[fig:Dicke\_finite\_size\] as a function of $1/\sqrt{N}$. These results show that the conjecture discussed in Sec. \[sec:statistics\] also holds in the Dicke model.
![The distribution of the expectation values of $n=a^{\dagger}a/N$ in individual energy eigenstates for $N=60$ (shaded histogram) and the distribution of the long-time average of $x$ in the classical dynamics (points and line).[]{data-label="fig:Dicke_n_dist"}](Dicke_n_dist.eps){width="70mm"}
![$\Delta_N$ as a function of $1/\sqrt{N}$ in the Dicke model. The smallest and the largest values of $N$ are 20 and 70, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Dicke_finite_size"}](Dicke_finite_size.eps){width="70mm"}
[54]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature04693) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature06149) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys2232) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF01339852) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0305-4470/10/12/016) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.50.888) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.43.2046) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature06838) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.250401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.140405) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10955-016-1511-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1373) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.142002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.190403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.011109) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.227203) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.110401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.257203) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys3478) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.010403) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2016/06/064007) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/13/5/053009) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1209/0295-5075/110/37005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0022-3700/6/9/002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.441832) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.1515) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1405) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1214) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.154101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.104101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.82.031130) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.220401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-5468/2011/11/P11003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.207901) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature10981) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1232296) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature13450) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0029-5582(65)90862-X) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.130601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/15/8/083007) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.55.R9) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0305-4470/29/19/005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.031128) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.86.021132) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.062304)
[^1]: $f_{\mathrm{eq}}$ is not equal to the expectation value in the microcanonical ensemble of the whole Hilbert space. We should consider the equilibrium state within the TSS.
[^2]: It might be better to call the ETH within the totally symmetric subspace the “generalized eigenstate thermalization” in order to distinguish it from the ETH in the whole Hilbert space, see Ref. [@Cassidy2011; @Vidmar2016]
[^3]: For small but finite values of the Planck constant, there are energy eigenstates localized neither on integrable nor the whole chaotic regions [@Ketzmerick2000].
[^4]: It is noted that the phase space volume is conserved owing to the Liouville theorem, and therefore the classical distribution function “spreads” and “approach the stationary distribution” only in a weak sense after a coarse graining of the phase space.
[^5]: T. Mori, in preparation
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ be a finite group with a Sylow $p$-subgroup $P$. We prove that the principal $p$-blocks of $G$ and $N_G(P)$ are perfectly isometric under the assumption $G$ has a cyclic $p$-hyperfocal subgroup.'
author:
- Hiroshi HORIMOTO and Atumi WATANABE
title: 'On a perfect isometry between principal $p$-blocks of finite groups with cyclic $p$-hyperfocal subgroups'
---
Introduction and preliminaries
==============================
Let $G$ be a finite group and $p$ be a prime number. We denote by $O^{p}(G)$ the subgroup of $G$ generated by the set $G_{p'}$ of $p$-regular elements of $G$. Let $P$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ and set $$\tilde{P} = \langle \ [\ T, \ O^{p}(N_{G}(T)) \ ] \ | \ T \leq P \ \rangle.$$ We will call $\tilde{P}$ a $p$-hyperfocal subgroup of $G$. By Puig [@Pu5] and [@Pu6], $$\tilde{P} = P \cap O^{p}(G)$$ (see [@BCGLO], Lemma 2.2 or [@Craven], Theorem 1.33 for proofs). Denoting by $b(G)$ the principal block of $G$, $\tilde{P}$ is a hyperfocal subgroup of $b(G)$ in the sense of Puig ([@Pu5] and [@Pu6]). In this paper we prove the following theorem. This study is motivated by Rouquier [@Rou2], A.2.
If $\tilde{P}$ is cyclic, then the principal blocks $b(G)$, $b(N_{G}(\tilde{P}))$ and $b(N_{G}(P))$ are perfectly isometric in the sense of Broué [@Broue].
By [@sasaki], if $p$ is odd and $P$ is metacyclic, then $\tilde{P}$ is cyclic. If $p = 3$ and $G = SL(2, 2^{3^n}) \rtimes C_3$, then $P$ is isomorphic to the metacylic $3$-group $M_{(n + 1 )+ 1}(3)$ (cf. [@HKK], (4.3)).
Now the above theorem is a generalization of [@JWata], Proposition 6. If $\tilde{P} = 1$, then $G$ is $p$-nilpotent, hence the above is clear. We will determine the ordinary irreducible characters in $b(G)$ (Propositions 5 in $\S 2$ below), and the generalized decomposition numbers associated with $b(G)$ (Propositions 6 and 7 in $\S 3$ below), and then we obtain Theorem 1 from Theorem 2 below.
We refer [@NT], [@T] and [@Gorenstein] for the notation and terminology. Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$. For $x \in G$, we denote by $x^H$ the $H$-conjugacy class containing $x$. For a character $\chi$ of $G$, the restriction of $\chi$ to $H$ is denoted by $\chi \!\downarrow_{H}$. For a character $\zeta$ of $H$, the induced character $\zeta$ to $G$ is denoted by $\zeta\!\uparrow_{H}^{G}$. For characters $\chi$, $\chi'$ of $G$, the innner product of $\chi$ and $\chi'$ is denoted by $(\chi, \chi')$. For a complex number $\alpha$ we denote by $\bar{\alpha}$ the complex conjugate, and for a character ${\chi}$ of $G$ we denote by $\bar{\chi}$ the contragredient character.
Let $({\cal K}, {\cal O}, F)$ be a $p$-modular system such that ${\cal K}$ contains the field ${\bf Q}(\sqrt[|G|]{1})$. For a ($p$-)block $b$ of $G$, we denote by Irr$(b)$ the set of ordinary irreducible characters belonging to $b$ and IBr$(b)$ the set of irreducible Brauer characters belonging to $b$. Here $b$ denotes a block idempotent of ${\cal O}G$. We set $k(b) = |{\rm Irr}(b)|$, the cardinality of Irr$(b)$, and $l(b) = |{\rm IBr}(b)|$. Also we set ${\cal R}_{{\cal K}}(G, b) = \sum_{\chi \in {\rm Irr}(b)}\textrm{{\boldmath $Z$}} \chi$ and we denote by $b(G)$ the principal block of $G$. We denote by $1_{G}$ the trivial irreducible character and the trivial Brauer character of $G$.
Let $(\pi, {\bf b})$ be a $b$-Brauer element, that is, $\bf b$ is a block of $C_{G}(\pi)$ associated with $b$. For $\chi \in {\rm Irr}(b)$, the class function $\chi^{(\pi, {\bf b})}$ of $G$ is defined as follows: $\chi^{(\pi, {\bf b})}$ vanishes outside of the $p$-section of $G$ containing $\pi$ and $\chi^{(\pi, {\bf b})}(\pi \rho) = \chi(\pi\rho {\bf b})$ for $\rho \in C_{G}(\pi)_{p'}$. Let $Bs({\bf b}) = \{ \varphi^{(\pi)}_j \ | 1 \leq j \leq l({\bf b}) \}$ be a basic set for ${\bf b}$ in the sense of Brauer [@Brauer], that is, $Bs({\bf b})$ is a $\textrm{{\boldmath $Z$}}$-basis of the $\textrm{{\boldmath $Z$}}$-module $$\bigoplus_{\varphi \in {\rm IBr}({\bf b})} \textrm{{\boldmath $Z$}} \varphi.$$ Then there exist ${d}_{\chi {\varphi}_j^{(\pi)}}^{\pi} \in {\cal O}$, what we call the generalized decomposition numbers with respect to $Bs({\bf b})$, which satisfy $$\chi^{(\pi,{\bf b})}(\pi \rho) = \sum_{j = 1}^{l({\bf b})}
{d}_{\chi {\varphi}_{j}^{(\pi)}}^{\pi}
{\varphi}_{j}^{(\pi)}(\rho) \ \ (\forall \rho \in C_{G}(\pi)_{p'}).$$ Set $${D}^{(\pi, {\bf b})} = \Big( {d}_{\chi {\varphi}_{j}^{(\pi)}}^{\pi}\Big)_
{\chi \in {\rm Irr}(b), \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)} \in Bs({\bf b})}.$$ By [@NT], Theorem 5.4.11, the matrix ${^t}({D}^{(\pi, {\bf b})})\overline{D^{(\pi, {\bf b})}}$ is similar to the Cartan matrix of ${\bf b}$ [w.r.t.]{} the basic set $Bs({\bf b})$, where $\overline{D^{(\pi, {\bf b})}}$ is the complex conjugate matrix of ${D}^{(\pi, {\bf b})}$ (see [@Navarro], Lemma 7.5). The following plays an important role in this paper.
Let $b$ $(resp. \ b')$ be a block of a finite group $G$ $(resp. \
G')$ such that $b$ and $b'$ satisfy [(i) - (iv)]{} below.
[(i)]{} $b$ and $b'$ has a common defect group $P$. Let $(P, b_P)$ $(resp. \ (P, b'_P))$ be a maximal $b$ $resp. \ b')$-Brauer pair,
[(ii)]{} there exists $\Pi \subseteq P$ such that $\{ (\pi, b_{\pi}) \in (P, b_P) \ | \ \pi \in \Pi \}$ $(resp. \ \{ (\pi, b'_{\pi}) \in (P, b'_P) \ |\ \pi \in \Pi \})$ is a set of representatives for the $G$ $(resp. \ G')$-conjugacy classes of $b$ $(resp. \ b')$- Brauer elements,
[(iii)]{} $l(b_{\pi}) = l(b'_{\pi})$ for any $\pi \in \Pi$,
[(iv)]{} For any $\pi \in \Pi \ \backslash \ \{ 1 \}$, there exist basic set $Bs(b_{\pi}) = \{ \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)} \ | \ j = 1, \ 2, \cdots, l(b_{\pi}) \}$ for $b_{\pi}$ and $Bs(b'_{\pi}) = \{ {\varphi'_j}^{(\pi)} \ | \ j = 1, \ 2, \cdots, l(b'_{\pi}) \}$ for $b'_{\pi}$ such that $$d_{\chi_i \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)}}^{\pi} = \varepsilon_i d_{\chi'_{i} \varphi_{j}'^{(\pi)}}^{\pi}, \ \varepsilon_i = \pm 1 \ (1 \leq i \leq k(b), \
1 \leq j \leq l(b_{\pi}))$$ where [Irr]{}$(b) = \{ \chi_i \ | \ i = 1, 2, \cdots, k(b)\}$ and [Irr]{}$(b') = \{ \chi'_i \ | \ i = 1, 2, \cdots, k(b')\}$. Then $$\chi'_i \in R_{{\cal K}}(G', b') \mapsto \varepsilon_{i} \chi_i \in R_{{\cal K}}(G, b)$$ is a perfect isometry from $b'$ to $b$ in the sense of Broué [@Broue].
By the condition (ii) and (iii), $k(b) = k(b')$.
(Separation condition) Let $a'$ be a $p$-element of $G'$ and let $\Pi'_{a'}$ be the set of elements $\pi$ of $\Pi$ which is $G'$-conjugate to $a'$. For $\pi \in \Pi'_{a'}$, let $c'_{\pi a'}\in G'$ be such that $a'^{c'_{\pi a'}} = (a')^{c'_{\pi a'}} = \pi$. Similarly for a $p$-element $a$ of $G$, we define $\Pi_a$ and $c_{\pi a}$ for $\pi \in \Pi_{a}$. Now for $\rho \in G_{p'}$ and ${\rho'} \in C_{G'}(a')_{p'}$, from (1) and by the assumption and [@NT], Theorem 5.4.11 for basic sets, $$\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)} \varepsilon_{i} \chi_i (\rho)\overline{{\chi}'_i (a' {\rho}'}) = \sum_{i = 1}^{k(b)} \chi_i(\rho) \left( \sum_{\pi \in \Pi'_{a'}} \sum_{j =1}^{l(b_{\pi})} \ \overline{d^{x}_{\chi_i \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)}}}\overline{{\varphi'}_{j}^{(\pi)} ({\rho}'^{c'_{\pi a'}})}\ \right)$$ $$= \sum_{\pi \in \Pi'_{a'}} \sum_{j = 1}^{l(b_{\pi})} \left( \sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)} \chi_i(\rho) \overline{d^{\pi}_{\chi_i \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)}}}\ \right) \overline{\varphi'^{(\pi)}_{j} ({\rho'}^{{c'}_{\pi a'}})} = 0.$$ (see [@Navarro], Lemma 7.5) Similarly for a $p$-singular element $x \in G$ and $y' \in G'_{p'}$,\
$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k(b)} \varepsilon_{i}\chi_i(x)\overline{\chi'_{i}(y')} = 0.$ (Integrality condition) Let $\rho \in G_{p'}$ and ${\rho'}\in G'_{p'}$. By the above, $\displaystyle\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)} \varepsilon_i \overline{\chi'_i({\rho'})}\chi_i$ vanishes on the $p$-singular elements of $G$. Hence $\displaystyle\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)}\varepsilon_i \chi_i(\rho)\overline{\chi'_i ({\rho'})}$ is divisible by $|C_{G}(\rho)|$ in ${\cal O}$ by [@NT], Theorems 3.6.10 and 3.6.13. Similarly $\displaystyle\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)}\varepsilon_i \chi_i(\rho)\overline{\chi'_i ({\rho'})}$ is divisible by $|C_{G'}(\rho')|$. Let $a$ (resp. $a'$) be a $p$-element of $G$ (resp. $G'$). For $\rho \in C_{G}(a)_{p'}$ and $\rho' \in C_{G'}(a')_{p'}$, $$\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)}\varepsilon_i \chi_i (a\rho) \overline{\chi'_i(a'{\rho}')}$$ $$= \sum_{i = 1}^{k(b)}\left( \sum_{ \pi \in \Pi_a } \sum_{j =1}^{l(b_{\pi})}\varepsilon_i d^{\pi}_{\chi_i \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)}} {\varphi}_{j}^{(\pi)} ({\rho}^{c_{\pi a}}) \right)\left( \sum_{\pi' \in \Pi'_{a'}} \sum_{k =1}^{l(b_{\pi'})}\overline{ d^{\pi'}_{\chi'_i \varphi'^{(\pi')}_{k}}}\overline{{\varphi'}_{k}^{(\pi')} ({\rho}'^{c'_{\pi' a'}})} \right)$$ $$= \sum_{\pi \in \Pi_a}\sum_{\pi' \in \Pi'_{a'}}\sum_{k =1}^{l(b_{\pi'})}\left( \sum_{j =1}^{l(b_{\pi})}\left( \sum_{i = 1}^{k(b)} \varepsilon_i d^{\pi}_{\chi_i \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)}}
\overline{d^{\pi'}_{\chi'_i \varphi'^{(\pi')}_{k}}}\right) \varphi^{(\pi)}_{j}({\rho}^{c_{\pi a}})\right)\overline{{\varphi'}_{k}^{(\pi')} ({\rho}'^{c'_{\pi' a'}})}.$$ Hence from (1) and by [@NT], Theorem 5.4.11 for basic sets (see [@Navarro], Lemma 7.5) $$\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)}\varepsilon_i \chi_i (a\rho) \overline{\chi'_i(a'{\rho}')}$$ $$= \sum_{\pi \in \Pi_a \cap \Pi'_{a'}}
\sum_{k = 1}^{l(b_{\pi})}\left( \sum_{j= 1}^{l(b_{\pi})}
\left( \sum_{i = 1}^{k(b)} d^{\pi}_{\chi_i \varphi_j^{(\pi)}}
\overline{d^{\pi}_{\chi_i \varphi_k^{(\pi)}}}\right) \varphi_j^{(\pi)}(\rho^{c_{\pi a}}) \right)\overline{ {\varphi'}^{(\pi)}_{k}(\rho'^{c'_{\pi a'}})}$$ $$= \sum_{\pi \in \Pi_a \cap \Pi'_{a'}}
\sum_{k= 1}^{l(b_{\pi})} \left( \sum_{j = 1}^{l(b_{\pi})}
c_{\varphi_{j}^{(\pi)}\varphi_{k}^{(\pi)} } \varphi_{j}^{(\pi)}(\rho^{c_{\pi a}})
\right)\overline{\varphi'^{(\pi)}_{k}(\rho'^{c'_{\pi a'}})}\big),$$ here $c_{\varphi_j^{(\pi)} \varphi_k^{(\pi)}}$ is a Cartan integer [w.r.t.]{} the basic set $Bs(b_{\pi})$ in (iv). Thus $\displaystyle\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)}\varepsilon_i \chi_i (a\rho)\overline{\chi'_i(a'{\rho}')}$ is divisible by $|C_{G}(a\rho)|$ in ${\cal O}$, because $\displaystyle \sum_{j = 1}^{l(b_{\pi})}
c_{\varphi_j^{(\pi)} \varphi_k^{(\pi)}} \varphi_j^{(\pi)}(\rho^{c_{\pi a}}) $ is divisible by $|C_{G}(\pi \rho^{c_{\pi a}})| = |C_{G}(a\rho)|$ in ${\cal O}$. Similarly $\displaystyle\sum_{i= 1}^{k(b)}\varepsilon_i \chi_i (a\rho)\overline{\chi'_i(a'{\rho}')}$ is by $|C_{G'}(a'\rho')|$ in ${\cal O}$. This completes the proof. $\blacksquare$
Let $P$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ and denote by ${\cal F}_{P}(G)$ the Frobenius category of $G$. The objects of ${\cal F}_{P}(G)$ are subgroups of $P$. For $S, \ T \leq P$, $${\rm mor}_{{\cal F}_{P}(G)}(S, \ T) = \{ \varphi \in {\rm Hom}(S, \ T) \ | \ \varphi = {c_{x}}_{|_S} \ ( \exists x \in G) \},$$ where $c_x$ is the inner automorphism of $G$ induced by $x$.
[([@Okuyama-Watanabe])]{} If $\tilde{P}$ is abelian, then ${\cal F}_{P}(G) = {\cal F}_{P}(N_{G}(\tilde{P})).$
(Naoki Chigira) $\tilde{P} = P \cap O^{p}(G)$ is strongly closed in $P$ in the sense of [@GLS], §16. Hence the proposition follows from [@GLS], Proposition 16.20. $\blacksquare$
[([@Wata2014], Theorem 3)]{} If $\tilde{P}$ is cyclic, then ${\cal F}_{P}(G) = {\cal F}_{P}(N_{G}(P)).$
Set $\tilde{K} = O_{p'}(C_{{G}}(\tilde{P})) = O_{p'}(C_{\tilde{G}}(\tilde{P})) = C_{\tilde{G}}(\tilde{P})_{p'}$. Then $C_{\tilde{G}}(\tilde{P}) = \tilde{K} \times \tilde{P}$, and $\tilde{K}$ is normal in $N_{G}(\tilde{P})$. Since $C_{P}(\tilde{P})$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(\tilde{P})$, $C_{G}(\tilde{P}) = C_{\tilde{G}}(\tilde{P}) C_{P}(\tilde{P}) = \tilde{K} C_{P}(\tilde{P})$, by Proposition 1, $$N_{G}(\tilde{P}) = C_{G}(\tilde{P})N_{G}(P) = \tilde{K} N_{G}({P}).$$ This implies $${\cal F}_{P}(N_{G}(\tilde{P})) = {\cal F}_{P}(N_{G}(P)).$$ Note that $[P, K] \cap P = 1$. This and Proposition 1 complete the proof. $\blacksquare$
The above two propositions are generalized in [@Wata2014]) as follows. Let $b$ be a block (not necessarily the principal block) of $G$ with a maximal $b$-Brauer pair $(P, b_P)$ and a hyperfocal subgroup $\tilde{P}$. Let $b' \in Bl(N_{G}(P))$ be the Brauer correspondent of $b$. If $\tilde{P}$ is cyclic, then the Brauer categories ${\cal F}_{(P, b_P)}(G, b)$ and $ {\cal F}_{(P, b_P)}(N_{G}(P), b')$ are same.
Set $K = O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$ and let ${T}$ be a $p$-complement of $N_{G}(P)$. Then $K = T \cap C_{G}(P)$. From (2), $\tilde{T} : = \tilde{K}T$ is a $p$-complement of $N_{\tilde{G}}(\tilde{P})$. Then $$\tilde{T}/\tilde{K} \cong T/K$$ because $T \cap C_{G}(\tilde{P}) \subseteq C_{G}(P)$.
In the rest of this paper $G$ is a finite group and $P$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$, $\tilde{G} = O^{p}(G), \tilde{P} = P \cap O^{p}(G)$ and $N = N_{G}(P)$. Moreover $e = |E|$, the inertial index of $b(G)$. We assume that $\tilde{P}$ is a cyclic group generated by $x$ and of order $p^{n}$. From (3), $e$ is the inertial index of $b(\tilde{G})$ and hence $e$ divides $p-1$.
If $e = 1$, then $G$ is $p$-nilpotent. Hence we may assume $e \neq 1$ and hence $p \neq 2$ in a proof of Theorem 1. For a $p$-element $u \in G$, we denote by $e_{u}$ the inertial index of $b(C_{G}(u))$ and we call it the inertial index of $u$.
Irreducible characters in $b(G)$
================================
Under our assumption, let $u \in P$. Then $P_u = C_{P}(u)$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$ and $e_u = |C_{N}(u) : P_u C_{N}(P_u)|$.
There exists $a \in G$ such that $P \cap C_{G}(u^a)$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(u^a)$. Then $u^a \in P \cap C_{G}(u^a) \subseteq P$. By Proposition 2, there exists $n \in N$ such that $u^a = u^n$. Since $P \cap C_{G}(u)^n$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(u)^n $, $P_u = P \cap C_{G}(u) = P^{n^{-1}} \cap C_{G}(u) $ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$.
By Proposition 2, we have $N_{G}(P_u) = C_{G}(P_u)(N_{G}(P_u) \cap N)$, hence $$\begin{aligned}
C_{G}(u) \cap N_{G}(P_u) &=& C_{G}(P_u)(C_{G}(u) \cap N_{G}(P_u) \cap N)\\
&=& C_{G}(P_u)(C_{G}(u) \cap N). \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand we have $C_{G}(u) \cap C_{G}(P_u)P_u = C_{G}(P_u)P_u$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
e_u &=& |C_{G}(u) \cap N_{G}(P_u) : (C_{G}(u) \cap C_{G}(P_u))P_u|\\
&=& |C_{G}(P_u)(C_{G}(u) \cap N) : C_{G}(P_u)P_u|\\
&=&|C_{G}(u) \cap N : C_{G}(u) \cap N \cap C_{G}(P_u)P_u| \\
&=& |C_{N}(u) : N \cap C_{G}(P_u)P_u| \\
&=& |C_{N}(u) : C_{N}(P_u)P_u|. \end{aligned}$$$\blacksquare$
The following is special case of [@Wata2014] Lemma 4 (i). For the self-containedness we state it with a proof because this is crucial.
[([@Wata2014] Lemma 4 (i))]{} Suppose that $\tilde{P} \neq 1$. Let $T$ be a $p$-complement of $N$ and let $X$ be a subgroup of $T$ containing $O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$ properly. Then $P = \tilde{P}\rtimes C_{P}(X). $ In particular $C_{P}(X) = C_{P}(T)$ and $G = \tilde{G}\rtimes C_{P}(T)$.
Let $u \in P$. Since $\tilde{P}$ is a $p$-hyperfocal subgroup of $G$, $[u, X] \subseteq [P, X] \subseteq \tilde{P}$. Hence $\tilde{P}u$ is $X$-invariant. On the other hand $\tilde{P}$ acts transitively on $u\tilde{P}u$ by right multiplication. By using a lemma of Glauberman ([@Isaacs], 13.8) there is an element of $\tilde{P}u$ fixed by $X$. Since $\tilde{P}$ is cyclic, from (2) and (3), $X/O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$ acts on $\tilde{P} \backslash \{ 1\}$ fixed-point freely, an element of $\tilde{P}u$ fixed by $X$ is unique. This implies $P = \tilde{P}\rtimes C_{P}(X)$. Since $G = \tilde{G}P$, we have $G = \tilde{G} \rtimes C_{P}(T)$. $\blacksquare$
For $u \in P$, $e_{u} = e$ or $e_{u} = 1$. If $e_{u} = e$, then $C_{N}(u) = P_u T$ for some $p$-complement of $N$ and $C_{\tilde{P}}(u)$ is a $p$-hyperfocal subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$. If $e_{u} = 1$, then $C_{N}(u) = P_u O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$.
By Lemma 2, $P_u = C_{P}(u)$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$. By using the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem, we can see $C_{N}(u) = P_u C_{T}(u)$ and $C_{N}(P_u) = Z(P_u) C_{T}(P_u)$ for some $p$-complement $T$ of $N$. Hence $$e_u = |C_{N}(u) : P_u C_{N}(P_u)| = |C_{T}(u): C_{T}(P_u)|.$$ Now suppose that $e_u \neq 1$. Then $O_{p'}(C_{G}(P)) \subseteq C_{T}(P_u) \neq C_T(u)$. So by applying Lemma 3 for $X = C_{T}(u)$, $u \in C_{P}(T)$ and hence $C_{N}(u) = P_u T$. (So we have $ u^N = u^P$. ) Since $\langle x^{p^{n-1}} \rangle $ is a normal subgroup of $P$ of order $p$, $\langle x^{p^{n-1}} \rangle \subseteq C_{P}(u) = P_u$. >From (2) and (3), $C_{T}(x^{p^{n-1}})= O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$, hence $C_{T}(P_u) = O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$. Therefore we see $e_ u = e$. Moreover $C_{\tilde{P}}(u)$ is a $p$-hyperfocal subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$ because $[C_{T}(u), C_{\tilde{P}}(u)] = C_{\tilde{P}}(u)$.
Finally suppose $e_u = 1.$ Then $O_{p'}(C_{G}(P)) = C_{T}(u)$ by the argument as in the case $e_u \neq 1$, and hence $C_{N}(u) = P_{u}O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$. (Then we see $|u^{N}| = e |u^{P}|$.) $\blacksquare$
\
Let $\Pi \subseteq P$ be a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of $p$-elements of $G$. Let $\eta$ be a $G$-stable generalized character of $P$, that is, if $u$ and $u'$ in $P$ are $G$-conjugate, then $\eta(u) = \eta(u')$. By a theorem of Brauer on generalized characters ([@NT], Theorem 3.4.2) and the second and third main theorem on principal blocks, if $\chi \in {\rm Irr}(b(G))$ then $$\chi * \eta = \sum_{u \in \Pi }\eta(u)\chi^{(u, b(C_{G}(u)))}$$ is a generalized character belonging to $b(G)$ (c.f. [@BP]).
Let $\tilde{{\cal X}}$ be a set of representatives for the $E$-conjugacy classes of non-trivial linear characters of $\tilde{P}$. For each $\mu \in \tilde{{\cal X}}$, we set $$\eta_{\mu} =
\sum_{a \in E}\mu^a = \sum_{a \in N_{\tilde{G}}(\tilde{P})/C_{\tilde{G}}
(\tilde{P})}\mu^a.$$ This is $\tilde{G}$-stable.
Suppose that a finite group $G$ has a cyclic Sylow $p$-subgroup $P$. Then the trivial character $1_G$ is not an exceptional character.
We use [@Dor], Theorem 68.1 (cf. [@D]). Set $e = |N_{G}(P): C_{G}(P)|$ and $m = \frac{|P| -1 }{e}$. Then $e | (p - 1)$. If $m = 1$, then any irreducible character in $b(G)$ is not exceptional. So we may assume $m \neq 1$. Assume that $1_{{G}}$ is exceptional. For some non-trivial linear character $\mu$ of $P$, $$1 = 1_G(\pi) = \varepsilon \sum_{x \in N_{G}(P)/C_{G}(P)} {\mu}(\pi^x) \ (\forall \pi \in {P} \backslash \{ 1 \}),$$ where $\varepsilon = \pm 1$. Then we have $\varepsilon m = \sum_{\pi \in {P} \backslash \{ 1 \}} \mu(\pi) = -1$. This is a contradiction. $\blacksquare$
\
[(Dade [@D])]{} ${\rm Irr}(b(\tilde{G})) = \{ \tilde{\chi}_1 = 1_{\tilde{G}},\tilde{\chi}_2,
\cdots, \tilde{\chi}_e, \tilde{\chi}_{\mu} \ ( \mu \in \tilde{{\cal X}})\},$ where $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\tilde{\chi}_j (u\rho) = \varepsilon_j = \pm 1 \ ( 1 \leq j \leq e), \\
\tilde{\chi}_{\mu}(u \rho) = \varepsilon \eta_{\mu}(u) \ (\varepsilon = \pm 1)\end{array} \right.$$ for $u (\neq 1) \in \tilde{P}$ and $ \rho \in (C_{\tilde{G}}(u))_{p'}$. Moreover if $P$ is normal in $G$, then $\varepsilon_j = 1$ and $\varepsilon = 1$.
Since $b(\tilde{G})$ has a cyclic defect group $\tilde{P}$, the lemma follows by Lemma 4 and [@Dor], Theorem 68.1. $\blacksquare$
For $\mu \in \tilde{{\cal X}}$, we have $1_{\tilde{G}} * \eta_{\mu} = (e -1)1_{\tilde{G}} - \displaystyle\sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i \tilde{\chi}_i + \varepsilon \tilde{\chi}_{\mu}. $
Let $u \in \tilde{P}\backslash \{ 1\}$ and $\rho \in C_{\tilde{G}}(u)_{p'}$. >From (4), we have $$(1_{\tilde{G}} * \eta_{\mu})(u\rho) = \eta_{\mu}(u),$$ $$((e -1)1_{\tilde{G}} - \sum_{i = 2}^{e}
\varepsilon_i \tilde{\chi}_i + \varepsilon \tilde{\chi}_{\mu})(u\rho) = \eta_{\mu}(u).$$ Therefore $1_{\tilde{G}} * \eta_{\mu} = (e -1)1_{\tilde{G}} - \displaystyle\sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i \tilde{\chi}_i + \varepsilon \tilde{\chi}_{\mu}$ on $p$-singular elements of $\tilde{G}$.
On the other hand for $\tau \in \tilde{G}_{p'}$, by [@NT], Theorem 5.4.5, the equation (4) and [@Dor], Theorem 68.1, (6), $$0 = \sum_{i =1}^{e}\tilde{\chi}_{i}(u)\tilde{\chi}_{i}(\tau) + \sum_{\mu \in \tilde{{\cal X}}}\tilde{\chi}_{\mu}(u)\tilde{\chi}_{\mu}(\tau)$$$$= 1 + \sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i \tilde{\chi}_i(\tau) +
\big( \varepsilon \sum_{\nu \in \tilde{{\cal X}}}\eta_{\nu}(u)\big)\tilde{\chi}_{\mu}(\tau)$$ $$= 1 + \sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i \tilde{\chi}_i(\tau) -
\varepsilon \tilde{\chi}_{\mu}(\tau).$$ From this $$(1 * \eta_{\mu})(\tau) = e = \big((e-1)1_{\tilde{G}} - \sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i \tilde{\chi}_i (\tau) + \varepsilon\tilde{\chi}_{\mu}\big)(\tau).$$ This completes the proof. $\blacksquare$
\
We denote by Irr$_{P}(\tilde{P})$ the set of $P$-invariant linear characters of $\tilde{P}$. Note that if $\nu \in {\rm Irr}_{P}(\tilde{P})$ then $\nu^{a} \in {\rm Irr}_{P}(\tilde{P})$ for $a \in N$. Let $\nu \in $Irr$_{P}(\tilde{P})$. Then $\nu$ is trivial on $[\tilde{P}, P]$. Since $P/[\tilde{P}, P] = (\tilde{P}/[\tilde{P}, P]) \times (C_{P}(T)[\tilde{P}, P]/[\tilde{P}, P])$ by Lemma 2, there is a unique extension $\hat{\nu}$ of $\nu$ to $P$ such that $C_{P}(T) \subseteq {\rm Ker}\ \hat{\nu}$, where $T$ is a $p$-complement of $N$. In fact $C_{P}(U) \subseteq {\rm Ker}\ \hat{\nu}$ for any $p$-complement $U$ of $N$. We call $\hat{\nu}$ the $canonical$ $extension$ of $\nu$. For $a \in N$, $({\hat{\nu}})^a = \widehat{\nu^{a}}$. We set $$\eta_{\hat{\nu}} = \sum_{a \in E}\hat{\nu}^a.$$ This is $N$-invariant, and hence $\eta_{\hat{\nu}}$ is $G$-stable by Proposition 2. Of course $\eta_{\hat{\nu}}\downarrow_{\tilde{P}} = \eta_{\nu}$. Also note $\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) = e$ if $u \in C_{P}(T)$.
Let $\nu \in {\rm Irr}_{P}(\tilde{P})$. Under the above notations, $$1_{{G}} * \eta_{\hat{\nu}} = (e - 1)1_{{G}} - \sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i {\chi}_i + \varepsilon {\chi}_{\nu}, \ (\forall \nu \in {\rm Irr}_P(\tilde{P}))$$ where $\chi_i$(resp. $\chi_{\nu}$) is an extension of $\tilde{\chi}_i$ (resp. $\tilde{\chi}_{\nu})$ to $G$.
Since $b(\tilde{G})$ has a cyclic defect group $\tilde{P}$ and since $C_{\tilde{G}}(u)$ is $p$-nilpotent for any $u \in \tilde{P} \backslash \{ 1 \}$, $$(*) \ \ \ (1_{\tilde{G}}^{(1, b(\tilde{G}))}, 1_{\tilde{G}}^{(1, b(\tilde{G}))}) = 1 - \sum_{u}(1_{C_{\tilde{G}}(u)}^{(u, b(C_{\tilde{G}}(u))}, 1_{C_{\tilde{G}}(u)}^{(u, b(C_{\tilde{G}}(u))})$$ $$= 1 - \frac{p^{n} -1}{e}\frac{1}{p^n} = \frac{(e-1)p^n + 1}{ep^{n}},$$ where $u$ runs over a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of the $p$-elements of $\tilde{G}$. Hence we have $$(1_G^{(1, b(G))}, 1_G^{(1, b(G))}) = (1_G^{(1, b(\tilde{G}))}, 1_G^{(1, b(\tilde{G}))})\frac{1}{|G:\tilde{G}|} = \frac{(e-1)p^n + 1}{e|P|}.$$ Let $\Pi$ be a set of representatives for the $N$-conjugacy classes of $P \backslash \{ 1 \}$. By Proposition 2, $\Pi$ is a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of $p$-elements of $G$. Let $\Pi_1 = \{ u \in \Pi \ | \ e_u = 1 \}$ and $\Pi_2 = \Pi \backslash \Pi_1 = \{ u \in \Pi \ | \ e_u = e \}$. Set $b_u = b(C_{G}(u))$ for $u \in \Pi$ and $U = \bigcup_{u \in \Pi_2} u^P$. By Lemmas 1 and 2, $$\sum_{u \in \Pi_1}(1_{G}^{(u, b_u)}, 1_{G}^{(u, b_u)}) = \sum_{u \in \Pi_1}|C_{P}(u)|^{-1}$$ $$= \frac{1}{e|P|} \sum_{u \in \Pi_1} e |P: C_{P}(u)| = \frac{1}{e|P|}\big(|P| - |U| - 1).$$ Hence we have $$(**) \ \ \ \ \ \ \sum_{u \in \Pi_2}(1_{G}^{(u, b_u)}, 1_{G}^{(u, b_u)})$$ $$= 1 - (1_{G}^{(1, b(G))}, 1_{G}^{(1, b(G))})
- \sum_{u \in \Pi_1}(1_{G}^{(u, b_u)}, 1_{G}^{(u, b_u)})$$ $$= \frac{(e - 1)|P| - (e - 1)p^n + |U|}{e|P|}.$$ Since $(\eta_{\hat{\nu}}, 1_{P}) = 0$, $$e + \sum_{u \in \Pi_1}\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) e |P :C_{P}(u)| + \sum_{u \in \Pi_2}\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) |P : C_{P}(u)| = 0,$$ and hence $$(***) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \sum_{u \in \Pi_1}\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) |C_{P}(u)|^{-1}$$ $$= -|P|^{-1} - \sum_{u \in \Pi_2} |C_{P}(u)|^{-1} = -|P|^{-1} - |P|^{-1}|U|$$ because $\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) = e$ for $u \in \Pi_2$. From $(*), (**)$ and $(***)$ $$( 1_G * \eta_{\hat{\nu}}, 1_G)$$ $$= e(1_{G}^{(1, b(G))}, 1_{G}^{(1, b(G))}) + \sum_{u \in \Pi_1}\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u)(1_{G}^{(u, b_u)}, 1_{G}^{(u, b_u)}) + e\sum_{u \in \Pi_2}(1_{G}^{(u, b_u)}, 1_{G}^{(u, b_u)})$$ $$= \frac{(e - 1)p^n + 1}{|P|} + (- |P|^{-1} - |P|^{-1}|U|) + \frac{(e - 1)|P| - (e - 1)p^n + |U|}{{|P|}}$$ $$= e - 1.$$ From this we have $$(1_G * \eta_{\hat{\nu}}, 1_G * \eta_{\hat{\nu}} ) =
(1_G * \eta_{\hat{\nu}}\eta_{\hat{\nu}^{-1}},
1_G) = e + (e-1)^2 = e^2 - e + 1.$$ Moreover, for $\mu, \mu' (\neq) \in {\cal M}$, $$(1_G * \eta_{\hat{\mu'}}, 1_G * \eta_{\hat{\mu}} ) = (1_G * \eta_{\hat{\mu'}}\eta_{\hat{\mu}^{-1}}, 1_G) = e(e-1).$$ By [@Dor], Theorem 68.1, $|{\rm IBr}(b(\tilde{G}))| = e < p$. Hence any irreducible Brauer character of $b(\tilde{G})$ is $G$-invariant, hence any $\tilde{\chi}_i$ are $G$-invariant by Lemma 5. On the other hand we see $(1_{G} * \eta_{\hat{\nu}})\downarrow_{\tilde{G}} = 1_{\tilde{G}} * \eta_{{\nu}}$ (cf. Cabanes [@Cabanes], Theorem 1), hence Lemma 6 and the above imply (5). This completes the proof. $\blacksquare$
\
We call $\chi_{i}$ (resp. ${\chi}_{\nu})$ in the above proposition the $canonical$ $extension$ of $\tilde{\chi}_i$ (resp. $\tilde{\chi}_{\nu})$. We set $\chi_1 = 1_{G}$ and call it the canonical extension of $\tilde{\chi}_1 = 1_{\tilde{G}}$. Since $\tilde{\chi}_i$ is $p$-rational from (4), $\chi_i$ is also $p$-rational by Proposition 3 and the uniqueness of $\chi_i$.
Let $G_1$ be a subgroup of $G$ containing $\tilde{G}$ and let $P_1 = P \cap G_1 = \tilde{P} \rtimes (C_{P}(T) \cap G_1)$. Then $P_1$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G_1$, $\tilde{P}$ is a $p$-hyperfocal subgroup of $G_1$ and $G_1$ also has the inertial index $e$. Let $T$ be a $p$-complement of $N$. Then $P_1$ is normalized by $T$. From (3) $$N_{G_1}(P_1) = O_{p'}(C_{{G_1}}(P_1))TP_1.$$ That is, $O_{p'}(C_{G_1}(P_1))T$ is a $p$-complement of $N_{G_1}(P_1)$ because $T \cap C_{G_1}(P_1) = O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$. Moreover, for $\nu \in {\rm Irr}_{P}(\tilde{P})$, $$1_{G_1}* \eta_{(\hat{\nu}\downarrow_{P_{1}})} = (1_{G}* \eta_{\hat{\nu}})\downarrow_{G_1}.$$ Therefore the canonical extension of $\tilde{\chi}_i$ (resp. $\tilde{\chi}_{\nu}$) to $G_1$ coincides with $\chi_{i}\!\! \downarrow_{G_{1}}$ (resp. $\chi_{\nu}\!\! \downarrow_{G_{1}}$).
Let $\nu \in $ [Irr]{}$(\tilde{P})$. We denote by $P_{\nu}$ the stabilizer of $\nu$ in $P$ and set $G_{\nu} = \tilde{G}P_{\nu}$. Since $(\eta_{\nu})^v = \eta_{\nu^v}$ and hence $(1_{\tilde{G}}* \eta_{\nu} )^v = 1_{\tilde{G}}* \eta_{\nu^v}$ for $v \in P$, the equation (5) implies $$(\tilde{\chi}_{\nu})^v = \tilde{\chi}_{\nu^v}.$$ Hence $G_{\nu}$ is the stabilizer of $\tilde{\chi}_{\nu}$ in $G$ because $G = \tilde{G}P$. Since $C_{P}(\tilde{P}) \subseteq P_{\nu}$ and $P/C_{P}(\tilde{P})$ is a cyclic $p$-group isomorphic to a subgroup of Aut$(\tilde{P})$, $P_{\nu}$ is normalized by $N$ and hence $G_{\nu}$ is normal in $G$. Let $\hat{\nu}$ be the canonical extension of $\nu$ to $P_{\nu}$ and let $\chi_{\nu}$ the canonical extension of $\tilde{\chi}_{\nu}$ to $G_{\nu}$. For $\lambda \in {\rm Irr}(P_{\nu}/\tilde{P}$) and for $t \in N_{p'}$, $[P_{\nu}, t] \subseteq [P, t] \subseteq \tilde{P}$ and hence $\lambda^t = \lambda$. Therefore $(\eta_{\hat{\nu}}\lambda)\!\uparrow^{P}_{P_{\nu}}$ is $N$-invariant, and hence $G$-stable. Moreover we note that Irr$(P_{\nu}/\tilde{P})$ can be identified with Irr$(G_{\nu}/\tilde{G})$ through the isomorphism $P_{\nu}/\tilde{P} \cong G_{\nu}/\tilde{G}$.
Let $\nu \in $ [Irr]{}$(\tilde{P})$. With the above notations, $ (1_{G_{\nu}} * \eta_{\hat{\nu}})\lambda = 1_{G_{\nu}} * \eta_{\hat{\nu}}\lambda = (e - 1)\lambda - \displaystyle\sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i ({{\chi}_i}\downarrow_{G_{\nu}})\lambda + \ \varepsilon {\chi}_{\nu} \lambda, $ and hence $$1_{G} * ((\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda )\!\uparrow^P_{P_{\nu}}) = (e - 1) \lambda\!\uparrow_{G_{\nu}}^{G} -\sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_i (({{\chi}_i \downarrow_{G_{\nu}})\lambda})\!\uparrow_{G_{\nu}}^{G} + \ \varepsilon ({{\chi}_{\nu}
\lambda})\!\uparrow_{G_{\nu}}^{G}$$ for any $\lambda \in $[Irr]{}$(P_{\nu}/\tilde{P}) = $[Irr]{}$(G_{\nu}/\tilde{G})$.
It suffices to show $1_{G} * ((\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda )\!\uparrow^P_{P_{\nu}}) = (1_{G_{\nu}} * (\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda)) \uparrow^G_{G_{\nu}}$. Let $P = \bigcup_{j = 1}^{l} v_j P_{\nu}$ (disjoint) and let $u \in P_{\nu}$. Since $G = \bigcup_{j = 1}^{l}v_j G_{\nu}$ (disjoint) and $P_{\nu}$ is normal in $P$, for $\rho \in C_{G}(u)_{p'}$, $$(1_{G_{\nu}} * (\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda))\uparrow^G_{G_{\nu}}\!(u\rho) = \sum_{j = 1}^{l} (1_{G_{\nu}} * (\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda))((u\rho)^{v_j})$$ $$= \sum_{j = 1}^{l}( \eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda)(u^{v_j}) =
((\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda )\!\uparrow^P_{P_{\nu}})(u) = (1_{G} * ((\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda)\!\uparrow^P_{P_{\nu}}))(u\rho).$$ This completes the proof. $\blacksquare$
\
For $\nu,$ $ \nu' \in \tilde{{\cal X}}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{\nu}$ and $\tilde{\chi}_{\nu'}$ are $G$-conjugate if and only if those are $P$-conjugate if and only if $\nu $ and $\nu'$ are $(P\rtimes E)$-conjugate. Since $b(G)$ is the unique block of $G$ which covers $b(\tilde{G})$, we have the following.
Let ${\cal X} (\subseteq \tilde{{\cal X}})$ be a set of representatives for the $(P \rtimes E)$-conjugacy classes of [Irr]{} $(\tilde{P}) \backslash \{ 1_{\tilde{P}} \}$. $${\rm Irr}(b(G)) = \bigcup_{i = 1}^e \Big\{ \chi_i \lambda \ | \ \lambda \in {\rm Irr}(G/\tilde{G}) \Big\}
\bigcup_{\nu \in {\cal X}} \Big\{ (\chi_{\nu} \lambda)\!\uparrow_{G_{\nu}}^{G} \ | \ \lambda \in {\rm Irr}(G_{\nu}/\tilde{G}) \Big\}.$$
Generalized decomposition numbers and a proof of Theorem 1
==========================================================
In this section we use notations in Propositions 4 and 5. For $u \in P$, set $b_u = b(C_{G}(u))$. We note that if $C_{G}(u)$ is $p$-nilpotent, then $$d^{u}_{\chi, 1_{C_{G}(u)}} = \chi(u) \ \ (\forall \chi \in {\rm Irr}(b(G)).$$
Let $u \in P$ and assume $e_{u} = 1$. We have $$(\chi_{i}\lambda)(u) = \varepsilon_i \lambda(u),$$ $$({\chi_{\nu}}\lambda_{\nu})\!\uparrow_{G_{\nu}}^G\! (u) = \varepsilon(\eta_{\hat{\nu}}\lambda_{\nu})\!\uparrow_{P_{\nu}}^{P}\!(u),$$ $$(1 \leq i \leq e, \ \lambda \in {\rm Irr}(P/\tilde{P}) = {\rm Irr}(G/\tilde{G}), \ \nu \in {\cal X},\ \lambda_{\nu} \in {\rm Irr}(P_{\nu}/\tilde{P}) = {\rm Irr}(G_{\nu}/\tilde{G}) ).$$
By Lemma 1, $P_u = C_{P}(u)$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$. Here we show that $u$ and $u^{t} $ are not $P$-conjugate for any $u \in P$ with $e_u = 1$ and $t \in T \backslash O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$ where $T$ is a $p$-complement of $N$. Suppose that $u$ and $u^t$ are $P$-conjugate. Then $\langle t \rangle$ acts on $u^P$ by conjugation. Since $P$ acts on $u^P$ transitively. So by a lemma of Glauberman, there is $u' \in u^P$ such that ${u'}^t = u'$. Hence $u^{v^{-1}tv} = u$ for some $v \in P$. This is a contradiction by Lemma 6. Set $\bar{P} = P/\tilde{P}$ and let $P_{\nu}$ be the stabilizer of $\nu$ in $P$ for $\nu \in {\cal X}$. Moreover we set $\bar{P}_{\nu} = P_{\nu}/\tilde{P}$ and $x_i = \chi_i(u)$. We recall $x_i$ is a rational integer. From (7), it suffices to show in order to establish the proposition $$x_i = \varepsilon_i \ (1 \leq i \leq e).$$ So we can assume that $P = \langle \tilde{P}, u \rangle$, hence $$G = \langle \tilde{G}, u \rangle.$$ From (7) again and [@NT], Theorem 5.4.11, $$\sum_{\lambda \in {\rm Irr}(\bar{P})}|\lambda(u)|^2 + \sum_{i = 2}^{e} \sum_{\lambda \in {\rm Irr}(\bar{P})}{x_i}^2|\lambda(u)|^2$$ $$+ \sum_{\nu}\sum_{\lambda_{\nu} \in {\rm Irr}(\bar{P}_{\nu})}\left|((\eta_{\hat{\nu}}\lambda_{\nu})\!\uparrow_{P_{\nu}}^P\big)(u) - (e -1)(\lambda_{\nu}\!\uparrow^{P}_{P_{\nu}})(u) + \sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_{i} x_i (\lambda_{\nu}\!\uparrow^{P}_{P_{\nu}})(u)\right|^2$$ $$= |C_{P}(u)|$$ where $\nu$ runs over a set $\{ \nu \in {\cal X} \ | \ P_{\nu} = P \}$. Hence $$1+ \sum_{i = 2}^{e} {x_i}^2 + \sum_{ \nu }\left|\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) - (e -1) + \sum_{i = 2}^{e}\varepsilon_{i} x_i \right|^2 = |C_{\tilde{P}}(u)|$$ where $\nu$ runs over $\{ \nu \in {\cal X} \ |\ P_{\nu} = P \}$. Set $p^{n'} = |C_{\tilde{P}}(u)|$. By Brauer’s permutation lemma ([@NT], Lemma 3.2.18, (i)), the numbers of $P$-invariant linear characters of $\tilde{P}$ is equal to $|C_{\tilde{P}}(u)|$. Let ${\cal X}_1 = \{ \nu \in {\cal X} \ | \ \nu \in {\rm Irr}_{P}(\tilde{P}) \}$. We have $|{\cal X}_1| = \frac{p^{n'} - 1}{e}$. Set $m = \frac{p^{n'} - 1}{e}$.
By the second orthogonality relation for $P$ and the fact that $u$ and $u^t$ are not $P$-conjugate for any $u \in P$ with $e_u = 1$, and for any $t \in T \backslash O_{p'}(C_{G}(P))$, we can show $\sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1}|\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u)|^2 = p^{n'} - e$. Moreover by the definition of $\hat{\nu}$ and the fact $u \not\in C_{P}(E)$ we see $ \sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1}{\eta}_{\hat{\nu}}(u) = -1$. In fact by using the second orthogonality relations for $P$ $$|P/\tilde{P}| \sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_{1}}|\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u)|^2
= \sum_{t' \in E} \Big( \sum_{t \in E}\sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1} \sum_{\lambda \in {\rm Irr}(P/\tilde{P})}{\hat{\nu}}^t (u^{-1}){\hat{\nu}}^t (u^{t'})\lambda(u^{-1})\lambda(u)$$ $$+ \sum_{t \in E}\sum_{\mu \in {\cal X} \backslash {\cal X}_1} \sum_{\lambda_{\mu}}(\hat{\mu}\uparrow^{P}_{P_{\mu}})^{t}(u^{-1})(\hat{\mu}\uparrow^{P}_{P_{\mu}})^{t}(u^{t'})\lambda_{\mu}(u^{-1})\lambda_{\mu}(u) \Big) =
|C_{P}(u)| - |P/\tilde{P}|e,$$ where $\lambda_{\mu}$ runs over ${\rm Irr}(P)/ X_{\mu}$, $X_{\mu}$ is the kernel of the restriction map ${\rm Irr}(P/\tilde{P}) \rightarrow {\rm Irr}(P_{\mu}/\tilde{P})$, because $u$ and $u^{t'}$ are not $P$-conjugate if $t' \neq 1$. We also note $\lambda(u^{t'}) = \lambda(u)$. Thus we obtain $\sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1}|\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u)|^2 = p^{n'} - e$. Next we show $ \sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1}{\eta}_{\hat{\nu}}(u) = -1$. Write $ u = \tilde{u} r$ ($\tilde{u} \in \tilde{P}$, $r \in C_{P}(E)$). Then $P = \langle \tilde{P}, r \rangle$. $[\tilde{P}, P] = [\tilde{P}, r] =
\langle [\tilde{P}, r] \rangle$, $r^P = [\tilde{P}, r]r$. Since $e_u = 1$ and hence $u \not\in r^P$, $\tilde{u} \not\in [\tilde{P}, P]$. By the second orthogonality relation for $P/[\tilde{P}, P] \cong (\tilde{P}/[P, \tilde{P}] ) \times C_{P}(E)$, $$0 = \sum_{t \in E} \sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1} \sum_{\lambda \in {\rm Irr}(P/\tilde{P})}
({\hat{\nu}}^t \cdot \lambda)(\tilde{u}) + \sum_{\lambda \in {\rm Irr}(P/\tilde{P})} \lambda(\tilde{u})$$ $$= |P/\tilde{P}|\big(\sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1}\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) +1 \big).$$ Therefore we have $\sum_{\nu \in {\cal X}_1}\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) = -1$.
Now from (8), $$p^{n'}-1-\sum_{i=2}^e{x_i}^2=\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal X_1}\left|\eta_{\widehat\nu}(u)-(e-1)+\sum_{i=2}^e\varepsilon_ix_i\right|^2.$$ $${\rm The \ left \ hand \ of} \ (9) = p^{n'}-e-\sum_{i=2}^e\left({x_i}^2-1\right).$$ $${\rm The \ right\ hand\ of }\ (9) = \sum_{\nu\in\mathcal X_1}\left|\eta_{\widehat\nu}(u)+\sum_{i=2}^e\left(\varepsilon_ix_i-1\right)\right|^2$$ $$= \sum_{\nu\in\mathcal X_1}\left|\eta_{\widehat\nu}(u)\right|^2+\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal X_1}\left(\eta_{\widehat\nu}(u)+\overline{\eta_{\widehat\nu}(u)}\right)\sum_{i=2}^e(\varepsilon_ix_i-1)+\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal X_1}\left(\sum_{i=2}^e\left(\varepsilon_ix_i-1\right)\right)^2$$ $$= p^{n'}-e-2\sum_{i=2}^e(\varepsilon_ix_i-1)+m\left(\sum_{i=2}^e\left(\varepsilon_ix_i-1\right)\right)^2.$$ Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= & \sum_{i=2}^e\left({x_i}^2-1\right)-2\sum_{i=2}^e(\varepsilon_ix_i-1)+m\left(\sum_{i=2}^e\left(\varepsilon_ix_i-1\right)\right)^2 \\
&=& \sum_{i=2}^e\left(\left({x_i}^2-1\right)-2(\varepsilon_ix_i-1)\right)+m\left(\sum_{i=2}^e\left(\varepsilon_ix_i-1\right)\right)^2 \\
&=& \sum_{i=2}^e\left({x_i}^2-2\varepsilon_ix_i+1\right)+m\left(\sum_{i=2}^e\left(\varepsilon_ix_i-1\right)\right)^2 \\
&=& \sum_{i=2}^e(\varepsilon_ix_i-1)^2+m\left(\sum_{i=2}^e\left(\varepsilon_ix_i-1\right)\right)^2. \end{aligned}$$ Hence we have $$\varepsilon_ix_i-1=0 \therefore x_i = \varepsilon_i \ ( 2 \leq i \leq e).$$ This completes the proof. $\blacksquare$
\
Since $|{\rm IBr}(b(\tilde{G}))| = e < p$ and $G/\tilde{G}$ is a $p$-group, $|{\rm IBr}(b({G}))| = e$. In particular if $e_u = e$ where $u \in P$, then $l(b_u) = e$.
Let $u \in P$ and assume $e_{u} = e$. The matrix of generalized decomposition numbers of $b(G)$ with respect to a suitable basic set $\{ \varphi_1^{(u)} = 1_{C_{G}(u)}, \varphi_2^{(u)}, \cdots, \varphi_e^{(u)} \}$ for $b_u$ is of the form : $$\left.\begin{array}{|c|cccc|c}
\hline
& \varphi_1^{(u)} = 1_{C_{G}(u)}&\varphi_2^{(u)} &\cdots &\varphi_e^{(u)} \\
\hline
\chi_{1}\lambda_1&\varepsilon_{1}\lambda_1(u)& 0&\cdots &0 \\
\chi_{2}\lambda_2&0&\varepsilon_{2}\lambda_2(u)& 0& 0\\
\vdots&\vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\
\chi_{e}\lambda_e& 0& 0&\cdots&\ \varepsilon_e \lambda_e(u) \\
(\chi_{\nu }\lambda_{\nu})\!\uparrow^G_{G_{\nu}}&
\varepsilon ({\lambda_{\nu}}\!\uparrow^{P}_{P_{\nu}})(u)&\varepsilon ({\lambda_{\nu}}\!\uparrow_{P_{\nu}}^{P})(u) &\cdots &\varepsilon ({\lambda_{\nu}}\!\uparrow^{P}_{P_{\nu}})(u) \\
\hline
\end{array} \right.$$ where $\lambda_i \in {\rm Irr}(P/\tilde{P}) = {\rm Irr}(G/\tilde{G})$, $\nu \in {\cal X}$ and $\lambda_{\nu} \in {\rm Irr}(P_{\nu}/\tilde{P}) = {\rm Irr}(G_{\nu}/\tilde{G})$.
By Lemmas 2 and 3, $P_u = C_{P}(u)$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$, $u \in C_{P}(T)$ for some $p$-complement $T$ of $N$ and $C_{\tilde{P}}(u)$ is a $p$-hyperfocal subgroup of $C_{G}(u)$. Moreover $l(b_u) = e$ as is stated in the above. Set $p^{n'} = |C_{\tilde{P}}(u)|$ and $m = \frac{p^{n'} -1}{e}$. Now for $\nu \in {\cal X}$, the stabilizer $P_{\nu}$ of $\nu$ in $P$ is normalized by $N$. If $u \not\in P_{\nu}$, $\eta_{\nu}\!\!\uparrow^P_{P_{\nu}}\!\!(u) = 0$ and $\chi_{\nu}\!\!\uparrow^G_{G_{\nu}}\!\!(u \rho) = 0$ for any $\rho \in C_{G}(u)_{p'}$. Recall that if $u \in P_{\nu}$, then $\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) = e$ (see (6) for $G_1 = G_{\nu}$). So from (7) in Proposition 4, in order to establish the proposition, it suffices to show for any $\chi_i$ $$d_{{\chi_i, \varphi_{j}^{(u)}}}^u = \delta_{ij}\varepsilon_i$$ for a suitable basic set $\{ \varphi_{j}^{(u)} \ | \ 1\leq j \leq e \}$ for $b_u$, where $\varphi_1 ^{(u)} = 1_{C_{G}(u)}$. Hence we may assume $$G = \langle \tilde{G}, u \rangle = \tilde{G} \rtimes \langle u \rangle.$$ (cf. Lemma 2) Set $\bar{C}_{G}(u) = C_{G}(u)/\langle u \rangle =
(C_{\tilde{G}}(u) \times \langle u \rangle )/\langle u \rangle \cong C_{\tilde{G}}(u)$, $\bar{b}_u = b(\bar{C}_{G}(u))$ and $\overline{C_{P}(u)} = C_{P}(u)/\langle u \rangle \cong C_{\tilde{P}}(u)$. Then $\bar{b}_u$ has a cyclic defect group $\bar{P}$, and $\bar{b}_u$ has an inertial index $e$. By [@Broue], Theorem 5.3, there is a perfect isometry from $\bar{b}_u$ to $b(N_{\bar{C}_{{G}}(u)}(\bar{P}))$ which maps $1_{\bar{C}_{G}(u)}$ to $1_{N_{\bar{C}_{G}(u)}(\bar{P})}$. Hence by [@Broue], Theorem 1.5, there exists a basic set $Bs(\bar{b}_u) = \{ \varphi_{j}^{(u)}\ | \ 1\leq j \leq e \}$, where $\varphi_{1}^{(u)} = 1_{\bar{C}_{G}(u)}$, such that the Cartan matrix of $\bar{b}_u$ with respect to $Bs(\bar{b}_u)$ is of the form $${C}^{\bar{b}_u} = \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
{m + 1}&m & \cdots & m\\
m & m+1 & \cdots &m \\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
m &m & \cdots& m + 1
\end{array} \right)_{e \times e}.$$ Let $C^{b_u}$ be the Cartan matrix of $b_u$ with respect to $Bs(\bar{b}_u)$ which is regarded as a basic set for $b_u$. We have $C^{b_u} = |\langle u \rangle |C^{\bar{b}_u}$ by [@NT], Theorem 5.8.11. Let $$D = \Big( {d}_{\chi {\varphi}_{j}^{(u)}}^{u}\Big)_
{\chi \in {\rm Irr}(b(G)), \varphi_{j}^{(u)} \in Bs(\bar{b}_u)}$$ be the matrix of generalized decomposition numbers of $b(G)$ with respect to $Bs(\bar{b}_u)$. Then we have $$C^{b_u} = {^{t}D\overline{D}}.$$
As in the proof of Proposition 6, let ${\cal X}_1 = \{ \nu \in {\cal X} \ | \ \nu \in {\rm Irr}_{P}(\tilde{P}) \}$. We have $|{\cal X}_1| = m$. Let $\nu \in {\cal X}_1$. Recalling $\eta_{\hat{\nu}}(u) = e$, from (7), $$ed_{\chi_1 \varphi_j^{(u)}}^u = (e - 1) d_{\chi_1 \varphi_j^{(u)}}^u - \sum_{k = 2}^{e} \varepsilon_k d_{\chi_k \varphi_j^{(u)}}^u + \varepsilon d_{\chi_{\nu} \varphi_{j}^{(u)}}^{u},$$ $$\therefore \ \ \ \varepsilon d_{\chi_{\nu} \varphi_j^{(u)}}^u = \sum_{k = 1}^{e}\varepsilon_k d_{\chi_k \varphi_j^{(u)}}^u$$ for $j = 1, 2, \cdots, e$. Note that these are all integers. Since $0 \not\equiv \chi_{\nu}(1) \equiv \chi_{\nu}(u) \ ({\rm mod} \ {\cal P})$ where ${\cal P}$ is the maximal ideal of ${\cal O}$, $\chi_{\nu}(u) \neq 0$. In particular $d^{u}_{\chi_{\nu}\varphi_{j}^{(u)}} \neq 0$ for some $j$. The same holds for $\chi_i$. Now set $$X_{kj} = \varepsilon_k d_{\chi_k \varphi_j^{(u)}}^u \ ( 1 \leq k, j \leq e).$$ Then $X_{11} = 1$, $X_{1j} = 0 \ \ (2 \leq j \leq e)$. Moreover $\varepsilon d_{\chi_{\nu} \varphi_j^{(u)}}^u = \sum_{k = 1}^{e}X_{kj}$ for $\nu \in {\cal X}_1$. So we can see from (11), $$\sum_{k = 1}^{e}X_{ki}X_{kj} + m\big(\sum_{k= 1}^{e}X_{ki}\big) \big(\sum_{k= 1}^{e}X_{kj }\big) = \left\{ \begin{array}{c}m + 1 \ (i = j) \\
m \ (i \neq j).
\end{array} \right.$$ Therefore if $m \geq 2$, then $X_{ij} = \delta_{ij}$ by rearranging $\varphi^{(u)}_j$ $(j \geq 2)$. But if $m = 1$, by taking another suitable basic set $\{ {\varphi'}_{j}^{(u)} \ | \ 1\leq j \leq e \}$ for $b_u$ where ${\varphi'}_{1}^{(u)} = 1_{C_{G}(u)}$ if necessary, $\varepsilon_id_{\chi_i {\varphi'}_j^{(u)}}^u = \delta_{ij}$ with respect to $\{ {\varphi'}_{j}^{(u)} \ | \ 1\leq j \leq e \}$. Thus we get (10). This completes the proof. $\blacksquare$
\
[**Proof of Theorem 1.**]{} It is easily seen that $\tilde{P}$ is a hyperfocal subgroup of $N$ and $N_{G}(\tilde{P})$ by Proposition 2 and Proposition 1. Let $\tilde{N} = O^{p}(N) = N \cap \tilde {G}$ and $N_{\nu} = N \cap G_{\nu}$ for $\nu \in {\cal X}$. Then Propositions 3-7 hold for $b(N)$. In fact there exist $e$ irreducible characters $\chi'_i \in b(N)$ and $\chi'_{\nu}$ of $b(N_{\nu})$ corresponding to $\nu \in {\cal X}$ such that for $\lambda_{\nu} \in $[Irr]{}$(P_{\nu}/\tilde{P}) = $[Irr]{}$(N_{\nu}/\tilde{N})$, $$1_{N_{\nu}} * (\eta_{\hat{\nu}}\lambda_{\nu}) = (e - 1)\lambda_{\nu} -
\sum_{i = 2}^{e} ({\chi'_i}\!\downarrow_{N_{\nu}}\lambda_{\nu}) + \ \chi'_{\nu}\lambda_{\nu},$$ and hence $$1_{N} * ((\eta_{\hat{\nu}} \lambda_{\nu})\uparrow^P_{P_{\nu}}) = (e - 1)(\lambda_{\nu}\!\uparrow_{N_{\nu}}^{N}) - \sum_{i = 2}^{e}({\chi'_i \!\downarrow_{N_{\nu}}\!\lambda_{\nu}})\!\uparrow_{N_{\nu}}^{N} + \ ({\chi'_{\nu}\lambda_{\nu}})\!\uparrow_{N_{\nu}}^{N}.$$ By Proposition 5 for $N$, ${\rm Irr}(b(N)) = \bigcup_{i = 1}^e \Big\{ \chi'_i \lambda \ | \ \lambda \in {\rm Irr}(N/\tilde{N}) \Big\} \bigcup_{\nu \in {\cal X}} \Big\{ (\chi'_{\nu} \lambda_{\nu})\!\uparrow_{N_{\nu}}^{N} \ | \ \lambda_{\nu} \in {\rm Irr}(N_{\nu}/\tilde{N}) \Big\}$ and by Theorem 2, $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\chi'_i \lambda \mapsto \varepsilon_{i} \chi_i \lambda \\
(\chi'_{\nu}\lambda_{\nu})\uparrow^{N}_{N_{\nu}} \mapsto \varepsilon (\chi'_{\nu}\lambda_{\nu})\!\uparrow^{G}_{G_{\nu}}
\end{array} \right.$$ gives a perfect isometry from $b(N)$ to $b(G)$. Similarly $b(G)$ and $b(N_{G}(\tilde{P}))$ also are perfect isometric. $\blacksquare$\
[-6]{} R. Brauer, Some applications of the theory of blocks of characters of finite groups I, J. Algebra, [**1**]{}(1964), 152-167. C. Broto, N. Castellan, J. Grodal, R. Levi and B. Oliver, Extensions of $p$-local finite groups, Trans. A. M. S., [**359**]{}(2007), 3791-3858. M. Broué and L. Puig, Characters and local structure in $G$-algebras, J. Algebra, [**63**]{}(1980), 306-317. M. Broué, Isométries parfaites, types de blocs, catégories dérivées, $Ast$é$risque$, [**181-182**]{}(1990), 61-92. M. Cabanes, Extensions of $p$-groups and construction of characters, Commun. in Algebra, [**15(6)**]{} (1987), 1297-1311. D. A. Craven, “The Theory of Fusion Systems”, Cambridge studies in Advanced mathematics, [**131**]{}, 2011. E. C. Dade, Blocks with cyclic defect groups, Ann. Math. [**84**]{}(1966), 20-48. L. Dornhoff, “Group Representation Theory, Part B”, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1972. D. Gorenstein, “Finite Groups”, Harper and Row, New York, 1968. D. Gorenstein, R. Lyons and R. Solomon, The classification of the finite simple groups, No.1, Math. Surveys and Monographs, AMS, 1996. I.M. Isaacs, Character theory of finite groups. Academic Press, New York, 1976. M. Holloway, S. Koshitani and N. Kunugi, Blocks with non-abelian defect groups which have cyclic subgroups of ondex $p$, Arch. Math. [**94**]{}(2010), 101-116. H. Nagao and Y. Tsushima, “Representation Theory of Finite Groups”, Academic Press, Boston, 1989. G. Navarro, “ Characters and Blocks of Finite Groups”, London Math. Soc., LNS [**250**]{}, 1998. T. Okuyama and A. Watanabe, On the Brauer category of a block with abelian hyperfocal subgroup. L. Puig, The hyperfocal subalgebra of a block, Invent. math., [**141**]{}(2000), 365-397. L. Puig, “Blocks of Finite Groups”, The hyperfocal subalgebra of a block, Springer, Berlin, 2002. R. Rouquier, Block theory via stable and Rickard equivalences, Modular representation theory of finite groups (Charlottesville, VA, 1998), 101-146, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2001. H. Sasaki, The mod $p$ cohomology algebras of finite groups with metacyclic Sylow $p$-subgroups, J. Alg., [**192**]{}(1997), 713-733. J. Thévenaz, “$G$-Algebras and Modular Representation Theory”, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1955. A. Watanabe, On blocks of finite groups with central hyperfocal subgroups, J. Algebra, [**368**]{}(2012), 358-375. A. Watanabe, The number of irreducible Brauer characters in a $p$-block of a finite group with cyclic hyperfocal subgroup, J. Algebra, [**416**]{}(2014), 167-183.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The groupcast index coding problem is the most general version of the classical index coding problem, where any receiver can demand messages that are also demanded by other receivers. Any groupcast index coding problem is described by its *fitting matrix* which contains unknown entries along with $1$’s and $0$’s. The problem of finding an optimal scalar linear code is equivalent to completing this matrix with known entries such that the rank of the resulting matrix is minimized. Any row basis of such a completion gives an optimal *scalar linear* code. An index coding problem is said to be a joint extension of a finite number of index coding problems, if the fitting matrices of these problems are disjoint submatrices of the fitting matrix of the jointly extended problem. In this paper, a class of joint extensions of any finite number of groupcast index coding problems is identified, where the relation between the fitting matrices of the sub-problems present in the fitting matrix of the jointly extended problem is defined by a base problem. A lower bound on the *minrank* (optimal scalar linear codelength) of the jointly extended problem is given in terms of those of the sub-problems. This lower bound also has a dependence on the base problem and is operationally useful in finding lower bounds of the jointly extended problems when the minranks of all the sub-problems are known. We provide an algorithm to construct scalar linear codes (not optimal in general), for any groupcast problem belonging to the class of jointly extended problems identified in this paper. The algorithm uses scalar linear codes of all the sub-problems and the base problem. We also identify some subclasses, where the constructed codes are scalar linear optimal.'
author:
- 'Chinmayananda Arunachala, and B. Sundar Rajan. [^1]'
title: 'Groupcast Index Coding Problem: Joint Extensions'
---
Introduction
============
The index coding problem (ICP) introduced in [@BK] is a source coding problem with some side-information present at the receivers. The sender broadcasts coded messages leveraging the knowledge of the side-information present at all the receivers, in order to reduce the number of transmissions required for all the receivers to decode their demanded messages. This problem is also related to topological interference management problem in wireless networks [@jafar]. It also has applications in satellite communications where some users want to exchange their messages using a satellite [@SUOH], and the retransmission phase of downlink networks [@LNSG] among many others. In general, the ICP is NP-Hard. Optimal codelengths and optimal codes were given for some special classes of the ICP [@SUOH], [@MV]. Many works address the single unicast ICP (SUICP) where each receiver demands a unique message [@LS], [@DSC1]. The most general class of the ICP which subsumes SUICP is the groupcast ICP where any receiver can demand messages which are also demanded by other receivers.
The groupcast ICP was first studied in [@LS] where upper and lower bounds on the optimal codelength were given for any groupcast problem in terms of the optimal codelengths of two related SUICPs. In [@DIC], a directed bipartite graph representation was introduced for the groupcast problem and capacity region was found when only particular coding schemes were allowed. The groupcast problem was represented as a directed hypergraph and bounds on the optimal broadcast rate were given in [@ALSW]. In [@SKS], optimal scalar codelengths were obtained for a class of the groupcast problem, where each message is demanded by at most two receivers. The results are obtained based on the optimality of linear coding schemes for a related SUICP.
Characterisation of the optimal codelengths of SUICPs in terms of those of its sub-problems has been carried out in many works [@MV], [@RKMV]-[@FYGL]. A lifting construction was presented in [@RKMV], where a special class of SUICPs were obtained from another class of SUICPs. The optimal scalar linear codelength of the larger derived SUICP has been shown to be equal to that of the smaller SUICP. Optimal vector linear codes for a class of SUICPs were constructed using optimal scalar linear codes of other basic SUICPs in [@MV]. Graph homomorphism between complements of the side-information digraphs of two given SUICPs was used to establish a relation between their optimal codelengths [@JS]. Some special classes of rank invariant extensions of any SUICP were presented in [@PK], where the extended problems have the same optimal linear codelength as that of the original SUICP, generalizing the results of [@RKMV]. The notion of rank invariant extensions was extended to a class of joint extensions of any finite number of SUICPs in [@CBSR]. Two-sender SUICPs with a sub-problem being a joint extension of two SUICPs were solved for optimal scalar linear codelengths using those of the component single-sender SUICPs (sub-problems) [@CBSR]. In [@FYGL], capacity region of SUICPs with side-information digraphs being generalized lexicographic products of side-information digraphs of the component SUICPs was characterized in terms of those of the component SUICPs.
In this paper, we identify a class of joint extensions of a finite number of groupcast ICPs, where the relation between the sub-problems in the jointly extended problem is defined by a base problem. Optimal scalar linear codelength and optimal codes of the jointly extended problem are given in terms of those of the sub-problems and the base problem for a special class of the jointly extended problem introduced in this paper. This result generalizes the class of joint extensions solved in [@CBSR]. When the base problem and all the sub-problems are restricted to SUICPs, the class of jointly extended groupcast problems identified in this paper reduces to the class of SUICPs with the side-information digraphs being generalized lexicographic products of the component side-information digraphs [@FYGL]. Viewing any jointly extended problem from a matrix-completion perspective, the class of jointly extended problems solved in this paper extends the notion of generalized lexicographic products where any number of sub-problems can be groupcast ICPs.
The key results of this paper are summarized as follows.
- A class of joint extensions is identified which extends the notion of generalized lexicographic product of side-information digraphs which has been defined with the sub-problems being SUICPs [@FYGL], to the case where the sub-problems can be groupcast problems. The positions of the fitting matrices of the sub-problems (in that of the extended problem given in this work), are given by the entries of the fitting matrix of another ICP called the base problem.
- A lower bound on the *minrank* (optimal scalar linear codelength) is given for the class of jointly extended problems identified in this paper, in terms of those of the sub-problems and the base problem.
- A code construction (not necessarily optimal) is presented for a sub-class of the class of jointly extended problems, based on codes of the base problem and all the sub-problems. A set of necessary conditions are provided for the constructed codes to be optimal.
- An algorithm to construct a scalar linear code using any given scalar linear codes of the sub-problems and the base problem is given. The constructed code need not be scalar linear optimal, even when all the related codes are scalar linear optimal. This is the first work (to the best of our knowledge) where deterministic/explicit codes are constructed for a bigger groupcast problem using those of many smaller groupcast sub-problems. A subclass of joint extensions with the constructed codes being optimal scalar linear codes is identified.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the problem setup and establishes the notations and definitions used in this paper. Section III contains our initial results on jointly extended problems presented in the first version of this paper. Section IV presents improved results. We provide an algorithm to obtain scalar linear codes for the class of jointly extended problems identified in this paper. Section V identifies a subclass of jointly extended problems, where the algorithm provides optimal scalar linear codes. Section VI concludes the paper with directions for future work.
Problem Formulation and Definitions
===================================
In this section, we establish the notations and definitions used in this paper and formulate a class of the groupcast index coding problem that can be seen as joint extensions of smaller groupcast problems.
Matrices and vectors are denoted by bold uppercase and bold lowercase letters respectively. For any positive integer $m$, $[m] \triangleq \{1,...,m\}$. $\mathbb{F}_q$ denotes the finite field of order $q$. $\mathbb{F}_q^{n \times d}$ denotes the vector space of all $n \times d $ matrices over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
We first define the notion of disjoint submatrices of a given matrix, which is needed to define the class of jointly extended problems dealt in this paper, and provide related notations.
A matrix ${\bf{L}}$ obtained by deleting some of the rows and/or some of the columns of ${\bf{M}}$ is said to be a submatrix of ${\bf{M}}$. The notation ${\bf{L}} \prec {\bf{M}}$ denotes that ${\bf{L}}$ is a submatrix of ${\bf{M}}$. The set containing the indices of columns of ${\bf{M}}$ present in ${\bf{L}}$ is denoted by $col({\bf{L}},{\bf{M}})$. Similarly, the set containing the indices of rows of ${\bf{M}}$ present in ${\bf{L}}$ is denoted by $row({\bf{L}},{\bf{M}})$. Indices of columns and rows are assumed to start from $1$. A set of submatrices of a given matrix are said to be disjoint, if no two of the submatrices have elements indexed by the same ordered pair in the given matrix.
The number of rows and columns of any matrix ${\bf{M}}$ are denoted by $\mathcal{R}({\bf{M}})$ and $\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}})$ respectively. The $(i,j)$th entry of matrix ${\bf{M}}$ is denoted as ${\bf{M}}_{i,j}$. The notation $\big[[{\bf{M}}]\big]_{i,j}$ denotes the $(i,j)$th component block matrix of ${\bf{M}}$, where the component block matrices of ${\bf{M}}$ (or equivalently the partition of ${\bf{M}}$ into component block matrices) are predefined by the construction of ${\bf{M}}$ using the same. ${\bf{M}}_{[\mathcal{R}]}$ denotes the matrix formed by stacking the rows of ${\bf{M}}$ indexed by the elements in the set $\mathcal{R}$ in the ascending order of indices such that the row with the least row index forms the first row of ${\bf{M}}_{[\mathcal{R}]}$. For any matrix ${\bf{M}}$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, the rank of ${\bf{M}}$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ is denoted by $rk_{q}({\bf{M}})$. $\langle {\bf{M}} \rangle$ denotes the row space of ${\bf{M}}$. The transpose of ${\bf{M}}$ is denoted by ${\bf{M}}^{T}$.
We now define an upper-triangulable matrix which is frequently used in this paper.
A permutation matrix ${\bf{P}}$ is a square matrix that has exactly one $1$ in each row and each column and $0$’s elsewhere. Any $p \times p$ permutation matrix ${\bf{P}}$ represents a permutation of $p$ elements. For a $p \times p$ matrix ${\bf{M}}_x$ containing unknown elements denoted by $x$ along with some known elements, ${\bf{P}}{\bf{M}}_x$ denotes the matrix obtained by applying the permutation described by ${\bf{P}}$ on the rows of ${\bf{M}}_x$. Similarly, ${\bf{M}}_x{\bf{P}}$ denotes the matrix obtained by applying the permutation described by ${\bf{P}}$ on the columns of ${\bf{M}}_x$. A $p \times p$ square matrix ${\bf{M}}$ is said to be upper-triangulable if there exists two $p \times p$ permutation matrices ${\bf{P}}$ and ${\bf{Q}}$ such that ${\bf{P}}{\bf{M}}{\bf{Q}}$ is an upper-triangular matrix. A matrix constructed using block matrices is called block upper-triangular, if the matrix obtained by replacing each block matrix by a scalar is upper-triangular. The block matrices can also be rectangular matrices. A $p \times p$ matrix ${\bf{M}}_x$ (with some unknown elements denoted by $x$) is said to be upper-triangulable if there exists two $p \times p$ permutation matrices ${\bf{P}}$ and ${\bf{Q}}$ such that ${\bf{P}}{\bf{M}}_x{\bf{Q}}$ is an upper-triangular matrix with all the diagonal entries being equal to $1$. The set of all $p \times p$ upper-triangulable matrices containing entries from $\mathbb{F}_q$ and possible unknowns is denoted by $\mathcal{U}^p_q$.
We now explain the groupcast index coding problem setup.
An instance of the groupcast index coding problem consists of a sender with $m$ independent messages given by $\mathcal{M} =\{{\bf{x}}_1,{\bf{x}}_2,\cdots,{\bf{x}}_{m}\}$, where ${\bf{x}}_i \in \mathbb{F}_q^{d \times 1}$, $i \in [m]$, and $d \geq 1$. There are $n$ receivers. The $j$th receiver knows $\mathcal{K}_j \subset \mathcal{M}$ (also known as its side-information) and wants $\mathcal{W}_j \subseteq \mathcal{M} \setminus \mathcal{K}_j$, $j \in [n]$. Each message is demanded by at least one receiver. Without loss of generality, throughout the paper we assume that $|\mathcal{W}_j|=1, \forall j \in [n]$. For a receiver demanding more than one message, we replace it by as many new receivers as the number of messages demanded by the original receiver, with each new receiver demanding a unique message which was demanded by the original receiver and having the same side-information as that of the original receiver. Hence, we assume that the $j$th receiver wants ${\bf{x}}_{f(j)}$, $j \in [n]$, where the mapping $f : [n] \rightarrow [m]$ gives the index of the wanted message. Let $\mathcal{K}=(\mathcal{K}_1, \mathcal{K}_2, \cdots, \mathcal{K}_n)$. Hence, we can describe an instance of the groupcast ICP using the quadruple $(m,n,\mathcal{K},f)$. The transmission is through a noiseless broadcast channel which carries symbols from $\mathbb{F}_q$.
An index code over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ for an instance of the groupcast ICP, described by $(m,n,\mathcal{K},f)$, is an encoding function $\mathbb{E} : \mathbb{F}_{q}^{md \times 1} \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_{q}^{r \times 1}$ such that there exists a decoding function $\mathbb{D}_{j}:\mathbb{F}_{q}^{(r+|\mathcal{K}_{j}|d) \times 1} \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_{q}^{d \times 1}$ at $j$th receiver $\forall j \in [n]$, with ${\bf{x}}_{f(j)} = \mathbb{D}_{j}(\mathbb{E}({\bf{x}}),\mathcal{K}_j)$ for any realizations of $\mathcal{K}_j$ and ${\bf{x}} = ({\bf{x}}_1|...|...|{\bf{x}}_m)^T$. The sender transmits $\mathbb{E}(\bf{x})$ with codelength $r$. The smallest possible value of $r$ is called the optimal codelength of the problem. If the encoding function is linear, the index code is given by $\bf{G}\bf{x}$, where ${\bf{G}} \in \mathbb{F}^{r \times md}_{q}$ is called the encoding matrix for the given index code. With the encoding function being linear, if $d=1$, the code is said to be scalar linear, else it is said to be vector linear. In this paper, we only consider scalar linear codes. If $n=m$, the index coding problem (ICP) is called single unicast ICP (SUICP). For an SUICP, without loss of generality, we assume that the $j$th receiver wants ${\bf{x}}_j$, $j \in [n]$.
Any groupcast ICP can be represented using a fitting matrix which was introduced in [@BY] and was defined again in [@PK] to include the groupcast problem. It contains unknown entries denoted by $x$. Each row of the fitting matrix represents a receiver and each column represents a message.
An $n \times m$ matrix ${\bf{F}}_x$ is called the fitting matrix of an ICP described by $(m,n,\mathcal{K},f)$, where the ($i,j$)th entry is given by $$[{\bf{F}}_x]_{i,j}=
\begin{cases}
x & if \ {\bf{x}}_j \in \mathcal{K}_i,\\
1 & if \ j = f(i),\\
0 & otherwise.
\end{cases}$$ $\forall$ $i \in [n]$, and $j \in [m]$.
The minimum rank of ${\bf{F}}_x$ obtained by replacing the $x$’s in ${\bf{F}}_x$ with arbitrary values from $\mathbb{F}_q$ is called the minrank of ${\bf{F}}_x$ or that of the ICP described by $(m,n,\mathcal{K},f)$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. It has been shown in [@DSC] that the optimal codelength of any scalar linear code over $\mathbb{F}_q$ is equal to the minrank of ${\bf{F}}_x$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$, denoted as $mrk_{q}({\bf{F}}_x)$. We say ${\bf{F}} \approx {\bf{F}}_x$ (${\bf{F}}$ completes ${\bf{F}}_x$ or equivalently ${\bf{F}}$ is a completion of ${\bf{F}}_x$), if ${\bf{F}}$ is obtained from ${\bf{F}}_x$ by replacing all the unknown elements by arbitrary elements from the given field of interest.
The notion of joint extensions of any finite number of SUICPs was introduced in [@CBSR]. We extend the definition to include joint extensions of any finite number of groupcast ICPs.
Consider $l$ ICPs where the $i$th ICP $\mathcal{I}_i$ is described using the fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}_x^{(i)}$, $i \in [l]$. An ICP $\mathcal{I}_{E}$ whose fitting matrix is given by ${\bf{F}}^{E}_{x}$ is called a jointly extended ICP (or simply a joint extension of $l$ ICPs), extended using ICPs $\mathcal{I}_1,...,\mathcal{I}_l$, if ${\bf{F}}^{E}_{x}$ consists of all ${\bf{F}}_x^{(i)}$’s, $i \in [l]$, as its disjoint submatrices. The $l$ ICPs are called as the component problems (or sub-problems) of the jointly extended problem.
In this paper, we study a special class of joint extensions of $m_B$ groupcast ICPs described as follows. Let the ICP $\mathcal{I}_B$ described by the $n_B \times m_B$ fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}_x^{B}$, be called the base problem. Let $l_j$ denote the number of occurrences of $1$ in the $j$th column of ${\bf{F}}_x^{B}$, $j \in [m_B]$. The superscript and subscript $``B"$ stands for the base problem. Let the $i$th component ICP $\mathcal{I}_i$ be described by the $n_i \times m_i$ fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}_x^{(i)}$, $i \in [m_B]$. Then, we have the joint extension $\mathcal{I}_E$ of the $m_B$ component ICPs with respect to the base problem $\mathcal{I}_B$, described by the $n_E \times m_E$ fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ as given below in terms of its block matrices, where $n_E=\underset{j \in [m_B]}{\Sigma} n_jl_j$, and $m_E=\underset{i \in [m_B]}{\Sigma} m_i$. $$\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,j}=
\begin{cases}
{\bf{X}} & if \ [{\bf{F}}^{B}_x]_{i,j} = x,\\
{\bf{F}}_x^{(j)} & if \ [{\bf{F}}^{B}_x]_{i,j} = 1,\\
{\bf{0}} & otherwise.
\end{cases}$$ $\forall$ $i \in [n_B]$, and $j \in [m_B]$. That is, ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ is obtained from ${\bf{F}}_x^{B}$ by replacing the $1$’s in its $j$th column by ${\bf{F}}_x^{(j)}$, and replacing $x$’s and $0$’s by ${\bf{X}}$’s and ${\bf{0}}$’s of appropriate sizes respectively. The dependence of $\mathcal{I}_E$ on $(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]}$ and $\mathcal{I}_B$ is denoted as $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$. Throughout this paper, whenever we refer to blocks (or block matrices) of ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$, we refer to the block matrices that are induced by ${\bf{F}}_x^{B}$ as seen in the construction of ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ from the fitting matrices of the component ICPs based on the fitting matrix of the base problem. The $i$th row of block matrices in ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ refers to the matrix $\big(\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,1}| \big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,2}|\cdots|\cdots|\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,m_B}\big)$, $i \in [n_B]$. For the sake of brevity, we refer to the $i$th row of block matrices of a matrix as its $i$th block-row. Similarly, we refer to the $j$th column of block matrices, $j \in [m_B]$, and call it the $j$th block-column.
In a recent work [@FYGL], generalized lexicographic product of a finite number of side-information digraphs was introduced. The class of joint extensions introduced in this paper reduces to the generalized lexicographic product, if the base ICP $\mathcal{I}_B$ and all the ICPs $(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]}$ are SUICPs. When the base problem and all the component problems are SUICPs, the side-information digraph $G_0$ in the generalized lexicographic product in [@FYGL] corresponds to the base problem $\mathcal{I}_B$ stated in this paper.
We illustrate the construction of the extended problem using two running examples, given the base problem and the component problems, in terms of the respective fitting matrices.
Consider $m_B=n_B=3$. The base problem $\mathcal{I}_{B}$ is described by the fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}_x^{B}$. Let the component problems $(\mathcal{I}_{i})_{i \in [m_B]}$ be described by $({\bf{F}}_x^{(i)})_{i \in [m_B]}$ respectively. $${\bf{F}}_x^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & x & 0 \\
0 & 1 & x \\
x & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & x & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & x & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & x\\
x & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}_x^{(2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x \\
x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & x \\
x & 1 & 0 \\
x & x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Observe that $n_1=m_1=4, n_2=m_2=2, n_3=m_3=3$, and $l_1=l_2=l_3=1$. All the problems involved in the construction of the extended problem are SUICPs. The extended problem $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$ is described by ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ with $n_E=m_E=4+3+2=9$. The block matrices of ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ are indicated by the partition shown in ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$. $${\bf{F}}_x^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc|cc|ccc}
1 & x & 0 & 0 & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & x & 0 & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
x & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & x & x & x \\
\hline
x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & x \\
x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & 0 \\
x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & x & x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ \[exmp1\]
The following example illustrates the construction of an extended problem which is a groupcast problem, with the base problem also being a groupcast problem.
Consider $m_B=4,n_B=5$. The base problem and the component problems are described by the fitting matrices given below respectively. $${\bf{F}}_x^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & x & 0 & 0 \\
0 & x & 1 & 0 \\
x & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & x & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & x \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & x & 0\\
0 & x & 1\\
x & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & x\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}_x^{(2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x \\
x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & x \\
x & 1 & 0 \\
x & x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(4)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1
\end{array}
\right)
.$$ Observe that $n_1=4, m_1=3, n_2=m_2=2, n_3=m_3=3,$ and $ n_4=m_4=1$. Also, $l_1=l_2=l_4=1$ and $l_3=2$. Note that $\mathcal{I}_1$ is a groupcast problem. The extended problem $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$ is described by ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ with $n_E=4+2+(2*3)+1=13,$ and $ m_E=3+2+3+1=9$. $${\bf{F}}_x^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc|cc|ccc|c}
1 & x & 0 & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & x & 1 & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
x & 1 & 0 & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & 1 & 0 & x & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & x & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & x & x & 1 & 0 \\
\hline
x & x & x & 1 & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
x & x & x & x & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & x & 1 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & x & x \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & 0 & x \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & 1 & x \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ \[exmp2\]
The following notations are required for the construction of a larger index code from component index codes. Let $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ be two codewords of length $l_1$ and $l_2$ respectively. $\mathcal{C}_1 + \mathcal{C}_2$ denotes the element-wise addition of $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ after zero-padding the shorter message at the least significant positions to match the length of the longer message. The resulting length of the codeword is $max(l_1,l_2)$. For example, if $\mathcal{C}_1=1010$, and $\mathcal{C}_2=110$, then $\mathcal{C}_1 + \mathcal{C}_2 = 0110$. $\mathcal{C}[a:b]$ denotes the vector obtained by picking the element from position $a$ to element with position $b$, starting from the most significant position of the codeword $\mathcal{C}$, with $a,b \in [l]$, $l$ being the length of $\mathcal{C}$. For example $\mathcal{C}_1[2:4]=010$.
The results presented in this paper hold for any finite field. But, we consider only $q=2$ (binary field) for simplicity.
Main Results
============
In this section, we first provide a lower bound on the minrank of the jointly extended problem introduced in the previous section, in terms of those of the component problems and the upper-triangulable submatrices of the base problem. Then, we provide a code construction (not necessarily optimal) for a special class of the jointly extended problem, in terms of those of the component problems and the base problem. We then provide necessary conditions for the optimality of the code construction.\
The following lemma provides a lower bound on the minrank of $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$. The proof follows on similar lines as that of Lemma 4.2 in [@DSC1]. We provide the proof for completeness. The set of all upper-triangulable submatrices of ${\bf{F}}^B_x$ is given by $$\mathcal{U}_B=\{ {\bf{M}}_x: {\bf{M}}_x \prec {\bf{F}}^B_x, {\bf{M}}_x \in \mathcal{U}^{\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}}_x)}_q \}.$$
For a given jointly extended ICP $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{E}_x) \geq max \{\underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x): {\bf{M}}_x \in \mathcal{U}_B\}.
\end{gathered}$$ \[lowbnd\]
Consider the submatrix ${\bf{M}}^E_x$ corresponding to an ${\bf{M}}_x$ constructed using the block matrices of ${\bf{F}}^E_x$ as follows. Let $(s_i,t_j)$ with $i \in [\mathcal{R}({\bf{M}}_x)]$ and $j \in [\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}}_x)]$, be an element of the cartesian product given by $row({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x) \times col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$ for any ${\bf{M}}_x \in \mathcal{U}_B$. Then, the $(i,j)$th block matrix of ${\bf{M}}^E_x$ is given by $\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{s_i,t_j}$. From the construction of ${\bf{M}}^{E}_x$ and the fact that ${\bf{M}}_x$ is an upper-triangulable matrix, we see that ${\bf{M}}^E_x$ can be written as a block upper-triangular matrix ${\bf{U}}^{E}_x$, by permuting the rows and/or columns of block matrices of ${\bf{M}}^{E}_x$ using the same permutations that make ${\bf{M}}_x$ an upper-triangular matrix with all its diagonal entries being $1$. To prove the lemma, we find the minrank of ${\bf{M}}^{E}_x$ as ${\bf{M}}^{E}_x$ corresponds to a sub-problem of ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$. Note that the minrank of any sub-problem is not greater than that of the original problem. Hence, we first provide an upper bound for $mrk_q({\bf{M}}^{E}_x)$ and then provide a matching lower bound.
With all matrices ${\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}_x$, $t_j \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$, $j \in [\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}}_x)]$, now being the diagonal block matrices of ${\bf{U}}^{E}_x$, if ${\bf{F}}^{(t_j)} \approx {\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}_x$, then the block diagonal matrix ${\bf{D}}^{E}$ with its diagonal block matrices being ${\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}$ in some order (due to the permutations applied on the rows and/or columns of block matrices of ${\bf{M}}^E_x$), we see that ${\bf{D}}^{E} \approx {\bf{U}}^{E}_x$. As $rk_q({\bf{D}}^{E})=\underset{t_j \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(t_j)})$. Thus, we have $$\begin{gathered}
mrk_q({\bf{M}}^{E}_x)= mrk_q({\bf{U}}^{E}_x)\leq rk_q({\bf{D}}^{E}) \\ = \underset{t_j \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}_x),\end{gathered}$$ where in the last equality, we take ${\bf{F}}^{(t_j)} \approx {\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}_x$ such that $rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(t_j)})=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}_x)$.
Now, we provide a matching lower bound. If ${\bf{U}}^{E} \approx {\bf{U}}^{E}_x$, then ${\bf{U}}^{E}$ must be a block upper-triangular matrix. Note that the diagonal block entries $\big[[{\bf{U}}^{E}]\big]_{j',j'} \approx \big[[{\bf{U}}^{E}_x]\big]_{j',j'}$, and $\big[[{\bf{U}}^{E}_x]\big]_{j',j'}$ is equal to ${\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}_x$ for some $t_j \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$ (due to the permutations applied on the rows and/or columns of block matrices of ${\bf{M}}^E_x$), $j,j' \in [\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}}_x)]$. Thus, we have $$\begin{gathered}
rk_q({\bf{U}}^{E}) \geq \underset{j' \in [\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}}_x)]} {\sum} rk_q(\big[[{\bf{U}}^{E}]\big]_{j',j'}) \\ \geq \underset{t_j \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(t_j)}_x),\end{gathered}$$ which yields a matching lower bound by choosing ${\bf{U}}^{E}$ such that $rk_q({\bf{U}}^{E}) = mrk_q({\bf{U}}^{E}_x)$. This completes the proof.
This lower bound resembles the MAIS (Maximum Acyclic Induced Subgraph) bound introduced in [@BY], which is a lower bound on the minrank of the SUICP. However, the bound given in Lemma \[lowbnd\] need not be equal to the MAIS bound for $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$. The submatrix of the fitting matrix of an SUICP corresponding to any maximum acyclic induced subgraph of the side-information digraph is upper-triangulable (as the subgraph is acyclic). Hence, we get the MAIS bound for the SUICP.
The bound given in Lemma \[lowbnd\] also has an operational significance in finding a lower bound on the minrank of the jointly extended problem using the minranks of some of the component sub-problems and the set $\mathcal{U}_B$ instead of directly computing lower bounds like the MAIS bound which is computation intensive.
We illustrate the application of Lemma \[lowbnd\] with two running examples. In the first example, all the problems involved are SUICPs.
In Example \[exmp1\], we see that there are six upper-triangulable submatrices of ${\bf{F}}^B_x$, out of which considering all the $2 \times 2$ submatrices of ${\bf{F}}^B_x$ are sufficient to find the lower bound given in the lemma, as shown below. Note that $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(1)}_x)=3$, $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(2)}_x)=1$, and $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(3)}_x)=2$. $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), col({\bf{M}}_x^{(1)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,2\},\\
row({\bf{M}}_x^{(1)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) =\{1,2\}, \underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x^{(1)},{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=4.\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x^{(2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), col({\bf{M}}_x^{(2)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{2,3\},\\
row({\bf{M}}_x^{(2)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{2,3\}, \underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x^{(2)},{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=3.\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), col({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,3\},\\
row({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,3\}, \underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=5.\end{gathered}$$ Hence, according to the lemma we have $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{E}_x) \geq 5$. \[exmp3\]
In the following example, the base problem and a component problem are groupcast ICPs.
In Example \[exmp2\], it can be easily seen that there are no $4 \times 4$ upper-triangulable submatrices of ${\bf{F}}^B_x$, since any combination of $4$ rows consists of either rows $1$ and $3$ or rows $4$ and $5$, which if present in a $4 \times 4$ submatrix, the submatrix is not upper-triangulable. This is because the problem induced by rows ($1$ and $3$) and rows ($3$ and $4$) contain a cycle. Note that $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(1)}_x)=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(3)}_x)=2$ and $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(2)}_x)=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(4)}_x)=1$. Consider the submatrix given below which is upper-triangulable (There exist row and column permutations which make ${\bf{M}}_x$ upper-triangular). $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), row({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,2,4\}, \\ col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,3,4\},
\underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=5.
\end{gathered}$$ Hence, according to the lemma we have $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{E}_x) \geq 5$. \[exmp4\]
The following lemma provides a code construction (not necessarily optimal) for a particular class of the jointly extended ICP $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$ using codes of the component problems $(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]}$ and a code of the base problem $\mathcal{I}_B$.
For a given jointly extended ICP $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$, let ${\bf{F}}^{(j)} \approx {\bf{F}}^{(j)}_x$, $\forall j \in [m_B]$, such that $r_j=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(j)})$, where $r_j$ is not necessarily equal to $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(j)}_x)$. If there exists $(i)$ an upper-triangulable matrix ${\bf{M}}_x$ such that ${\bf{M}}_x \prec {\bf{F}}^B_x$ and $\{t_1, t_2, \cdots, t_{\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}}_x)}\}=col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$, where $(t_i)_{i \in [m_B]}$ is a permutation of $[m_B]$ such that $r_{t_1} \geq r_{t_2} \geq \cdots \geq r_{t_{r_B}}$, and $r_{t_{r_B}} \geq r_{t_{i}}$ for $i \geq r_B=\mathcal{C}({\bf{M}}_x)$, and $(ii)$ there exists an ${\bf{F}}^{B} \approx {\bf{F}}^{B}_x$ with $r_B=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{B})$, where $r_B$ need not be necessarily equal to $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{B}_x)$, such that the rows of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ indexed by the numbers in $row({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$ are independent, then there exists a scalar linear code of length $\underset{j \in [r_B]} {\sum} r_{t_j}$. \[upbnd\]
We provide a construction of a scalar linear code with the stated codelength. For an easier visualization of the code construction and to alleviate the need of more notations, we permute the rows of the fitting matrices and the completions (given in the statement of the lemma) of all the component problems and the base problem as stated in the following. We also permute the columns of the fitting matrix and the completion of the base problem. Note that the permutation applied on the columns and/or rows of any given fitting matrix (mentioned above) is same as that applied on the columns and/or rows of the respective completion. Then, we provide a code construction for the jointly extended ICP $\mathcal{I'}_E(\mathcal{I'}_B;(\mathcal{I'}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$, where the base problem ($\mathcal{I'}_B$) and all the component problems ($(\mathcal{I'}_i)_{i \in [m_B]}$) have fitting matrices obtained by the above mentioned permutations of rows and/or columns of the original fitting matrices. Note that there is no loss of generality in proving the lemma for the extended problem $\mathcal{I'}_E$ as the permutations mentioned above rename the messages (in the case of column permutations) and receivers (in the case of row permutations), which do not change the extended problem, the base problem and the component problems.
The rows of ${\bf{F}}^{(j)}$ and ${\bf{F}}^{(j)}_x$ are permuted with the same permutation such that the first $r_j$ rows of ${\bf{F}}^{(j)}$ are independent and span $\langle {\bf{F}}^{(j)} \rangle$ (the row space of ${\bf{F}}^{(j)}$), $\forall j \in [m_B]$. Note that such a permutation exists as $r_j=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(j)})$, $\forall j \in [m_B]$. Let $\{s_1,s_2,\cdots,s_{r_B}\}=row({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)$, where $(s_i)_{i \in [n_B]}$ is a permutation of $[n_B]$ such that $r_{s_1} \geq r_{s_2} \geq \cdots \geq r_{s_{r_B}}$, and $r_{s_{r_B}} \geq r_{s_i}$ for $i \geq r_B$, where $r_{s_i}=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(j)})$ such that $({\bf{F}}^{B}_x)_{s_i,j}=1$, $j \in [m_B]$. The rows of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ and ${\bf{F}}^{B}_x$ are permuted with the same permutation such that the rows of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ indexed by the elements in $row({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$ are mapped to the first $r_B$ rows of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ such that the row indexed by ${s_i}$ is mapped to the row indexed by $i$, $i \in [r_B]$. The columns of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ and ${\bf{F}}^{B}_x$ are also permuted with the same permutation such that the columns of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ indexed by the elements in $col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$ are mapped to the first $r_B$ columns of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$. Now, consider the fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$ of the jointly extended ICP $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$, with the fitting matrices of the base problem (${\bf{F}}^{B}_x$) and the component problems ($({\bf{F}}^{(j)}_x)_{j \in [m_B]}$) obtained after the above mentioned permutations. (Observe that we have not renamed the problems, fitting matrices, and their completions obtained after the permutation to have brevity in the notation. Due to the permutation, we now have $(t_i)_{i \in r_B}$ (defined in the statement of the theorem) mapped to $[r_B]$ in some order, which form the new $(t_i)_{i \in r_B}$. Hence, we now have $r_{r_B} \geq r_i, \forall i \geq r_B, i \in [m_B]$.) We now provide a completion of ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$ and show that it is a valid completion. Then, we prove that the codelength obtained by such a completion is $\underset{j \in [r_B]} {\sum} r_{j}$.
Let ${\bf{P}}^{(j)}$ be an $(n_j-r_j) \times r_j$ matrix such that the last $(n_j-r_j)$ rows of ${\bf{F}}^{(j)}$ are given by ${\bf{P}}^{(j)}{\bf{F}}^{(j)}_{[[r_j]]}$, $\forall j \in [m_B]$. Let ${\bf{P}}^{B}$ be an $(n_B-r_B) \times r_B$ matrix such that the last $(n_B-r_B)$ rows of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ are given by ${\bf{P}}^{B}{\bf{F}}^{B}_{[[r_B]]}$. Complete the first $r_i$ consecutive rows of the $i$th row of block matrices of ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$, $i \in [r_B]$, with $({\bf{{F}}}^{B}_{i,1}{\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,1)}|{\bf{{F}}}^{B}_{i,2}{\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,2)}|\cdots|\cdots|{\bf{{F}}}^{B}_{i,{m_B}}{\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,{m_B})})$, where ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,j)}$ is given as $${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,j)} =
\begin{cases}
{\bf{F}}^{(j)}_{[[r_i]]} & if \ r_j \geq r_i, \\
\left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf{F}}^{(j)}_{[[r_j]]}\\
\hline
{\bf{0}}_{(r_i-r_j) \times m_j}\\
\end{array}
\right) & if \ r_j < r_i.
\end{cases}
\label{Fcap}$$ $j \in [m_B]$. Note that ${\bf{{F}}}^{B}_{i,j}$ is a scalar for $i \in [n_B]$, and $j \in [m_B]$. Complete the next $n_i-r_i$ consecutive rows of the $i$th row of block matrices of ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$ with ${\bf{P}}^{(i)}({\bf{{F}}}^{B}_{i,1}{\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,1)}|{\bf{{F}}}^{B}_{i,2}{\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,2)}|\cdots|\cdots|{\bf{{F}}}^{B}_{i,{m_B}}{\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,{m_B})})$. Note that these $n_i-r_i$ consecutive rows are in the row space of the first $r_i$ consecutive rows of the $i$th row of block matrices. Note also that this is a valid completion of the first $r_B$ rows of block matrices of ${\bf{{F}}}^{E}_{x}$. Consider the matrix ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$ obtained by stacking the first $r_i$ rows of the $i$th row of block matrices of the completion one above the other starting from $i=1$, for $i \in [r_B]$.
From the fact that ${\bf{M}}_x$ is upper triangulable and hence by some permutations of the rows and columns of block matrices in ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$ it can be made upper-triangular. The resulting matrix has ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,i)}$, $i \in [r_B]$, as its block diagonal matrices which are full rank matrices. By appropriate row reductions of the rows of block matrices, it can be easily seen that the rank of this matrix is $\underset{j \in [r_B]} {\sum} r_{j}$. Now, we complete the remaining rows of block matrices of ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$ and provide a completion which is in the row space of the matrix ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$ described above.
Consider any $i$th row of block matrices for $i \in [n_B] \setminus [r_B]$. Let $j_i \in [m_B]$ be such that $[{\bf{F}}^{B}_x]_{i,j_i}=1$. Complete the first $r_{j_i}$ rows of any $(i,j)$th block matrix $\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,j}$, $j \in [m_B]$, using $\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}]\big]_{i,j}=\underset{k \in [r_B]} {\sum} {\bf{P}}^{B}_{i,k}{\bf{F}}^{B}_{k,j}{\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(k,j)}_{[[r_{j_i}]]} = (\underset{k \in [r_B]} {\sum} {\bf{P}}^{B}_{i,k}{\bf{F}}^{B}_{k,j}){\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(1,j)}_{[[r_{j_i}]]}$, as ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(k,j)}_{[[r_{j_i}]]}={\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(1,j)}_{[[r_{j_i}]]}$ for any $k \in [r_B]$ from the definition of ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{(i,j)}$. It can be easily verified that this is a valid completion of any $(i,j)$th block matrix $\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,j}$. If $j=j_i$, then $\underset{k \in [r_B]} {\sum} {\bf{P}}^{B}_{i,k}{\bf{F}}^{B}_{k,j}=1$, as ${\bf{F}}^{B} \approx {\bf{F}}^{B}_x$, and hence $\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}]\big]_{i,j} \approx \big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,j}$. If $j \neq j_i$ such that $[{\bf{F}}^{B}_x]_{i,j}=0$, we know that $\underset{k \in [r_B]} {\sum} {\bf{P}}^{B}_{i,k}{\bf{F}}^{B}_{k,j}=0$ (as ${\bf{F}}^{B} \approx {\bf{F}}^{B}_x$ as before), and hence again $\big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}]\big]_{i,j} \approx \big[[{\bf{F}}^{E}_x]\big]_{i,j}$. Similarly it can be verified that the first $r_{j_i}$ rows of the $i$th row of block matrices is in the row space of ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$. The remaining $n_i-r_{j_i}$ rows of any $i$th row of block matrices for $i \in [n_B] \setminus [r_B]$ are filled by pre-multiplying the first $r_{j_i}$ rows of the $i$th row of block matrices by ${\bf{P}}^{(j_i)}$. It can be easily verified that this is a valid completion and the completion is in the row space of the first $r_{j_i}$ rows, which is in turn in the row space of ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$. This completes the proof.
We illustrate the use of Lemma \[upbnd\] using a running example.
(Example \[exmp1\] continued) Consider the completions ${\bf{F}}^{(i)}$ of ${\bf{F}}^{(i)}_x$, $i \in [3]$ as given below with $r_1=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(1)})=3$, $r_2=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(2)})=1$, and $r_3=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{(3)})=3$. $${\bf{F}}^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),~
{\bf{F}}^{(2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),~
{\bf{P}}^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),~
{\bf{P}}^{(2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that only the completions ${\bf{F}}^{(1)}$ and ${\bf{F}}^{(2)}$ correspond to optimal codes as $r_1$ and $r_2$ are equal to $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(1)}_x)$ and $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(2)}_x)$ respectively. Also, $r_1 \geq r_3 \geq r_2$. Hence, letting $t_1=1$, $t_2=3$, and $t_3=2$, and taking the third submatrix ${\bf{M}}_x^{(3)}$ of ${\bf{F}}^B_x$ given in Example \[exmp3\] (given below for easy reference), we see that the condition $(i)$ given in Lemma \[upbnd\] is satisfied. $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), row({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,3\},\\ col({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,3\}.
\end{gathered}$$ Note that by taking ${\bf{F}}^{B} \approx {\bf{F}}^{B}_x$ as given below, condition $(ii)$ given in Lemma \[upbnd\] is also satisfied. $${\bf{F}}^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), r_B=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{B})=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{B}_x)=2.$$ Now we complete the fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}^E_x$ as given in Lemma \[upbnd\] as shown below. Note that double lines (in ${\bf{F}}^E$) used for partitioning correspond to the block matrices of ${\bf{F}}^E_x$. The single lines correspond to the construction given in Lemma \[upbnd\]. The matrix ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$ is also shown below. $${\bf{F}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc||cc||ccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
\hline
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ $${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc||cc||ccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
\hline
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Consider the message set given by $\mathcal{M}=\{{\bf{x}}_1={\bf{x}}_1^{(1)},{\bf{x}}_2={\bf{x}}_1^{(2)},{\bf{x}}_3={\bf{x}}_1^{(3)},{\bf{x}}_4={\bf{x}}_1^{(4)},{\bf{x}}_5={\bf{x}}_2^{(1)},{\bf{x}}_6={\bf{x}}_2^{(2)},{\bf{x}}_7={\bf{x}}_3^{(1)},{\bf{x}}_8={\bf{x}}_3^{(2)},{\bf{x}}_9={\bf{x}}_3^{(3)}\}$. The index code is given by ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}{\bf{x}}$, where $x=({\bf{x}}_1~{\bf{x}}_2~{\bf{x}}_3~{\bf{x}}_4~{\bf{x}}_5~{\bf{x}}_6~{\bf{x}}_7~{\bf{x}}_8~{\bf{x}}_9)^T$. Hence, the code is given by $\mathcal{C}_E=({\bf{x}}_1+{\bf{x}}_2+{\bf{x}}_5+{\bf{x}}_6$, $~{\bf{x}}_2+{\bf{x}}_3$, $~{\bf{x}}_3+{\bf{x}}_4$, $~{\bf{x}}_1+{\bf{x}}_2+{\bf{x}}_7$, $~{\bf{x}}_2+{\bf{x}}_3+{\bf{x}}_8$, $~{\bf{x}}_3+{\bf{x}}_4+{\bf{x}}_9)$. It can be easily verified that all receivers can decode their wanted messages using their side-information and $\mathcal{C}_E$.
Note that the code given by ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ for the base problem is $\mathcal{C}_B=({\bf{x}}^{(B)}_1+{\bf{x}}^{(B)}_2,~ {\bf{x}}^{(B)}_1+{\bf{x}}^{(B)}_3)$, where the message set for the base problem is given by $\mathcal{M}_B=\{{\bf{x}}^{(B)}_1,{\bf{x}}^{(B)}_2,{\bf{x}}^{(B)}_3\}$. Considering the codes of the component problems given by $\mathcal{C}_1=({\bf{x}}_1^{(1)}+{\bf{x}}_2^{(1)},~ {\bf{x}}_2^{(1)}+{\bf{x}}_3^{(1)},~{\bf{x}}_3^{(1)}+{\bf{x}}_4^{(1)})$, $\mathcal{C}_2=({\bf{x}}_1^{(2)}+{\bf{x}}_2^{(2)})$, and $\mathcal{C}_3=({\bf{x}}_1^{(3)},~ {\bf{x}}_2^{(3)},~{\bf{x}}_3^{(3)})$, we see that the code $\mathcal{C}_E$ can also be written as $(\mathcal{C}_1 + \mathcal{C}_2,\mathcal{C}_1 + \mathcal{C}_3 )$. This shows the dependence of the code $\mathcal{C}_E$ on those of the base problem and the component problems. In the code $\mathcal{C}_B$, ${\bf{x}}^{(B)}_i$ is replaced by $\mathcal{C}_i$, for $i \in [m_B]$, to obtain $\mathcal{C}_E$.
We now provide an example with a given groupcast ICP.
Consider the groupcast ICP given by the fitting matrix shown below with $n_E=14$ and $m_E=11$. $${\bf{F}}^{E}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & x & 0 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
x & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & x & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & x & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & x & x\\
x & x & x & x & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
x & x & x & x & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 1 & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ It can be easily identified that this problem is a jointly extended ICP introduced in this paper. The fitting matrices of the component problems and the base problem are given below. $${\bf{F}}^{B}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & x & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & x\\
0 & 0 & 1 & x \\
x & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & x & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right), ~{\bf{F}}^{(1)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & x & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
x & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}^{(2)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
x & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right), ~{\bf{F}}^{(3)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
x & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}^{(4)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x\\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(1)}_x)=4$, $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(2)}_x)=3$, $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(3)}_x)=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(4)}_x)=2$, and $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{B}_x)=3$. As in Example \[exmp4\], we find that there are no $4 \times 4$ upper-triangulable submatrices of ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$. By enumerating all possible $3 \times 3$ submatrices, we see that there are three $3 \times 3$ upper-triangulable submatrices as given below. $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & x & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),~ row({\bf{M}}_x^{(1)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,2,3\}, \\ col({\bf{M}}_x^{(1)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,2,3\}, \underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x^{(1)},{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=9.\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x^{(2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & x \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),~ row({\bf{M}}_x^{(2)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,3,5\}, \\ col({\bf{M}}_x^{(2)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{1,3,4\}, \underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x^{(2)},{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=8.\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & x \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
x & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),~ row({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{3,4,5\}, \\ col({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{2,3,4\}, \underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x^{(3)},{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=7.\end{gathered}$$ Consider the completion of ${\bf{F}}^B_x$ given below. Observe that the first three rows are independent and span $\langle {\bf{F}}^B \rangle$. Note that this choice of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ and ${\bf{M}}_x^{(1)}$ satisfy conditions $(i)$ and $(ii)$ given in the lemma. $${\bf{F}}^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ We complete ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$ as given in the lemma. The encoding matrix ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$ obtained by this completion is also given below. Observe that the codelength is $4+3+2=9$ as stated by the lemma. $${\bf{F}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc||ccc||cc||cc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ $${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc||ccc||cc||cc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ \[exmp6\]
Now, we state and prove the main result of this section, which establishes the minrank of a special class of jointly extended problems identified in this paper.
For a given jointly extended ICP $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$, with $r_j=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(j)}_x)$, $\forall j \in [m_B]$. Let $r_{t_1} \geq r_{t_2} \geq \cdots \geq r_{t_{m_B}}$, where $t_j,j \in [m_B]$. If there exists $(i)$ an upper-triangulable matrix ${\bf{\hat{M}}}_x \prec {\bf{F}}^B_x$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\underset{s \in col({\bf{\hat{M}}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\Sigma} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x) = \\ max \{\underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\Sigma} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x): {\bf{M}}_x \in \mathcal{U}_B\},
\end{gathered}$$ where $col({\bf{\hat{M}}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{t_1, t_2, \cdots, t_{\mathcal{C}({\bf{\hat{M}}}_x)}\}$, and there exists $(ii)$ an ${\bf{F}}^{B} \approx {\bf{F}}^{B}_x$ with $r_B=rk_q({\bf{F}}^{B})=\mathcal{C}({\bf{\hat{M}}}_x)$, such that the rows of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ indexed by the numbers in $row({\bf{\hat{M}}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x)$ are independent, then we have $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{E}_x)=\underset{j \in [r_B]} {\sum} r_{t_j}$. \[thm1\]
The proof follows directly from Lemmas \[lowbnd\] and \[upbnd\], which provide a lower bound and the matching upper bound respectively, with the conditions stated in the theorem.
The optimality of the scalar linear code given in Example \[exmp6\] follows from this theorem. We provide another example to illustrate the use of the theorem.
Consider the groupcast ICP given by the fitting matrix shown below with $n_E=15$ and $m_E=14$. The fitting matrices of the component problems and the base problem are also identified given below. $${\bf{F}}^{E}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
1 & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & x & 0 & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & x\\
0 & 0 & x & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & x\\
x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & 0 & x & x & x & x\\
x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & x\\
x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x\\
x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & x & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x\\
x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & 0 & 0\\
x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & x\\
x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x\\
x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & 0 & 0\\
x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ $${\bf{F}}^{B}_x={\bf{F}}^{(3)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & x & x & 0\\
0 & 1 & x & x\\
x & 0 & 1 & x\\
x & x & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}^{(1)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x\\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}^{(2)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & x & 0\\
0 & 1 & x\\
x & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}^{(4)}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & x & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & x\\
0 & 0 & 1 & x\\
x & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & x & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(1)}_x)=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(2)}_x)=mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(3)}_x)=2$, and $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(4)}_x)=3$. Observe that there are no upper-triangulable matrices of size $3 \times 3$ in ${\bf{F}}^{B}_x$. Consider the following upper-triangulable submatrix. $$\begin{gathered}
{\bf{M}}_x=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x\\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),~ row({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{3,4\}, \\ col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^B_x) = \{3,4\}, \underset{s \in col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(s)}_x)=5.\end{gathered}$$ Consider the completion of ${\bf{F}}^B_x$ given below. Observe that the last two rows are independent and span $\langle {\bf{F}}^B \rangle$. Note that this choice of ${\bf{F}}^{B}$ and ${\bf{M}}_x$ satisfy conditions $(i)$ and $(ii)$ given in the theorem. $${\bf{F}}^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ We complete ${\bf{F}}^{E}_x$ as given in Lemma \[upbnd\]. The encoding matrix ${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}$ obtained by this completion is also given below. Observe that the codelength is $3+2=5$ as stated by the theorem. $${\bf{F}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc|ccc|cccc|cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ $${\bf{\hat{F}}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc|ccc|cccc|cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\hline
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$
An algorithm to obtain scalar linear codes for a special class of jointly extended problems
===========================================================================================
In this section, we provide an algorithm (Algorithm $1$) to construct scalar linear codes for the special class of jointly extended problems identified in this paper (Section II). Any scalar linear code of every sub-problem and that of the base problem are given in terms of their encoding matrices as inputs to the algorithm. An encoding matrix of the given code for the $i$th sub-problem with codelength $r_i$ is denoted as ${\bf{G}}^{(i)}$, $i \in [m_B]$ (of size $r_i \times m_i$). An encoding matrix of the given code for the base problem with codelength $r_B$ is denoted as ${\bf{G}}^{B}$ (of size $r_B \times m_B$). An associated decoding matrix of the given code of the base problem (denoted as ${\bf{D}}^B$) and its fitting matrix are also inputs to the algorithm. The algorithm provides a scalar linear code for the jointly extended problem in terms of an encoding matrix denoted as ${\bf{G}}^E$. The given codes of the sub-problems and the base problem need not be optimal. The resulting scalar linear code of the jointly extended problem need not be optimal, even when all the related codes (inputs to the algorithm) are optimal. We can obtain different scalar linear codes for the jointly extended problem by providing different sets of codes for the sub-problems and the base problem as inputs to the algorithm.
Full-rank encoding matrices $\{{\bf{G}}^{(i)}\}_{i \in [m_B]}$ of problems $(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]}$ with respective sizes given by $\{r_i \times m_i\}_{i \in [m_B]}$, a full-rank $r_B \times m_B$ encoding matrix ${\bf{G}}^{B}$ of $\mathcal{I}_B$, an associated $n_B \times r_B$ decoding matrix ${\bf{D}}^{B}$, and the fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}_x^{B}$ of the base problem.
An encoding matrix ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ giving a code for $\mathcal{I}_E$.
Let $\sigma : [m_B] \rightarrow [m_B]$ be any permutation such that $r_{\sigma(1)} \geq r_{\sigma(2)} \geq \cdots \geq r_{\sigma(m_B)}$, $\Psi = [r_B]$, and $t=1$. $\mathcal{U}^{(t)} \triangleq \{ u : ({\bf{F}}_{x}^{B})_{u,\sigma(t)} = 1$, $u \in [n_B] \}.$ Let $\mathcal{U}^{(t)} = \{u^{(t,1)}, u^{(t,2)}, \cdots ,u^{(t,|\mathcal{U}^{(t)}|)} \}$. Initialize $\mathcal{A}^{(t)} = \phi$, $\mathcal{B}^{(0,j)}=\phi$, for all $j \in [m_B]$. $\mathcal{A}^{(t)} \leftarrow \{k : {\bf{D}}^{B}_{u^{(t,i)},k}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{k,\sigma(t)} \neq 0, k \in \Psi\} \cup \mathcal{A}^{(t)}$. Let $\mathcal{A}^{(t)} = \{a^{(t,1)},\cdots,a^{(t,|\mathcal{A}^{(t)}|)}\}$. Initialize $\mathcal{B}^{(t,j)}=\phi$, for all $j \in [m_B]$. Let $\mathcal{B}^{(t-1)} = \{\mathcal{B}^{(t-1,1)},\cdots,\mathcal{B}^{(t-1,m_B)}\}$. $(\mathcal{A}^{(t)},t,\{\mathcal{B}^{(t')}\}_{t' \in [t-1]}, \{(r_{i},{\bf{G}}^{(i)})\}_{i \in [m_B]})$. Set $\Psi \leftarrow \Psi \setminus \mathcal{A}^{(t)}$. $\mathcal{V}^{(t,i)} \triangleq \{v: ({\bf{F}}^{B}_x)_{u^{(t,i)},v}=0\}$. Let $\mathcal{V}^{(t,i)} = \{v^{(t,i)}_1,\cdots,v^{(t,i)}_{|\mathcal{V}^{(t,i)}|}\}$. $\mathcal{Y}=\{k : {\bf{D}}^{B}_{u^{(t,i)},k}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{k,v^{(t,i)}_j} \neq 0, ~k \in \Psi\}$. $\mathcal{B}^{(t,v^{(t,i)}_j)} \leftarrow \mathcal{Y} \cup \mathcal{B}^{(t,v^{(t,i)}_j)}$. $\mathcal{B}^{(t,\sigma(t))} \leftarrow \mathcal{Y} \cup \mathcal{B}^{(t,\sigma(t))}$. Let $\Psi = \{a_1, \cdots, a_{|\Psi|}\}$. $\hat{r}_{a_i}= max \{r_k : a_i \in \mathcal{B}^{(t',k)}, (t',k) \in [m_B]$ $~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\times [m_B]\}$. Fill $(a_i,j)$th block matrix of ${\bf{G}}^{E}$, $~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$ with ${\bf{G}}^{B}_{a_i,j}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(a_i,j)}$, $\forall j \in [m_B]$, where ${\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(a_i,j)}$ $~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$ is given by $${\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(a_i,j)}=
\begin{cases}
{\bf{G}}^{(j)}_{[[\hat{r}_{a_i}]]} & if \ \hat{r}_{a_i} < r_j,\\
\left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf{G}}^{(j)}\\
\hline
{\bf{0}}_{(\hat{r}_{a_i}-r_{j}) \times m_j}\\
\end{array}
\right) & \ otherwise.
\end{cases}$$ $\Psi \leftarrow \phi$. $t \leftarrow t+1$.
Encoding matrix ${\bf{G}}^E$ of size $ (\underset{i \in [r_B]}{\Sigma} \hat{r}_i) \times (\underset{j \in [m_B]}{\Sigma} m_j)$.
The algorithm uses the given codes of the sub-problems according to that of the base problem to complete the fitting matrix of the jointly extended problem. We assume the encoding matrix ${\bf{G}}^E$ provided by the algorithm to be of the form as given in (\[extGmat\]) (having $r_B$ block-rows and $m_B$ block-columns). Similarly, an associated decoding matrix ${\bf{D}}^E$ is assumed to be of the form as given in (\[extDmat\]). The validity of these encoding and decoding matrices is proved in Theorem \[lemexplbase\]. For any given $j \in [m_B]$ and all $i \in [r_B]$, the matrices $\hat{{\bf{G}}}^{(i,j)}$ are obtained from ${\bf{G}}^{(j)}$ by either appending appropriate number of all-zero rows or deleting appropriate number of rows as given in the accompanying algorithm ${\bf{FILL}}$ (Algorithm $2$). Similarly, for any given $i \in [n_B]$ and all $j \in [r_B]$, the matrices $\hat{{\bf{D}}}^{(i,j)}$ are obtained from ${\bf{D}}^{(i)}$, by either appending all-zero columns or deleting appropriate number of columns as given in the proof of Theorem \[lemexplbase\]. The accompanying algorithm named as [**[FILL]{}**]{} progressively fills the $r_B$ block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$. The number of rows in each block-row is also decided and given as $\hat{r}_i$, $i \in [r_B]$, in [**[FILL]{}**]{}.
$\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$, $t$, $\{\mathcal{B}^{(t')}\}_{t' \in [t-1] }$, $\{(r_{i},{\bf{G}}^{(i)})\}_{i \in [m_B]}$.
Filled block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ and the number or rows $~~~~~~~~$ in each block-row with row indices in $\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$.
[**[FILL]{}**]{}$(\mathcal{A}^{(t)},t,\{\mathcal{B}^{(t')}\}_{t' \in [t-1]}, \{(r_{i},{\bf{G}}^{(i)})\}_{i \in [m_B]})$. $\hat{r}_{a^{(t,i)}}= max(r_{\sigma(t)}, max \{r_k : a^{(t,i)} \in \mathcal{B}^{(t',k)}, (t',k)$ $~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\in [t-1] \times [m_B]\})$. Fill the $(a^{(t,i)},j)$th block matrix of ${\bf{G}}^{E}$, $\forall j \in [m_B]$, $~~~~$ with ${\bf{G}}^{B}_{a^{(t,i)},j}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(a^{(t,i)},j)}$, where ${\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(a^{(t,i)},j)}$ is given by $~~~~~
{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(a^{(t,i)},j)}=
\begin{cases}
{\bf{G}}^{(j)}_{[[\hat{r}_{a^{(t,i)}}]]} & if \ \hat{r}_{a^{(t,i)}} < r_j,\\
\left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf{G}}^{(j)}\\
\hline
{\bf{0}}_{(\hat{r}_{a^{(t,i)}}-r_{j}) \times m_j}\\
\end{array}
\right) & \ otherwise.
\end{cases}
$
Block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ and the number of rows in each block-row with row indices in $\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$, given by $\{\hat{r}_{l}\}_{l \in \mathcal{A}^{(t)}}$.
\[subr1\]
We first choose a permutation $\sigma$ of the set $[m_B]$. The permutation $\sigma$ orders the codelengths of the given codes of all the sub-problems in any non-increasing order as given in Line $1$. The set $\Psi$ (initialized in Line $1$) consists of indices of the block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ that are not filled until the current iteration of the while loop. The while loop iterates until all the block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ are filled. Variable ‘$t$’ tracks the iteration number. Any $k$th row of ${\bf{G}}^B$ (equivalently $k$th block-row of ${\bf{G}}^E$), where $k \in [r_B]$, is said to contribute to the completion of the $(i,j)$th entry of ${\bf{F}}_x^B$ (equivalently $(i,j)$th block matrix of ${\bf{F}}_x^E$) for $i \in [n_B]$, $j \in [m_B]$, if ${\bf{D}}^B_{i,k}{\bf{G}}^B_{k,j}\neq 0$. In $t$th iteration of the while loop, we fill the block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ that contribute to the completion of all the occurrences of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ (in ${\bf{F}}_x^E$), that were not completed in previous iterations. This is explained further in the following.
In $t$th iteration, the set $\mathcal{U}^{(t)}$ consists of the indices of all rows of ${\bf{F}}_x^B$, which have a $1$ in $\sigma(t)$th column (Line $4$). Note that this is same as the set of indices of all the block-rows of ${\bf{F}}_x^E$, which have ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ in $\sigma(t)$th block-column. The set $\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$ consists of indices of all the rows of ${\bf{G}}^B$ that are present in $\Psi$, and contribute to the completion of some or all entries in $\sigma(t)$th column of ${\bf{F}}_x^B$ consisting of $1$’s (Line $7$). Hence, $\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$ consists of indices of all the block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ that are present in $\Psi$ (that is, they are not filled in any previous iterations), and contribute to completing some or all occurrences of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ in $\sigma(t)$th block-column of ${\bf{F}}_x^E$. This is made clear in the proof of Theorem \[lemexplbase\] and follows from taking the product ${\bf{D}}^E$${\bf{G}}^E$. Note that some occurrences of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ in $\sigma(t)$th block-column of ${\bf{F}}_x^E$ might be completed in previous iterations, as a result of completing the fitting matrices of sub-problems in ${\bf{F}}_x^E$ with larger given codelengths. The remaining occurrences of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ (if any are present) are completed in $t$th iteration. Thus, by the end of $t$th iteration, we fill all the the block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ that contribute to the completion of all the occurrences of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ in ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$.
Note that in $t$th iteration, the accompanying algorithm ${\bf{FILL}}$ fills the block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$, which contributes to completing those occurrences of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ in ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$, which were not completed by the block-rows filled in the previous iterations. Observe that the index of any row of ${\bf{G}}^B$ present in $[r_B] \setminus \Psi$ and contributing to completing any entry of ${\bf{F}}_x^B$ is not included in $\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$. These indices need not be taken into consideration, as the corresponding block-rows have already contributed in completing the fitting matrices of sub-problems in ${\bf{F}}_x^E$, with larger given codelengths than that of the sub-problem addressed in the current iteration.
The algorithm ${\bf{FILL}}$ fills the block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ with indices given by $\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$, after deciding the number of rows required for each of these block-rows. In the $t$th iteration, the number of rows required for each block-row is decided by the sets $\{\mathcal{B}^{(t')}\}_{t' \in [t-1]}$. These sets are filled in previous iterations as given from Line $14$ to Line $25$ of Algorithm $1$. Note that they are populated after updating the set $\Psi$. For every row index $u^{(t,i)}$ present in $\mathcal{U}^{(t)}$, $i \in [|\mathcal{U}^{(t)}|]$, the set $\mathcal{V}^{(t,i)}$ consists of the indices of block-columns containing ${\bf{0}}$ matrices present in $u^{(t,i)}$th block-row of ${\bf{F}}_x^E$. Note that the filling of block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ must also satisfy the completion of these block matrices by ${\bf{0}}$ matrices. For every index of the block-column present in $\mathcal{V}^{(t,i)}$, $i \in [|\mathcal{U}^{(t)}|]$, the set $\mathcal{Y}$ consists of the indices of block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$, that contribute to completing the ${\bf{0}}$ matrix in the given block-column and $u^{(t,i)}$th block-row. The set $\mathcal{B}^{(t,j)}$ consists of indices of block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$ that contribute to completing the ${\bf{0}}$ matrices present in $j$th block-column of ${\bf{F}}_x^E$, for $j \in [m_B]$. This set of indices is related to completing ${\bf{0}}$ matrices in the block-rows with indices in $\mathcal{A}^{(t)}$. Note that if $r_j \geq r_{\sigma(t)}$, then $\mathcal{B}^{(t,\sigma(t))}$ is updated instead of $\mathcal{B}^{(t,j)}$. This point will be made clear in the proof of Theorem \[lemexplbase\]. The Lines $26$ to $30$ describe the filling of any remaining block-rows of ${\bf{G}}^E$, after $m_B$ iterations of the while loop.
If the index of any block-row of ${\bf{G}}^E$ contributing to complete any occurrence of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ is not present in any set $\mathcal{B}^{(t',k)}$, for $t' \in [t-1]$, and $k \in [m_B]$, then the block-row is assigned $r_{\sigma(t)}$ rows. This implies that the desired block-row did not contribute to complete any block matrix of ${\bf{F}}_x^E$ in the previous iterations. However, if the index of any block-row of ${\bf{G}}^E$ contributing to complete any occurrence of ${\bf{F}}_x^{(\sigma(t))}$ is present in some set $\mathcal{B}^{(t',k)}$, for $t' \in [t-1]$, and $k \in [m_B]$, then the block-row is assigned the number of rows as given in Line $2$ of ${\bf{FILL}}$.
We illustrate Algorithm $1$ with an example and then provide a proof to show its correctness.
Consider $m_B=n_B=5$. The fitting matrices ${\bf{F}}_x^{B}$ and $({\bf{F}}_x^{(i)})_{i \in [m_B]}$ are given below. $${\bf{F}}_x^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & x & x & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & x & x & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & x & x \\
x & 0 & 0 & 1 & x \\
x & x & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & x & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & x & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & x\\
x & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}_x^{(2)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & x & 0\\
0 & 1 & x\\
x & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & x \\
x & 1 & 0 \\
x & x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{F}}_x^{(4)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & x \\
x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{F}}_x^{(5)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$ is given below without vertical partitions for reference. $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
1 & x & 0 & 0 & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & x & 0 & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
x & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & 0 & x & x & x & x & x & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 0 & 1 & x & x & x & x & x & 0\\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & x & x & x & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & 0 & x & x & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & x & x & x\\
\hline
x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x\\
x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & x\\
\hline
x & x & x & x & x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Let us consider some optimal encoding matrices of the related problems and an associated decoding matrix of the base problem as given below. These matrices are taken as inputs to Algorithm $1$. Note that $r_1=3,r_2=r_3=2,r_4=r_5=1$, and $r_B=3$. Let $\sigma$ be the identity permutation. That is, $\sigma(i)=i$, $\forall i \in \{1,2,3,4,5\}$. Initially, $\Psi = \{1,2,3\}$. $${\bf{G}}^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{D}}^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 1 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{G}}^{(1)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{G}}^{(2)}={\bf{G}}^{(3)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ $${\bf{G}}^{(4)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
{\bf{G}}^{(5)}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ For the first iteration, $\mathcal{U}^{(1)}=1$, $\mathcal{A}^{(1)}=3$, and hence $\hat{r}_{3}=r_1$ according to ${\bf{FILL}}$. Hence, the third block-row of ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ is given as below. Now $\Psi=\{1,2\}$, and $\mathcal{V}^{(1,1)}=\{4,5\}$. Hence, we get $\mathcal{B}^{(1,4)}=\{1,3\}$, and $\mathcal{B}^{(1,1)}=\mathcal{B}^{(1,2)}=\mathcal{B}^{(1,3)}=\mathcal{B}^{(1,5)}=\Phi$. $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ For the second iteration, $\mathcal{U}^{(2)}=2$, $\mathcal{A}^{(2)}=1$, and hence $\hat{r}_{1}=r_2$ according to ${\bf{FILL}}$. Hence, the first block-row of ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ is given as below. Now $\Psi=\{2\}$, and $\mathcal{V}^{(2,1)}=\{1,5\}$. Hence, $\mathcal{B}^{(2,1)}=\mathcal{B}^{(2,2)}=\mathcal{B}^{(2,3)}=\mathcal{B}^{(2,4)}=\mathcal{B}^{(2,5)}=\Phi$. $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ For the third iteration, $\mathcal{U}^{(3)}=3$, $\mathcal{A}^{(3)}=2$, and hence $\hat{r}_{2}=r_2$ according to ${\bf{FILL}}$. Hence, the second block-row of ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ is given as below. Now $\Psi=\Phi$, and the algorithm terminates. $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Hence, the overall encoding matrix ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ is given as below. $${\bf{G}}^{E} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc|ccc|ccc|cc|c}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ It can be easily verified that all the receivers are able to decode their demands from the code obtained using ${\bf{G}}^{E}$. \[exmp8\]
We use the following lemma which was stated in [@PK], as a necessary and sufficient condition for a given matrix to be an encoding matrix for the given index coding problem.
For an index coding problem $\mathcal{I}$ (groupcast or single unicast) with $n \times m$ fitting matrix ${\bf{F}}_x$, a matrix ${\bf{G}} \in \mathbb{F}^{r \times m}_q$ is an encoding matrix iff there exists a matrix ${\bf{D}} \in \mathbb{F}^{n \times r}_q$ such that ${\bf{D}}{\bf{G}}$ completes ${\bf{F}}_x$, i.e. ${\bf{D}}{\bf{G}} \approx {\bf{F}}_x$.\
\[dgmatrix\]
It can be easily observed that the indices of the non-zero entries of the $i$th row of ${\bf{D}}$ are same as the indices of the code symbols that must be used by the $i$th receiver to decode its demanded message, $i \in [n]$. Hence, we call the matrix ${\bf{D}}$ as an associated decoding matrix for the index code given by the encoding matrix ${\bf{G}}$. Note that for a given encoding matrix, there need not exist a unique associated decoding matrix, but many associated decoding matrices can exist. We now use Lemma \[dgmatrix\] to prove the correctness of Algorithm $1$.
$${\bf{G}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
{\bf{G}}^{B}_{1,1}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(1,1)} & \cdots & \cdots & {\bf{G}}^{B}_{1,m_B}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(1,m_B)} \\
\hline
{\bf{G}}^{B}_{2,1}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(2,1)} & \cdots & \cdots & {\bf{G}}^{B}_{2,m_B}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(2,m_B)} \\
\hline
\cdots & \ldots & \ldots & \cdots \\
\hline
{\bf{G}}^{B}_{r_B,1}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(r_B,1)} & \cdots & \cdots & {\bf{G}}^{B}_{r_B,m_B}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(r_B,m_B)} \\
\end{array}
\right).
\label{extGmat}$$
$${\bf{D}}^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
{\bf{D}}^{B}_{1,1}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(1,1)} & \cdots & \cdots & {\bf{D}}^{B}_{1,r_B}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(1,r_B)} \\
\hline
{\bf{D}}^{B}_{2,1}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(2,1)} & \cdots & \cdots & {\bf{D}}^{B}_{2,r_B}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(2,r_B)} \\
\hline
\cdots & \ldots & \ldots & \cdots \\
\hline
{\bf{D}}^{B}_{n_B,1}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(n_B,1)} & \cdots & \cdots & {\bf{D}}^{B}_{n_B,r_B}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(n_B,r_B)} \\
\end{array}
\right).
\label{extDmat}$$
For any problem $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$, the matrix ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ obtained using Algorithm \[algo1\] is a valid encoding matrix. \[lemexplbase\]
To prove this theorem, we construct a matrix ${\bf{D}}^{E}$ using $n_B \times r_B$ block matrices as in (\[extDmat\]). It is obtained by using corresponding decoding matrices $\{{\bf{D}}^{(i)}\}_{i \in [m_B]}$ of the encoding matrices $\{{\bf{G}}^{(i)}\}_{i \in [m_B]}$, and the decoding matrix ${\bf{D}}^{B}$ employed in Algorithm \[algo1\]. We then show that ${\bf{D}}^{E}$ and ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ are a valid pair of decoding and encoding matrices using Lemma \[dgmatrix\]. The $i$th decoding matrix ${\bf{D}}^{(i)}$ is of size $n_i \times r_i$, $i \in [m_B]$.
The $(i,j)$th block matrix of ${\bf{D}}^{E}$ be given by ${\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,j}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,j)}$, $i \in [n_B]$, $j \in [r_B]$, where ${\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,j)}$ is given by $${\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,j)}=
\begin{cases}
({\bf{D}}^{(f(i))})^{[[\hat{r}_j]]} & if \ r_{f(i)} > \hat{r}_j,\\
({\bf{D}}^{(f(i))} | {\bf{0}}_{n_{f(i)} \times (\hat{r}_{j}-r_{f(i)})}) & \ otherwise.
\end{cases}$$ where $f(i)$ is the index of the message demanded by the $i$th receiver and $\hat{r}_j$ is the number of rows in the $j$th block-row of ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ as assigned in ${\bf{FILL}}$. Note that when $r_{f(i)} > \hat{r}_j$, only the first $\hat{r}_j$ columns of ${\bf{D}}^{(f(i))}$ are taken.
We analyze any $i$th block-row of ${\bf{D}}^{E}{\bf{G}}^{E}$, $i \in [n_B]$, and prove that it completes $i$th block-row of ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$. ${\bf{D}}^{E}{\bf{G}}^{E}$ consists of $n_B \times m_B$ block matrices. Any $i$th block-row of ${\bf{D}}^{E}{\bf{G}}^{E}$, $i \in [n_B]$, is given by $({\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,1}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,1)}|\cdots|\cdots|{\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,r_B}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,r_B)}){\bf{G}}^{E}$. We first verify that $(i,f(i))$th block matrix of ${\bf{D}}^{E}{\bf{G}}^{E}$ completes ${\bf{F}}_x^{(f(i))}$, and is thus given by $\underset{j \in [r_B]} {\Sigma} {\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,j}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,j)}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{j,f(i)}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(j,f(i))}$, for any $i \in [n_B]$. From the construction given in Algorithm $1$ and its explanation, note that the matrices ${\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(j,f(i))}$ are not obtained by deleting any rows of ${\bf{G}}^{(f(i))}$, for those $j \in [r_B]$ which contribute to completing ${\bf{F}}^{(f(i))}_x$, $i \in [n_B]$. Hence, for such $j \in [r_B]$, note that ${\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,j)}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(j,f(i))}={\bf{D}}^{(f(i))}{\bf{G}}^{(f(i))} \approx \mathbb{F}_x^{(f(i))}$. Hence, we have $\underset{j \in [r_B]} {\Sigma} {\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,j}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,j)}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{j,f(i)}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(j,f(i))} = {\bf{D}}^{(f(i))}{\bf{G}}^{(f(i))} (\underset{j \in [r_B]} {\Sigma} {\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,j}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{j,f(i)}) = {\bf{D}}^{(f(i))}{\bf{G}}^{(f(i))} \times (1) \approx \mathbb{F}_x^{(f(i))}.$ The last equality follows as ${\bf{D}}^{B}$ is a decoding matrix of ${\bf{G}}^{B}$, and then using Lemma \[dgmatrix\].
Observe that there is no need to verify the completion of $(i,j)$th block matrix of ${\bf{F}}_x^{E}$, if it consists of only $x$’s, for all $i \in [n_B], j \in [m_B]$. Considering the $i$th block-row of ${\bf{D}}^{E}{\bf{G}}^{E}$, $i \in [n_B]$, we next verify that its $j$th block matrix is a zero matrix of appropriate dimensions (that is $(i,j)$th block matrix of $\mathbb{F}_x^{E}$), for $j \in [m_B]$ such that $(\mathbb{F}^{B}_x)_{i,j}=0$. This is given by $\underset{k \in [r_B]} {\Sigma} {\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,k}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,k)}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{k,j}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(k,j)}$. From the construction of Algorithm $1$, note that there is a possibility that ${\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(k,j)}$ is obtained by deleting the last $r_j-r_{f(i)}$ rows from ${\bf{G}}^{(j)}$. When this happens, note that all matrices ${\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,k)}$, $k \in [r_B]$, only have $r_{f(i)}$ non-zero rows. Hence the matrix ${\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,k)}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(k,j)}$ is the same, say ${\bf{B}}$ for all values of $k$. Therefore, $\underset{k \in [r_B]} {\Sigma} {\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,k}{\bf{\hat{D}}}^{(i,k)}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{k,j}{\bf{\hat{G}}}^{(k,j)}= {\bf{B}}\underset{k \in [r_B]} {\Sigma} {\bf{D}}^{B}_{i,k}{\bf{G}}^{B}_{k,j}=0\times{\bf{B}}={\bf{0}}$. The remaining case is dealt on similar lines, and we obtain an all-zero matrix. Hence the result.
Optimality of the constructed codes
===================================
In this section, we provide a necessary condition for the scalar linear optimality of the code constructed using Algorithm $1$, when the codes of the sub-problems and the base problem are also scalar linear optimal. The base problem is assumed to be an SUICP.
An SUICP with $m$ messages is called a cycle $C$ if $\mathcal{K}_i=x_{i+1}$, for $i \in [m-1]$, and $\mathcal{K}_m =x_1$. Any cycle consisting of $m$ messages can save at most one transmission compared to the naive transmission of all messages using the code $\mathcal{C}=\{x_1+x_2, x_2+x_3, \cdots, x_{m-1}+x_m\}$ [@BK], which is said to be a cyclic code [@SUOH]. We now have the following theorem which makes use of Lemma \[lowbnd\] to prove the optimality of the constructed code.
For any problem $\mathcal{I}_E(\mathcal{I}_B;(\mathcal{I}_i)_{i \in [m_B]})$, with the base problem being a cycle, the matrix ${\bf{G}}^{E}$ obtained using Algorithm \[algo1\] gives an optimal scalar linear code, when all the given component codes are optimal scalar linear, and the given code for the base problem is the cyclic code. \[thm2\]
Without loss of generality, we can assume that the cycle (the base problem) of $m_B$ messages is such that $\mathcal{K}_i=x_{i+1}$, for $i \in [m_B-1]$, and $\mathcal{K}_{m_B} =x_1$. It can be easily verified that the following $m_B \times (m_B-1)$ matrix ${\bf{D}}^B$ is a valid decoding matrix for the code given by $\mathcal{C}=\{x_1+x_2, x_2+x_3, \cdots, x_{m-1}+x_m\}$. $${\bf{D}}^{B}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\hline
(-1)^{1-1} & (-1)^{2-1} & \cdots & \cdots & (-1)^{m_B-2}\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ The length of the constructed code for the jointly extended problem can also be easily verified to be $\underset{i \in [m_B]} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(i)}_x)-min\{mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(i)}_x), i \in [m_B] \}$. We prove that this is a lower bound on $mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{E}_x)$ using Lemma \[lowbnd\]. Let $ind_{min}=argmin\{mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(i)}_x), i \in [m_B]\}$. Consider the submatrix ${\bf{M}}_x$ of ${\bf{F}}^{B}_x$ with $col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)=col({\bf{M}}_x,{\bf{F}}^{B}_x)=[m_B] \setminus ind_{min}$. This is an upper-triangulable submatrix of ${\bf{F}}^{B}_x$. Hence, the lower bound given by Lemma \[lowbnd\] is equal to $\underset{i \in [m_B]} {\sum} mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(i)}_x)-min\{mrk_q({\bf{F}}^{(i)}_x), i \in [m_B] \}$. Hence the result.
We illustrate the theorem with an example.
For the jointly extended problem with the fitting matrix given below, we observe that the base problem has an optimal scalar code of length $2$ given by the cyclic code $\mathcal{C}^B=(x_B^1+x_B^2,x_B^2+x_B^3)$. $${\bf{F}}_x^{E}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc|cc|cc}
1 & x & 0 & x & x & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & x & x & x & 0 & 0 \\
x & 0 & 1 & x & x & 0 & 0 \\
\hline
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & x & x & x \\
0 & 0 & 0 & x & 1 & x & x \\
\hline
x & x & x & 0 & 0 & 1 & x \\
x & x & x & 0 & 0 & x & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Considering the following optimal component codes given by $\mathcal{C}^1=(x_1+x_2,x_2+x_3)$, $\mathcal{C}^2=(x_1+x_2)$, and $\mathcal{C}^3=(x_1+x_2)$, we obtain the following optimal code after running the Algorithm $1$ : $\mathcal{C}^E=(x_1+x_2+x_4+x_5,x_2+x_3,x_4+x_5+x_6+x_7)$. It can be easily verified that all the receivers are able to decode their demands. Note also that the lower bound given by Lemma \[lowbnd\] is also $3$, and hence this is an optimal code.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
A class of joint extensions of a finite number of groupcast ICPs is identified in this paper. A lower bound on the minrank of the jointly extended problem, a code construction algorithm (not necessarily optimal) for the special class of jointly extended problems, and a set of necessary conditions for their optimality are given in terms of those of the base problem and all the sub-problems.
Finding more classes of jointly extended problems, with optimal results being expressible in terms of their component problems is an interesting direction for future work.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported partly by the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) of Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, through J.C. Bose National Fellowship to B. S. Rajan.
[10]{}
Y. Birk, and T. Kol, “Coding on demand by an informed source ([ISCOD]{}) for efficient broadcast of different supplemental data to caching clients,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 2825–2830, 2006.
S. A. Jafar, “Interference alignment - a new look at signal dimensions in a communication network,” *Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory*, vol. 7, pp. 1–136, 2011.
L. Ong, C. K. Ho, and F. Lim, “The single-uniprior index-coding problem: The single-sender case and the multi-sender extension,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3165–3182, 2016.
S. Ghosh, and L. Natarajan, “Linear codes for broadcasting with noisy side information,” *arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02868v1 \[cs.IT\]*, 9 Jan, 2018.
M. B. Vaddi and B. S. Rajan, “[Optimal vector linear index codes for some symmetric side information problems]{}," in *Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory*, Barcelona, Spain, 2016, pp.125-129.
E. Lubetzky, and U. Stav, “Nonlinear index coding outperforming the linear optimum," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 3544–3551, 2009.
S. H. Dau, V. Skachek, and Y. M. Chee, “Optimal index codes with near-extreme rates," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1515–1527, 2014.
M. J. Neely, A. S. Tehrani, and Z. Zhang, “Dynamic index coding for wireless broadcast networks," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 7525–7540, 2013.
N. Alon, A. Hasidim, E. Lubetzky, U. Stav, and A. Weinstein, “Broadcasting with side information," *arXiv preprint arXiv:0806.3245v1 \[cs.IT\]*, 19 Jun, 2008.
J. So, S. Kwak, and Y. Sung, “[Some new results on index coding when the number of data is less than the number of receivers]{}", in *Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT)*, Honululu, USA, 2014, pp. 496–500.
R.K. Bhattaram, M.B. Vaddi, and B.S. Rajan, “A lifting construction for scalar linear index codes," *arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.08592v1 \[cs.IT\]*, 29 Oct, 2015.
J. B. Ebrahimi, and M. J. Siavoshani, “On linear index coding from graph homomorphism perspective,” in *Proc. Information Theory and Applications Workshop (ITA)*, San Diego, USA, 2016.
V. K. Gummadi, A. Choudhary, and P. Krishnan, “[Index coding : Rank-invariant extensions]{}", *arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00687v1 \[cs.IT\]*, 3 Apr, 2017.
C. Arunachala and B. S. Rajan, “Optimal scalar linear index codes for three classes of two-sender unicast index coding problem,” presented in *International Symposium of Information Theory and its Applications (ISITA)*, Singapore, Oct, 2018, also available as *arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03823v1 \[cs.IT\]*, 11 Apr, 2018.
F. Arbabjolfaei and Y. -H. Kim, “[Generalized lexicographic products and the index coding capacity]{}", *arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03689v2 \[cs.IT\]*, 30 Sep, 2018.
Z. Bar-Yossef, Y. Birk, T. S. Jayram, and T. Kol, “Index coding with side- information,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1479-1494, 2011.
S. H. Dau, V. Skachek, and Y. M. Chee, “On the security of index coding with side information," *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory* , vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3975–3988, 2012.
M. B. Vaddi and B. S. Rajan, “Low-complexity decoding for symmetric, neighboring and consecutive side-information index coding problems," *arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.03192v2 \[cs.IT\]*, 16 May, 2017.
[^1]: C. Arunachala and B. S. Rajan are with the Dept. of Electrical Communication Engg., Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 560012, KA, India, email: {chinmayanand,bsrajan}@iisc.ac.in.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $V$ be a simple vertex operator algebra and $G$ a finite automorphism group. Then there is a natural right $G$-action on the set of all inequivalent irreducible $V$-modules. Let $\S$ be a finite set of inequivalent irreducible $V$-modules which is closed under the action of $G.$ There is a finite dimensional semisimple associative algebra $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ for a suitable 2-cocycle naturally determined by the $G$-action on $\S$ such that $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ and the vertex operator algebra $V^G$ form a dual pair on the sum of $V$-modules in $\S$ in the sense of Howe. In particular, every irreducible $V$-module is completely reducible $V^G$-module.'
---
-0.0cm -1.3cm 0.0cm
\#1[\_[\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} §[S]{} Ø[[O]{}]{} ł Ł c PS. ’[’\_g]{} ø amssym.def amssym
\[section\] \[th\][Proposition]{} \[th\][Corollary]{} \[th\][Lemma]{} \[th\][Remark]{} \[th\][Definition]{} \[th\][Hypothesis]{}
[ ]{}\
Chongying Dong[^1] and Gaywalee Yamskulna[^2]\
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Introduction
============
Let $V$ be a simple vertex operator algebra (see \[B\], \[FLM\]), and $G$ a finite automorphism group. A major problem in orbifold conformal field theory is to understand the module category for the vertex operator algebra $V^G$ of $G$-invariants. In the case $V$ is holomorphic, this is related to the quantum double (see \[DPR\] and \[DM5\]). The main feature in the study of orbifold theory is the appearance of dual pairs. It is proved in \[DLM1\] and \[DM2\] that $G$ and $V^G$ form a dual pair in the sense of Howe \[H1\]-\[H2\]. More precisely, it is shown in \[DLM1\] that all the irreducible $G$-modules occur in $V$ and the space of multiplicity of each irreducible $G$-module in $V$ is an irreducible $V^G$-module. Moreover, inequivalent irreducible $G$-modules produce inequivalent $V^G$-modules in this way.
In this paper we extend the duality result in \[DLM1\] to any irreducible $V$-module and obtain again several duality theorems of Schur-Weyl type. In the process we realize that it is better to consider a finite set of inequivalent irreducible modules which is $G$-stable instead of one single module. The general setting is more natural and the results are more beautiful.
More explicitly, for an irreducible $V$-module $M=(M,Y_M)$ (see Section 4 for the details of the definition of a module) and $g\in G$ we define a new irreducible $V$-module $M\circ g=(M\circ g,Y_{M\circ g}).$ Here $M\circ g$ is equal to $M$ as a vector space and $Y_{M\circ g}(v,z)=
Y_M(gv,z)$ for $v\in V$ following \[DM1\]. A set $\S$ of irreducible $V$-modules is called $G$-stable if for any $M\in S$ and $g\in G$ there exists $N\in \S$ such that $M\circ g\cong N.$ Then every irreducible $V$-module $M$ produces naturally such a set by collecting all $M\circ g$ for $g\in G.$ Now we take a finite $G$-stable set $\S$ consisting of inequivalent irreducible $V$-modules. We construct a finite dimensional semisimple associative algebra $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ for a suitable 2-cocycle on $G$ (which is uniquely determined up to isomorphism by $V,$ $G$ and $\S$) such that $(A_{\alpha}(G,{\S}),V^G)$ forms a dual pair on ${\M}=\sum_{M\in \S}M$ in the precise sense of Howe \[H1\]-\[H2\]. That is, each simple $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ occurs in $\M$ and its multiplicity space is an irreducible $V^G$-module. Moreover, the different multiplicity spaces are inequivalent $V^G$-modules.
These duality results not only tell us the complete reducibility of every irreducible $V$-module as a $V^G$-module, but also provide an equivalence between the $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$-module category and a subcategory of $V^G$-modules generated by the irreducible submodules of $\M$ by sending each simple $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$-module to its multiplicity space. This kind of idea has appeared in \[DPR\] and \[DM5\] in the study of holomorphic orbifold conformal field theory.
Although the algebra $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ mentioned above appears naturally in the theory of vertex operator algebras, the construction itself is totally canonical and abstract. In fact, one can define $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ for any finite group $G,$ any finite right $G$-set $\S$ and a suitable 2-cocycle on $G$ (see Section 3). This algebra is essentially the crossed product in the theory of Hopf algebra (see \[S\], \[BCM\] and \[DT\]). It turns out that $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ is the right algebra in the study of general orbifold theory. In the case that $\S$ is the dual basis of $\C[G]^*,$ $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ is exactly the twisted double $D_{\alpha}(G)$ introduced in \[M\] and \[DM5\] in the study of holomorphic orbifold theory. The twisted double $D_{\alpha}(G)$ is conjecturally isomorphic to the twisted quantum double introduced in \[DPR\] and \[D\].
A main tool in the proof of the main theorems is a series of associative algebras $A_n(V)$ constructed in \[DLM4\] for nonnegative integers $n.$ The original motivation for introducing and studying the $A_n(V)$ comes from the representation theory of vertex operator algebras. Let $M=\sum_{n\geq 0}M(n)$ be an admissible $V$-module with $M(0)\ne 0$ (see Section 4 for the definition of admissible module). The algebra $A_n(V)$ is a suitable quotient of $V$ and “takes care” of the first $n+1$ pieces of $M$: each $M(m)$ is a module for $A_n(V).$ In the case $n=0,$ $A_0(V)$ reduces to the associative algebra $A(V)$ introduced previously in \[Z\]. The main results concerning $A_n(V)$ are summarized in Section 4. The result that we often use in this paper is the following: $M$ is irreducible if and only if each $M(n)$ is a simple $A_n(V)$-module for all $n\geq 0$ \[DM4\]. This key result allows us to reduce an infinite dimensional problem ($M$ is infinite dimensional) to a finite dimensional problem (each $M(n)$ is finite dimensional in our main theorems).
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review twisted group algebras. Section 3 is about the algebra $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ based on a finite group $G,$ a right $G$-set $\S$ and a suitable 2-cocycle $\alpha$ on $G.$ We construct all simple modules for $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ explicitly by using twisted group algebras. A basis for the center is also given for the future study. In Section 4 we recall the various notions of modules for a vertex operator algebra and review the theory on associative algebras $A_n(V).$ Section 5 is the first part on duality. We show that if $M$ is an irreducible $V$-module which is $G$-stable in the sense that $M\circ g\cong M$ for all $g,$ then there exists a 2-cocycle $\a_M\in Z^2(G,\C^*)$ such that $(\C^{\alpha_M}[G],V^G)$ forms a dual pair on $M$ where $\C^{\alpha_M}[G]$ is the twisted group algebra. Section 6 is a continuation of Section 5 without assuming that $M$ is $G$-stable. The algebra $A_{\alpha}(G,S)$ based on a $G$-stable set $\S$ of $V$-modules enters the picture naturally. The two main theorems of this paper are proved in this section.
We would like to thank A. Wassermann for pointing out a gap in the proof of Theorem 2.4 (i) of \[DLM1\]. This gap has been filled in this paper (see Remark \[rcorect\]).
Twisted group algebras
======================
In this elementary section we review some results on twisted group algebras which will be used in Section 3.
Throughout this paper, $F^*$ denotes the multiplicative group of a field $F$ and $G$ a finite group which acts trivially on $F^*$. Let $\a$ be any element in $Z^2(G,F^*)$ . Thus $\a$ is a map $$\a:G\times G \rightarrow F^*$$ which satisfies the following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
& &\a(x,1)=\a(1,x)=1\ \ {\mbox for\ \ all}\ \ x\in G\\
& &\a(x,y)\a(xy,z)=\a(y,z)\a(x,yz)\ \ {\mbox for\ \ all}\ \ x,y,z\in G.\end{aligned}$$
The [*twisted group algebra*]{} $F^{\a}[G]$ of $G$ over $F$ is defined to be the vector space over $F$ with basis $\{\bar{g}|g\in
G\}$. Multiplication in $F^{\a}[G]$ is defined distributively by using $$(a \bar{x})(b\bar{y})=ab\a(x,y)\overline{xy}\ \ (a,b\in F,x,y\in G).$$
It is easy to verify that $F^{\a}[G]$ is an $F$-algebra with $\bar{1}$ as the identity element and with $$\bar{g}^{-1}=\a(g^{-1},g)^{-1}\overline{g^{-1}}=\a(g,g^{-1})^{-1}\overline{g^{-1}}\ \ {\mbox for\ \ all}\ \ g\in G.$$
[\[K\]]{} If [*char*]{} $F$ does not divide $|G|$, then $F^{\a}[G]$ is semisimple.
Our aim for this section is to find an explicit basis for the center $Z(F^{\a}[G])$.
An element $g\in G$ is said to be $\a-{\em regular}$ if $$\a(g,x)=\a(x,g)\ \ {\mbox for\ \ all}\ \ x\in C_G(g).$$
Thus $g$ is $\a$-regular if and only if $\bar g \bar x=\bar x\bar g$ for all $x\in C_G(g).$
It is clear that identity element of $G$ is $\a$-regular for any cocycle $\a$.
[\[K\]]{} For any $\a\in Z^2(G,F^*)$, the following properties hold:
i\) An element $g\in G$ is $\a$-regular if and only if it is $\b$-regular for any cocycle $\b$ cohomologous to $\a$.
ii\) If $g\in G$ is $\a$-regular, then so is any conjugate of $g$.
Let $C$ be a conjugacy class of $G$ and let $g\in C$. We say that $C$ is $\a$-[*regular*]{} if $g$ is $\a$-regular.
If we replace $\bar g$ by ${\tilde g}=\l(g)\bar g,\l(g)\in F^*,\l(1)=1$, yields $${\tilde x}{\tilde y}=\a(x,y)\l(x)\l(y)\l(xy)^{-1}\widetilde{xy}\ \ {\mbox for\ \ all }\ \ x,y\in G.$$
Hence, performing a diagonal change of basis $\{\bar g| g\in G\}$ results in replacing $\a$ by a cohomologous cocycle. The advantage of this observation is that in choosing a distinguished cocycle cohomologous to $\a$, we can work exclusively within the algebra $F^{\a}[G]$.
We say that $\a\in Z^2(G,F^*)$ is a [*normal cocycle*]{} if $\a(x,g)=\a(xgx^{-1},x)$ for all $x\in G$ and all $\a$-regular $g\in G$.
Therefore $\a$ is normal if and only if $\bar x\bar g\bar x^{-1}=\overline{xgx^{-1}}$ for all $x\in G$ and all $\a$-regular $g\in G$.
\[a2.1\][\[K\]]{} Let $\{g_1,...,g_r\}$ be a full set of representatives for the $\a$-regular conjugacy classes of $G$ and, for each $i\in \{1,...,r\}$, let $T_i$ be a left transversal for $C_G(g_i)$ in $G$. Put $\widetilde{tg_it^{-1}}=\bar t \overline{g_i}\overline{t}^{-1},1\leq i \leq r$, and $\tilde{g}=\bar g $ if $g$ is not $\a$-regular . Then $\tilde {x}\tilde {g}\tilde {x}^{-1}=\widetilde{xgx^{-1}}$ for all $x\in G$ and all $\a$-regular $g\in G$. Thus any cocycle $\a\in Z^2(G,F^*)$ is cohomologous to a normal cocycle.
\[a2.2\][\[K\]]{} Let $F$ be an arbitrary field, let $\a\in Z^2(G,F^*)$ and let $\{g_1,...,g_r\}$ be a full set of representatives for the $\a$-regular conjugacy classes of $G$. Denote by $T_i$ a left transversal for $C_G(g_i)$ in $G$ and by $C_i$ the $\a$-regular conjugacy class of $G$ containing $g_i,1\leq i\leq r$. Then the elements $$z_i=\sum_{t\in T_i}\bar t \overline{g_i}\overline{t}^{-1}\ \ \ (1\leq i\leq r)$$ constitute an $F$-basis $Z(F^{\a}[G])$. In particular, if $\a$ is a normal cocycle, then the elements $$z_i=\sum_{g\in C_i}\bar g\ \ \ (1\leq i\leq r)$$ constitute an $F$-basis $Z(F^{\a}[G])$.
The Generalized twisted double {#s3}
==============================
In this section we construct a finite dimensional semisimple associative algebra $A_{\alpha}(G,S)$ over $\C$ associated to a finite group $G,$ a finite right $G$-set $\S$ and a suitable 2-cocycle $\alpha$. Although this construction in the present form is influenced by the work in \[DPR\], \[M\] and \[DM5\] and Section 6 of this paper, its origin goes back to the earlier work of \[S\], \[BCM\] and \[DT\] in Hopf algebra, where it is called crossed product. In the case the $G$-set $\S$ consists of a dual basis of $\C[G]^*,$ $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ is exactly the twisted double studied in \[M\] and \[DM5\]. This should explain why we call $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ a generalized twisted double. The exposition of this section follows \[M\] closely and ideas are also similar.
Let $G$ be any finite group with identity $1$ and $\S$ be a finite right $G$-set. Set $$\C{\S}=\bigoplus_{ s\in {\S}}\C e(s)$$ which is an associative algebra under product $e(s)e(t)=\d_{s,t}e(t)$ and isomorphic to $\C^{|S|}.$ The right action of $G$ on $\S$ induces a right $G$-module structure on $\C{\S}.$ Let $${\U}(\C{\S})=\{\sum_{ s\in {\S} }\l_{s} e(s)|\l_{s} \in \C^{*}\}$$ be the set of units of $\C{\S}.$ It is easy to check that $\U(\C{\S})$ is a multiplicative right $G$-module.
From now on we will fix an element $\a\in Z^2(G,\U(\C\S))$ such that $\a(h,1)=\a(1,h) =\sum_{s\in {\S}}e(s)$ for all $h$ in $G$. Then $\a$ defines functions $\a_s: G\times G\to \C^*$ for $s\in {\S}$ such that $$\a(h,k)=\sum_{s\in S}\a_s(h,k)e(s)$$ for $h,k\in G.$ The cocycle condition $\a(hk,l)\a(h,k)^l=\a(h,kl)\a(k,l)$ implies immediately that $$\a_s(hk,l)\a_{(s)l^{-1}}(h,k)=\a_s(h,kl)\a_s(k,l)$$ for $h,k,l\in G$ and $s\in\S.$
The main object that we study in this section is the vector space ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})=\C[G]\otimes \C\S$ with a basis $g\o e(s)$ for $g\in G$, and $s\in {\S}$.
i\) The ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})$ is an associative algebra under multiplication defined by $$g\o e(s)\cdot h\o e(t)=\a_t(g,h)gh\o e(sh)e(t).$$
ii\) If $\a$ is cohomologous to $\b$ then ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})\cong{\A}_{\b}(G,{\S})$ as algebras.
For i), we first prove that the product is associative. Let $g,h,k\in G$ and $s,t,u\in \S.$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ (g\o e(s)\cdot h\o e(t))\cdot k\o e(u)\\
& &=(\a_t(g,h)gh\o e(sh)e(t))\cdot k\o e(u)\\
& &=\d_{sh,t}\a_t(g,h)gh\o e(t)\cdot k\o e(u)\\
& &=\d_{sh,t}\a_t(g,h)\a_u(gh,k)ghk\o e(tk)e(u)\\
& &=\d_{sh,t}\d_{tk,u}\a_t(g,h)\a_u(gh,k)ghk\o e(u)\\
& &=\d_{sh,t}\d_{tk,u}\a_{uk^{-1}}(g,h)\a_u(gh,k)ghk\o e(u)\\
& &=\d_{sh,t}\d_{tk,u}\a_{u}(g,hk)\a_u(h,k)ghk\o e(u)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ g\o e(s)\cdot(h\o e(t)\cdot k\o e(u))\\
& &=g\o e(s)\cdot(\a_u(h,k)hk\o e(tk)e(u))\\
& &=g\o e(s)\cdot(\d_{tk,u}\a_u(h,k)hk\o e(u))\\
& &=\d_{tk,u}\a_u(g,hk)\a_u(h,k)ghk\o e(s(hk))e(u)\\
& &=\d_{tk,u}\d_{s(hk),u}\a_u(g,hk)\a_u(h,k)ghk\o e(u).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $(g\o e(s)\cdot h\o e(t))\cdot k\o e(u)=g\o e(s)\cdot(h\o e(t)\cdot k\o e(u))$ and associativity holds.
A straightforward verification $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ g\o e(s)\cdot\sum_{t\in {\S}}1\o e(t)\\
& &=\sum_{t\in {\S}}\a_t(g,1)g\o e(s)e(t)\\
& &=g\o e(s)\\ \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ (\sum_{t\in {\S}}1\o e(t))\cdot g\o e(s)\\
& &=\sum_{t\in {\S}}\a_s(1,g)g\o e(tg)e(s)\\
& &=g\o e(s)\end{aligned}$$ shows that $\sum_{t\in {\S}}1\o e(t)$ is an identity on ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})$.
For ii) since $\b$ is cohomologous to $\a$, so there exists a map $\l:G\rightarrow{\U}(\C{\S})$ such that $\b(x,y)=\a(x,y)\l(x)^y\l(xy)^{-1}\l(y)$ for all $x,y\in G$. For each $x\in G$ , we can rewrite $\l(x)$ as $\sum_{s\in {\S}}\l_s(x)e(s)$. Therefore, we have $\b_s(x,y)=\a_s(x,y)\l_{sy^{-1}}(x)\l_s(xy)^{-1}\l_{s}(y)$, for any $s\in {\S}, x,y\in G.$ Let $f:{\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})\rightarrow{\A}_{\b}(G,{\S})$ defined by $f(g\o e(s))=\l_{s}(g)^{-1}(g\o e(s)).$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ f(g\o e(s)\cdot h\o e(t))\\
& &=f(\a_t(g,h)gh\o e(sh)e(t))\\
& &=\d_{sh,t}\l_{t}(gh)^{-1}\a_t(g,h)gh\o e(t)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ f(g\o e(s))\cdot f(h\o e(t))\\
& &=\l_{s}(g)^{-1}g\o e(s)\cdot \l_{t}(h)^{-1}h\o e(t)\\
& &=\l_{s}(g)^{-1}\l_{t}(h)^{-1}\b_t(g,h)gh\o e(sh)e(t),\end{aligned}$$ ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})$ and ${\A}_{\b}(G,{\S})$ are isomorphic as algebras.
\[ra\] [The algebra $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ is essentially the crossed product $\C{\S}\sharp \C[G]$ except that $\C\S$ in our setting is a right $\C[G]$-module instead of left $\C[G]$-module in the setting of crossed product. So one could have used the results from \[S\], \[BCM\] and \[DT\] to conclude that $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ is an associative algebra after a careful identifying two different settings. Since the proof is not very long we chose to give a complete proof.]{}
[*If we take ${\S}=\{e(g)|g\in G\}$ to be the dual basis of $\C[G]^*$ which is a right $G$-set via $e(g)\cdot h=e(h^{-1}gh)$ for $g,h\in G$ we get the associative algebra $D_{\alpha}(G)$ in \[DM5\] which is a deformation of the Drinfeld’s double $D(G).$ It turns out that there exists $\alpha$ determined naturally by the “twisted representations” such that $D_{\alpha}(G)$ is the right algebra in the study of holomorphic orbifold conformal field theory (see \[DVVV\] and \[DM5\]).*]{}
For each $s\in {\S}$, let $G_s=\{h\in G|s\cdot h=s\}$ be the stabilizer of $s.$ Note that $Res_{G_s}^{G}\a_s$ is in $Z^2(G_s,\C^*).$ Let ${\O}_s$ be the orbit of $s$ under $G$ and $G=\bigcup_{i=1}^kG_sg_i$ be a right coset decomposition with $g_1=1.$ Then ${\O}_s=\{sg_i|i=1,...,k\}$ and $G_{s\cdot g_i}=g_i^{-1}G_sg_i.$ We define several subspaces of ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S}):$ $$S(s)=\<a\o e(s)|a\in G_{s}\>\ \ ,\ \ N(s)=\<a\o e(s)|a\in G\setminus G_{s}\>,$$ $$D(s)=\<a\o e(s)|a\in G\>\ \ ,\ \
D({\O}_s)=\<a\o e(s\cdot g_i)|i=1,...,k, a\in G\>.$$ Then $D(s)=S(s)\oplus N(s)$.
Decompose $\S$ into a disjoint union of orbits ${\S}=\bigcup_{j\in J}{\O}_j$. Let $s_j$ be a representative element of ${\O}_j.$ Then ${\O}_j=\{s_j\cdot h|h\in G\}$ and $ {\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})=\bigoplus_{j\in J}D({\O}_{s_j}).$
\[l3.2\] Let $s\in \S$ and $G=\cup_{i=1}^kG_sg_i.$ Then
1\) $S(s)$ is a subalgebra of ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})$ isomorphic to $\C^{\a_{s}}[G_s]$ where $\C^{\a_{s}}[G_s]$ is the twisted group algebra.
2\) $N(s)$ is a 2-sided nilpotent ideal of $D(s)$ and $D(s)\cdot
N(s)=0.$
3\) $D({\O}_s)=\bigoplus_{i=1}^kD(sg_i)$ is a direct sum of left ideals.
4\) Each $D({\O}_s)$ is a 2-sided ideal of ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})$ and ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S})=\oplus_{j\in J}D({\O}_{s_j}).$ Moreover, $D({\O}_s)$ has identity element $\sum_{t\in {\O}_s} 1\otimes e(t).$
1\) Clearly, $S(s)$ is a subalgebra of ${\A}_{\a}(G,{\S}).$ Let $\r:S(s)\rightarrow \C^{\a_{s}}[G_s]$ be a linear isomorphism determined by $\r(a\o e(s))=a$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& & \ \ \ \ \r(a\o e(s)\cdot b\o e(s))\\
& &=\r(\a_{s}(a,b)ab\o e(sb)e(s))\\
& &=\r(\a_{s}(a,b)ab\o e(s))\\
& &=\a_{s}(a,b)ab\\
& &=\r(a\o e(s))\r(b\o e(s)).\end{aligned}$$ So, $\r$ is an algebra isomorphism.
2\) Since for $b\in G\setminus G_{s},$ $sb\ne s$. We immediately have $ a\o e(s)\cdot b\o e(s)=\a_{s}(a,b)ab\o e((s)b)e(s)=0$ for $a\o e(s)\in D(s)$ and $b\o e(s)\in N(s)$.
It remains to show that $N(s)$ is right ideal. Take $a\o e(s)\in N(s)$ and $b\o e(s)\in S(s).$ Then $a\o e(s)\cdot b\o e(s)=\a_{s}(a,b)ab\o e((s)b)e(s)=\a_{s}(a,b)ab\o e(s).$ If $ab$ lies in $G_{s}$ so does $a$. Thus $ab\in G\setminus G_{s}$ and $ a\o e(s)\cdot b\o e(s)\in N(s)$.
3)-4) are clear.
Let $A$ be an algebra (eg., associative algebra, Lie algebra or vertex operator algebra). We denote the module category of $A$ by $A$-Mod.
For convenience we set $d_{g,s}=g\otimes e(s)$ for $g\in G$ and $s\in S.$
\[t3.3\] The functors $$\begin{aligned}
M&\stackrel{f}{\mapsto}D(s)&\bigotimes_{S(s)}M\\
N&\stackrel{g}{\mapsto}&d_{1,s}N\\\end{aligned}$$ ($M\in \C^{\a_s}[G_s]$-[*Mod*]{}, $N\in D({\O}_s)$-[*Mod*]{}) define an equivalence between categories $\C^{\a_s}[G_s]$-[*Mod*]{} and $D({\O}_s)$-[*Mod*]{}. In particular, the simple $\C^{\a_s}[G_s]$-modules are mapped to simple $D({\O}_s)$-modules and conversely.
Recall that $G=\bigcup_{i=1}^k G_s g_i$ be a coset decomposition with $g_1=1.$ Then $G=\bigcup_{i=1}^k g_i^{-1}G_s.$ Note that $g_i^{-1}a\otimes e(s)$ can be rewritten as $\alpha_s(g_i^{-1},a)^{-1}g_i^{-1}\otimes e(s)\cdot a\otimes e(s)$ for any $i$ and $a\in G_s.$ Let $M\in \C^{\a_s}[G_s]$-Mod. Then an arbitrary vector in $D(s)\bigotimes_{S(s)}M$ has expression $\sum_{i=1}^k d_{g_i^{-1},s}\o_{S(s)} m_i$ for some $m_i\in M.$ From $$d_{1,s}(\sum_{i=1}^kd_{g_i^{-1},s}\o_{S(s)} m_i)=d_{1,s}\o_{S(s)} m_1$$ we see that $d_{1,s}D(s)\bigotimes_{S(s)}M$ is a subset of $d_{1,s}\otimes_{S(s)}M.$ On the other hand, $d_{1,s}\o_{S(s)} m= d_{1,s}(d_{1,s}\o_{S(s)} m)$ belongs to $d_{1,s}(D(s)\bigotimes_{S(s)}M)$. Thus $d_{1,s}\otimes_{S(s)}M$ and $d_{1,s}(D(s)\bigotimes_{S(s)}M)$ are equal. Since $d_{1,s}\bigotimes_{S(s)}M$ is isomorphic to $M$ as $\C^{\a_s}[G_s]$-modules . This implies that $g\circ f(M)$ and $M$ are isomorphic as $\C^{\a_s}[G_s]$-modules.
Now take $N\in D({\O}_s)$-Mod. We are going to show that $D(s)\otimes_{S(s)}d_{1,s}N$ and $N$ are isomorphic as $D({\O}_s)$-modules. For this purpose we define a linear map $$\begin{aligned}
\r: D(s)\bigotimes_{S(s)} d_{1,s}N &\rightarrow & N\\
d_{b,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n&\mapsto& d_{b,s}n.\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $\r(d_{b,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n)=d_{b,s}d_{1,s}n$ we immediately see that $\r$ is well defined. The fact that $\r$ is a $D({\O}_s)$-module homomorphism follows from $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ \r(d_{a,sg_i}d_{b,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n)\\
& &=\r(\d_{sg_ib,s}\a_s(a,b)d_{ab,s}\o_{S(s)} d_{1,s}n)\\
& &=\d_{sg_ib,s}\a_s(a,b)d_{ab,s}n\\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ d_{a,sg_i}\r (d_{b,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n)\\
& &=d_{a,sg_i}d_{b,s}n\\
& &=\d_{sg_ib,s}\a_s(a,b)d_{ab,s}n\end{aligned}$$ for $a,b\in G,$ $1\leq i\leq k$ and $n\in N.$
It remains to show that $\r$ is a bijection. As $\sum_{i=1}^kd_{1,sg_i}$ is the identity of $D(\O_s),$ we have $n=\sum_{i=1}^k d_{1,sg_i}n$. For fixed $i$ one can easily see that $$\r(d_{g_i^{-1},s}\o_{S(s)}\a_{sg_i}(g_i^{-1},g_i)^{-1}d_{g_i,sg_i}n)=d_{1,sg_i}n.$$ Thus $\r$ is onto.
Since $d_{1,sg_i}d_{1,sg_j}=\delta_{i,j}d_{1,sg_i}$ we have $$N=\bigoplus_{i=1}^kd_{1,sg_i}N.$$ Let $b=g_i^{-1}a\in g_i^{-1}G_s.$ Then $\r(d_{b,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n)= d_{1,sg_i}d_{b,s}n\in d_{1,sg_i}N$ for $n\in N.$ In order to prove that $\r$ is one to one, it is enough to show that if $\r(\sum_{p}d_{b_p,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n_p)=0$ for some $b_p\in g_i^{-1}G_s$ and $n_p\in N,$ then $\sum_{p}d_{b_p,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n_p=0.$ Using the relation $d_{g_i^{-1}a,s}=\a_s(g_i^{-1},a)^{-1}d_{g_i^{-1},s}d_{a,s}$ for $a\in G_s$ we can rewrite $\sum_{p}d_{b_p,s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n_p$ as $d_{g_i^{-1},s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n$ for some $n\in N.$ Thus $\r(d_{g_i^{-1},s}\o_{S(s)}d_{1,s}n)=d_{g_i^{-1},s}n=0.$ Applying $\a_s(g_i,g_i^{-1})^{-1}d_{g_i,sg_i}$ to $d_{g_i^{-1},s}n$ yields $d_{1,s}n=0.$ This shows that $\r$ is one to one. This completes the proof that $\r$ is an isomorphism.
\[t50\] We have
i\) Algebra $D({\O}_s)$ is semisimple for $s\in \S$ and simple $D({\O}_s)$-modules are precisely $\Ind_{S(s)}^{D(s)}M$ where $M$ ranges over the simple $\C^{\a_{s}}[G_{s}]$-modules.
ii\) $A_{\a}(G,{\S})$ is semisimple and simple $A_{\a}(G,{\S})$-modules are precisely $\Ind_{S(s_j)}^{D(s_j)}M$ where $M$ ranges over the simple $\C^{\a_{s_j}}[G_{s_j}]$-modules and $j\in J.$
i\) follows from Theorem \[t3.3\] and that fact that $\C^{\a _s}[G_s]$-Mod is a semisimple category. ii) follows from Lemma \[l3.2\] and i).
[If we only wanted to know the semisimplicity of $A_{\alpha}(G,\S),$ we could find it in the literature of Hopf algebra when we regard $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ as a crossed product (see Remark \[ra\]). But in the later sections we need to know the explicit structure of simple $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$-modules given in Theorem \[t3.3\]. The semisimplicity of $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ is a trivial corollary of Theorem \[t3.3\].]{}
Next we determine the center $Z(D({\O}_s))$ of $D({\O}_s)$. However, we are not going to use it in this paper but still include it for general interest. We certainly expect that the result on center will be used in our future study on general orbifold conformal field theory.
Since any cocycle in $Z^2(G_s,\C^*)$ is cohomologous to a normal cocycle (cf. Lemma \[a2.1\]). Then we may [*assume $\a_s$ is a normal cocycle*]{} for all $s\in S.$ We also assume that $\a_{sg_i}(g_j^{-1}hg_i,g_i^{-1}ag_i)=\a_{sg_i}(g_j^{-1}hah^{-1}g_j,g_j^{-1}hg_i)$ for all $1\leq i,j\leq k,$ $h\in
G_s$ and $\a_s$-regular $a\in G_s$. In the orbifold theory, these conditions are satisfied by chosing $\alpha_s$ carefully.
Let $\{l_1,...,l_r\}$ be a full set of representatives for the $\a_s$-regular conjugacy classes of $G_s$ and for each $t$ in $\{1,...,r\}$, let $L_t$ be $\a_s$-regular conjugacy class of $G_s$ containing $l_t,1\leq t\leq r.$ Set $$Z(L_t)=\sum_{a\in L_t}\sum_{i=1}^k g_i^{-1}ag_i\o e(sg_i).$$
$Z(L_t)$ is an center element of $D(\O_s).$
Let $b\o e(sg_j)\in D({\O}_s)$. Then there exists $1\leq i'\leq k$ and $h\in G_s$ such that $b=g_{i'}^{-1}hg_j.$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ b\o e(sg_j)\cdot Z(L_t)\\
& &=b\o e(sg_j)\cdot \sum_{a\in L_t}\sum_{i=1}^k g_i^{-1}ag_i\o e(sg_i)\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\sum_{i=1}^k\a_{sg_i}(b,g_i^{-1}ag_i)bg_i^{-1}ag_i\o e(sg_jg_i^{-1}ag_i)e(sg_i)\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\a_{sg_j}(b,g_j^{-1}ag_j)bg_j^{-1}ag_j\o e(sg_j)\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\a_{sg_j}(g_{i'}^{-1}hg_j,g_j^{-1}ag_j)g_{i'}^{-1}hag_j\o e(sg_j)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &Z(L_t)\cdot b\o e(sg_j)\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\sum_{i=1}^k g_i^{-1}ag_i\o e(sg_i)\cdot b\o e(sg_j)\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\sum_{i=1}^k\a_{sg_j}(g_i^{-1}ag_i,b)g_i^{-1}ag_ib\o e(sg_ib)e(sg_j)\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\a_{sg_j}(g_{i'}^{-1}ag_{i'}, g_{i'}^{-1}hg_j)g_{i'}^{-1}ahg_j\o e(sg_j).\end{aligned}$$ Now the assertion follows from $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ \sum_{a\in L_t}\a_{sg_j}(g_{i}^{-1}hg_j,g_j^{-1}ag_j)hah^{-1}\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\a_{sg_j}(g_{i}^{-1}hah^{-1}g_{i},g_{i}^{-1}hg_j)hah^{-1}\\
& &=\sum_{a\in L_t}\a_{sg_j}(g_{i}^{-1}ag_{i},g_{i}^{-1}hg_j)a.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\{l_1,..., l_r\}$ be a full set of representatives for the $\a_s$-regular conjugacy classes of $G_s$ and for each $t\in \{1,...,r\}$, let $L_t$ be a $\a_s$-regular conjugacy class of $G_s$ containing $l_t, 1\leq t\leq r$. Then the elements $Z(L_t)$ constitute a $\C$-basis of $Z(D({\O}_s))$.
By Theorem \[t3.3\] the dimension of $Z(D({\O}_s))$ equals to the number of inequivalent irreducible $\C^{\a_s}[G_s]$-modules which is $r$ (see Theorem \[a2.2\]).
The following corollary is immediate.
Let $\{l_1^{j},...,l_{r_j}^{j}\}$ be a full set of representatives for the $\a_{s_j}$-regular conjugacy classes of $G_{s_j}$ and for each $t_j\in \{1,...,r_j\}$, let $L_{t_j}$ be $\a_{s_j}$-regular conjugacy class of $G_{s_j}$ containing $l_{t_j}, 1\leq t_j\leq r_j.$ Set $$Z(L_{t_j})=\sum_{a\in L_{t_j}}\sum_{i_j=1}^{k_j}g_{i_j}^{-1}ag_{i_j}\o e(sg_{i_j}).$$ Then for all $j\in J$, for all $t_j\in \{ 1,..., r_j\}$, $Z(L_{t_j})$ constitutes a $\C$-basis for $Z(A_{\a}(G,{\S})).$
Modules for vertex operator algebras and related results
========================================================
In this section we turn our attention to the theory of vertex operator algebras. In particular we shall defines various notion of modules for a vertex operator algebra $V$ following \[FLM\], \[DLM2\] and \[Z\]. We also recall from \[DLM4\] the associative algebras $A_n(V)$ for any nonnegative integer $n$ and relevant results. These results will be used extensively in Sections 5 and 6 to study dual pairs arising from an action of a finite group $G$ on $V.$
Let $V=(V,Y,{\bf 1},\omega)$ be a vertex operator algebra (see \[B\] and \[FLM\]). For a vector space $W$, let $W\{z\}$ be the space of $W$-valued formal series in arbitrary complex powers of $z$. We present three different notion of modules (cf. \[FLM\], \[DLM2\] and \[Z\]).
A [*weak $V$-module*]{} $M$ is a vector space equipped with a linear map $$\begin{array}{lll}
V&\to &(\End\,M)\{z\}\\
v&\mapsto&\displaystyle{ Y_M(v,z)=\sum_{n\in\Q}v_nz^{-n-1}\ \ \ (v_n\in
\End\,M)}
\end{array}$$ which satisfies the following properties for all $u\in V$, $v\in V,$ $w\in M$, $$\begin{aligned}
& &u_lw=0\ \ \
\mbox{for}\ \ \ l>>0\label{vlw0}\\
& &Y_M({\mathbf 1},z)=1;\label{vacuum}\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{jacobi}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{z^{-1}_0\delta\left(\frac{z_1-z_2}{z_0}\right)
Y_M(u,z_1)Y_M(v,z_2)-z^{-1}_0\delta\left(\frac{z_2-z_1}{-z_0}\right)
Y_M(v,z_2)Y_M(u,z_1)}\\
\displaystyle{=z_2^{-1}
\delta\left(\frac{z_1-z_0}{z_2}\right)
Y_M(Y(u,z_0)v,z_2)},
\end{array}$$ where $\delta(z)=\sum_{n\in\Z}z^n$ and all binomial expressions (here and below) are to be expanded in nonnegative integral powers of the second variable. Elementary properties of the $\delta$-function can be found in \[FLM\] and \[FHL\]
(\[jacobi\]) is called the [*Jacobi identity*]{}. One can prove that the Jacobi identity is equivalent to the following associativity formula (see \[FLM\] and \[FHL\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ea}
(z_{0}+z_{2})^{k}Y_{M}(u,z_{0}+z_{2})Y_{M}(v,z_{2})w
=(z_{2}+z_{0})^{k}Y_M(Y(u,z_0)v,z_2)w\end{aligned}$$ and commutator relation $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ [Y_{M}(u,z_{1}),Y_{M}(v,z_{2})]\nonumber\\
& &=\Res_{z_{0}}z_2^{-1}
\delta\left(\frac{z_1-z_0}{z_2}\right)Y_M(Y(u,z_0)v,z_2)\label{ec}\end{aligned}$$ where $w\in M$ and $k$ is a nonnegative integer such that $z^{k}Y_{M}(u,z)w$ involves only nonnegative integral powers of $z.$
We may also deduce from (\[vlw0\])-(\[jacobi\]) the usual Virasoro algebra axioms (see \[DLM2\]). Namely, if $Y_M(\om,z)=\sum_{n\in\Z}L(n)z^{-n-2}$ then $$\label{g3.8}
[L(m),L(n)]=(m-n)L(m+n)+\frac{1}{12}(m^3-m)\delta_{m+n,0}(\mbox{rank}\,V)$$ and $$\label{2.5}
\frac{d}{dz}Y_M(v,z)=Y_M(L(-1)v,z).$$
Suppose that $(M_{i},Y_{i})$ are two weak $V$-modules, $i$=1,2. A homomorphism from $M_{1}$ to $M_{2}$ is a linear map $f$:$M_{1}\rightarrow M_{2}$ which satisfied $fY_{M_{1}}(v,z)=Y_{M_{2}}(v,z)f$ for all $v\in V$. We call $f$ an isomorphism if $f$ is also a linear isomorphism.
\[d1\] A (ordinary) [*$V$-module*]{} is a weak $V$-module $M$ which carries a $\C$-grading induced by the spectrum of $L(0)$. Then $M=\bigoplus_{\lambda\in \C}M_{\lambda}$ where $M_{\lambda}=\{w\in M|L(0)w=\lambda w\},$ dim$M_{\lambda}<\infty.$ Moreover, for fixed $\lambda, M_{n+{\lambda}}=0 $ for all small enough integers $n.$
The notion of module here is essentially the notion of module given in \[FLM\].
\[d2\] An [*admissible $V$-module*]{} is a weak $V$-module $M$ which carries a $\Z_{+}$ grading $M=\bigoplus_{n\in \Z_{+}}M(n)$ satisfying the following condition:$$v_{m}M(n)\subset M(n+\wt v-m-1)$$ for homogeneous $v\in
V,$ where $\Z_+$ is the set of the nonnegative integers.
The notion of admissible module here is the notion of module in \[Z\]. Using a grading shift we can always arrange the grading on $M$ so that $M(0)\ne 0.$ This shift is important in the study of algebra $A_n(V)$ below.
It is not too hard to see that any $V$-module is an admissible $V$-module. So there is a natural identification of the category of $V$-modules with a subcategory of the category of admissible $V$-modules.
\[ration\] $V$ is called rational if every admissible $V$-module is a direct sum of irreducible admissible $V$-modules.
It is proved in \[DLM3\] that if $V$ is rational then there are only finitely many inequivalent irreducible admissible $V$-modules and each irreducible admissible $V$-module is an ordinary module.
The following proposition can be found in \[L\] and \[DM2\].
\[4.19\] If $M$ is a simple weak $V-$module then $M$ is spanned by $\{u_nm|u\in V,n\in \Q\}$ where $m\in M$ is a fixed nonzero vector.
We now recall the associative algebra $A_{n}(V)$ as constructed in \[DLM4\]. Let $O_n(V)$ be the linear span of all $u\circ_n v$ and $L(-1)u+L(0)u$ where for homogeneous $u\in V$ and $v\in V,$ $$\label{g2.2}
u\circ_n v=\Res_{z}Y(u,z)v\frac{(1+z)^{\wt u+n}}{z^{2n+2}}.$$ Define the linear space $A_n(V)$ to be the quotient $V/O_{n}(V).$ We also define a second product $*_n$ on $V$ for $u$ and $v$ as above: $$\label{a5.1}
u*_nv=\sum_{m=0}^{n}(-1)^m{m+n\choose n}\Res_zY(u,z)\frac{(1+z)^{\wt\,u+n}}{z^{n+m+1}}v.$$ Extend linearly to obtain a bilinear product on $V$.
Let $M=\sum_{n\in\Z_{+}}M(n)$ be an admissible $V$-module. Following \[Z\] we define weight zero operator $o_M(v)=v_{\wt v-1}$ on $M$ for homogeneous $v$ and extend $o_M(v)$ to all $v$ by linearity. It is clear from the definition that $o_M(v)M(n)\subset M(n)$ for all $n.$
\[l2.3\] Let $V$ be a vertex operator algebra and $M$ an admissible $V$-module. Then
1\) The product $*_{n}$ induces the structure of an associative algebra on $A_{n}(V)$ with identity ${\bf 1}+O_{n}(V).$ Moreover $\omega+O_{n}(V)$ is a central element of $A_{n}(V).$
2\) For $0\leq m\leq n,$ the map $\psi_n: v+O_n(V)\mapsto o_M(v)$ from $A_n(V)$ to $\End M(m)$ makes $M(m)$ an $A_n(V)$-module.
3\) $M$ is irreducible if and only if $M(n)$ is a simple $A_n(V)$-module for all $n.$
4\) The identity map on $V$ induces an onto algebra homomorphism from $A_n(V)$ to $A_m(V)$ for $0\leq m\leq n.$
5\) Two irreducible admissible $V$-modules $M^1$ and $M^2$ with $M^1(0)\ne 0$ and $M^2(0)\ne 0$ are isomorphic if and only if $M^1(n)$ and $M^2(n)$ are isomorphic $A_n(V)$-modules for any $n\geq 0$.
Parts 1)-2) and 4)-5) are proved in \[DLM4\], and 3) is given in \[DM4\].
Dual pair I
===========
In the next two sections we assume that $V$ is a simple vertex operator algebra. Our main goal is to generalize the duality result obtained in \[DLM1\] on $V$ to an arbitrary irreducible $V$-module. More precisely, let $G$ be a finite automorphism group of $V$ and $M$ an irreducible $V$-module. Then $M$ is a module for the vertex operator subalgebra $V^G$ of $G$-invariants. There are three questions one can ask: (1) Is $M$ is a completely reducible $V^G$-module? (2) What are irreducible modules for $V^G$ which occur as submodules of $M?$ (3) What are the relation between irreducible $V^G$-submodules of $M$ and $V^G$-submodules of another irreducible $V$-module $N?$ These questions will be answered completely in this section and the next section.
In this section we deal with the case that $M$ is $G$-stable (see the definition below). The general case will be treated in the next section. The basis ideas in the proof of main theorems come from \[DLM1\].
Let $(M,Y_M)$ be an irreducible $V$-module and $g\in G$. Following \[DM1\] we set $M\circ g=M$ as vector spaces, and $Y_{M\circ g}(v,z)=Y_M(gv,z)$. Note that $M\circ g$ is also an irreducible $V$-module. We [*assume*]{} in this section that $M$ is $G$-[*stable*]{} in the sense that for any $g\in G,$ $M\circ g$ and $M$ are isomorphic. If $M=V$ this assumption is always true.
For $g\in G$ there is a linear isomorphism $\phi(g): M\to
M$ satisfying $$\label{3.4'}
\phi(g)Y_M(v,z)\phi(g)^{-1}=Y_{M\circ g}(v,z)=Y_M(gv,z)$$ for $v\in V.$ The simplicity of $M$ together with Schur’s lemma shows that $g\mapsto \phi(g)$ is a projective representation of $G$ on $M.$ Let $\a_M$ be the corresponding 2-cocycle in $C^2(G,\C^{\times}).$ Then $M$ is a module for $\C^{\a_M}[G]$ where $\C^{\a_M}[G]$ is the twisted group algebra. It is worth pointing out that if $M=V$ we can take $\phi(g)=g$ and $\C^{\a_M}[G]=\C[G].$
Let $\Lambda_{G,\a_M}$ be the set of all irreducible characters $\lambda$ of $\C^{\a_M}[G]$. We denote the corresponding simple module by $W_{\l}.$ Again if $M=V$, $\Lambda_{V,\a_V}=\hat G$ is the set of all irreducible characters of $G.$ Note that $M$ is a semisimple $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-module. Let $M^{\lambda}$ be the sum of simple $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-submodules of $M$ isomorphic to $W_{\l}.$ Then $M=\oplus_{\lambda\in \Lambda_{G,\a_M}}M^{\lambda}$. Moreover, $M^{\lambda}=W_{\lambda}\otimes M_{\l}$ where $M_{\l}=\hom_{\C^{\a_M}[G]}(W_{\l},M)$ is the multiplicity of $W_{\l}$ in $M.$ As in \[DLM1\], we can, in fact, realize $M_{\l}$ as a subspace of $M$ in the following way. Let $w\in W_{\l}$ be a fixed nonzero vector. Then we can identify $\hom_{\C^{\a_M}[G]}(W_{\l},M)$ with the subspace $$\{f(w) |f\in \hom_{\C^{\a_M}[G]}(W_{\l},M)\}$$ of $M^{\l}.$
We also set $V^G=\{v\in V|gv=v, g\in G\}.$ Then $V^G$ is a simple vertex operator subalgebra of $V$ (see \[DM2\]) and $\phi(g)Y_M(v,z)\phi(g)^{-1}=Y_M(gv,z)
=Y_M(v,z)$ for all $v\in V^G.$ Thus the actions of $\C^{\a_M}[G]$ and $V^G$ on $M$ are commutative. This shows that both $M^{\l}$ and $M_{\l}$ are ordinary $V^G$-modules.
\[corect\] If $M_{\l}\ne 0$ then $M_{\l}$ is an irreducible $V^G$-module.
By Theorem \[l2.3\] 3) it is enough to prove that $M_{\l}(n)=M_{\l}\cap M(n)$ is a simple $A_n(V^G)$-module for all $n\geq 0.$ It is equivalent to show that for any $n\in \Z, n\geq 0$ $M_{\lambda}(n)$ is generated by any nonzero vector in $M_{\lambda}(n)$ as an $A_{n}(V^G)$-module.
Note from the definition of $A_n(V)$ that $A_n(V)$ is a $G$-module via $g(v+O_n(V))=gv+O_n(V)$ for $g\in G$ and $v\in V.$ Also $\End M(n)$ is an $G$-module via $gf=\phi(g)f\phi(g)^{-1}$ for $g\in G$ and $f\in
\End M(n).$ Then the algebra homomorphism $v+O_n(V)\mapsto o_M(v)$ from $A_n(V)$ to $\End M(n)$ is a $G$-homomorphism as $\phi(g)o_M(v)\phi(g)^{-1}=o_M(gv).$ From Proposition \[4.19\] and Theorem \[l2.3\] 3) we see that $\End M(n)=\{o_M(v)|v\in V\}.$ Since $G$ is a finite group we immediately have $\psi(A_n(V)^G)=(\End M(n))^G=\{o_M(v)|v\in V^G\}.$
Let $x,y\in M_{\l}(n)$ be linearly independent. Since $M(n)$ is a $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-module, we can write $M(n)$ as a direct sum $W_{\lambda}\otimes x\oplus W_{\lambda}
\otimes y\oplus W $ where $W$ is a $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-submodule of $M(n).$ Define a map $\beta\in\End M(n)$ such that $\beta(u\otimes x+v\otimes y+w)=
v\otimes x+u\otimes y+w$ for $u,v\in W_{\lambda}$ and $w\in W.$ Then $\beta\in(\End M(n))^{G}.$ Thus there exists vectors $v\in V^G$ such that $o_M(v)x=y.$ This implies that $M_{\l}(n)$ is an simple $A_n(V)^G$-module. Since $M_{\l}(n)$ is also an $A_n(V^G)$-module with the same action, we see that $M_{\l}(n)$ is a simple $A_n(V^G)$-module. This can be also explained by noting that the identity on $V^G$ induces an onto algebra homomorphism from $A_n(V^G)$ to $A_n(V)^G.$
\[rcorect\][If we take $M=V$ in Lemma \[corect\], then each $V_{\l}$ is an irreducible $V^G$-module for any irreducible character $\l$ of $G.$ This is the part (1) of Theorem 2.4 in \[DLM1\], where Lemma 2.2 of \[DLM1\] is used. It is pointed out to us by Wassermann that there is a gap in Lemma 2.2 of \[DLM1\]. The special case of Lemma \[corect\] now fixes the problem in \[DLM1\]. (The group $G$ in \[DLM1\] can be a compact group. But the correction present here works for such $G$.) The proofs for parts (2) and (3) of Theorem 2.4 in \[DLM1\] are correct.]{}
For the purpose of continuous discussion we now recall Theorem 2.4 from \[DLM1\] (also see Remark \[rcorect\]).
\[t1y\] Let $V$ be a simple vertex operator algebra and $G$ a finite automorphism group. Then
1\) $V^{\l}$ is nonzero for any $\l\in \hat G.$
2\) Each $V_{\l}$ is an irreducible $V^G$-module.
3\) $V_{\l}$ and $V_{\mu}$ are equivalent $V^G$-module if and only if $\l=\mu.$
The main result in this section is the following.
\[t2y\] With the same notation as above we have:
1\) $M^{\l}$ is nonzero for any $\l\in \Lambda_{G,\a_M}.$
2\) Each $M_{\l}$ is an irreducible $V^G$-module.
3\) $M_{\l}$ and $M_{\gamma}$ are equivalent $V^G$-module if and only if $\l=\gamma.$
That is, $V^G$ and $\C^{\a_M}[G]$ form a dual pair on $M$ in the sense of Howe (see \[H1\] and \[H2\]).
Let $\gamma\in \hat G$ and $\mu \in \Lambda_{G,\a_M}$ such that $M^{\mu}\ne 0.$ By Theorem \[t1y\] we can regard $W_{\gamma}$ and $W_{\mu}$ as a $\C[G]$-submodule of $V$ and a $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-submodule of $M$, respectively. In fact, we can assume that $W_{\gamma}$ and $W_{\mu}$ are homogeneous subspaces of $V$ and $M,$ respectively. Following \[DM3\] we define a subspace $Z_s$ of $M$ for any $s\in \Z$ by $$Z_s=\{\sum_{m\geq s}u_mw|u\in W_{\gamma}, w\in W_{\mu}\}.$$ Then it is easy to see that $Z_s$ is a $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-submodule of $M.$ We also define a map $$\psi_s: W_{\gamma}\otimes W_{\mu}\to Z_s$$ such that $\psi_s(u\otimes w)=\sum_{m\geq s}u_mw.$ Recall twisted group algebra from Section 2. In particular, $\{\bar g|g\in G\}$ is a basis of $\C^{\a_M}[G].$ Then $W_{\gamma}\otimes W_{\mu}$ is a $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-module with $\bar g$ acting as $g\otimes \phi(g)$ and $\psi_s$ is a $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-module homomorphism.
\[l4.2y\] For all sufficiently small $s,$ $\psi_s$ is a $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-module isomorphism.
This result in the case $M=V$ is proved in \[DM2\] and \[DM3\]. The proof is similar in the general case. Here we give an outline of the proof and we refer the reader to \[DM2\] and \[DM3\] for the details. From the associativity formula (\[ea\]) and commutator formula (\[ec\]) we can prove the following fact. Let $u^i\in V$ for $i=1,...,n$ and $w^1,...,w^n\in M$ be linearly independent. Then $\sum_{i=1}^nY_M(u^i,z)w^i\ne 0$ (see the proof of Lemma 3.1 of \[DM2\]; also see Proposition 11.9 of \[DL\]). Then following the proof of Lemma 2.2 of \[DM3\] for the case $M=V$ gives the result.
We now prove Theorem \[t2y\]. Part 2) is Lemma \[corect\]. In order to prove 1) we first note that there exists $\mu\in\Lambda_{M,\a_M}$ such that $M^{\mu}\ne 0.$ Let $\mu^*$ be the character of $\C^{\a_M^{-1}}[G]$ dual to $\mu.$ That is, the corresponding $\C^{\a_M^{-1}}[G]$-module is exactly $W_{\l}^*=\Hom_{\C}(W_{\l},\C).$ Then $\mu ^* \otimes \lambda$ is a character of $G$ for any $\lambda\in \Lambda_{G,\a_M}.$ Let $\gamma$ be an irreducible character of $G$ such that $\gamma\in \mu^*\otimes \lambda.$ Thus $$\Hom_{\C^{\a_M}[G]}(\lambda ,\mu \otimes \gamma)=\Hom_{\C[G]}(\mu^*\otimes \lambda,\gamma)\neq 0.$$ By Lemma \[l4.2y\], for small enough $s,$ the submodule $Z_s$ of $M$ contains a submodule isomorphic to $W_{\l}.$ That is, $M^{\lambda}\ne 0$ for all $\l\in \Lambda_{G,\a_M}.$
Finally we prove 3). Let $\l,\gamma\in \Lambda_{G,\a_M}$ are different. We can take $n\in \Z$ such that $M^{\l}(n)=M^{\l}\cap M(n)\ne 0.$ Then $M(n)$ is a direct sum of $\C^{\a_M}[G]$-modules $$M(n)=M^{\l}(n)\oplus W$$ for some suitable $\C^{\a_M}[G]$ submodule $W$ of $M(n).$
Define $\beta \in \End M(n)$ such that it is the identity on $M^{\l}(n)$ and zero on $W.$ Then $\beta\in (\End M(n))^{G}$. From the proof of lemma \[corect\] there exists $v\in V^G $ such that $o_M(v)=\beta $ is the identity on $M^{\l}(n)$ and zero on $W.$ Thus, there is no $A_{n}(V^G)$-module homomorphism between $M_{\lambda}(n)$ and $M_{\gamma}(n).$ That is, $M_{\lambda}(n)$ and $M_{\gamma}(n)$ are inequivalent $A_n(V^G)$-modules.
Since $M$ is irreducible $V$-module there exists $c\in \C$ such that $M=\sum_{n\geq 0}M_{c+n}$ with $M_c\ne 0$ where $M_{c+n}$ is the eigenspace for $L(0)$ with eigenvalue $c+n$ (see Definition \[d1\]). Thus we can take $M(n)=M_{c+n}.$ If $\dim (M_{\l})_{c+m}\ne \dim
(M_{\gamma})_{c+m}$ it is clear that $M_{\l}$ and $M_{\gamma}$ are nonisomorphic $V^G$-module. Otherwise by Theorem \[l2.3\], $M_{\l}$ is not isomorphic to $M_{\gamma}$ as $V^G$-modules.
Dual pair II
============
Let $V$ be a simple vertex operator algebra as in the last section and $G$ finite automorphism group of $V.$ Let $M$ be an irreducible $V$-module. But we do not assume that $M$ is $G$-stable. We set $$G_M=\{g\in G| M\circ h\cong M\}$$ which is a subgroup of $G.$ Recall Theorem \[t2y\]. One of the main results in this section is the following result of Schur-Weyl type:
\[t3y\] With the same notation as above we have:
1\) $M^{\l}$ is nonzero for any $\l\in \Lambda_{G_M,\a_M}.$
2\) Each $M_{\l}$ is an irreducible $V^G$-module.
3\) $M_{\l}$ and $M_{\gamma}$ are equivalent $V^G$-module if and only if $\l=\gamma.$
That is, $V^G$ and $\C^{\a_M}[G_M]$ form a dual pair on $M.$
This result generalizes Theorem 2.4 of \[DLM1\] (a case $M=V$) and sharpens Theorem \[t2y\]. In particular, the result shows that $M$ is a completely reducible $V^G$-module.
In order to prove Theorem \[t3y\] we need a general setting and we will prove a stronger result.
A set $\S$ of irreducible $V$-modules is called [ *stable*]{} if for any $M\in \S$ and $g\in G$ there exists $N\in \S$ such that $M\circ g\cong N.$
Assume that ${\S}$ is a finite set of inequivalent irreducible $V$-module which is $G$-stable. Since $M\circ(g_1g_2)$ and $(M\circ g_1)\circ g_2$ are isomorphic $V$-module for $g_1,g_2\in G$ and $M\in \S$ we can define an right action of $G$ on $\S.$ Let $M\in \S$ and $g\in G$ we define $M\cdot g=N$ if $M\circ g\cong N.$ It is clear that this action makes $\S$ a right $G$-set.
1\) For any irreducible $V$-module $M$ consider the coset decomposition $G=\cup_{i=1}^kG_Mg_i.$ Then ${\S}=\{M\circ g_i|i=1,...,k\}$ is a such right $G$-set which will be used to prove Theorem \[t3y\].
2\) If $V$ is rational, a complete list of inequivalent irreducible $V$-modules forms a such right $G$-set.
Let $M\in {\S}$ and $x\in G$. Then there exists $N\in {\S}$ such that $N\cong M\circ x.$ That is, there is a linear map $\p_N(x):N\rightarrow M$ satisfying the condition: $\p_N(x)Y_N(v,z)\p_N(x)^{-1}=Y_M(xv,z).$ By simplicity of $N$, there exists $\a_N(y,x)\in \C^*$ such that $\p_M(y)\p_N(x)=\a_N(y,x)\p_N(yx).$ Moreover, for $x,y,z\in G$ we have $$\a_N(z,yx)\a_N(y,x)=\a_M(z,y)\a_N(zy,x).$$
As in Section 3 we set $\C{\S}=\bigoplus_{M\in {\S}}\C e(M)$ and $e(M)e(N)=\d_{M,N}e(M)$. Let $U(\C{\cal S})
=\{\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M)|\l_{M}\in \C^*\}$ and $\a(h,k)=\sum_{M\in {\S}}\a_{M}(h,k)e(M).$ It is easy to check that $\a(hk,l)\a(h,k)^l=\a(h,kl)\a(k,l).$ So $\a\in Z^2(G,U(\C\cal{S}))$ is a 2-cocycle. Following Section \[s3\], we construct an associative algebra $A_{\a}(G,{\S})$ with multiplication defined by $$a\o e(M)\cdot b\o e(N)=\a_{N}(a,b)ab\o e(M\cdot b)e(N)$$ for $a,b\in G$ and $M,N\in\S.$
We define an action of $A_{\a}(G,{\S})$ on $\oplus_{N\in \S}N$ in the following way: for $M,N\in {\S}$ and $w\in N$ we set $$a\o e(M)\cdot w= \d_{M,N}\p_{M}(a)w$$ where $\p_{N}(a):N\rightarrow N\cdot a^{-1}.$
For $N\in {\S}$ we let ${\O}_N=\{N\cdot g|g\in G\}$ be the orbit of $N$ under $G.$
With the action defined above, $\oplus_{N\in \S}N$ becomes a module for $A_{\a}(G,{\S}).$ Moreover $\oplus_{M\in \O_N}M$ is a submodule for any $N.$
The proof is a straightforward computation: for $a,b\in G$ and $M,N\in \S$ and $m\in N,$ $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ (b\o e(L)\cdot a\o e(M))\cdot m\\
& &=(\d_{L\cdot a,M}\a_{M}(b,a)ba\o e(M))\cdot m\\
& &=\d_{L\cdot a, M}\d_{M,N}\a_{M}(b,a)\p_{M}(ba)m\\
& &=\d_{L\cdot a, M}\d_{M,N}\p_{M\cdot a^{-1}}(b)\p_{M}(a)m\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ b\o e(L)\cdot (a\o e(M)\cdot m)\\
& &= b\o e(L)\cdot (\d_{M,N}\p_{M}(a)m)\\
& &=\d_{L,M\cdot a^{-1}}\d_{M,N}\p_{L}(b)\p_{M}(a)m\\
& &=\d_{L,M\cdot a^{-1}}\d_{M,N}\p_{M\cdot a^{-1}}(b)\p_{M}(a)m.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\bigoplus_{M\in \S}M$ is $A_{\a}(G,{\cal S})$-module. It is clear that $\oplus_{M\in \O_N}M$ is a submodule.
Let $M\in \S.$ Recall from Section 3 that $D(M)=\<a\o e(M)|a\in G\>$ and $S(M)=\<a\o e(M)|a\in G_M\>$.
\[p4.27\] Let $N\in\S.$ Then $N$ is a $S(N)$-module and there is an $A_{\a}(G,{\S})$-modules isomorphism between $D(N)\o_{S(N)}N$ and $\bigoplus_{M\in {\cal O}_N}M$ determined by $\Psi: a\o e(N)\o m \mapsto \p_{N}(a)m.$
To prove $N$ is a $S(N)$-module, it is enough to prove that $N$ is $S(N)$-stable. But this clear as $a\otimes e(N)w=\phi_N(a)w\in N$ for $a\in G_N$ and $w\in N.$
Next we prove that $\Psi$ is well defined. We must show that $\Psi(d_{a,N}d_{b,N}\otimes w)= \Psi(d_{a,N}\otimes d_{b,N}w)$ for $w\in N,$ $a\in G, b\in G_N$ where $d_{a,N}=a\otimes e(N).$ This is clear as $$\begin{aligned}
& &\ \ \ \ \Psi(d_{a,N}d_{b,N}\otimes w)\\
& &=\alpha_N(a,b)\Psi(d_{ab,N}\otimes w)\\
& &=\alpha_N(a,b)\phi_N(ab)w\\
& &=\phi_N(a)\phi_N(b)w\\
& &=\phi_N(a)d_{b,N}w\\
& &=\Psi(d_{a,N}\otimes d_{b,N}w).\end{aligned}$$
The fact that $\Psi$ is a module homomorphism follows from $$\begin{aligned}
& &\Psi(d_{b,M}\cdot d_{a,N}\o w)\\
& &=\Psi(\d_{M\cdot a,N}\a_{N}(b,a)d_{ba,N}\o w)\\
& &=\d_{M\cdot a,N}\a_{N}(b,a)\p_{N}(ba)w)\\
& &=\d_{M\cdot a,N}\p_{N\cdot a^{-1}}(b)\p_{N}(a)w\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &d_{b,M}\Psi(d_{a,N}\o w)=d_{b,M}\cdot \p_{N}(a)w\\
& &=\d_{M,N\cdot a^{-1}}\p_{N\cdot a^{-1}}(b)\p_{N}(a)w\\\end{aligned}$$ where $a,b\in G.$
In order to show that $\Psi$ is a bijection we construct an inverse of $\Psi.$
Suppose that $ G=\bigcup_{i_N=1}^{k_N}G_Ng_{i_N}$ is a coset decomposition. Then $$\bigoplus_{M\in {\O}_N}M=\bigoplus_{i_N=1}^{k_N}
\p_N(g_{i_N}^{-1})N.$$ Define $$\begin{aligned}
\bigoplus_{M\in {\O}_N}M&\stackrel{\ch}{\rightarrow}& D(N)\bigotimes_{S(N)}N\\
\sum_{i_N=1}^{k_N}\p_{N}(g_{i_N}^{-1})m_{i_N}&\mapsto& \sum_{i_N=1}^{k_N}d_{g_{i_N}^{-1},N}\o m_{i_N}.\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to show that $\Psi\circ \ch=Id_{\bigoplus_{M\in {\O}_N}M}$ and $\ch\circ \Psi=Id_{D(N)\o_{S(N)}N}$. So, ${D(N)\bigotimes_{S(N)}N}$ and $\bigoplus_{M\in {\O}_N}M$ are isomorphic as $A_{\a}(G,\cal {M})$-modules.
Set $${\cal M}=\bigoplus_{M\in {\S}}M.$$
\[p50\] 1) Every simple $A_{\a}(G,{\cal S})$-module occurs as a submodule of $\M$.
2\) The actions of $A_{\a}(G,{\cal{M}})$ and $V^G$ on ${\cal M}$ commute.
Part 1) follows from Theorems \[t50\], \[t2y\] and a natural identification of $S(N)$ with $\C^{\a_N}[G_N]$ for $N\in \S.$ Part 2) follows from the relation $$a\otimes e(M)\bar Y(v,z)=\bar Y(av,z)a\otimes e(M)$$ on $\cal M$ for $a\in G,$ $M\in \S$ and $v\in V$ where we have used $\bar Y(v,z)$ denote the operator on $\cal M$ which acts on $M$ by $Y_M(v,z).$
Set $B=G\times U(\C{\S})$. Then $B$ is a group under multiplication defined by $$(y,v)(x,u)=(yx,\a(y,x)v^xu)$$
This result is standard as $\a$ is a 2-cocycle.
$\M$ is a $B$-module via $(x,\sum_{M\in {\S}}\l_{M}e(M))=\sum_{M\in \S}\p_{M}(x)\l_M.$
This result is immediate by noting that the subset $B'=\{a\otimes u|a\in G,u\in U(\C\S)\}$ of $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$ is a multiplicative group isomorphic to $B$ and the action of $B$ on $\M$ is exactly the action of $B'$ on ${\cal M}.$
For any $(x,u)\in B$, $v\in V,$ we have $$(x,u)\bar{Y}(v,z)(x,u)^{-1}=\bar Y(xv,z)$$ on $\cal M.$
Let $b=(x,\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M)))\in B$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& &b\bar Y(v,z)=(x,\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M)))\bar Y(v,z)\\
& &\ \ \ \ =\bar Y(xv,z)(x,\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M)))\end{aligned}$$ (see the proof of Proposition \[p50\] 2)) as required.
\[l50\] $\bigoplus_{M\in \S}\End(M)$ is a $B$-module via $$(x,\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M))\cdot \sum_{M\in \S}f_M
=\sum_{M\in \S}\p_{M}(x)f_{M}\p_{M}(x)^{-1}.$$ Furthermore, for each orbit $\O$ and $n\geq 0,$ $\bigoplus_{M\in {\O}}\End(M(n))$ is a $B$-submodule. In particular, $\bigoplus_{M\in {\O}}\End(M(n))$ is a $G$-module.
Let $(x,\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M))$, $(y,\sum_{M\in {\S}}\b_{M}e(M))\in B.$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
& &[(y,\sum_{M\in {\S}}\b_{M}e(M))(x,\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M))]\sum_{M\in {\S}}f_M \\
& &=(yx,\sum_{M\in {\S}}\b_{M\cdot x^{-1}}\l_{M}\a_{M}(y,x)e(M))\sum_{M\in {\S}}f_M\\
& &=\sum_{M\in {\S}}\p_{M}(yx)f_{M}\p_{M}(yx)^{-1}\\
& &=\sum_{M\in {\S}}\p_{M\cdot x^{-1}}(y)\p_{M}(x)f_{M}\p_{M}(x)^{-1}\p_{M\cdot x^{-1}}(y)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& &(y,\sum_{M\in {\S}}\b_{M}e(M)) [(x,\sum_{M\in{\S}}\l_{M}e(M))\sum_{M\in {\S}}f_{M}]\\
& &(y,\sum_{M\in {\S}}\b_{M}e(M))\sum_{M\in {\S}}\p_{M}(x)f_{M}\p_{M}(x)^{-1}\\
& &=\sum_{M\in {\S}}\p_{M\cdot x^{-1}}(y)\p_{M}(x)f_{M}\p_{M}(x)^{-1}\p_{M\cdot x^{-1}}(y)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ $\bigoplus_{M\in {\S}}\End(M)$ is a $B$-module. The other assertions in the lemma are clear.
[It is worth to point out that $\phi_M(x)f_M\phi_M(x)^{-1}$ does not lie in $\End M$ for $f_M\in \End M$ and $x\in G$ unless $x\in G_M.$ In general, $\phi_M(x)f_M\phi_M(x)^{-1}$ is an element of $\End (M\cdot x^{-1}).$]{}
For any nonnegative $n\in\Z,$ let $\sigma_n$ be a map from $A_n(V)$ to $\bigoplus_{M\in \S}\sum_{0\leq m\leq n}\End M(m)$ defined by $\sigma_n(v+O_n(V))=\sum_{M\in \S}o_{M}(v).$
\[l51\] The map $\sigma_n$ is a $G$-module epimorphism. In particular, $\sigma(A_n(V)^G)=(\sum_{M\in{\S},0\leq m\leq n}\End M(m))^G$
Let $g\in G$ and $v\in V.$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
& &\sigma_n(g(v+O_n(v)))=\sigma_n(gv+O_n(V))\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ =\sum_{M\in \S}o_{M}(gv)\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ =\sum_{M\in \S}\p_M(g)o_M(v)\p_M(g)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $\sigma_n$ is a $G$-homomorphism.
In order to see that $\sigma_n$ is onto we note that all $M\in \S$ are inequivalent. We assume that $M(0)\ne 0$ for all $M\in \S.$ By Theorem \[l2.3\], $\{M(m)|M\in {\S}, 0\leq m\leq n\}$ is a set of finite dimensional inequivalent $A_n(V)$-modules. Let $K_{M(m)}$ be the kernel of $A_n(V)$ on $M(m).$ Then $A_n(V)/K_{M(m)}$ is isomorphic to $\End M(m)$ and $A_n(V)/K_n$ is isomorphic to the direct sum $\bigoplus_{M\in \S}\bigoplus_{0\leq m\leq n}\End M(m)$ where $K_n=\cap_{M,m}K_{M(m)}.$ Thus $\sigma_n$ is onto.
Now we are in the position to state and to prove the main result in this paper. Let ${\S}=\cup_{j\in J}\O_j$ be an orbit decomposition and fix $M^j\in \O_j.$ For convenience, we set $G_j=G_{M^j}$ and $\Lambda_j=\Lambda_{M^j,\alpha_{M^j}}.$ Then by Theorem \[t2y\] we have a decomposition $$M^j=\sum_{\l\in \L_j}W_{\l}\otimes M^j_{\l}$$ where $M^j_{\l}$ is an irreducible $V^{G_j}$-module. Thanks to Propositions \[p4.27\] and \[p50\] we have $${\M}=\bigoplus_{j\in J}\sum_{\l\in {\L}_j}(\Ind_{S(M^j)}^{D(M^j)}
W_{\l})\otimes M^j_{\l}$$ as a $A_{\alpha}(G,{\S})\otimes V^G$-module. For $j\in J$ and $\l\in {\L}_j$ we set $W_{j,\l}=\Ind_{S(M^j)}^{D(M^j)}
W_{\l}.$ Then by Theorems \[t50\], $W_{j,\l}$ forms a complete list of simple $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$-modules.
\[main\] As a $A_{\alpha}(G,{\S})\otimes V^G$-module, $${\M}=\bigoplus_{j\in J,\l\in \L_j}W_{j,\l}\otimes M^j_{\l}.$$ Moreover,
1\) Each $M^j_{\l}$ is a nonzero irreducible $V^G$-module.
2\) $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}$ and $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}$ are isomorphic $V^G$-module if and only if $j_1=j_2$ and $\l_1=\l_2.$
That is, $(A_{\alpha}(G,{\S}), V^G)$ forms a dual pair on $\M.$
1\) We have already seen from Theorem \[t2y\] that each $M^j_{\l}$ is nonzero. Again by Theorem \[l2.3\] 3) we only need to show that each $M^j_{\l}(n)=M^j(n)\cap M^j_{\l}$ is a simple $A_n(V^G)$-module.
We now fix $j.$ Suppose $G=\bigcup_{i=1}^{k}G_{j}g_{i}$ be the coset decomposition such that $g_1=1.$ For each $v\in V^{G_j}$ we set $f^v\in \sum_{M\in \S}\End M(n)$ such that $f^v$ acts on $M^j\cdot g_i^{-1}$ as $$\phi_{M^j}(g_i)o_{M^j}(v)
\phi_{M^j}(g_i)^{-1}=o_{M^j\cdot g_i^{-1}}(g_iv)$$ for $i=1,...,k,$ acts on any other $M(n)$ as zero. Then it is clear from Lemma \[l50\] that $f^v\in
(\sum_{M\in \S}\End M(n))^G.$ By Lemma \[l51\] there exists $u\in V^G$ such that $f^u=f^v.$ This shows that for any $v\in V^{G_{j}}$ there exists $u\in V^G$ such that $o_{M^j}(v)=o_{M^j}(u)$ on $M^j(n).$ Since $M^j_{\l}(n)$ is a simple module for $A_n(V^{G_{j}})$ by Theorems \[l2.3\] and \[t2y\] we see immediately that $M^j_{\l}(n)$ is a simple $A_n(V^G)$-module.
2\) We take $(j_1,\l_1)\ne (j_2,\l_2).$ We must to prove that $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}$ and $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}$ are inequivalent. Let $n\geq 0$ such that both $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(n)$ and $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}(n)$ are nonzero. Then $$\sum_{0\leq m\leq n}{\M}(m)
=\sum_{0\leq m\leq n}W_{j_1,\l_1}\otimes M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(m)\oplus W$$ for a suitable $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$-module $W.$ Define $f$ in $\sum_{M\in {\S},0\leq m\leq n}\End M(m)$ such that $f=1$ on $\sum_{0\leq m\leq n}W_{j_1,\l_1}\otimes M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(m)$ and $f=0$ on $W.$ Again it is obvious that $$f\in (\sum_{M\in {\S},0\leq m\leq n}\End M(m))^G.$$ Using Lemma \[l51\] we find $v\in V^G$ such that $\sigma_n(v)=f.$ That is $o_{M^{j_1}_{\l_1}}(v)=1$ on $\sum_{0\leq m\leq n}M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(m)$ and $o_{M^{j_2}_{\l_2}}(v)=0$ on $\sum_{0\leq m\leq n}M^{j_2}_{\l_2}(m).$ That is, $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(s)$ and $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}(t)$ are nonisomorphic $A_n(V^G)$-modules for $0\leq s,t\leq n$ if either $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(s)$ or $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}(t)$ is nonzero. In particular, $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(s_0)$ or $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}(t_0)$ are nonisomorphic $A_n(V^G)$-modules where $s_0,t_0\geq 0$ such that $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(s)=0$ and $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}(t)=0$ for all $s\leq s_0$ and $t\leq t_0.$ Our choices of $s_0$ and $t_0$ then assert that $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}(s_0)$ or $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}(t_0)$ are, in fact, inequivalent $A_0(V^G)$-modules. Thus by Theorem \[l2.3\] $M^{j_1}_{\l_1}$ and $M^{j_2}_{\l_2}$ are inequivalent $V^G$-modules.
Now Theorem \[t3y\] follows from Theorem \[main\] immediately by taking the right $G$-set $\S$ to be the $G$-orbit $\{M\circ g_i|i=1,...,l\}$ where $G=\cup_{i=1}^l G_Mg_i$ is the coset decomposition of $G$ with respect to the stabilizer $G_M=\{g\in G|M\circ g\cong M\}.$
We end this paper with the following general discussion: If $V$ has only finitely many inequivalent irreducible modules (this is the case when $V$ is rational; see the discussion after Definition \[ration\]), then a complete list of irreducible $V$-modules is a right $G$-set. Theorem \[main\] then tells us not only ${\M}=\sum_{M\in \S}M$ is completely reducible but also gives an equivalence between $A_{\alpha}(G,\S)$-module category and a subcategory of admissible $V^G$-modules generated by the irreducible submodules occurring in $\M$ by sending $W_{j,\l}$ to $M^j_{\l}.$ We expect to use this result to determine the module category for $V^G$ when $V$ is rational in the future.
[ABCDE]{} R. Blattner, M. Cohen and S. Montgomery, Crossed products and inner actions of Hopf algebras [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**298**]{} (1986), 671–711. R. Borcherds, Vertex algebras, Kac-Moody algebras, and the Monster, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} [**83**]{} (1986), 3068-3071. R. Dijkgraaf, V. Pasquier and P. Roche, Quasi-quantum groups related to orbifold models, Ed. by M. Carfora, M. Martellini, A Marguolis, World Scientific, 1992, 75-89. R. Dijkgraaf, C. Vafa, E. Verlinde and H. Verlinde, The operator algebra of orbifold models, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**123**]{} (1989), 485-526. Y. Doi and M. Takeuchi, Cleft comodule algebras for a bialgebra [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**14**]{} (1986), 801–817. C. Dong and J. Lepowsky, Generalized Vertex Algebras and Relative Vertex Operators, Progress in Math., [**Vol. 112**]{}, Birkhauser, Boston, 1993. C. Dong, H. Li and G. Mason, Compact Automorphism Groups of Vertex Operator Algebras, [*International Math. Research Notices*]{} [**18**]{} (1996), 913-921. C. Dong, H. Li and G. Mason, Regularity of rational vertex operator algebras, [*Advances. in Math.*]{} [**132**]{} (1997), 148-166 C. Dong, H. Li and G. Mason, Twisted representations of vertex operator algebras, [*Math. Ann.* ]{} [**310**]{} (1998), 571-600. C.Dong, H. Li and G. Mason, Vertex Operator Algebras and Associative Algebras, [*J. of Algebra*]{} [**206**]{} (1998), 67-96. C. Dong and G. Mason, Nonabelian Orbifolds and the Boson-Fermion Correspondence, [*Comm. Math. Phys*]{} [**163**]{} (1994), 523-559. C. Dong and G. Mason, On quantum Galois theory, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**86**]{} (1997), 305-321. C. Dong and G.Mason, Quantum Galois theory for compact Lie groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**214**]{} (1999), 92-102. C. Dong and G. Mason, Radical of a vertex operator algebra associated to a module, math.QA/9904155. C. Dong and G. Mason, Vertex operator algebras and their automorphism groups, In: Proceedings of International Conference on Representation Theory (Shanghai, 1998), China Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag, to appear. V. Drinfeld, Quantum groups, in Proc. of the ICM, Berkeley, AMS (1986), 798-820. I. Frenkel, Y. Huang and J. Lepowsky, On axiomatic approaches to vertex operator algebras and modules, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. [**104**]{}, 1993. I. Frenkel, J. Lepowsky and A. Meurman, [*Vertex Operator Algebras and the Monster*]{}, Pure and Appl. Math., [**Vol. 134**]{}, Academic Press, Boston, 1988. R. Howe, Remarks on classical invariant theory, [*Trans. AMS*]{} [**313**]{} (1989), 539-570. R. Howe, Perspectives on invariant theory, [*The Schur Lectures*]{} (1992), Israel Math. Conf. Proceedings, 1-178. G. Karpilovsky, Group Representations Vol. 2 Mathematics studies [**Vol. 177**]{}, North-Holland, 1993. H. Li, An approach to tensor product theory for representations of a vertex operator algebra, [*Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University*]{}, 1994. G. Mason, The quantum double of a finite group and its role in conformal field theory [*London Math. Soc. Lecture Note ser.*]{} [**212**]{} (1995), 405-417. M. Sweedler, Cohomology of algebras over Hopf algebras [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**133**]{} (1968) 205–239. Y. Zhu, Modular invariance of characters of vertex operator algebras, [*J. Amer, Math. Soc.*]{} [**9**]{} (1996), 237-302.
[^1]: Supported by NSF grant DMS-9700923 and a research grant from the Committee on Research, UC Santa Cruz.
[^2]: Supported by DPST grant.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We prove the first explicit rate of convergence to the Tracy-Widom distribution for the fluctuation of the largest eigenvalue of sample covariance matrices that are not integrable. Our primary focus is matrices of type $ X^*X $ and the proof follows the Erdös-Schlein-Yau dynamical method. We use a recent approach to the analysis of the Dyson Brownian motion from [@bourgade2018extreme] to obtain a quantitative error estimate for the local relaxation flow at the edge. Together with a quantitative version of the Green function comparison theorem, this gives the rate of convergence.
Combined with a result of Lee-Schnelli [@lee2016tracy], some quantitative estimates also hold for more general separable sample covariance matrices $ X^* \Sigma X $ with general diagonal population $ \Sigma $.
address: 'Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, 251 Mercer St., New York, NY 10012'
author:
- Haoyu Wang
bibliography:
- 'CovarianceTW.bib'
title: Quantitative Universality for the Largest Eigenvalue of Sample Covariance Matrices
---
Introduction
============
Overview and main results
-------------------------
Edge universality of sample covariance matrices has been a classical problem in random matrix theory. It is well known that the distribution of the largest eigenvalue (after appropriate rescaling) converges to the Tracy-Widom distribution. Early non-quantitative results were first proved in [@peche2009universality; @pillai2014universality; @Soshnikov]. Quantitative estimates, however, were only obtained for the Wishart ensemble (see [@el2006rate; @Johansson; @Johnstone; @ma2012accuracy]), which is essentially an integrable model. In this paper, we prove the explicit rate of convergence $ N^{-2/9} $ to the Tracy-Widom distribution for all sample covariance matrices of type $ X^*X $ with general distributed entries, and an analogous result with deterministic rate $ N^{-1/57} $ for all separable sample covariance matrices $ X^* \Sigma X $ with diagonal population $ \Sigma $. For simplicity and motivations from statistics, we only consider the real case, but the whole proof and the results are also true for complex sample covariance matrices.
Let $ X=(x_{ij}) $ be an $ M \times N $ data matrix with independent real valued entries with mean 0 and variance $ M^{-1} $, $$\label{e.Assumption1}
x_{ij} = M^{-1/2}q_{ij},\ \ \ {\mathbb{E}}q_{ij}=0,\ \ \ {\mathbb{E}}q_{ij}^2 =1.$$ Furthermore, we assume the entries $ q_{ij} $ have a sub-exponential decay, that is, there exists a constant $ \theta>0 $ such that for $ u>1 $, $$\label{e.Assumption2}
{\mathbb{P}}(|q_{ij}| > u) {\leqslant}\theta^{-1} \exp (-u^\theta).$$ This sub-exponential decay assumption is mainly for convenience, other conditions such as the finiteness of a sufficiently high moment would be enough. (For a necessary and sufficient condition for the edge universality we refer to [@ding2018necessary].)
The sample covariance matrix corresponding to data matrix $ X $ is defined by $ H := X^* X $. Throughout this paper, to avoid trivial eigenvalues, we will be working in the regime $$\xi=\xi(N) := N/M,\ \ \ \lim_{N \to \infty} \xi \in (0,1) \ \mbox{or}\ \xi \equiv 1.$$ We will mainly work with the rectangular case $ 0< \xi <1 $, but will also show how to adapt the arguments to the square case $ M \equiv N $. (The reason why we do not discuss the general case $ \lim \xi =1 $ is merely technical due to the lack of local laws at the hard edge. In particular, the rigidity estimate at the hard edge is only known for a fixed $ \xi \equiv 1 $ but not for $ \xi = \xi(N) \to 1 $.)
We order the eigenvalues of $ H $ as $ \lambda_1 {\leqslant}\cdots {\leqslant}\lambda_N $, and use $ \lambda_+ $ to denote the typical location of the largest eigenvalue (see for the definition). For the main result of this paper, we consider the Kolmogorov distance $${\mathsf{d_K}}(X,Y) := \sup_{x} \left| {\mathbb{P}}(X {\leqslant}x) - {\mathbb{P}}(Y {\leqslant}x) \right|.$$
\[t.Rate\] Let $ H_N $ be sample covariance matrices satisfying and . Let $ {\mathsf{TW}}$ be the Tracy-Widom distribution. For any $ {\varepsilon}>0 $, for large enough $ N $ we have $${\mathsf{d_K}}(N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - \lambda_+),{\mathsf{TW}}) {\leqslant}N^{-\frac{2}{9}+{\varepsilon}}.$$
The null case $ X^*X $ is our primary concern in this paper, but quantitative estimates are also valid for general diagonal population matrices $ X^* \Sigma X $ thanks to the comparison theorem for the Green function flow by Lee and Schnelli (see Section \[s.GeneralPopulation\] for more details). Combining our quantitative edge universality for the null case (Theorem \[t.Rate\]) with the Green function comparison by Lee-Schnelli (Proposition \[p.GreenFunctionFlow\]), we derive the rate of convergence to Tracy-Widom distribution for separable sample covariance matrices with general diagonal population.
\[t.RateGeneralPopulation\] Let $ Q := X^* \Sigma X $ be an $ N \times N $ separable sample covariance matrix, where $ X $ is an $ M \times N $ real random matrix satisfying and , and $ \Sigma $ is a real diagonal $ M \times M $ matrix satisfying . Let $ \mu_N $ be the largest eigenvalue of $ Q $. For any $ {\varepsilon}>0 $, for large enough $ N $ we have $$\label{e.RateGeneralPopulation}
{\mathsf{d_K}}\left( \gamma_0 N^{2/3} (\mu_N - E_+),{\mathsf{TW}}\right) {\leqslant}N^{-\frac{1}{57} + {\varepsilon}},$$ where $ E_+ $ defined in denotes the rightmost endpoint of the spectrum and $ \gamma_0 $ is a normalization constant defined in .
The method of the paper follows the three-step strategy of the Erdös-Schlein-Yau dynamical approach [@erdHos2011universality]: (i) a priori bounds on locations of eigenvalues; (ii) local relaxation of the eigenvalue dynamics; (iii) a density argument showing eigenvalues statistics have not changed after short time.
Specifically, in this paper, the three-step strategy is employed in the following way: (i) is the rigidity for singular values, which can be rephrased from classical results on eigenvalues (see [@bloemendal2014isotropic; @pillai2014universality]). For the particular square case $ M \equiv N $, we use a different rigidity estimate at the hard edge from [@alt2017local],which results in a slightly different proof; (ii) is the recent approach to the analysis of Dyson Brownian motion from [@bourgade2018extreme], which introduced an observable defined via interpolation with integrable models (see [@bourgade2016fixed; @landon2019fixed]). It describes the singular values evolution through a stochastic advection equation; (iii) is a quantitative version of the Green function comparison theorem, which is a slight extension of the classical result from [@GreenFunctionComparison].
As discussed in [@pillai2014universality Section 3], though we discuss the problems in the context of covariance matrices, the proof should also work for more generalized problems such as the quantitative edge universality of correlation matrices (see [@pillai2012edge]).
This paper is organized as follows. The main part of the paper (Section \[s.prelim\]-\[s.Comparison\]) is devoted to the null case $ X^*X $. In Section \[s.prelim\] we rephrase the classical results on the eigenvalues of sample covariance matrices to the version for singular values, including Dyson Brownian motion, local laws and rigidity estimates. In Section \[s.LocalRelaxationFlow\], we define an observable that describes the evolution of singular values, and then prove the error estimate for the local relaxation flow at the edge by studying the dynamics of the observable. In Section \[s.Comparison\] we prove the quantitative Green function comparison theorem and use it to derive the rate of convergence to the Tracy-Widom distribution. Finally, in Section \[s.GeneralPopulation\] we generalize our result to separable sample covariance matrices with diagonal population by studying the interpolation between general covariance matrices with the null case.
Notations
---------
Throughout this paper, we use the notation $ A \lesssim B $ if there exists a constant $ C $ which is independent of $ N $ such that $ A {\leqslant}CB $ holds. We also denote $ A \sim B $ if both $ A \lesssim B $ and $ B \lesssim A $ hold. If $ A $ and $ B $ are complex valued, $ A \sim B $ means $ {\text{\rm Re}\hspace{0.1cm}}A \sim {\text{\rm Re}\hspace{0.1cm}}B $ and $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}A \sim {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}B $. We also denote $ C $ a generic constant which does not depend on $ N $ but may vary form line to line. We use $ \llbracket A,B \rrbracket := [A,B] \cap {\mathbb{Z}}$ to denote the set of integers between $ A $ and $ B $.
We also denote $$\varphi = e^{C_0 (\log \log N)^2}$$ a subpolynomial error parameter, for some fixed $ C_0>0 $. This constant $ C_0 $ is chosen large enough so that the eigenvalues (and singular values) rigidity and the strong local Marchenko-Pastur law hold (see section \[s.LocalLaw\]).
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
The author would like to thank Prof. Paul Bourgade for suggesting this problem, helpful discussions, and useful comments on the early draft of the paper.
Preliminaries {#s.prelim}
=============
Dyson Brownian motion for covariance matrices
---------------------------------------------
Let $ B $ be an $ M \times N $ real matrix Brownian motion: $ B_{ij} $ are independent standard Brownian motions. We define the $ M \times N $ matrix $ M_t $ by $$M_t = M_0 + \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{N}}B_t.$$ The eigenvalues dynamics for the real Wishart process $ X_t := M_t^* M_t $ was first proved in [@bru1989diffusions]. Under our normalization convention, the equation is in the following form given in [@bourgade2017eigenvector Appendix C] $$\label{e.EigenvalueDBM}
{\mathrm{d}}\lambda_k = 2\sqrt{\lambda_k}\dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}B_{kk}}{\sqrt{N}} + \left( \dfrac{M}{N} + \dfrac{1}{N} \sum_{l \neq k}\dfrac{\lambda_k + \lambda_l}{\lambda_k - \lambda_l} \right){\mathrm{d}}t.$$ Due to technical issues, it is difficult to use the coupling method from [@bourgade2016fixed] to analyze in a direct way. This motivates us to consider the singular values instead.
Let $ s_k := \sqrt{\lambda_k} $ denote the singular values of $ X $. The Dyson Brownian motion for singular values dynamics of such sample covariance matrices is the following Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process [@erdHos2012local equation (5.8)]. $${\mathrm{d}}s_k = \dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}B_k}{\sqrt{N}} + \left[ -\dfrac{1}{2\xi}s_k + \dfrac{1}{2}\left( \dfrac{1}{\xi} -1 \right) \dfrac{1}{s_k} + \dfrac{1}{2N} \sum_{l \neq k} \left( \dfrac{1}{s_k - s_l} + \dfrac{1}{s_k + s_l} \right) \right]{\mathrm{d}}t, \ \ \ 1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N.$$ An important idea in this paper is the following symmetrization trick (see [@che2019universality equation (3.9)]): $$s_{-i}(t)=-s_i(t),\ \ \ B_{-i}(t)=-B_i(t),\ \ \forall t {\geqslant}0,\ 1 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}N.$$ From now we label the indices from $ -1 $ to $ -N $ and $ 1 $ to $ N $, so that the zero index is omitted. Unless otherwise stated, this will be the convention and we will not emphasize it explicitly. After symmetrization, the dynamics turns to the following form $$\label{e.SymmetrizedDynamics}
{\mathrm{d}}s_k = \dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}B_k}{\sqrt{N}} + \left[ -\dfrac{1}{2\xi}s_k + \dfrac{1}{2}\left( \dfrac{1}{\xi} -1 \right) \dfrac{1}{s_k} + \dfrac{1}{2N} \sum_{l \neq \pm k} \dfrac{1}{s_k - s_l} \right]{\mathrm{d}}t, \ \ \ -N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N, k \neq 0.$$
Local law and rigidity for singular values {#s.LocalLaw}
------------------------------------------
The local law and rigidity estimates are classical results for the eigenvalues of sample covariance matrices. In this section, for later use, we rephrase these results into the corresponding version in terms of singular values.
It is well known that the empirical measure of the eigenvalues converges to the Marchenko-Pastur distribution $$\rho_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(x) = \dfrac{1}{2\pi \xi}\sqrt{\dfrac{[(x-\lambda_-)(\lambda_+ -x)]_+}{x^2}},$$ where $$\label{e.EndPoints}
\lambda_{\pm} = (1 \pm \sqrt{\xi})^2.$$ Define the typical locations of the singular values: $$\gamma_k := \inf \left\{ E>0 : \int_{-\infty}^{E^2} \rho_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(x){\mathrm{d}}x {\geqslant}\dfrac{k}{N} \right\},\ \ \ 1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N.$$ Following the symmetrization trick, we also define $ \gamma_{-k} = -\gamma_k $. By a change of variable, it is easy to check that $$\label{e.typical}
\int_{-\infty}^{\gamma_k} \rho(x){\mathrm{d}}x=\dfrac{N+k}{2N}, \ \ \ \int_{-\infty}^{\gamma_{-k}} \rho(x){\mathrm{d}}x = \dfrac{N-k}{2N},$$ where $ \rho(x) $ is the counterpart of Marchenko-Pastur law for singular values, defined by $$\label{e.measure}
\rho(x)=\dfrac{1}{2\pi \xi}\sqrt{\dfrac{[(x^2-\lambda_-)(\lambda_+ - x^2)]_+}{x^2}},\ \ \ \sqrt{\lambda_-} {\leqslant}|x| {\leqslant}\sqrt{\lambda_+}.$$
Denote $ s_1 {\leqslant}\cdots {\leqslant}s_N $ the singular values of the data matrix $ X $, and extend the singular values following the symmetrization trick by $ s_{-k}=-s_k $. For $ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta \in \mathbb{C} $ with $ \eta>0 $, let $ m_N(z) $ and $ S_N(z) $ denote the Stieltjes transform of the empirical measure of the (symmetrized) singular values and eigenvalues, respectively: $$m_N(z):= \dfrac{1}{2N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{1}{s_k -z},\ \ \ S_N(z) := \dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N \dfrac{1}{\lambda_k -z}.$$ As mentioned previously, in the summation from $ -N $ to $ N $ the $ 0 $ index is always excluded. Note that due to the symmetrization, this is equivalent to $$\label{e.DiscreteStieltjes}
m_N(z) = \dfrac{1}{2N}\sum_{k=1}^N \left( \dfrac{1}{s_k -z} + \dfrac{1}{-s_k - z} \right) = \dfrac{1}{N} \sum_{k=1}^N \dfrac{z}{s_k^2 - z^2} = z S_N(z^2).$$ On the other hand, use $ m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z) $ to denote the Stieltjes transform of the Marchenko-Pastur law $$m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z) := \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \dfrac{\rho_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(x)}{x-z}{\mathrm{d}}x=\dfrac{1-\xi-z+\sqrt{(z-\lambda_-)(z-\lambda_+)}}{2\xi z},$$ where $ \sqrt{\quad} $ denotes the square root on the complex plane whose branch cut is the negative real line. With this choice we always have $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z)>0 $ when $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}z>0 $. For the singular values, recall the limit distribution $ \rho(x) $ for the empirical measure and use $ m(z) $ to denote its corresponding Stieltjes transform $$m(z) := \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \dfrac{\rho(x)}{x-z}{\mathrm{d}}x = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \dfrac{1}{x-z}\dfrac{1}{2\pi \xi}\sqrt{\dfrac{[(x^2-\lambda_-)(\lambda_+ - x^2)]_+}{x^2}}{\mathrm{d}}x.$$ We have the following relation between $ m(z) $ and $ m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z) $ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e.ContinuousStieltjes}
m(z) = \int_{\sqrt{\lambda_-}}^{\sqrt{\lambda_+}} \left( \dfrac{1}{x-z} - \dfrac{1}{x+z} \right) \dfrac{1}{2\pi \xi}\sqrt{\dfrac{[(x^2-\lambda_-)(\lambda_+ - x^2)]_+}{x^2}}{\mathrm{d}}x\\
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\dfrac{z}{x-z^2}\rho_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(x){\mathrm{d}}x = zm_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z^2).\end{gathered}$$ It is well known that we have the strong local Marchenko-Pastur law [@bloemendal2014isotropic; @pillai2014universality] for the estimate of $ S_N(z) $, i.e. for any $ D>0 $, there exists $ N_0(D)>0 $ such that for every $ N {\geqslant}N_0 $ we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left( \left| S_N(z) - m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z) \right| {\leqslant}\dfrac{\varphi}{N\eta} \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$ By the relations and , we know that $$|m_N(z) - m(z)| = \left| z \left( S_N(z^2) - m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z^2) \right) \right| {\leqslant}|z| \left| S_N(z^2) - m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z^2) \right|.$$ Combining with the strong local Marchenko-Pastur law, this gives us $$\label{e.LocalLaw}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( \left| m_N(z) - m(z) \right| \lesssim \dfrac{\varphi}{N\eta} \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
{height="4cm"}
For the rigidity estimates, a key observation is that the critical case $ \xi=1 $ is significantly different from other cases. This is because the Marchenko-Pastur law $ \rho_{{\mathsf{MP}}} $ has a singularity at the point $ x=0 $ in this situation. When $ \xi < 1 $, the rigidity of singular values can be easily obtained from the analogous estimates for eigenvalues (see [@pillai2014universality]). Let $ {\widehat}{k}:=\min(k,N+1-k) $, for any $ D>0 $ there exists $ N_0(D) $ such that the following holds for any $ N {\geqslant}N_0 $, $$\label{e.RigidityNotOne}
{\mathbb{P}}\left(|s_k - \gamma_k| {\leqslant}\varphi^{\frac{1}{2}} N^{-\frac{2}{3}}({\widehat}{k})^{-\frac{1}{3}} \ \mbox{for all}\ k \in \llbracket 1,N \rrbracket \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
For the critical case $ \xi=1 $, now the Marchenko-Pastur distribution is supported on $ [0,4] $ and is given by $ \rho_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(x)= \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{(4-x)/x} $. A key observation is that the scales of eigenvalue spacings are different at the two edges. Due to this phenomenon, we use the following two different results, depending on the location in the spectrum.
On the one hand, the Marchenko-Pastur distribution still behaves like a square root near the soft edge $ x=4 $, which implies that the result is the same as the rectangular case. The rigidity estimate near the soft edge can be easily adapted from the result for eigenvalues in [@bloemendal2014isotropic Theorem 2.10], i.e. for some (small) $ \omega>0 $ and any $ {\varepsilon}>0 $ we have $$\label{e.RigidityOneSoft}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( |s_k - \gamma_k| {\leqslant}N^{\varepsilon}(N-k+1)^{-\frac{1}{3}}N^{-\frac{2}{3}} \ \mbox{for all} \ k \in \llbracket (1-\omega)N,N \rrbracket \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
On the other hand, as explained in [@cacciapuoti2013local], at the hard edge $ x=0 $ the typical distance between eigenvalues and the edge is of order $ N^{-2} $, which is much smaller than the typical distance between neighbouring eigenvalues in the bulk (or at the soft edge). Note that in this situation, the measure for the symmetrized singular values coincides with the standard semicircle law, that is $ \rho(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{(4-x^2)_+} $. By the relation , this means that the typical $ k $-th singular value $ \gamma_k $ of an $ N \times N $ data matrix shares the same position with the typical $ (N+k) $-th eigenvalue of a $ 2N \times 2N $ generalized Wigner matrix. The link between these two models can be illustrated by the symmetrization trick: Define the $ 2N \times 2N $ matrix $${\widetilde}{H} = \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & X^*\\
X & 0
\end{matrix}
\right),$$ then we know that the eigenvalues of $ {\widetilde}{H} $ are precisely the symmetrized singular values of $ X^* $. Note that we have $ {\widetilde}{H}={\widetilde}{H}^* $, $ {\mathbb{E}}{\widetilde}{H}_{ij}=0 $ and $ \sum_{i=1}^{2N} {\mathbb{E}}{\widetilde}{H}_{ij}^2 = 1 $ for every $ j \in \llbracket 1,2N \rrbracket $. This shows that $ {\widetilde}{H} $ is indeed a Wigner-type matrix except the lack of nondegeneracy condition caused by the zero blocks. By considering the matrix of this type, the rigidity at the hard edge can be proved directly from [@alt2017local Theorem 2.7] $$\label{e.RigidityOneHard}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( |s_k - \gamma_k| {\leqslant}N^{-1+{\varepsilon}} \ \mbox{for all}\ k \in \llbracket 1,(1-\omega)N \rrbracket \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
Stochastic Advection Equation for Singular Values Dynamics {#s.LocalRelaxationFlow}
==========================================================
Stochastic advection equation
-----------------------------
We follow the comparison method via coupling in [@bourgade2016fixed]. As in [@landon2019fixed], consider the interpolation between a general sample covariance matrix and the Wishart ensemble for the initial data: for any $ \nu \in [0,1] $, let $$x_k^{(\nu)}(0)=\nu s_k(0)+(1-\nu)r_k(0),\ \ \ -N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N,\ k \neq 0.$$ where $ s_k(t) $ and $ r_k(t) $ satisfy the singular values dynamics , with respective initial conditions a general sample covariance matrix and the Wishart ensemble. Define the corresponding dynamics of $ x_k^{(\nu)} $ to be $$\label{e.DBM}
{\mathrm{d}}x_k^{(\nu)} = \dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}B_k}{\sqrt{N}} + \left[ -\dfrac{1}{2\xi}x_k^{(\nu)} + \dfrac{1}{2}\left( \dfrac{1}{\xi} -1 \right) \dfrac{1}{x_k^{(\nu)}} + \dfrac{1}{2N} \sum_{l \neq \pm k} \dfrac{1}{x_k^{(\nu)} - x_l^{(\nu)}} \right]{\mathrm{d}}t .$$ For this Dyson Brownian motion we consider the quantity $${\mathfrak{u}}_k^{(\nu)}(t):=e^{\frac{t}{2\xi}}\dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\nu}x_k^{(\nu)}(t).$$ From now we set $ \nu \in (0,1) $ and omit it from the notation for simplicity. A significant property is that $ {\mathfrak{u}}_k $ satisfies a non-local parabolic differential equation $$\label{e.parabolic}
\dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}{\mathfrak{u}}_{k}=\dfrac{1}{2}\left( 1- \dfrac{1}{\xi} \right)\dfrac{{\mathfrak{u}}_k}{x_k^2} + \dfrac{1}{2N} \sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{u}}_l - {\mathfrak{u}}_k}{\left(x_l - x_k \right)^2}.$$ Let $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k={\mathfrak{v}}_k^{(\nu)} $ solve the same equation as $ {\mathfrak{u}}_k $ in but with initial condition $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k(0)=|{\mathfrak{u}}_k(0)|=|s_k(0)-r_k(0)| $. An important result is that this equation yields a maximum principle for $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k $, which will be useful in later analysis for the estimate of its growth.
\[l.MaxPrin\] For all $ t {\geqslant}0 $ and $ -N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N $, we have $${\mathfrak{v}}_k(t) {\geqslant}0, \ \ \ |{\mathfrak{v}}_k(t)| {\leqslant}\max_k |{\mathfrak{v}}_k(0)|,\ \ \ |{\mathfrak{u}}_k(t)| {\leqslant}{\mathfrak{v}}_k(t).$$
Note that for the coefficients in the summation part of equation we have $ \frac{1}{(x_l - x_k)^2} >0 $. Therefore for $ f(t) := \min_k {\mathfrak{v}}_k(t) $, we have $$f'(t) {\geqslant}\dfrac{1}{2} \left( 1-\dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) \dfrac{1}{x_1^2} f(t).$$ Combined with the fact $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k(0) {\geqslant}0 $, this gives us the first claim. For the second claim, since $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k $’s are nonnegative, we know that $ \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\max_{k} {\mathfrak{v}}_k {\leqslant}0 $ and this yields the desired result. The third claim follows from linearity. We know that both $ {\mathfrak{v}}+ {\mathfrak{u}}$ and $ {\mathfrak{v}}- {\mathfrak{u}}$ satisfy the equation , and we also have $ ({\mathfrak{v}}+ {\mathfrak{u}})(0) {\geqslant}0 $ and $ ({\mathfrak{v}}- {\mathfrak{u}})(0) {\geqslant}0 $. Similarly to the first claim, this gives us $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k(t) + {\mathfrak{u}}_k(t) {\geqslant}0 $ and $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k(t) - {\mathfrak{u}}_k(t) {\geqslant}0 $, which completes the proof.
Due to our choice for the initial value of $ {\mathfrak{v}}$, we will have that $ \{{\mathfrak{v}}_k\}_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} $ are symmetric with respect to the label $ k $. To see this, it is easy to check that $ {\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{v}}}_k := {\mathfrak{v}}_{-k} $ satisfy the same equation . Note that the equation is linear and $ {\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{v}}}_k(0)={\mathfrak{v}}_k(0) $ for all $ k $. Lemma \[l.MaxPrin\] then gives us $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k(t) = {\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{v}}}_k(t) = {\mathfrak{v}}_{-k}(t) $ for all $ k $ and $ t {\geqslant}0 $.
We now consider the observable $$f_t(z)=e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k(t)}{x_k(t)-z}.$$ A key observation is that the quadratic singularities in will disappear when combined with the Dyson Brownian motion, so that the evolution of $ f_t $ has no shocks similarly to a result from [@bourgade2018extreme]. Denoting $$s_t(z)=\dfrac{1}{2N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{1}{x_k(t)-z}$$ the Stieltjes transform of the (symmetrized) empirical spectral measure, then the observable $ f_t $ satisfies the following dynamics.
\[l.dynamics\] For any $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}z \neq 0 $, we have $$\label{e.dynamics}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{d}}f_t &=\left(s_t(z)+\dfrac{z}{2\xi}\right)(\partial_z f_t){\mathrm{d}}t+\dfrac{1}{4N}(\partial_{zz}f_t){\mathrm{d}}t+\left[\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2(x_k+z)}\right]{\mathrm{d}}t\\
& \quad + \left[\left( 1- \dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}} \left( \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{3z {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{2 x_k^2 (x_k -z)(x_k+z)} + \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{z^3 {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k^2 (x_k-z)^2 (x_k+z)^2} \right)\right] {\mathrm{d}}t\\
& \quad -\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2}{\mathrm{d}}B_k.
\end{aligned}$$
This can be proved by direct computation via the Itô’s formula. First, we have $${\mathrm{d}}f=-\dfrac{f}{2\xi}{\mathrm{d}}t+e^{-t/2}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k-z}+e^{-t/2}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}{\mathfrak{v}}_k {\mathrm{d}}\dfrac{1}{x_k-z} =: A_1 + A_2 +A_3.$$ By using Itô’s formula again we have $ {\mathrm{d}}(x_k-z)^{-1}=-(x_k-z)^{-2}{\mathrm{d}}x_k+\frac{1}{N}(x_k-z)^{-3}{\mathrm{d}}t $. Thus, we can now decompose the term $ A_3 $ as $ I_1+[I_2+I_3+I_4+I_5]{\mathrm{d}}t $, where $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 &=
-\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2}{\mathrm{d}}B_k, \\
I_2 &=
\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2\xi}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k x_k}{(x_k-z)^2}, \\
I_3 &=
\dfrac{1}{2} \left( 1-\dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k(x_k-z)^2}, \\
I_4 &= e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}{\mathfrak{v}}_k\left(-\dfrac{1}{(x_k-z)^2}\right)\dfrac{1}{2N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{1}{x_k-x_l}=\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2(x_l-x_k)}, \\
I_5 &= \dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^3}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\partial_z f=e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2},\ \ \ \partial_{zz}f=2e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^3}.$$ For the term $ A_2 $, by the equation , we have $$A_2 = e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{1}{x_k-z} \left[ \dfrac{1}{2} \left( 1-\dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k^2} + \dfrac{1}{2N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_l-{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-x_l)^2} \right]=: B_1+B_2.$$ Note that $$\begin{gathered}
B_2 = \dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{4N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_l-{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_l-x_k)^2}\left(\dfrac{1}{x_k-z}-\dfrac{1}{x_l-z}\right)=\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{4N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_l-{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_l-x_k}\dfrac{1}{x_k-z}\dfrac{1}{x_l-z}\\
=-\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_l-x_k}\dfrac{1}{x_k-z}\dfrac{1}{x_l-z}.\end{gathered}$$ Combining with $ I_4 $, we obtain $$B_2 + I_4 =\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_l-x_k}\dfrac{1}{x_k-z}\left(\dfrac{1}{x_k-z}-\dfrac{1}{x_l-z}\right)=\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{l \neq \pm k}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2}\dfrac{1}{x_l-z}.$$ Moreover, we have that $$B_2+I_4+I_5 = s(z)\partial_z f+\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^3}+\dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2(x_k+z)}.$$ Then it suffices to calculate $ B_1 + I_3 $, and note that $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 + I_3 &= \dfrac{1}{2} \left( 1- \dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}} \sum_{k=1}^N \left( \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k -z}\dfrac{1}{x_k^2} - \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k +z}\dfrac{1}{x_k^2} + \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k - z)^2}\dfrac{1}{x_k} - \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k +z)^2}\dfrac{1}{x_k} \right)\\
&= \left( 1- \dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}} \left( \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{3z {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{2 x_k^2 (x_k -z)(x_k+z)} + \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{z^3 {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k^2 (x_k-z)^2 (x_k+z)^2} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that now all the singularities are removed.
The desired result then follows by combining the previous results and the term $ I_1 $.
Recall that in Section \[s.LocalLaw\] we have shown that the Stieltjes transform of the empirical measure for singular values satisfies the local law , so that the leading term of the stochastic differential equation satisfied by $ f_t $ is close to $$\dfrac{z}{2\xi} + z m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z^2) = \dfrac{z}{2\xi} + \dfrac{1-\xi-z^2 + \sqrt{(z^2 - \lambda_-)(z^2 - \lambda_+)}}{2\xi z} = \dfrac{(1-\xi) + \sqrt{(z^2 - \lambda_-)(z^2 - \lambda_+)}}{2\xi z}.$$ Thus, the dynamics of $ f_t $ can be approximated by the following advection equation $$\label{e.AdvectionPDE}
\partial_t r = \dfrac{(1-\xi) + \sqrt{(z^2 - \lambda_-)(z^2 - \lambda_+)}}{2\xi z} \partial_z r.$$
Geometric properties of the characteristics {#s.geometry}
-------------------------------------------
In order to estimate the evolution of the observable, we analyze its dynamics by studying the characteristics of the approximate advection PDE , similarly to [@huang2018rigidity; @bourgade2018extreme]. To do this, we first need some bounds on the shape of the characteristics $ (z_t)_{t {\geqslant}0} $, and some estimates for the initial value. As mentioned in Section \[s.LocalLaw\], discussions for the case $ \xi=1 $ are expected to be different due to the singularity of the Marchenko-Pastur distribution (which results in a distinct shape of the density $ \rho(x) $ for singular values). Therefore, in this and the subsequent section, we first discuss the case $ \xi \neq 1 $ and will show how to adapt the proof to the case for square data matrices in Section \[s.CaseOne\].
Denote $$\kappa(z) := \min\left\{\left|z-\sqrt{\lambda_-}\right|,\left|z-\sqrt{\lambda_+}\right|\right\},$$ and $$a(z) := \operatorname{dist}\left(z,\left[\sqrt{\lambda_-},\sqrt{\lambda_+}\right]\right),\ \ \ b(z):= \operatorname{dist}\left( z, \left[\sqrt{\lambda_-},\sqrt{\lambda_+}\right]^c \right)$$ We consider the curve $${\mathscr{S}}:= \left\{ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}y: \sqrt{\lambda_-} + \varphi^2 N^{-2/3} <E< \sqrt{\lambda_+} - \varphi^2 N^{-2/3},\ y=\varphi^2/\left( N \kappa(E)^{1/2} \right) \right\},$$ and the domain $ \mathscr{R} := \cup_{0<t<1}\{z_t:z \in {\mathscr{S}}\} $.
\[l.characteristics\] Uniformly in $ 0<t<1 $ and $ z=z_0 $ satisfying $ \eta := {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}z>0 $ and $ |z-\sqrt{\lambda_+}|<\sqrt{\xi}/10 $, we have $${\text{\rm Re}\hspace{0.1cm}}(z_t -z_0) \sim t \dfrac{a(z)}{\kappa(z)^{1/2}}+t^2,\ \ \ \ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}(z_t-z_0) \sim t\dfrac{b(z)}{\kappa(z)^{1/2}}.$$ In particular, if in addition we have $ z \in {\mathscr{S}}$, then $$(z_t - z_0) \sim \left( t \dfrac{\varphi^2}{N \kappa(E)} +t^2 \right) + {\text{\rm i}}\kappa(E)^\frac{1}{2} t.$$ Moreover, for any $ \kappa >0 $, uniformly in $ 0<t<1 $ and $ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta \in [\sqrt{\lambda_-} + \kappa,\sqrt{\lambda_+} -\kappa] \times [0,\kappa^{-1}] $, we have $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}(z_t-z_0) \sim t $.
{height="4cm"}
It is too complicated to work with the ODE satisfied by $ z_t $ in a direct way. The main idea is to compare this characteristics with the corresponding curve for a semicircle distribution (which has a explicit and simple formula). Define the two functions $$g(z):=\dfrac{(1-\xi) + \sqrt{(z^2 - \lambda_-)(z^2 - \lambda_+)}}{2\xi z} , \ \ \ g_{sc}(z):=\dfrac{\sqrt{(z-1)^2 - \xi}}{\xi}.$$ For some $ |z_0-\sqrt{\lambda_+}| < \sqrt{\xi}/10,\ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}z_0>0 $, let $ z(t) := z_t $ and $ z_{sc}(t) $ solve the following two initial value problems $$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}z}{{\mathrm{d}}t} = g(z)\\
& z(0)=z_0
\end{aligned}
\right.
,\ \ \ \ \ \ \
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{{\mathrm{d}}z_{sc}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} = g_{sc}(z_{sc})\\
& z_{sc}(0)=z_0
\end{aligned}
\right.
.$$ Note that in $ \Omega=\{z_{sc}(t):0<t<1,|z_0-\sqrt{\lambda_+}| < \sqrt{\xi}/10,{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}z_0>0 \} $ we have $ g(z) \sim g_{sc}(z) $. This shows that for $ 0<t<1 $, we have $ (z_t-z_0) \sim (z_{sc}(t) -z_0) $. The rest of the proof now follows from [@bourgade2018extreme Lemma 2.2].
Furthermore, we have the following lemma regarding the growth of the characteristics, which will be useful for the error estimates in the local relaxation.
\[l.ChracteristcsInt\] For any $ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta \in {\mathscr{S}}$, we have $$\dfrac{\varphi^4}{N^2} \int_0^t ds \int \dfrac{d \rho(x)}{|z_{t-s} -x|^4 \max(\kappa(x),s^2)} \lesssim \dfrac{\kappa(E)}{\max(\kappa(E),t^2)}.$$
The proof is essentially the same as in [@bourgade2018extreme Lemma A.2], except now we need to consider the Stieltjes transform $ m(z) $ instead of the one for the semicircle law. Recall the relation $ m(z)=z m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z^2) $, and note that for the Stieltjes transform of the Marchenko-Pastur law we have the following results from [@bloemendal2016principal Lemma 3.6]: $$|m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z)| \sim 1,
\ \ \ \ \
{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z) \sim \left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \sqrt{\kappa(E)+\eta} & \mbox{if } & E \in [\lambda_-,\lambda_+],\\
&\frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\kappa(E)+\eta}} & \mbox{if } & E \notin [\lambda_-,\lambda_+].
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ The rest of the proof follows from the calculation in [@bourgade2018extreme Lemma A.2].
We now consider the initial value $ f_0 $ on the curve $ {\mathscr{S}}$. For this purpose we define the set of good trajectories such that the rigidity holds: $${\mathscr{A}}:= \left\{ |x_k^{(\nu)}(t) - \gamma_k|<\varphi^{\frac{1}{2}}N^{-\frac{2}{3}}({\widehat}{k})^{-\frac{1}{3}} \ \mbox{for all}\ 0 {\leqslant}t {\leqslant}1, k \in \llbracket 1,N \rrbracket,0 {\leqslant}\nu {\leqslant}1 \right\}.$$ We have the following important estimate for the probability of these events.
\[l.rigidity\] There exists a fixed $ C_0 $ large enough such that the following holds. For any $ D>0 $, there exists $ N_0(D)>0 $ such that for any $ N > N_0 $ we have $${\mathbb{P}}({\mathscr{A}}) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
As mentioned in the last section, the rigidity estimates are proved in [@pillai2014universality] for fixed $ t $ and $ \nu=0,1 $. The extension to all $ t $ and $ \nu $ is based on the arguments in [@bourgade2018extreme; @erdHos2015gap]: (1) discretize in $ t $ and $ \nu $; (2) use Weyl’s inequality to bound the increments in small time intervals; (3) use the maximum principle to bound the increment in small $ \nu $-intervals.
Conditioned on the rigidity phenomenon, we have the following estimate for the initial conditions. The proof is the same as [@bourgade2018extreme Lemma 2.4].
\[l.InitialValue\] In the set $ {\mathscr{A}}$, for any $ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta \in \mathscr{R} $, we have $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_0(z) \lesssim \varphi^{1/2} $ if $ \eta > \max(E-\sqrt{\lambda_+},-E+\sqrt{\lambda_-}) $, and $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_0(z) \lesssim \varphi^{1/2} \frac{\eta}{\kappa(z)} $ otherwise. The same bound also holds for $ |{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_0| $.
Quantitative relaxation at the edge {#s.relaxation}
-----------------------------------
To prove the edge universality, we first have the following estimate for the size of the observable $ f_t $.
\[p.estimate\] For any (large) $ D>0 $ there exists $ N_0(D) $ such that for any $ N {\geqslant}N_0 $ we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left( {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_t(z) \lesssim \varphi \dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\max(\kappa(E)^{1/2},t)} \ \mbox{\rm for all} \ 0<t<1 \ \mbox{\rm and} \ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta \in {\mathscr{S}}\right) > 1-N^{-D}$$
For any $ 1 {\leqslant}l,m {\leqslant}N^{10} $, we define $ t_l:=l N^{-10} $ and $$z^{(m)} := E_m + {\text{\rm i}}\eta_m=E_m+{\text{\rm i}}\dfrac{\varphi^2}{N \kappa(E_m)^{1/2}},$$ where $$E_m := \inf\left\{ E >0 : \int_{-\infty}^{E^2} \rho_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(x){\mathrm{d}}x {\geqslant}\left(m-\frac{1}{2}\right)N^{-10} \right\}.$$ We also define the following stopping times (with respect to $ \mathcal{F}_t = \sigma(B_k(s):0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t,1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N) $) which represent the bad events: $$\tau_{l,m} := \inf \left\{ 0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t_l : {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_s(z_{t-s}^{(m)}) \gtrsim \dfrac{\varphi}{2}\dfrac{\kappa(E_m)^{1/2}}{\max(\kappa(E_m)^{1/2},t_l)} \right\},$$ $$\tau_0 := \inf \left\{ 0 {\leqslant}t {\leqslant}1: \exists k \in \llbracket -N,N \rrbracket \ \mbox{s.t.} \ |x_k(t)-\gamma_k|>\varphi^{\frac{1}{2}}N^{-\frac{2}{3}}({\widehat}{k})^{-\frac{1}{3}} \right\},$$ $$\tau := \min \left\{ \tau_0,\tau_{l,m}: 0 {\leqslant}l,m {\leqslant}N^{10}, \kappa(E_m) > \varphi^2 N^{-\frac{2}{3}} \right\}.$$ We also define the convention $ \inf \emptyset =1 $.
We claim that in order to prove the desired result, it suffices to show that for any $ D>0 $ there exists $ {\widetilde}{N}_0(D) $ such that for any $ N {\geqslant}{\widetilde}{N}_0(D) $, we have $$\label{e.ProbabilityTau}
{\mathbb{P}}(\tau=1) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
*Step 1.* To see the claim would be enough, we first show the following sets inclusion $$\label{e.SetsInclusion}
\{ \tau=1 \} \bigcap_{\substack{1{\leqslant}l,m {\leqslant}N^{10} \\ -N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}} A_{l,m,k} {\subseteq}\bigcap_{z \in {\mathscr{S}}, 0<t<1} \left\{ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_t(z) \lesssim \varphi \dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\max(\kappa(E)^{1/2},t)} \right\},$$ where $$A_{l,m,k} := \left\{ \sup_{t_l {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \left| \int_{t_l}^u \dfrac{e^{-\frac{s}{2\xi}} {\mathfrak{v}}_k(s) {\mathrm{d}}B_k(s)}{(z^{(m)} - x_k(s))^2} \right| <N^{-3} \right\}.$$ To prove this, for any given $ z $ and $ t $, choose $ t_l $ and $ z^{(m)} $ such that $ t_l {\leqslant}t <t_{l+1} $ and $ |z-z^{(m)}|<N^{-5} $. Note that by rigidity and the maximum principle (Lemma \[l.MaxPrin\]) we have $ |{\mathfrak{v}}_k(t)| \lesssim \varphi N^{-2/3} $. Combining this with the definition of $ f_t $, we have $ |f_t(z) - f_t(z^{(m)})| < N^{-2} $. Moreover, note that we have the following estimates $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{t_l {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \left| \int_{t_l}^u \dfrac{e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}}}{2N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k}{(x_k-z)^2(x_k+z)} {\mathrm{d}}t \right|\\
\lesssim N^{-10} \dfrac{1}{2N} \varphi N^{-2/3} \max_{t_l {\leqslant}t {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \left| \dfrac{1}{(x_k-z)^2(x_k+z)} \right| < N^{-5},\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{t_l {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \left| \int_{t_l}^u \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{z {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k^2(x_k -z) (x_k+z)} {\mathrm{d}}t \right|\\
\lesssim N^{-10} \varphi N^{-2/3} \max_{t_l {\leqslant}t {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \left| \dfrac{1}{(x_k -z) (x_k+z)} \right| < N^{-5},\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{t_l {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \left| \int_{t_l}^u \left( 1 - \dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{z^3 {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{ x_k^2 (x_k -z)^2 (x_k+z)^2} {\mathrm{d}}t \right|\\
\lesssim N^{-10} \varphi N^{-2/3} \max_{t_l {\leqslant}t {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \left| \dfrac{1}{(x_k -z)^2 (x_k+z)^2} \right| < N^{-5}.\end{gathered}$$ Similarly, we also have $$\sup_{t_l {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \left| \int_{t_l}^u \left(s_t(z)+\dfrac{z}{2\xi}\right)(\partial_z f_t) {\mathrm{d}}t \right| < N^{-5},\ \ \ \ \sup_{t_l {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t_{l+1}} \left| \int_{t_l}^u \dfrac{1}{4N}(\partial_{zz}f_t) {\mathrm{d}}t \right| < N^{-5}.$$ Then based on the dynamics , under the event $ \cap_k A_{l,m,k} $, we have $ |f_t(z^{(m)}) - f_{t_l}(z^{(m)})| < N^{-2} $. This completes the proof for .
*Step 2.* To prove the claim, we also need to estimate the probability for the events $ A_{l,m,k} $. To do this, we use the following Burkholder-Davis-Gundy type inequality (see e.g. [@shorack2009empirical Appendix B.6]). For some fixed constants $ c>0 $ and $ \alpha>0 $, for any martingale $ M $ we have $$\label{e.BDG}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( \sup_{0 {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t} |M_u| {\geqslant}\alpha {\langle}M {\rangle}_t^{\frac{1}{2}} \right) {\leqslant}e^{-c \alpha^2}.$$ Note that we have the deterministic bound $ \int_{t_l}^u \frac{|{\mathfrak{v}}_k (s)|^2 {\mathrm{d}}s}{|z^{(m)} - x_k(s)|^4} \ll N^{-6} $. By taking $ \alpha = \varphi^{1/10} $, this implies $ {\mathbb{P}}(A_{l,m,k}) {\geqslant}1 - e^{-c \varphi^{1/5}} $, and then a union bound yields $${\mathbb{P}}\left( \bigcap_{1{\leqslant}l,m {\leqslant}N^{10}, -N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} A_{l,m,k} \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$ Together with the sets inclusion , this concludes that implies the desired result.
*Step 3.* It remains to prove . For simplicity of notations, let $ t=t_l $, $ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta=z^{(m)} $ for some arbitrary fixed $ 1 {\leqslant}l,m {\leqslant}N^{10} $. Consider the function $ g_u(z) := f_u(z_{t-u}) $. By Lemma \[l.characteristics\] and Lemma \[l.InitialValue\], we have $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}g_0(z) \lesssim \frac{\varphi}{10}\frac{\kappa(E_m)^{1/2}}{\max(\kappa(E_m)^{1/2},t)} $. Therefore we only need to bound the increments of $ g $. Using Lemma \[l.dynamics\], by the Itô’s formula we know it satisfies the following stochastic differential equation $$d g_{u \wedge \tau}(z) = {\varepsilon}_u(z_{t-u}){\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) - \dfrac{e^{-\frac{u}{2\xi}}}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N}\dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)}{(z_{t-u}-x_k(u))^2}{\mathrm{d}}B_k(u \wedge \tau),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}_u(z) &:= (s_u(z)-m(z))\partial_z f_u + \dfrac{1}{4N} (\partial_{zz} f_u) + \dfrac{e^{-\frac{u}{2\xi}}}{2N} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)}{(x_k -z)^2 (x_k+z)}\\
&\quad + \left( 1- \dfrac{1}{\xi} \right) e^{-\frac{t}{2\xi}} \left( \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{3z {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{2 x_k^2 (x_k -z)(x_k+z)} + \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{z^3 {\mathfrak{v}}_k}{x_k^2 (x_k-z)^2 (x_k+z)^2} \right).\end{aligned}$$ In this step, we aim to estimate the first term $ \sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t}|\int_0^s {\varepsilon}_u(z_{t-u}) {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau)| $. First, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^t \left| \left( s_u(z_{t-u}) -m(z_{t-u}) \right) \partial_z f (z_{t-u}) \right|{\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau)\\ \lesssim \int_0^t \dfrac{\varphi}{N {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}(z_{t-u})} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{|{\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)|}{|z_{t-u} -x_k(u)|^2} {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau)
\lesssim \int_0^t \dfrac{\varphi {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_u(z_{t-u})}{N \left( {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}(z_{t-u}) \right)^2}{\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \\
\lesssim \int_0^t \dfrac{\varphi^2 du}{N (\eta + (t-u)\kappa(z)^{1/2})^2}\dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\max(\kappa(E)^{1/2},t)} \lesssim \dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\max \left( \kappa(E)^{1/2},t \right)}.\end{gathered}$$ To bound the $ |s_u - m| $ term above, we have used the local law for singular values simultaneously for all $ 0 {\leqslant}u {\leqslant}t $ (which is similar to Lemma \[l.rigidity\]). The last two inequalities follow from Lemma \[l.characteristics\]. We also have $$\sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t} \left| \int_0^s \dfrac{1}{4N}(\partial_{zz} f_u(z_{t-u})) {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \right| \lesssim \int_0^t \dfrac{{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_u(z_{t-u})}{N \left( {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}(z_{t-u}) \right)^2}{\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \lesssim \dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\varphi \max(\kappa(E)^{1/2},t)},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t} \left| \int_0^s \dfrac{e^{-\frac{u}{2\xi}}}{2N} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)}{(x_k - z_{t-u})^2(x_k+z_{t-u})} {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \right|\\
\lesssim \int_0^t \dfrac{{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_u(z_{t-u})}{N \left( {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}(z_{t-u}) \right)}{\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \lesssim \dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\varphi \max(\kappa(E)^{1/2},t)},\end{gathered}$$ And similarly, $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t} \left| \left( 1-\dfrac{1}{\xi} \right)e^{-\frac{u}{2\xi}} \int_0^s \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{z_{t-u} {\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)}{x_k^2(x_k(u) - z_{t-u}) (x_k(u) + z_{t-u})} {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \right|\\
\lesssim \int_0^t {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_u(z_{t-u}) {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \lesssim \dfrac{\varphi}{2}\dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\max \left( \kappa(E)^{1/2},t \right)},\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t} \left| \left( 1-\dfrac{1}{\xi} \right)e^{-\frac{u}{2\xi}} \int_0^s \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{z_{t-u}^3 {\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)}{x_k^2(x_k(u) - z_{t-u})^2 (x_k(u) + z_{t-u})^2} {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau) \right|\\
\lesssim \dfrac{\varphi}{2}\dfrac{\kappa(E)^{1/2}}{\max \left( \kappa(E)^{1/2},t \right)}.\end{gathered}$$
*Step 4.* Finally we focus on the estimate for $ \sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t}|M_s| $ where $$M_s := \int_0^s \dfrac{e^{-\frac{u}{2\xi}}}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)}{(z_{t-u} - x_k(u))^2} {\mathrm{d}}B_k(u \wedge \tau).$$ Note that for all $ k $ and $ u < \tau $ we have $ |z_{t-u} - \gamma_k| \lesssim |z_{t-u} - x_k(u)| $ due to the fact $ |x_k(u) - \gamma_k| \ll |z_{t-u} - \gamma_k| $. Using again we have $$\sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t}|M_s|^2 \lesssim \varphi^{\frac{1}{10}} \int_0^t \dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{-N {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}N} \dfrac{{\mathfrak{v}}_k(u)^2}{|z_{t-u} - \gamma_k|^4} {\mathrm{d}}(u \wedge \tau)$$ with overwhelming probability. By a similar argument in [@bourgade2018extreme equation (2.17)] and Lemma \[l.ChracteristcsInt\], we conclude $$\sup_{0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t} |M_s|^2 \lesssim \varphi^{1/5} \dfrac{\kappa(E)}{\max(\kappa(E),t^2)}.$$
Hence, based on the previous estimates and a union bound we have proved that for any $ D>0 $ there exists $ N_0 $ such that for every $ N > N_0 $ we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left( \sup_{0 {\leqslant}l,m {\leqslant}N^{10},\kappa(E_m)>\varphi^2 N^{-2/3},0 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}t_l} {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_{s \wedge \tau}(z_{t_l - s \wedge \tau}^{(m)}) \lesssim \dfrac{\varphi}{2}\dfrac{\kappa(E_m)^{1/2}}{\max(\kappa(E_m)^{1/2},t_l)} \right) {\geqslant}1- N^{-D}.$$ Together with Lemma \[l.InitialValue\], we have proved , which then completes the proof.
Based on the previous estimate on $ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_t $, we now state the quantitative relaxation of the singular values dynamics at the edge. Remember that $ \{s_k\} $ and $ \{r_k\} $ satisfy the same equation , with respective initial conditions that correspond to a general sample covariance matrix and the Wishart ensemble.
\[t.Relaxation\] For any $ D>0 $ and $ {\varepsilon}>0 $ there exists $ N_0>0 $ such that for any $ N > N_0 $ we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left( |s_k(t) - r_k(t)| \lesssim \dfrac{N^{\varepsilon}}{Nt} \ \mbox{for all} \ k \in \llbracket 1,N \rrbracket \ \mbox{in} \ t \in [0,1] \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
Let $ z=\gamma_k + {\text{\rm i}}\frac{\varphi^2}{N \sqrt{\kappa(\gamma_k)}} \in {\mathscr{S}}$, then conditioned on the rigidity phenomenon $ {\mathscr{A}}$, by the nonnegativity of $ {\mathfrak{v}}_k $’s shown in Lemma \[l.MaxPrin\] we have $$|{\mathfrak{v}}_k(t)| \lesssim \dfrac{\varphi^2}{N \sqrt{\kappa(\gamma_k)}} {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}f_t(z).$$ By the arguments in [@bourgade2018extreme Corollary 2.7], based on Proposition \[p.estimate\] we conclude $${\mathbb{P}}\left( |{\mathfrak{v}}_k^{(\nu)}(t)| \lesssim \dfrac{\varphi^{10}}{N} \dfrac{1}{\max(({\widehat}{k}/N)^{1/3},t)} \ \mbox{for all} \ k \in \llbracket 1,N \rrbracket \ \mbox{in} \ t \in [0,1] \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$ Again by Lemma \[l.MaxPrin\], we know $ -{\mathfrak{v}}_k {\leqslant}{\mathfrak{u}}_k {\leqslant}{\mathfrak{v}}_k $. Therefore we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left( |{\mathfrak{u}}_k^{(\nu)}(t)| \lesssim \dfrac{\varphi^{10}}{N} \dfrac{1}{\max(({\widehat}{k}/N)^{1/3},t)} \ \mbox{for all} \ k \in \llbracket 1,N \rrbracket \ \mbox{in} \ t \in [0,1] \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$ The result then follows as the proof in [@bourgade2018extreme Theorem 2.8].
Proof for $ \xi=1 $ {#s.CaseOne}
-------------------
Due to the fact that $ \rho(x) $ is the semicircle law in this special case, now the advection equation is the same as [@bourgade2018extreme equation (1.12)], whose characteristics has an explicit formula. This coincidence makes it easy to adapt the previous proofs for $ \xi \neq 1 $ to this case. With a little abuse of notations, define the curve $${\mathscr{S}}:= \left\{ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}y: 0 <E< 2 - \varphi^2 N^{-2/3},\ y=\varphi^2/\left( N \kappa(E)^{1/2} \right) \right\},$$ where $ \kappa(z) := |z-2| $. Under the framework of such notations and the rigidity estimates and , by the arguments in [@bourgade2018extreme Section 2], all previous results in Section \[s.geometry\] still hold for $ \xi=1 $. Then using the same method we can prove Proposition \[p.estimate\] with few changes, and consequently the proof for Theorem \[t.Relaxation\] is completed.
Rate of Convergence to Tracy-Widom Law {#s.Comparison}
======================================
Quantitative Green function comparison
--------------------------------------
Following the general three-step strategy in the dynamical approach, the derivation of the rate of convergence relies on both the relaxation and the Green function comparison theorem from [@GreenFunctionComparison]. In the context of sample covariance matrices, this Lindeberg exchange strategy based on the fourth moments matching condition was first used by Tao and Vu in [@TaoVu]. To obtain an explicit convergence rate, we need a quantitative version of the comparison theorem.
For the statement, we consider a fixed $ |E-\lambda_+| < \varphi N^{-2/3} $, a scale $ \rho=\rho(N) \in [N^{-1},N^{-2/3}] $, and a function $ f=f(N):{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $$\|f^{(k)} \|_{L^\infty([E,E+\rho])} {\leqslant}C_k \rho^{-k},\ \ \ \|f^{(k)} \|_{L^{\infty}([E^+,E^++1])} = O(1),\ \ \ 0 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}2.$$ where $ E^+ = E+\varphi N^{-2/3} $. We assume that $ f $ is non-decreasing on $ (-\infty,E^+] $, $ f(x) \equiv 0 $ for $ x<E $ and $ f(x) \equiv 1 $ for $ E+\rho<x{\leqslant}E^+ $; and also assume $ f $ is non-increasing on $ [E^+,\infty) $, $ f \equiv 0 $ for $ x>E^+ +1 $. Furthermore, let $ F $ be a fixed smooth non-increasing function such that $ F(x) \equiv 1 $ for $ x {\leqslant}0 $ and $ F(x) \equiv 0 $ for $ x {\geqslant}1 $.
\[t.GreenCompare\] There exists $ C>0 $ such that the following holds. Let $ {X^{\mathrm{v}}}, {X^{\mathrm{w}}}$ be data matrices satisfying assumptions and , and $ {H^{\mathrm{v}}},{H^{\mathrm{w}}}$ be the corresponding sample covariance matrices. Assume that the first three moments of the entries are the same, i.e. for all $ 1 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}M $, $ 1 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}N $ and $ 1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}3 $ we have $${{\mathbb{E}}^{\mathrm{v}}}(x_{ij}^k) = {{\mathbb{E}}^{\mathrm{w}}}(x_{ij}^k).$$ Assume also that for some parameter $ t=t(N) $ we have $$\left| {{\mathbb{E}}^{\mathrm{v}}}(\sqrt{M}x_{ij})^4 - {{\mathbb{E}}^{\mathrm{w}}}(\sqrt{M}x_{ij})^4 \right| {\leqslant}t.$$ With the above notations for the test functions $ f $ and $ F $, we have $$\left| ({{\mathbb{E}}^{\mathrm{v}}}- {{\mathbb{E}}^{\mathrm{w}}}) F \left( \operatorname{Tr}f(H) \right) \right| {\leqslant}\varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right).$$
We follow the notations in [@pillai2014universality] and the reasoning from [@erdos2017dynamical Theorem 17.4]. Fix a bijective ordering map on the index set of the independent matrix elements, $ \phi:\{(i,j):1 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}M, 1 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}N\} \to \{1,\cdots,MN\} $ and define the family of random matrices $ X_\gamma $, $ 0 {\leqslant}\gamma {\leqslant}MN $ $$[X_\gamma]_{ij} = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
& [{X^{\mathrm{v}}}]_{ij} & \mbox{if} & \ \ \phi(i,j)>\gamma,\\
& [{X^{\mathrm{w}}}]_{ij} & \mbox{if} & \ \ \phi(i,j) {\leqslant}\gamma.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Note that in particular we have $ X_0 = {X^{\mathrm{v}}}$ and $ X_{MN} = {X^{\mathrm{w}}}$. Denote sample covariance matrices $ H_\gamma $ as $$H_\gamma := X_\gamma^* X_\gamma.$$
Let $ \chi $ be a fixed, smooth, symmetric cutoff function such that $ \chi(x)=1 $ if $ |x|<1 $ and $ \chi(x)=0 $ if $ |x|>2 $. By the Helffer-Sjöstrand formula, if $ \lambda_i $’s are the (real) eigenvalues of a matrix $ H $, we have $$\sum f(\lambda_i) = \int_{{\mathbb{C}}} g(z) \operatorname{Tr}\dfrac{1}{H-z} {\mathrm{d}}m(z),$$ where $ {\mathrm{d}}m $ is the Lebesgue measure on $ {\mathbb{C}}$, and the function $ g $ is defined as $$g(z) := \dfrac{1}{\pi} \left( {\text{\rm i}}y f''(y) \chi(y) + {\text{\rm i}}(f(x) + {\text{\rm i}}y f'(x))\chi'(y) \right),\ \ \ z=x+{\text{\rm i}}y.$$ Define $$\Xi^H := \int_{|y|>N^{-1}} g(z) \operatorname{Tr}(H-z)^{-1} {\mathrm{d}}m(z),$$ and we have the bound (see [@bourgade2018extreme Section 5.2]) $$\left|\sum f(\lambda_i) - \Xi^H \right| {\leqslant}O \left( \dfrac{\varphi^C}{(N \rho)^2} \right).$$ This shows that it suffices to show $$\label{e.TelescopicSum}
\left| {\mathbb{E}}F(\Xi^{H_\gamma}) - {\mathbb{E}}F(\Xi^{H_{\gamma-1}}) \right| {\leqslant}\dfrac{ \varphi^C }{N^2} \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right).$$ For an arbitrarily fixed $ \gamma $ corresponding to $ (i,j) $, we can write $$X_{\gamma-1}=Q+V,\ \ \ V:={X^{\mathrm{v}}}_{ij}E^{(ij)},\ \ \ \ X_\gamma = Q+W,\ \ \ W:= {X^{\mathrm{w}}}_{ij}E^{(ij)}.$$ where $ Q $ coincides with $ X_{\gamma-1} $ and $ X_\gamma $ except on the $ (i,j) $ position (where it is 0). We define the Green functions $$R:= (Q^*Q-z)^{-1},\ \ \ S:=(H_{\gamma-1}-z)^{-1}.$$ By Taylor expansion, for some fixed order $ m $, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e.Taylor}
{\mathbb{E}}F(\Xi^{H_{\gamma}}) - {\mathbb{E}}F(\Xi^{H_{\gamma-1}}) = \sum_{l=1}^{m-1} {\mathbb{E}}\dfrac{F^{(l)}(\Xi^Q)}{l !}\left( (\Xi^{H_\gamma} - \Xi^Q)^l - (\Xi^{H_{\gamma-1}} - \Xi^Q)^l \right)\\
+ O \left( \|F^{(m)} \|_\infty \right) \left( {\mathbb{E}}\left( (\Xi^{H_\gamma} - \Xi^Q)^m + (\Xi^{H_{\gamma-1}} - \Xi^Q)^m \right) \right).\end{gathered}$$
First we estimate the $ m $-th order error term. By the first order resolvent expansion we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Xi^{H_{\gamma}} - \Xi^Q| &{\leqslant}\int_{|y|>N^{-1},|x|<\lambda_+ +2} |g(z)|\left| \operatorname{Tr}R(z)(V^*Q+Q^*V+V^*V)S(z) \right| {\mathrm{d}}m(z) \\
&{\leqslant}\varphi^C N \int_{|y|>N^{-1},|x|<\lambda_+ +2} |g(z)| \|S(z) \|_\infty \|R(z) \|_\infty {\mathrm{d}}m(z)\end{aligned}$$ with overwhelming probability, where we use the fact that there are only $ O(N) $ nonzero entries with size $ O(N^{-1}) $ in the matrix $ V^*Q+Q^*V+V^*V $. By the strong local Marchenko-Pastur law ([@pillai2014universality Theorem 3.1]), for any $ D>0 $ we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left( \max_{j}|S_{jj}(z) - m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(z)| + \max_{j \neq k}|S_{jk}(z)| {\leqslant}\varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{Ny}+\sqrt{\dfrac{{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}m_{{\mathsf{MP}}}(y)}{Ny}} \right) \right) > 1- N^{-D}.$$ Same bound for $ \|R(z) \|_\infty $ also holds (see [@pillai2014universality Lemma 5.4]). This shows that $${\mathbb{E}}(\Xi^{H_\gamma} - \Xi^Q)^m = O \left( \varphi^C / (N^m \rho^m) \right),\ \ \ {\mathbb{E}}(\Xi^{H_{\gamma-1}} - \Xi^Q)^m = O \left( \varphi^C / (N^m \rho^m) \right).$$ Therefore the $ m $-th order term in can be bounded by $ \varphi^C N^{-2}(N^{-m+2} \rho^{-m}) $.
Next we consider the first order term in the Taylor expansion. By the resolvent expansion, we have $$S=R-R {A^{\mathrm{v}}}R+(R {A^{\mathrm{v}}})^2R-(R {A^{\mathrm{v}}})^3R+ \cdots - (R {A^{\mathrm{v}}})^{11}R + (R {A^{\mathrm{v}}})^{12}S,$$ where $${A^{\mathrm{v}}}= V^*Q + Q^*V + V^*V.$$ Denote $${{\widehat}{R}_{\mathrm{v}}}^{(n)} := (-1)^{n} \operatorname{Tr}(R {A^{\mathrm{v}}})^n R,\ \ \ \ {\Omega_{\mathrm{v}}}:= \operatorname{Tr}(R {A^{\mathrm{v}}})^{12} S.$$ Then we have $${\mathbb{E}}F'(\Xi^Q) \left( \Xi^{H_{\gamma-1}} - \Xi^{H_{\gamma}} \right) = {\mathbb{E}}F'(\Xi^Q) \int g(z) \left( \sum_{n=1}^{11} \left( {{\widehat}{R}_{\mathrm{v}}}^{(n)} - {{\widehat}{R}_{\mathrm{w}}}^{(n)} \right) +({\Omega_{\mathrm{v}}}- {\Omega_{\mathrm{w}}}) \right) {\mathrm{d}}m(z).$$ Since the first three moments of the two matrices are identical, we know that the case $ n=1 $ gives null contribution.
For $ n=2 $, note that the entries of the matrix $ A $ satisfy the following relation $$A_{ab}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& x_{ij} x_{ib} & \quad & \mbox{if} \ a=j,b \neq j,\\
& x_{ij} x_{ia} & \quad & \mbox{if} \ a \neq j, b=j,\\
& 0 & \quad &\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ This shows that $${\mathbb{E}}({{\widehat}{R}_{\mathrm{v}}}^{(2)} - {{\widehat}{R}_{\mathrm{w}}}^{(2)}) {\leqslant}N \left( \dfrac{t}{N^2} \right) \left(\max_{i \neq j} |R_{ij}|\right)^2 \left(\max_i |R_{ii}|\right),$$ where we used that in the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Tr}(R {A^{\mathrm{v}}})^2R & = \sum_{k} \sum_{a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2} R_{k a_1}{A^{\mathrm{v}}}_{a_1 b_1}R_{b_1 a_2}{A^{\mathrm{v}}}_{a_2 b_2}R_{b_2 k}\\
& = \sum_{k} \sum_{(a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2) \neq (j,j,j,j)} R_{k a_1}{A^{\mathrm{v}}}_{a_1 b_1}R_{b_1 a_2}{A^{\mathrm{v}}}_{a_2 b_2}R_{b_2 k} + \sum_k R_{kj}{A^{\mathrm{v}}}_{jj}R_{jj}{A^{\mathrm{v}}}_{jj}R_{jk}\end{aligned}$$ due to the moment matching condition, the terms that make nontrivial contribution are only in the second summation, which is $$\sum_k R_{kj}R_{jj}R_{jk}({X^{\mathrm{v}}}_{ij})^4.$$ Here we also use the fact that the contribution for the terms with $ k $ equal $ i $ or $ j $ is combinatorially negligible. By the local law, we conclude $${\mathbb{E}}F'(\Xi^Q) \int g(z) \left( {{\widehat}{R}_{\mathrm{v}}}^{(2)} - {{\widehat}{R}_{\mathrm{w}}}^{(2)} \right) {\mathrm{d}}m(z) = O \left( \dfrac{\varphi^C t}{N} \right) \int \dfrac{|g(z)|}{(Ny)^2} {\mathrm{d}}m(z) = O \left( \dfrac{\varphi^C}{N^2} \dfrac{t}{N\rho} \right).$$ For the terms $ n=3,\dots,11 $, as explained in [@pillai2014universality Lemma 5.4], their contributions are of smaller order. Similarly, for the term $ ({\Omega_{\mathrm{v}}}- {\Omega_{\mathrm{w}}}) $, as shown in [@pillai2014universality Lemma 5.4] we have $ {\Omega_{\mathrm{v}}}= O(N^{-4}) $. Therefore we have $${\mathbb{E}}F'(\Xi^Q) \int g(z) \left( ({\Omega_{\mathrm{v}}}- {\Omega_{\mathrm{w}}}) \right) {\mathrm{d}}m(z) = O \left( \dfrac{\varphi^C}{N^2} \dfrac{1}{N^2 \rho} \right)=O \left( \dfrac{\varphi^C}{N^2} \right) \left( \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right).$$
Moreover, as explained in [@erdos2017dynamical Theorem 17.4], the contributions of higher order terms in Taylor expansion are of smaller order. Combining the estimates and taking $ m=20 $ (we will see the reason in the next section) gives us . Finally, a telescopic summation yields the desired result.
Proof of Theorem \[t.Rate\]
---------------------------
Let $ s \in {\mathbb{R}}$. If $ |s|>\varphi $, due to the rigidity we know that for any $ D>0 $ and large enough $ N $, we have $ {\mathbb{P}}\left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - \lambda_+) {\leqslant}s \right) = {\mathbb{P}}({\mathsf{TW}}{\leqslant}s) + O(N^{-D}) $. So in the following discussion we assume $ |s| {\leqslant}\varphi $.
Denoting a non-decreasing function $ f_1 $ such that $ f_1(x)=1 $ for $ x>\lambda_+ + sN^{-2/3} $ and $ f_1(x)=0 $ for $ x<\lambda_+ + sN^{-2/3} - \rho $. We also define $ f_2(x) := f_1(x-\rho) $. Then we have $$\label{e.ProbEst}
{\mathbb{E}}_H F \left( \sum_{i=1}^N f_1(\lambda_i) \right) {\leqslant}{\mathbb{P}}_H \left( \lambda_N < \lambda_+ + s N^{-2/3} \right) {\leqslant}{\mathbb{E}}_H F \left( \sum_{i=1}^N f_2(\lambda_i) \right).$$
Moreover, as discussed in [@erdos2011universality; @pillai2014universality], we can find an $ M \times N $ matrix $ {\widetilde}{X}_0 $ such that the Gaussian divisible ensemble $ {\widetilde}{X}_t := e^{-t/2}{\widetilde}{X}_0 + (1-e^{-t})^{1/2}X_G $, where $ X_G $ is a matrix whose entries are independent Gaussian random variables with mean 0 and variance 1, satisfies the following: for $ 1 {\leqslant}k {\leqslant}3 $, $${\mathbb{E}}(\sqrt{M}X_{ij})^k = {\mathbb{E}}[{\widetilde}{X}_t]_{ij}^k,\ \ \ \ |{\mathbb{E}}(\sqrt{M}X_{ij})^4 - {\mathbb{E}}[{\widetilde}{X}_t]_{ij}^4| \lesssim t.$$ By the quantitative Green function comparison theorem \[t.GreenCompare\], we obtain the following bound $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{E}}_{{\widetilde}{X}_t} F \left( \sum_{i=1}^N f_1(\lambda_i) \right) - \varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right)
{\leqslant}{\mathbb{P}}_H \left( \lambda_N < \lambda_+ + s N^{-2/3} \right) \\
{\leqslant}{\mathbb{E}}_{{\widetilde}{X}_t} F \left( \sum_{i=1}^N f_2(\lambda_i) \right) + \varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right).\end{gathered}$$ Using for $ {\widetilde}{X}_t $, the estimate becomes $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{P}}_{{\widetilde}{X}_t} \left( \lambda_N < \lambda_+ + s N^{-2/3} -\rho \right) - \varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right)\\
{\leqslant}{\mathbb{P}}_H \left( \lambda_N < \lambda_+ + s N^{-2/3} \right) {\leqslant}\\
{\mathbb{P}}_{{\widetilde}{X}_t} \left( \lambda_N < \lambda_+ + s N^{-2/3} +\rho \right) + \varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right).\end{gathered}$$ After combined with the edge relaxation Theorem \[t.Relaxation\], the estimate now gives us $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{P}}_{{\mathsf{Wishart}}} \left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - \lambda_+) < s -N^{2/3}\rho - \dfrac{N^{\varepsilon}}{N^{1/3}t} \right) - \varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right)\\
{\leqslant}{\mathbb{P}}_H \left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - \lambda_+) < s \right) {\leqslant}\\
{\mathbb{P}}_{{\mathsf{Wishart}}} \left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - \lambda_+) < s +N^{2/3}\rho + \dfrac{N^{\varepsilon}}{N^{1/3}t} \right) + \varphi^C \left( \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^2} \right).\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, as shown in [@el2006rate; @ma2012accuracy], we know $${\mathbb{P}}_{{\mathsf{Wishart}}} \left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - \lambda_+) <s \right) = {\mathbb{P}}({\mathsf{TW}}<s)+ O(N^{-2/3}).$$ By using this Wishart result and the boundedness of the density for $ {\mathsf{TW}}$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e.RateNullCase}
{\mathbb{P}}_H \left(N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - \lambda_+) <s \right) - {\mathbb{P}}\left( {\mathsf{TW}}<s \right)\\
= O \left( N^{\varepsilon}\right) \left( N^{2/3}\rho + \dfrac{1}{N^{1/3}t} + \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^{2/3}} \right).\end{gathered}$$ The optimal bound $ N^{-2/9 + {\varepsilon}} $ is obtained for $ t=N^{-1/9} $ and $ \rho = N^{-8/9} $. This completes the whole proof for Theorem \[t.Rate\].
Generalization to General Population Matrices {#s.GeneralPopulation}
=============================================
In this section, we proceed to generalize our previous results for sample covariance matrices of type $ X^*X $ (which corresponds to the identity population) and aim to derive the rate of convergence to the Tracy-Widom distribution for the (rescaled) largest eigenvalue of separable sample covariance matrices with general population. Throughout this section, we will follow the notations and the setup in the the work by Lee and Schnelli [@lee2016tracy].
Let $ X=(x_{ij}) $ be defined as in and . For some deterministic $ M \times M $ matrix $ T $, the sample covariance matrices associated with data matrix $ X $ and population matrix $ \Sigma:=T^*T $ is defined as $ \mathcal{Q}:=(TX)(TX)^* $. Note that the $ M \times M $ matrix $ \mathcal{Q} $ and the matrix $$Q:=X^*\Sigma X$$ share the same non-trivial eigenvalues. Since we are studying the largest eigenvalue of the sample covariance matrix, it is more convenient to work with the matrix $ Q $ (called the separable sample covariance matrix) for some technical reasons. We denote the eigenvalues of $ Q $ in increasing order by $ \mu_1 {\leqslant}\cdots {\leqslant}\mu_N $.
As mentioned previously, for the null case (i.e. the population matrix is identity), it is well known that the empirical eigenvalue distribution of a sample covariance matrix converges weakly in probability to the Marchenko-Pastur law. Under the general setting, however, this results need to be modified and the limiting measure (called the deformed Marchenko-Pastur law) will depends on the spectrum of the population matrix. Let $ \sigma_1 {\leqslant}\cdots {\leqslant}\sigma_M $ be the eigenvalues of the population matrix $ \Sigma $, we denote by $ {\widehat}{\rho}={\widehat}{\rho}(M) $ the empirical eigenvalue distribution of $ \Sigma $, which is defined as $${\widehat}{\rho}:=\dfrac{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_{\sigma_j}.$$ The deformed Marchenko-Pastur law $ {\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ is defined in the following way. The Stieltjes transform $ {\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ of the probability measure is given by the unique solution of the equation $${\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z)=\dfrac{1}{-z+\xi^{-1}\int \frac{1}{t {\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z) + 1}{\mathrm{d}}{\widehat}{\rho}(t)},\ \ \ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}{\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z) {\geqslant}0,\ \ \ z \in {\mathbb{C}}^+.$$ It has been discussed in [@knowles2017anisotropic] that $ {\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ is associated to a continuous probability density $ {\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ with compact support in $ [0,\infty) $. Moreover, the density ${\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ can be obtained from $ {\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ via the Stieltjes inversion formula $${\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(E) = \lim_{\eta \downarrow 0}\dfrac{1}{\pi}{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}{\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta).$$ The typical location of the largest eigenvalue, which is the rightmost endpoint of the support of the density $ {\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ is determined in the following way. Recall that $ \xi:=N/M $, we define $ \xi_+ $ as the largest solution of the equation $$\int \left( \dfrac{t \xi_+}{1-t\xi_+} \right)^2 {\mathrm{d}}{\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(t) = \xi.$$ We remark that $ \xi_+ $ is unique and $ \xi_+ \in [0,\sigma_M^{-1}] $. We then introduce the typical location for the largest eigenvalue $ E_+ $ by $$\label{e.RightEndpoint}
E_+ := \dfrac{1}{\xi_+}\left( 1+\xi^{-1}\int \dfrac{t \xi_+}{1-t\xi_+} {\mathrm{d}}{\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(t) \right).$$
Now we state our assumptions on the population matrix $ \Sigma $ that are needed to prove the explicit rate of convergence. For general random matrices $ X $ we require $ \Sigma $ to be diagonal, and we will show later this diagonal condition can be removed if $ X $ is Gaussian. We further need the following assumption for the spectrum of the population matrix $ \Sigma $. Throughout this section, we assume the following: $$\label{e.AssumptionPopulation}
\liminf_M \sigma_1 >0,\ \ \ \limsup_M \sigma_M <\infty,\ \ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \ \limsup_M \sigma_M \xi_+ <1.$$
The assumption is the same as [@lee2016tracy Assumption 2.2]. It is first used in [@bao2015universality; @knowles2017anisotropic] to prove the local deformed Marchenko-Pastur law. In particular, the last inequality ensures that the density $ {\widehat}{\rho}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ exhibits a square-root behavior near the right edge of its support, which is crucial to derive the local law.
It is natural to note that with a general population matrix, the distribution of the largest eigenvalue should not behave exactly like the null case. Besides the typical location of the largest eigenvalue is changed, the normalization constant of the fluctuation is also different. Therefore, we introduce the following normalization constant $ \gamma_0 $ given by $$\label{e.ScalingConstant}
\dfrac{1}{\gamma_0^3} = \dfrac{1}{\xi}\int \left( \dfrac{t}{1-t\xi_+} \right){\mathrm{d}}{\widehat}{\rho}(t) + \dfrac{1}{\xi_+^3}.$$ Moreover, we remark that the Tracy-Widom limit for the general case is rescaled and it is not the same as the previous one we used for the null case. However they are just different by a simple scaling so that we do not emphasize this difference and still use the notation $ {\mathsf{TW}}$ to denote this distribution. Under this framework, our main result given in Corollary \[t.RateGeneralPopulation\].
Unlike the proof for the null case in the previous sections, we will not strictly follow the three-step strategy in the dynamical approach. Instead, we use the comparison theorem for the Green function flow, which is a method based on continuous interpolation, linearization and renormalization developed in [@lee2016tracy].
Local deformed Marchenko-Pastur law
-----------------------------------
For completeness, we will briefly introduce the local deformed Marchenko-Pastur law. Though we will not give a detailed proof, we emphasize that the local law is an indispensable part to prove the Green function comparison Proposition \[p.GreenFunctionFlow\], which further leads to the edge universality.
For small nonnegative $ c,\epsilon {\geqslant}0 $ and sufficiently large $ E_+<C<\infty $, we consider the domain $$\mathcal{D}(c,\epsilon) :=\left\{ z=E+{\text{\rm i}}\eta \in {\mathbb{C}}^+ : E_+-c {\leqslant}E {\leqslant}C, N^{-1+\epsilon} {\leqslant}\eta {\leqslant}1 \right\}.$$ We also denote $ \kappa=\kappa(E):=|E-E_+| $. Then we have the following estimates for the density and the Stieltjes transform of the deformed Marchenko-Pastur law.
\[l.EstiamtesDeformedMP\] Under the assumption , there exists a constant $ c>0 $ such that $${\widehat}{\rho}_{\mathsf{fc}}(E) \sim \sqrt{E_+ - E}\ \ \ \ E \in [E_+-2c,E_+].$$ Moreover, the Stieltjes transform $ {\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}} $ satisfies the following: for $ z \in \mathcal{D}(c,0) $, we have $$|{\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z)| \sim 1,\ \ \ \ {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}{\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z) \sim \left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\eta}{\sqrt{\kappa+\eta}} & \mbox{if} &\ E {\geqslant}E_++\eta,\\
& \sqrt{\kappa+\eta}, & \mbox{if} &\ E \in [E_+-c,E_++\eta).
\end{aligned}
\right.
.$$
The Green function and the Stieltjes transform are defined in the usual way: $$G_Q(z) := (Q-z)^{-1},\ \ \ m_Q(z) := \dfrac{1}{N}\operatorname{Tr}G_Q(z).$$ Then we have the following local law for the separable sample covariance matrix $ Q $.
\[l.LocalDeformedMPLaw\] Under the assumption , for any sufficiently small $ \epsilon>0 $, and for any (large) $ D>0 $, there exists $ N_0(D)>0 $ such that for any $ N {\geqslant}N_0(D) $ we have the following estimate uniformly in $ z \in \mathcal{D}(c,\epsilon) $: $${\mathbb{P}}\left( |m_Q(z) - {\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z)| {\leqslant}\dfrac{N^\epsilon}{N\eta} \right) > 1-N^{-D},$$ and $${\mathbb{P}}\left( \max_{i,j}\left| (G_Q)_{ij}(z) - \delta_{ij}{\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z) \right| {\leqslant}N^\epsilon \left( \sqrt{\dfrac{{\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}{\widehat}{m}_{{\mathsf{fc}}}(z)}{N\eta}} + \dfrac{1}{N\eta} \right) \right) > 1-N^{-D}.$$
It is clear to see that the estimates for the deformed Marchenko-Pastur law (Lemma \[l.EstiamtesDeformedMP\]) and the local law (Lemma \[l.LocalDeformedMPLaw\]) are greatly similar as the corresponding results for the null case (see e.g. [@pillai2014universality Theorem 3.1]). Heuristically, this implies the Tracy-Widom limit in the edge universality for the non-null case.
Interpolation and Green function comparison
-------------------------------------------
In classical theory of random matrix universality, the tool needed to prove the edge universality is the Green function comparison theorem. The usual approach is to compare two ensembles with some moments matching conditions, and then use the construction of Gaussian divisible ensembles together with estimates of the local relaxation flow to remove the moments matching requirement. In this section, however, we do not follow this traditional step. Instead, we compare the Green function of a general ensemble with its corresponding null sample covariance matrix. This argument was first introduced in [@lee2015edge] to handle the deformed Wigner matrices, and used in [@lee2016tracy] to identify the Tracy-Widom limit for general separable sample covariance matrices. The basic idea is to introduce a time evolution that deforms the population matrices continuously to the identity and offset the change of the Green function by a renormalization of the matrix.
Recall the scaling constant $ \gamma_0 $ defined in . We consider the following two rescaled matrices $${\widetilde}{\Sigma} := \gamma_0 \Sigma,\ \ \ {\widetilde}{Q} := X^* {\widetilde}{\Sigma}X.$$ We also denote the eigenvalues of $ {\widetilde}{Q} $ by $ {\widetilde}{\mu}_1 {\leqslant}\cdots {\leqslant}{\widetilde}{\mu}_N $, and let $ L_+ := \gamma_0 E_+ $. We remark that in the literature about sample covariance matrices with general population (e.g. [@bao2015universality; @el2007tracy; @lee2016tracy]), the scaling of the Tracy-Widom distribution is chosen in the way such that it is the limit for the distribution of the (rescaled) largest eigenvalue of the matrix $$W:=\sqrt{\xi}(1+\sqrt{\xi})^{-4/3}X^*X.$$ Specifically, we order the eigenvalues of the matrix $ W $ by $ \lambda_1 {\leqslant}\cdots {\leqslant}\lambda_N $, and let $ M_+ $ denote the rightmost endpoint of the rescaled Marchenko-Pastur law for $ W $.
It has been shown in [@bao2015universality equation (1.9)] that $$\gamma_0 = \sqrt{\xi}(1+\sqrt{\xi})^{-4/3} + o(1).$$ This can be regarded as a good motivation for considering the scaling constant $ \gamma_0 $.
For the diagonal population matrix $ \Sigma = \mbox{diag}(\sigma_j) $, we introduce the following time evolution $ t \mapsto (\sigma_j(t)) $ that deforms $ \Sigma $ to the identity matrix $ {\mathsf{Id}}$ and the Green function flow by $$\label{e.GreenFunctionFlow}
\dfrac{1}{\sigma_j(t)}=e^{-t}\dfrac{1}{\sigma_j(0)}+(1-e^{-t}),\ \ \ {\widetilde}{Q}(t)=\gamma_0X^*\Sigma(t)X,\ \ \ m_{{\widetilde}{Q}(t)}(z) := \dfrac{1}{N}\operatorname{Tr}({\widetilde}{Q}(t)-z)^{-1}.$$ Based on the local law Lemma \[l.EstiamtesDeformedMP\] and Lemma \[l.LocalDeformedMPLaw\], and a delicate analysis for the time derivative of the Green function for $ {\widetilde}{Q}(t) $, the Green function comparison theorem (see Proposition \[p.GreenFunctionFlow\]) is proved in [@lee2016tracy]. We note that though the original estimate in [@lee2016tracy] is not explicit, a careful examination of the proof will reveal that the result is actually quantitative.
\[p.GreenFunctionFlow\] Let $ {\varepsilon}>0 $ and set $ \eta = N^{-2/3-{\varepsilon}} $. Let $ E_1,E_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfy $ E_1 < E_2 $ and $ |E_1|,|E_2| {\leqslant}N^{-2/3+{\varepsilon}} $. Let $ F: {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth function satisfying $$\max_x |F^{(l)}(x)|(|x|+1)^{-C} {\leqslant}C,\ \ \ \ l=1,2,3,4.$$ Then for any (small) $ {\delta}>0 $ and for sufficiently large $ N $ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\left| {\mathbb{E}}F \left( N \int_{E_1}^{E_2} {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}m_{{\widetilde}{Q}}(x+L_++{\text{\rm i}}\eta) {\mathrm{d}}x \right) - {\mathbb{E}}F \left( N \int_{E_1}^{E_2} {\text{\rm Im}\hspace{0.1cm}}m_{W}(x+M_++{\text{\rm i}}\eta) {\mathrm{d}}x \right) \right|\\
{\leqslant}N^{-\frac{1}{3}+2{\varepsilon}+{\delta}}.\end{gathered}$$
Quantitative edge universality
------------------------------
In this section we can finally prove Corollary \[t.RateGeneralPopulation\]. The proof is based on our previous rate of convergence for the null case (Theorem \[t.Rate\]) and the estimate on the comparison theorem for the Green function flow (Proposition \[p.GreenFunctionFlow\]).
We first remark that we are not supposed to use the rate of convergence for the null case (Theorem \[t.Rate\]) and the triangle inequality in a naive way to derive the convergence rate for the general case. This is because Theorem \[t.Rate\] is obtain by choosing the optimal parameters in the estimate , and the scale parameter $ \rho $ is also related to the scale in the Green function comparison (Proposition \[p.GreenFunctionFlow\]). To illustrate this link more clearly, we first briefly review how Green function comparison is used to obtain the edge universality.
We introduce a smooth cutoff function $ K:{\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $$K(x)=
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& 1 &\ \mbox{if}\ & x {\leqslant}1/9,\\
& 0 &\ \mbox{if}\ & x {\geqslant}2/9.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ and we also define the Poisson kernel $ \theta_\eta $, for $ \eta>0 $ $$\theta_\eta(x) := \dfrac{\eta}{\pi(x^2+\eta^2)}.$$ Let $ E_*:=L_+ +\varphi^C N^{-2/3} $, and denote $ \chi_E := 1_{[E,E_*]} $. For $ {\varepsilon}>0 $, let $ l:= \tfrac{1}{2}N^{-2/3-{\varepsilon}} $ and $ \eta:=N^{-2/3-9{\varepsilon}} $. Then for any (large) $ D>0 $, it is proved in [@lee2016tracy; @pillai2014universality] that for large enough $ N $ we have $${\mathbb{E}}K\left( \operatorname{Tr}(\chi_{E-l} * \theta_\eta({\widetilde}{Q})) \right) {\leqslant}{\mathbb{P}}\left( {\widetilde}{\mu}_N {\leqslant}E \right) {\leqslant}{\mathbb{E}}K\left( \operatorname{Tr}(\chi_{E+l} * \theta_\eta({\widetilde}{Q})) \right) + N^{-D}.$$ Here the parameter $ l $ plays the same role as the $ \rho $ in , and therefore we have $ N^{-{\varepsilon}}=N^{2/3}\rho $ and $ \eta=N^{-2/3}N^{6}\rho^{9} $. By the Green function comparison Proposition \[p.GreenFunctionFlow\] and the [@lee2016tracy Theorem 2.4], we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{P}}\left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - M_+) {\leqslant}s \right) - N^{-\frac{1}{3}+18{\varepsilon}+{\delta}} {\leqslant}{\mathbb{P}}\left( N^{2/3}({\widetilde}{\mu}_N - L_+) {\leqslant}s \right)\\
{\leqslant}{\mathbb{P}}\left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N - M_+) {\leqslant}s \right) + N^{-\frac{1}{3}+18{\varepsilon}+{\delta}}.\end{gathered}$$ This gives us $$\label{e.GeneralQuantEdgeUniversality}
{\mathsf{d_K}}\left( \gamma_0 N^{2/3}(\mu_N - E_+),N^{2/3}(\lambda_N-M_+) \right) {\leqslant}N^{{\delta}}N^{-1/3}N^{-12}\rho^{-18}.$$ Combined with Theorem , by triangle inequality we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad {\mathsf{d_K}}\left( \gamma_0 N^{2/3}(\mu_N - E_+),{\mathsf{TW}}\right)\\
& {\leqslant}{\mathsf{d_K}}\left( \gamma_0 N^{2/3}(\mu_N - E_+),N^{2/3}(\lambda_N-M_+) \right) + {\mathsf{d_K}}\left( N^{2/3}(\lambda_N-M_+),{\mathsf{TW}}\right)\\
& {\leqslant}N^{{\delta}}\left( N^{-1/3}N^{-12}\rho^{-18} + N^{2/3}\rho + \dfrac{1}{N^{1/3}t} + \dfrac{1}{N^{18} \rho^{20}} + \dfrac{t}{N \rho} + \dfrac{1}{(N \rho)^2} + \dfrac{1}{N^{2/3}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The optimal result is obtained now by choosing $ \rho=N^{-13/19} $ and $ t=N^{-6/19} $, which gives us $${\mathsf{d_K}}\left( \gamma_0 N^{2/3}(\mu_N - E_+),{\mathsf{TW}}\right) {\leqslant}N^{-\frac{1}{57}+{\delta}}.$$ This completes the proof.
Based on the Corollary \[t.RateGeneralPopulation\] for diagonal population matrices $ \Sigma $ and general random matrices $ X $, we can easily obtain the following result for the case in which we can have a general population if the random matrix $ X $ is restricted to be Gaussian.
\[c.RateGaussian\] Let $ Q := X^* \Sigma X $ be an $ N \times N $ separable sample covariance matrix, where $ X $ is an $ M \times N $ real random matrix with independent Gaussian entries satisfying , and $ \Sigma $ is a real positive-definite deterministic $ M \times M $ matrix satisfying . For any $ {\varepsilon}>0 $ and large enough $ N $, we have $${\mathsf{d_K}}\left( \gamma_0 N^{2/3} (\mu_N - E_+),{\mathsf{TW}}\right) {\leqslant}N^{-\frac{1}{57} + {\varepsilon}}$$
Under these assumptions, we know that the population matrix $ \Sigma $ is diagonizable, i.e. there exists an $ M \times M $ real diagonal matrix $ D $ and an $ N \times N $ orthogonal matrix $ U $ such that $ \Sigma = U^*DU $. Since $ X $ is a matrix whose entries are independent Gaussian random variable, we know that $ UX $ is also a real random matrix with Gaussian entries satisfying the assumption . Therefore, by applying our Corollary \[t.RateGeneralPopulation\] to the matrix $ X^*\Sigma X = (UX)^*D(UX) $, we will get the desired result.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum error correction is a solution to preserve the fidelity of quantum information encoded in physical systems subject to noise. However, unfavorable correlated errors could be induced even for non-interacting qubits through the environment (bath), when they are “packed" together. The question is, to what extent can we treat the noise induced by the bath as independent? In the context of the spin-boson model, we show that, under some reasonable constraints, the independent noise approximation could be valid. On the other hand, in the strongly correlated limit, we show how the method of decoherence free subspace can be made applicable. Combining these two methods makes fault-tolerant quantum computation promising in fighting against correlated errors.'
author:
- 'Man-Hong Yung'
title: 'Independent Noise Approximation for Spin-Boson Decoherence'
---
Quantum information encoded in realistic physical systems is very fragile, compared with the classical counterparts. Quantum error correction [@Shor95; @Steane96] is possible and efficient provided that the errors are independent or weakly correlated. For independent noise, where errors are modeled as stochastic events, error thresholds [@Knill98; @Aliferis05; @Aharonov06] can be estimated to give an upper bound of the error rate for fault-tolerant quantum computation. The effects of correlated errors are generally not favorable for error correction as more restrictive error thresholds are needed. In reality, quantum noise may not behave like stochastic noise — the independent noise assumption is questionable. No physical qubit can be genuinely isolated from the environment (bath). In particular, for solid state systems, if the qubits are interacting with the same bath, indirect correlations could be generated, and the protection from error correction codes becomes ineffective. Our goal here is to illustrate the essential features and general structures of the environment induced decoherence for the purpose of quantum error correction.
This work is motivated by the recent studies [@Aliferis05; @Aharonov06; @Terhal05; @Klesse05; @Novais06] related to this problem. However, some physical considerations have been ignored, and consequently the adverse effects of the bath on quantum error correction were often [*overestimated*]{}. In [@Aliferis05; @Aharonov06; @Terhal05], attempts of deriving mathematically rigorous error thresholds were made by summing over the so-called “fault paths". However, for general environments, the spin-bath coupling $\left\| {H_{SB} } \right\|$ is unbounded and hence fails the analyses. The spin-boson model [@Leggett87] (with \[$H_S,H_{SB}] =0$ cf. Eq. (\[H\])) have been considered in [@Klesse05; @Novais06], where a coarse-grained description on the dephasing effects were studied in [@Klesse05], but the possibility of reducing the collective effects (also ignored in [@Novais06]) through decoherence free encoding were not considered. Moreover, the effects of including non-trivial local Hamiltonians $H_S$ have not been properly explored, as we shall see it does play an important role in generating spatial error correlation. This work is aimed at providing a more complete and more physical picture on this problem, and suggests a more optimistic view on the effects of environment induced decoherence. Particularly, we shall address two questions: (1) To what extent, can the noise induced by the bath be considered as independent? (2) For fully correlated noise, how do we minimize the decoherence effects?
We formulate the problem in terms of the relevant two-point correlation functions. For a generic boson bath (e.g. acoustic phonon bath) and physical qubits with local energy splittings $\Delta$, we found that the error correlation generated from the energy-converving processes (here called “bit-flipping" case) becomes significant when the qubit-qubit separations are less than a length scale $\lambda_* \equiv \hbar c / \Delta$, where $c$ is the wave speed of the bath. The physical origin of the spatial error correlation is due to the [*constructive interference*]{} of the local disturbances from the qubits to the bath. This provides an answer to question (1). For question (2), we found that when $\Delta \to 0$ (here called dephasing case), the errors are fully correlated when the long wavelength modes of the bath become dominant. Provided that the effective qubit-qubit interactions \[cf. Eq.(\[H\_eff\])\] are properly handled, it is possible to minimize the effects by using the noiseless subspace (or decoherence free subspace DFS) to encode the qubits.
*Definition of Independent Noise —* We first clarify the concept of error correlation in the context of quantum error correction. The degree of error correlation may be best quantified by the deviation from the independent noise. We motivate the definition of ‘independent noise’ through a simple example: consider a register of qubits, consisting of $N$ spin-1/2 particles, initialized in some encoded state $\left| {Qubits} \right\rangle$, subject to a random classical magnetic field which causes an unwanted evolution $$\label{U}
U = \prod\limits_{j = 1}^N {\exp \left( {\epsilon _j W_j } \right)} \approx I + \epsilon _j W_j + \epsilon _j \epsilon _k W_j W_k + ...$$ where $W_k = \{ X_k,Y_k,Z_k\}$ is one of the Pauli matrices ($W_k^2=I$) acting on spin $k$ and the random variable $\left| {\epsilon _k } \right| \ll 1$ is assumed to be small. In powers of $\epsilon_k$, each term in this series is in general not mutually orthogonal. However, after error syndrome detection, the final state will be projected into some states with definite parity with respect to the corresponding stabilizers. The probability $P_1(W_k)$ of single error on spin $k$ can be estimated by the amplitude square $A_1(W_k)^2 \equiv \left\| {\epsilon _k W_k \left| {Qubits} \right\rangle } \right\|^2 = \left| {\epsilon _k } \right|^2
$ of the $W_k$ term. The amplitude of any two-qubit error is simply a product of the amplitudes of two single-qubit errors $A_2\left( {W_j W_k } \right) = | \epsilon_j \epsilon_k | = A_1\left( {W_j } \right) A_1\left( {W_k } \right) $, for any $j \ne k$. Provided that all $\left| {\epsilon _k } \right| \ll 1$, the standard threshold theorem about independent stochastic noise should be valid. To generalize the above argument to the errors caused by the noise from the environment (formally denoted as $\left| {Env} \right\rangle$), we may (naively) promote the complex numbers $\epsilon_k$ to operators $\hat \epsilon_k$ acting on the environment. Then, $A_1(W_k)^2 = \left\langle {Env} \right|\hat \epsilon _k^\dagger \hat \epsilon _k \left| {Env} \right\rangle $ and so on. However, generally $A_2 \left( {W_j W_k } \right) \ne A_1 \left( {W_j } \right)A_1 \left( {W_k } \right)$, but we want to know under what circumstances the equality would hold. This motivates our definition of the independent noise model: $$\label{A}
A_n \left( {W_1 W_2 ... W_n} \right) \approx A_1 ( {W_1 }) A_1 ( {W_2 } ) \cdots A_1( {W_n }) \quad$$ for all possible combinations of the Pauli matrices. The ‘$\approx$’ sign offers us the flexibility to neglect higher order corrections, if any. Below we shall study the question about the validity of the independent noise approximation in the context of the spin-boson model. The method to be introduced may also be applicable to more general models of the environment, and shall likely give the same qualitative results.
*Spin-Boson Model —* We assume that the interaction between the boson bath and the physical qubits is sufficiently “weak" to be considered as perturbation. The full Hamiltonian $H=H_S+H_B+H_{SB}$, or $$\label{H}
H = H_S + \sum\limits_k {\hbar \omega _k a_k^\dagger a_k } + g\sum\limits_k {\left( {{\tilde Z}_k a_k^ \dagger + {\tilde Z}_k^\dagger a_k } \right)}$$ consists of three parts, respectively, $H_S$ (to be specified later) the system Hamiltonian of $N$ physical qubits, $H_B $ the bosonic bath Hamiltonian, and $H_{SB} $ the interaction Hamiltonian, ${\tilde Z}_k \equiv \sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^N {Z_j e^{ {-i\vec k \cdot \vec r_j }}}$, where $\vec r_j$ is the position of the $j$ spin. For simplicity we assume that all of the spins are coupled uniformly $g_j=g$ with the bath. Morevoer, we shall confine our attention to the baths having two generic properties: (a) the modes are 3-dimensional $\vec k = (k_x,k_y,k_z)$ and (b) the modes have a linear dispersion relation $\omega_k = c k$.
*Case I: Dephasing —* To continue with a more quantitative analysis, here we shall first consider the $H_S = 0$ case, since it is exactly solvable [@Palma96; @Reina02] (alternatively, take the $\Delta \to 0$ limit from Eq. (\[S\])) and contains rich physical contents. The unitary operator ($\hbar=1$) $U=\exp(- i H t)$ can be decomposed into three parts $$\label{3_parts}
U\left( t \right) = \exp({ - iH_B t}) \exp{iH_{eff} (t)} \exp{G_{SB}(t)} \quad,$$ where $H_{B}$ is defined in Eq. (\[H\]), $$G_{SB} \left( t \right) = \sum_{j = 1}^N {Z_j \phi _j \left( t \right)} \quad,$$ and with $f_k\left( {r_j ,t} \right) \equiv (g/\omega_k) e^{ - i\vec k \cdot \vec r_j } \left( {1 - e^{i\omega _k t} } \right)$, $$\phi _j \left( t \right) \equiv \sum\limits_k {\left[ {f_k \left( {r_j ,t} \right)a_k^ \dagger - f_k \left( {r_j ,t} \right)^* a_k } \right]} \quad .$$ The effective spin-spin interaction is of the $ZZ$ form: $$\label{H_eff}
H_{eff} = \sum\limits_k {\frac{{g^2 }}{{\omega _k^2 }} {\tilde Z}_k {\tilde Z}_k^ \dagger \left[ {\omega _k t - \sin \left( {\omega _k t} \right)} \right]} \quad.$$ It is generated through the virtual transitions of the spin-bath interaction. By definition, it does not depend on the state of the bath and the effects are predictable, and hence should not be considered as noise [@Leggett_noise]. In principle, it can be included as part of the quantum circuit, or eliminated through some refocusing schemes well-developed in NMR quantum computing. For the moment, we shall neglect it. The term $\exp(-i H_B t)$, containing no spin variables, is irrelevant for evaluating the error amplitudes and will also be neglected. Our goal is to expand the remaining parts in a power series, similar to Eq. (\[U\]), of $g$ (or $Z_j$), and then estimated the relative size of each term.
We assume the modes are isotropic, i.e., $\omega_{-k}=\omega_k$. Then all commutators $\left[ {\phi _j ( t),\phi _k ( t)} \right]=0$, containing odd parity terms $\sin [ {\vec k \cdot \left( {\vec r_j - \vec r_k } \right)} ]$, should vanish. This means $$\label{G}
\exp{G_{SB} ( t)} = \prod\limits_{j = 1}^N {\exp [{Z_j \phi _j ( t )} ]} \quad,$$ which resembles Eq. (\[U\]). Suppose at $t=0$ the spins are in a pure state and the bath is in a thermal state. The square of the error amplitudes are given by ($\phi^\dagger = - \phi$) $$A_n \left( {Z_1 Z_2 ...Z_n } \right)^2 = \left\langle {\phi _1 ^\dagger \phi _1 \phi _2 ^\dagger \phi _2 ...\phi _n ^\dagger \phi _n} \right\rangle \quad .$$ From the Bloch identity [@Mermin66], we have $\left\langle {\exp \xi _j \phi _j } \right\rangle = \exp \left[ \left( { \xi _j \xi _m /2} \right)\left\langle {\phi _j \phi _m } \right\rangle \right]$. Here repeated indices imply summation, and $\xi_j$ is an arbitrary complex number. The quantity $A_n^2$ can then be evaluated by the standard technique of summing different “pairing" of the two-point correction functions, which are the key quantities to be considered for error correlation, $$\label{2-point}
\left\langle {\phi _j \phi _m } \right\rangle = \sum\limits_k {\left[ {h_k( {R,t})\langle {a_k^ \dagger a_k }\rangle + h_k( {R,t})^* \langle {a_k a{_k^ \dagger} } \rangle } \right]} ,$$ where $h\left( {R,t} \right) = (2 g/\omega_k)^2 e^ { - i\vec k \cdot \vec R}\sin ^2 \left( {{\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\omega _k t} \right)$ and $\vec R \equiv {\vec r_j - \vec r_m}$. If for all $j \ne m$, $\left\langle {\phi _j \phi _m } \right\rangle =0$, then we recover the independent noise condition Eq. (\[A\]). However, this is not generally true. Although the phase factor $e^ { - i\vec k \cdot \vec R}$ tends to cause lots of cancellations, the remaining term tends to suppress this effect. Recall that $\sin ^2 \left( {\omega _k t/2} \right)/\omega _k^2 \to \left( {\pi /2} \right)\delta \left( \omega_k \right)t$, for $t \gg t_{\max} \equiv \max \{\omega_c^{-1}, R/c, \hbar/k_B T \}$ being the longest time scale. Roughly speaking, constructive interference occurs (i.e., $| \left\langle {\phi _j \phi _m } \right\rangle | \sim | \left\langle {\phi _j \phi _j } \right\rangle | $, $j\ne m $) whenever the waves of disturbance has enough time to travel from spin $j$ to spin $m$, i.e., $t \gtrsim t_s^{\max}\equiv \max \{\left| {\vec r_j - \vec r_m } \right|/c\}$. In the case of phonon bath, if the spins are located in a region of area $100 \mu m^2$, then $t_s^{\max} \approx 10^{-7} s$, which suggests that to maintain the independent noise approximation, the [*whole*]{} error correction procedure has to be executed at least $10^7$ times per second.
From the point of view of current experimental situation, it is not unreasonable to consider the “worst case" scenario where we set $$\label{j=m}
\left\langle {\phi _j \phi _m } \right\rangle = \left\langle {\phi _j \phi _j } \right\rangle = \left\langle {\phi _m \phi _m } \right\rangle$$ for all $j$ and $m$, and consider the impacts to quantum error correction. In this case, the probability (upper bound) $P_n \le A_n^2$ of $n$-qubit errors would be enhanced (relative to the independent case $P_n = P_1^n$) by a factor $\left( {2n} \right)!/2^n n! \approx \sqrt 2 \left( {2n/e} \right)^n $ for large $n$ (e.g. $n=2^k$ for $k$-level concatenated distance-$3$ codes). Consider the standard error threshold analysis based on the independent noise model. The failure probability is given by $P_{fail} = P_{th} (P_1/P_{th})^n$, where $P_{th}$ is a threshold error rate, which depends on the coding methods and circuit designs. When $P_1<P_{th}$, $P_{fail}$ can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the levels of concatenation. Now in the presence of the constructive interference effects, $P_1^n \to \sqrt 2 \left( {2n/e} \right)^n P_1^n$, hence $$\label{P_f}
P_{fail} \approx \sqrt 2 P_{th} \left( {\frac{{2n}}{e}\frac{{P_1 }}{{P_{th} }}} \right)^n \quad.$$ The concatenation method becomes inefficient when $P_1 \lesssim \left( {e/2n} \right)P_{th} $ and [*breaks down beyond that*]{}. Therefore, the interference effect imposes a more stringent threshold for quantum error correction.
The good news is that, in the same limit, provided that the effective interaction \[cf. Eq. (\[H\_eff\])\] is properly compensated, the correlated errors can be made vanished within the decoherence free subspace (DFS) [@Palma96; @Lidar98]. In the ordinary analysis of DFS, one requires $H_{SB} \left| {\rm DFS} \right\rangle = U\left| {\rm DFS} \right\rangle$, where $U$ is either zero or some unitary operators acting only on the qubits. This condition, requiring zero qubit-qubit separation, is not assumed in our case. However, the qubits do effectively “see" the same environment. Since when the long wavelength modes $k \to 0$ become dominant, the spatial qubit separations cannot be “resolved". To justify this, we consider the subspace of states satisfying $\sum\nolimits_{j=1}^N {Z_j \left| {DFS} \right\rangle } = 0$, e.g. all symmetrized states with equal numbers of ‘0’ and ‘1’. From Eq. (\[j=m\]), $\left\langle {G_{SB}^2 } \right\rangle_{DFS} = 0$ and hence by invoking the Bloch identity again $$\left \langle {\exp{G_{SB}} } \right \rangle _{DFS} \, = \, I \quad.$$ It is now clear from Eq. (\[U\]) that the spin-bath dynamics is decoupled i.e., $U\left( t \right)\left| {DFS} \right\rangle \otimes \left| {Env} \right\rangle = e^{ iH_{eff} \left( t \right)} \left| {DFS} \right\rangle \otimes e^{ - iH_B t} \left| {Env} \right\rangle$. Therefore, the idea of isolating the effective interaction gives us new insights about the method of DFS (answer to question (2)) and makes it physically more applicable.
*Case II: Bit-Flipping —* In the following, we shall consider the effects of including $H_S \ne 0$. It is obvious that we reach the same conclusions if $[H_S,H_{SB}]=0$. The simplest non-trivial case seems to be $H_S = \sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^N {(\Delta/2) X_j }$. As mentioned before, the coupling with the bath causes transitions between the two eigenstates of $X$, and is most efficient for $\hbar \omega_k \approx \Delta$, as $\Delta$ sets the energy and hence the distance scale $\lambda_* = \hbar c / \Delta$ for our problem. For weak spin-bath coupling $H_{SB}$, we employ the standard method of canonical transformation: $ {\tilde H} \equiv e^{-S} He^{ S} = H_S+H_B + \left( {1/2} \right)\left[ {H_{SB} ,S} \right] + ...$, where $S$ satisfies the relation $H_{SB}+[H_S+H_B,S]=0$. Define $L_j^ \pm \equiv \left| \pm \right\rangle \left\langle \mp \right| = \left( {Z_j \mp iY_j } \right)/2$ and $S \equiv \sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^N {S_j } $, we write ($\hbar =1$) $$\label{S}
S_j = g\sum\limits_k {\left[ {T_j \left( {\omega _k } \right)e^{ - i\vec k \cdot \vec r_j} a_k^\dagger + T_j \left( { - \omega _k } \right)e^{i\vec k \cdot \vec r_j} a_k } \right] ,}$$ where $T_j \left( {\omega _k } \right) \equiv L_j^ - /\left( {\Delta - \omega _k } \right) - L_j^ + /\left( {\Delta + \omega _k } \right)$. The evolution operator can be expressed as $U\left( t \right) = \exp S\exp ( { - i\tilde Ht} )\exp \left( { - S} \right)$. The (lowest order) effective interaction can be extracted from the commutator $\left[ {H_{SB} ,S} \right]$, it turns out to be of the $ZZ$ form: $$\label{H_jm}
H_{jm} = Z_j Z_m \sum\limits_k {2g^2 \frac{{ \omega _k }}{{ \omega _k ^2 - \Delta ^2 }}} \cos \left( {\vec k \cdot \vec R} \right) \quad ,$$ which reduces to the first term of Eq. (\[H\_eff\]) when $\Delta \to 0$. The second term, containing $\sin(\omega_k t)$, emerges when we combine and rearrange the operators in $U$ and transform it into the form (with $H_B \to H_B + H_S $) in Eq. ([\[3\_parts\]]{}). Crucially, since all diagonal matrix elements $\left\langle n \right|H_{jm} \left| n \right\rangle = 0$ are zero in the eigenbasis of $H_S$, the term $H_{jm}$ does not grow linearly in time (bounded by a factor $1/\Delta$) and becomes negligible [@Order] for $\Delta t / \hbar \gg 1$.
We shall now consider the interference effects. For the moment, we neglect the higher order corrections and any effective interaction generated, and write $U(t) \approx e^{ - i(H_S + H_B )t} e^{ S\left( t \right)} e^{- S\left( 0 \right)} $, where $S\left( t \right) = e^{i(H_S + H_B )t} S\left( 0 \right)e^{ - i(H_S + H_B )t} $. We are mostly interested in the limit where the energy non-conserving terms in Eq. (\[S\]) becomes relatively small. Then, the counterpart of Eq. (\[G\]) is $$\exp G_{SB} \left( t \right) = \prod\limits_{j = 1}^N {\exp \left[ {i Y_j \varphi _j^y \left( t \right)} \right]} \exp \left[ {Z_j \varphi _j^z \left( t \right)} \right] ,$$ where, with $\eta =0$ for $\varphi_j^z$ and $\eta =1$ for $\varphi_j^y$, $$\varphi _j^{z,y} \left( t \right) \equiv \sum\limits_k {\left[ {\tilde f_k \left( {r_j ,t} \right)a_k^\dagger - \left( { - 1} \right)^\eta \tilde f_k \left( {r_j ,t} \right)^* a_k } \right]} ,$$ and $\tilde f_k \left( {r_j ,t} \right) \equiv [g/(\omega _k - \Delta )]e^{ - i\vec k \cdot \vec r_j } [1 - e^{i(\omega _k - \Delta )t} ]$. Now the same argument, about the error upper bound, following Eq. (\[G\]) should go through the same way. However, the two-point correlation functions $\left\langle {\varphi _j^{z,y} \varphi _m^{z,y} } \right\rangle$, which cause spatial error correlation, vanishes when the qubits are separated sufficiently far apart $\Delta t_s / \hbar \gg 1$, where $t_s \equiv \left| {\vec r_j - \vec r_m } \right|/c$. For example, $\left\langle {\varphi _j^z \varphi _m^z } \right\rangle$ is almost the same as in Eq.(\[2-point\]), except the replacement $h_k \left( {R,t} \right) \to \tilde h_k \left( {R,t} \right)$ where $$\tilde h_k \left( {R,t} \right) \equiv \frac{{4g^2 }}{{\left( {\omega _k - \Delta } \right)^2 }}e^{ - i\vec k \cdot \vec R} \sin ^2 \left[ {{\textstyle{1 \over 2}}\left( {\omega _k - \Delta } \right)t} \right] .$$ When $t \gg t_{\max} \equiv \max \{\omega_c^{-1}, t_s, \hbar/k_B T\}$, we have $\left\langle {\varphi _j^z \varphi _m^z } \right\rangle \approx \left\langle {\varphi _j^z \varphi _j^z } \right\rangle \sin \left( {\Delta t_s } \right)/\Delta t_s $. In fact, to have the interference terms get cancelled, the condition $\Delta t_s /\hbar \gg 1$ could be too strong. It is likely that for $\Delta t_s /\hbar \sim \pi$, the correlation functions start to change signs and cause lots of cancelations. This however should depend on the spatial distribution of the physical qubits. Under these conditions, we expect that the independent noise approximation is valid (answer to question (1)) for the spin-boson decoherence, provided that the higher order terms, so far neglected, are also small compared with that generated by the single-error terms discussed \[cf. Eq. (\[S\])\] above. Below we shall give a heuristic argument to justify that.
In the canonical transformation, higher order corrections terms are generated from the series of commutators $\left[ {\left[ {\left[ {H_{SB},S} \right],S} \right],...,S} \right]$. For each term, we denote $(n,m)$ to represent the number $n$ of Pauli matrices (or ‘weight’), and $m$ the weight of $a^\dagger$ and $a$, for example $(1,1)$ for both $S$ and $H_{SB}$, which are $O(g)$. Taking the commutator with $S$, each term changes from $(n,m)$ to either $(n,m+1)$ or $(n + \xi,m-1)$ where $\xi=\{0,\pm 1\}$, corresponding to taking the commutator for the Pauli matrices and the bath operators respectively. The case $(n+1,m-1)$ is the only case causing an increase in the weight of the Pauli matrices, with a cost of increasing one power in $g$ (making it smaller). The effective interaction $(2,0)$ in Eq. (\[H\_jm\]) is an example of this. Starting from $H_{SB}$, i.e., (1,1), apart from $(2,0)$, any $(n>1,m)$ term is at least $O(g^{n+1})$, which is smaller than the contribution obtained by $S^n$ which is $O(g^n)$. We therefore conclude that the higher order corrections are negligible for sufficiently small $g$.
Lastly, we remark that direct qubit-qubit interaction can also be included in $H_S$ following the same line of thought, and the results should be qualitatively the same, except (not surprisingly) that the errors on the two interacting qubits become strongly correlated. On the other hand, it can also be generalized to determine the non-Markovian behaviors of the bath between the error-correcting cycles. In this case, the space-time correlation functions, $\left\langle {\varphi _j \left( {t_a } \right)\varphi _m \left( {t_b } \right)} \right\rangle$ where $t_a\ne t_b$, are needed to be considered. Details to be given elsewhere.
*Conclusions —* In conclusion, we have illustrated the general structure and essential features of the spin-boson decoherence for quantum error correction. The noise correlations are determined by the relevant two-point correlation functions. In particular, we have considered two special cases where the correlated errors can either be generated freely in the dephasing case or be suppressed completely (when $\Delta t_s /\hbar \gg 1$) in the bit-flipping case. In the former case the error threshold becomes much more stringent \[cf. Eq. (\[P\_f\])\] , but it could be handled with a modified decoherence free subspace (DFS) method. In reality, environment induced decoherence may exhibit features of both cases. It is likely that the combination [@combination] of the two methods, namely strong local field (hardware) and error-correcting codes together with DFS (software), could help to minimize more general errors. Based on the results of this work, spatially correlated errors do not seem to be a fundamental barrier for fault-tolerant quantum computation.
M.H.Y acknowledges the support of the NSF grant EIA-01-21568 and the Croucher Foundation, and thanks R. Laflamme for the hospitality of the Institute for Quantum Computing where part of this work is done. M.H.Y also thanks J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, J. Preskill, D. Leung, N. Shah and F. Wilhelm for valuable discussions, and especially A. J. Leggett for comments and criticisms.
[99]{}
P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, R2493 (1995).
A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 793 (1996).
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and W. H. Zurek, Proc. R. Soc. A [**454**]{}, 365 (1998).
P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, and J. Preskill, Quant. Inf. Comput. [**6**]{}, 97 (2006); arXiv:quant-ph/0504218v3.
D. Aharonov, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 050504 (2006).
B. M. Terhal and G. Burkard, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 012336 (2005).
R. Klesse and S. Frank, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 230503 (2005).
E. Novais and H. U. Baranger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 040501 (2006).
A. J. Leggett [*et al*]{}., Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, 1 (1987).
A. J. Leggett, private communication.
N. D. Mermin, J. Math. Phys. [**7**]{}, 1038 (1966).
G. M. Palma, K. A. Suominen, and A. K. Ekert, Proc. R. Soc. A [**452**]{}, 567 (1996).
J. H. Reina [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 032326 (2002).
D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2594 (1998).
At $T=0$, the single-qubit error rate is $\sim O(J(\Delta) t)$ while $H_{eff}$ is $\sim O(J(\Delta)/\Delta^2 t_s)$.
For example, symmetrizing all state $\left| {0} \right\rangle \to \left| {01} \right\rangle$ and $\left| {1} \right\rangle \to \left| {10} \right\rangle$, will fall into the DFS w.r.t. the collective $Z$-errors. The potential collective $X$ and $Y$ errors could be suppressed by the local potentials $\Delta Z$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Is he/she my type or not? The answer to this question depends on the personal preferences of the one asking it. The individual process of obtaining a full answer may generally be difficult and time consuming, but often an approximate answer can be obtained simply by looking at a photo of the potential match. Such approximate answers based on visual cues can be produced in a fraction of a second, a phenomenon that has led to a series of recently successful dating apps in which users rate others positively or negatively using primarily a single photo. In this paper we explore using convolutional networks to create a model of an individual’s personal preferences based on rated photos. This introduced task is difficult due to the large number of variations in profile pictures and the noise in attractiveness labels. Toward this task we collect a dataset comprised of $9364$ pictures and binary labels for each. We compare performance of convolutional models trained in three ways: first directly on the collected dataset, second with features transferred from a network trained to predict gender, and third with features transferred from a network trained on ImageNet. Our findings show that ImageNet features transfer best, producing a model that attains $68.1\%$ accuracy on the test set and is moderately successful at predicting matches.'
author:
- |
Harm de Vries\
University of Montreal\
`[email protected]` Jason Yosinski\
Cornell University\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: |
Can deep learning help you\
find the perfect match?
---
Introduction
============
Online dating has become a popular way to seek partners. Big dating services, such as OKCupid.com and Match.com, have enormous numbers of users, so methods that can automatically filter users based on personal preferences can increase the probability of successful matches significantly. The aim of dating systems is to help you in this process by presenting the most promising profiles. The traditional way to recommend profiles is to calculate match scores that are based on social and physical attributes, e.g. body type and education level. A recently popular dating app, Tinder,[^1] employs an alternative matching strategy. Profile pictures[^2] of geographically nearby users are presented one at a time, and a user can quickly decide to like or dislike the profile by swiping the screen right or left, respectively. If both users like each other, they are a match and have the ability to chat with each other to possibly arrange an offline date.
The success of these apps indicates the importance of visual appearance in the search for the ideal partner and highlights that matching algorithms based purely on self-reported attributes ignore important visual information. However, extracting visual information like attractiveness and personality type from a profile picture is a challenging task. Recently proposed matching algorithms [@Krzywicki201550; @DBLP:journals/corr/abs-cs-0703042; @akehurst2011ccr] sidestep this problem by using collaborative filtering. Instead of calculating matching scores based on the content of a profile, such systems recommend profiles that are high ranked by similar users. One of the drawbacks of collaborative filtering is that it suffers from the so-called cold start problem: when a new user enters the system it cannot make recommendations due to the lack of information. Understanding the content of the profile pictures could partially solve this cold start problem: we still can not recommend profiles to a new user, but we can recommend his/her profile to existing users.
The 2012 winning entry [@NIPS2012_4824], often dubbed AlexNet, of the ImageNet competition [@Deng09imagenet:a] has rapidly changed the field of computer vision. Their convolutional network (convnet) trained on a large labeled image database significantly outperformed all classical computer vision techniques on a challenging object recognition task. The key ingredient of the success of convnets and other deep learning models is that they learn multiple layers of representations [@Bengio:2009:LDA:1658423.1658424] as opposed to hand-crafted or shallow features. Since 2012, several groups have improved upon the original convnet architecture [@DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a; @DBLP:journals/corr/SermanetEZMFL13; @DBLP:journals/corr/SzegedyLJSRAEVR14] with the latest results achieving near-human level performance [@DBLP:journals/corr/HeZR015; @DBLP:journals/corr/IoffeS15].
Motivated by these recent advances, we investigate in this paper whether we can successfully train such deep learning models to predict personalized attractiveness scores from a profile picture. To this end, the author of this paper collected and labeled more than 9K profile pictures from dating app Tinder. We found, however, that the dataset was still too small to successfully train a convolutional network directly. We overcome this problem by using transfer learning, where we extract features using another neural network trained on a different task (for which more data is available). Several studies [@DBLP:journals/corr/DonahueJVHZTD13; @DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a; @yosinski-2014-NIPS-how-transferable-are-features-in-deep] have demonstrated that high layer activations from top-performing ImageNet networks serve as excellent features for recognition tasks for which the network was not trained. The introduced attractiveness prediction task is defined over a very specific image distribution, namely profile pictures, possibly making transferability of ImageNet features rather limited. We therefore also investigate if transfer from another network – one trained to predict gender from profile pictures – is more effective.
The task and data
=================
The aim of this project is to investigate whether we can predict preferences for potential partners solely from a profile picture. We take the first author as object of study. Although the results of one person can never be statistically significant, we consider it as a first step to study the feasibility of modern computer vision techniques to grasp a subtle concept such as attractiveness.
Attractiveness dataset
----------------------
In order to extract his preferences, the first author labeled $9364$ profile pictures from Tinder with binary labels: either like or dislike. Quite surprisingly, the dataset is fairly balanced with $53\%$ likes and $47\%$ dislikes. It seems unreasonable to be attracted to more than half of the population. We suspect that Tinder does not provide unbiased samples from the population but instead presents popular profiles more frequently.[^3] Another explanation is that mostly attractive people are using the application. Note that Tinder profiles contain up to six pictures, but that only the first one was viewed and labeled. The collected pictures were originally presented at a scale of $360 \times 360$, but they were later rescaled to $250 \times 250$ when training the convnet model for computational reasons.
During the process of labeling, the disadvantages of a binary labels became apparent. Some profile pictures fell near the border of like and dislike, and in these cases the ratings may have been affected by the mood of the subject.[^4] Unfortunately, this makes the attractiveness labeling quite noisy and thus harder to learn for any model. In order to quantify how much noise entered the labeling process, we performed another experiment a couple of weeks after the original labeling. This period was long enough to not remember or recognize the profile pictures. The first author classified $100$ random pictures from the dataset and compared them with the original labeling. He made $12$ errors out of $100$, achieving an ${\bf 88\%}$ accuracy on the original labeling. If we assume that these errors come from a $50/50$ guess on pictures near the classification boundary, we estimate that roughly a quarter ($12\cdot2/100 = .24$) of the profile pictures are not consistently labeled.
Another interesting question to ask is: how difficult is it for humans to learn the preference function of another? We investigate this question by setting up a small experiment with the second author of this paper, who trained on $100$ images and their corresponding labels. Training began by looking at all $50$ dislike and $50$ like pictures side by side, scrolling through them all a few times. Then the training set was shuffled, pictures were displayed one a time, and the subject produced a label prediction after each photo. The correct label was shown after each image, so that he could learn from his mistakes. This process was used to iterate through the training set four times, and accuracies over the four epochs were $86\%$, $82\%$, $88\%$, and $88\%$. Memorizing the last $12$ mistakes could definitely improve training performance, but this probably would not lead to better test set accuracy, so training was only carried out for four epochs. Test performance was then measured on the same $100$ random pictures as the above consistency experiment, with the subject making $24$ errors on the same images resulting in ${\bf 76\%}$ accuracy.
The results of this simple experiment gives a rough indication of the difficulty of the task, although we should be careful when interpreting these numbers. On the one hand, the preferences of the second author may be partially aligned with the first author, which could result in an overestimate of the ability for one human to learn the preferences of another. On the other hand, only $100$ pictures where given; perhaps with even more training images used, performance could increase further.
As a final note we stress that the collected profile pictures have much variation in viewpoints and personality types. In contrast to standard image recognition benchmarks, faces are not aligned and persons are not always in the center of the image. As we show in Section \[section:attractiveness\], this makes it difficult to train convnet directly on the small dataset.
[0.3]{}
[0.3]{}
[0.3]{}
\
[0.3]{}
[0.3]{}
[0.3]{}
Gender dataset {#section:gender_dataset}
--------------
As we describe in Section \[section:attractiveness\], we found that the collected attractiveness dataset is too small for a convolutional network to train on directly. This motivated the collection of a second dataset consisting of $418,452$ profile pictures from another dating site – OKCupid – where each user is labeled with a gender and age. To make training of this neural network straightforward, we created this dataset such that we have an equal number of male and female profile pictures. We discard age information in the following, because we found that the signal was too noisy.[^5] Our strategy is to train a convnet for gender prediction, and then transfer the learned feature representations to attractiveness prediction.
The dataset was collected from a real-world dating site which raises questions about the quality of the provided labels. For example, some pictures might be wrongly labeled, or even impossible to discriminate for humans. It was too time consuming to clean up the full dataset, so we estimated the quality of the labels by randomly sampling $1000$ images from the gender dataset and categorizing them as one of the following:
Clean:
: If the gender is clearly recognizable from the picture.
Unknown:
: If there isn’t a person in the picture. Note that trained networks may still be able to infer gender from other objects in the picture (for example, if cars are more likely to occur in male vs. female profile pictures, the network may learn this).
Mixed:
: If both males and females appear in the picture. It’s sometimes possible to infer the gender by looking at the leading person in the picture.
No face:
: There is no face visible in the picture; only some body parts. For instance, if a picture is taken from far away and only the back is visible.
Partial face:
: If most part of the face is not visible. For example, a close-up of the eye.
We provide examples of the categories in Figure \[figure:gender\_categories\]. The resulting numbers per category are given in Table \[table:categories\]. We conclude that almost 90$\%$ of the pictures are clean, and the remaining $10\%$ are at least difficult. We may therefore guess that the maximum human performance at predicting gender from this specific dataset would be around $95\%$, with the last $5\%$ due to uninteresting factors. Moreover, our primary task is attractiveness prediction, thus learning the subtle uninteresting factors might not lead to better transferable features.
As usual in prediction tasks, we randomly split the attractiveness and gender datasets into training, validation and test sets. For the attractiveness dataset we used $90\%$, $5\%$, and $5\%$ of the data for the training, validation and test set, respectively. Since we have more data for gender prediction, we make a $80\%$, $10\%$, and $10\%$ splits of that dataset.
Experiments
===========
In Section \[section:attractiveness\] we first train a convnet to predict attractiveness from the small labeled dataset. Section \[section:gender\] presents the details of training a convnet for gender prediction. We then investigate in Section \[section:transfer\] how well the features of this network transfer to attractiveness prediction. We compare against features obtained from VGGNet [@DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a], one of the top performing convnets on ImageNet.
\[table:categories\]
Attractiveness prediction {#section:attractiveness}
-------------------------
After collecting the data, our first attempt was to train a convnet on the attractiveness dataset. Our architecture is inspired by VGGNet [@DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a], and follows the latest trends in architecture design to have very deep networks and small filter sizes. We use five convolutional layers, all with $3$x$3$ filter sizes and rectified linear activation functions. Each layer is followed with non-overlapping max pooling of size $2$x$2$. We start with $8$ feature maps in the first layer and gradually increase it to $32$ in the last convolutional layer. There are two fully connected layers on top of respectively $32$ and $16$ units. The network has on the order of $870K$ parameters. Architectural details are shown in Table \[table:architecture\] (a).
The only preprocessing step that is applied is subtracting the training set mean from all images. We regularize the network by applying dropout [@hinton2012improving] with probability $0.5$ on the fully connected layers, and include $L2$ weight decay with coefficient $0.001$. The convnet is trained with Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) to minimize the negative log likelihood, optimization proceeds over $50$ epochs with a learning rate of $0.001$, $0.9$ momentum and a mini-batch size of $128$.
Figure \[figure:error\_curves1\] (a) shows the training and validation misclassification rate during optimization. We can see that even this very small network with strong regularization immediately overfits. We think that there is simply too much variation in the profile pictures for the convnet to learn the regularities from the raw profile pictures. Hence, we decide not to explore further regularization techniques, but instead focus on transfer learning. In the next sections we investigate if a convnet trained for gender prediction results in good representations for attractiveness prediction.
[0.5]{}
[0.5]{}
Gender prediction {#section:gender}
-----------------
The gender dataset with over 400k images is much bigger than the attractiveness dataset. Therefore, we can afford to train a much bigger network without the risk of over fitting. The proposed convnet architecture is similar in spirit to the attractiveness network presented in the previous section. We decide to use nine convolutional layers with $3$x$3$ filter sizes and rectified linear activation functions. We further apply $2$x$2$ max pooling after two convolutional layer, except for the first layer where we directly apply pooling after one layer. We follow the rule of thumb introduced in [@DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a] and double the number of feature maps after each pooling layer, except for the last pooling layer where we kept the number of feature maps the same. The biases (in contrast to the weights) in the convolutional layers are untied i.e. each location in a feature map has its own bias parameter. The final $12$-layer architecture is shown in Table \[table:architecture\] (b), and has over $28$ million parameters.
We tried several small modifications on this architecture: decreasing the number of feature maps (starting from $32$), using tied biases, and adding an extra pooling after the two final convolutional layers. However, we obtained the best performance with the network described above.
We also apply dropout with probability $0.5$ on the fully connected layers, and include $L2$ weight decay with coefficient $0.0001$. The weights are initialized from $\mathcal{U}(-0.06, 0.06)$, while the biases are initially set to zero. We again train with Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) to minimize the negative log likelihood. We optimized for $13$ epochs with a learning rate of $0.001$, $0.9$ momentum, and a mini-batch size of $50$. The models were implemented in Theano [@Bastien-Theano-2012] and took about $3$ days to train on a GeForce GTX Titan Black. The misclassification rates during training are shown in Figure \[figure:error\_curves1\] (b). Note that in this figure the training error is aggregated over mini-batches, and only gives us a rough estimate of the true training error.
The final model was selected by early stopping at epoch $9$, and achieved $7.4\%$ and $7.5\%$ error on the validation and test set, respectively. In Section \[section:gender\_dataset\] we established that approximately $10\%$ of the dataset is difficult. Hence, we consider $92.5\%$ accuracy as very good performance, likely approaching that which would be obtained by a human.
[0.5]{} ![The training and validation error curves for a) attractiveness prediction and b) gender prediction. []{data-label="figure:error_curves1"}](conv_error.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.5]{} ![The training and validation error curves for a) attractiveness prediction and b) gender prediction. []{data-label="figure:error_curves1"}](gender_error.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Transfer learning {#section:transfer}
-----------------
We compare two transfer learning strategies: one from the gender net and the other from VGGNet, one of the top-performing ImageNet convnets.
### Gender
After training the gender network we explore if the features are helpful to predict attractiveness. The gender network has approximately $28$ million parameters, and the available attractiveness dataset is relatively small, so training the full network probably leads to overfitting. We therefore decide to train only the last layers of the gender network. We compare training the last, the last two, and the last three layers, which have 1026, 525k, and 8.9m parameters, respectively. We do not apply dropout when training these last layers, but we do use the same $L2$ regularization as in the gender network. We train with SGD for $50$ epochs with a learning rate of $0.001$, $0.9$ momentum and a batch-size of $16$.
The training and validation curves are shown in Figure \[figure:error\_curves2\] (a-c). Note that the transfer performance is rather poor. Training only the last layer barely decreases the training error and significantly underfits. On the other hand, training all fully connected layers does decrease the training error very quickly, but doesn’t carry over to the validation error. With early stopping on the validation error, we achieved the best performance of $61.3\%$ accuracy on the test set by only training the last two layers.
### ImageNet
The features extracted from ImageNet networks are known to achieve excellent transfer performance [@DBLP:journals/corr/DonahueJVHZTD13; @yosinski-2014-NIPS-how-transferable-are-features-in-deep]. We decide to use VGGNet [@DBLP:journals/corr/SimonyanZ14a], one of the top performing ImageNet convnets, and use Caffe [@jia2014caffe] to extract the features. In order to feed the images to VGGNet, we resize all images to $224$x$224$. We extract $4096$ dimensional features from the highest layer (called FC7) of the $19$-layer VGGNet. We put a logistic regression with weight decay on top of the extracted representation. After finetuning the hyperparameters, we obtained the best results with a $L2$ regularization coefficient of $0.8$, a learning rate of $0.0001$, and momentum of $0.9$. Note that the relatively strong weight decay is used to prevent overfitting. The error curves during training are presented in Figure \[figure:error\_curves2\] (d). We again apply early stopping on the validation error. Our best model obtains an validation and test accuracy of $66.9\%$ and $68.1\%$, respectively.
[0.5]{}
[0.5]{}
[0.5]{}
[0.5]{}
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
The VGGNet features clearly outperform the features obtained from the gender prediction task. Our findings confirm that ImageNet activations are excellent image features for a wide variety tasks. However, we did not expect them to outperform the features from the gender prediction task since that network was trained on a similar set of images. One possible explanation for the poor transfer is that the gender network learns features that are invariant to within-class (female or male) characteristics and are therefore not appropriate to discriminate between within-class profile pictures (here: female). Another reason could be that the gender network only has two classes, which does not force the network to learn very rich features. Possible directions for future research are to investigate if adding extra classes of non-profile pictures or other labels to the profile pictures would lead to better transferable features.
Further studies could also investigate other ways to deal with the huge variability in the profile pictures. For example, face extraction could be a good way to reduce variability, while keeping the most important aspect of attractiveness. We believe that the most promising avenue is to collect a bigger and cleaner dataset from which a better feature representation for attractiveness prediction could be learned. It remains an open question what kind of label information could lead to the best learned representation for predicting attractiveness. For now though, even pretraining on the semantically distant cats, dogs, automobiles, etc. of ImageNet provides features rich enough to predict at 68% accuracy, which covers about half of the gap between a random prediction (50%) and human labels (88%).
Acknowledgement
===============
We thank Mehdi Mirza for extracting the VGGNet features. We also thank the developers of Theano [@Bastien-Theano-2012] and Blocks [@blocksfuel], the computational resources provided by Compute Canada and Calcul Québec, and the NASA Space Technology Research Fellowship (JY) for funding. We are grateful to many members of and visitors to the LISA lab for helpful discussions, in particular to Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, Roland Memisevic, Kyung Hyun Cho, Yann Dauphin, Laurent Dinh, Kyle Kastner, Junyoung Chung, Julian Serban, Alexandre de Brébisson, César Laurent, and Christopher Olah.
[^1]: Available in 24 languages with an estimated user base of $50$ million.
[^2]: Also mutual interests and friends are shown, but most emphasis is put on pictures.
[^3]: There is clear incentive for Tinder to do so: the hope to match with more popular profiles keeps you using the application.
[^4]: We found that it also matters which profile pictures one have seen before; after a series of likes there is a tendency to keep liking.
[^5]: Most OKCupid users fall in a relatively narrow range between 20 and 35, which makes it hard even for humans to accurately predict age. Also, users are not necessarily honest about their ages on OKCupid.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '\[abstract\] After the identification of a candidate $\gamma$-ray transient in the error region of the binary black hole (BBH) merger GW150914 by the *Fermi* satellite, the question of whether BBH mergers can be associated to electromagnetic counterparts remains highly debated. Here, we present radio follow-up observations of GW170608, a BBH merger that occurred during the second observing run (O2) of the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO). Our radio follow up focused on a specific field contained in the GW170608 sky localization area, where a candidate high-energy transient was detected by the *Fermi* Large Area Telescope (LAT). We make use of data collected at 1.4GHz with the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), as well as with the VLA Low-band Ionosphere and Transient Experiment (VLITE). Our analysis is sensitive to potential radio afterglows with luminosity densities $L_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}\gtrsim 6\times10^{28}$ergs$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$. In the most optimistic theoretical models, $\approx 20\%$ of BBH events occurring in massive hosts could be associated with outflows as radio luminous as this. Although we find no evidence for the presence of a radio counterpart associated with the LAT candidate in the GW170608 error region, our analysis demonstrates the feasibility of future radio follow-up observations of well localized BBHs.'
author:
- 'Kyle Artkop, Rachel Smith, Alessandra Corsi, Simona Giacintucci, Wendy M. Peters, Rosalba Perna, S. Bradley Cenko, Tracy E. Clarke'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Radio follow-up of a candidate $\gamma$-ray transient in the sky localization area of GW170608'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The recent direct detection of gravitational waves (GWs) from stellar-mass binary black holes (BBHs) by Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) and Virgo has opened a new era in the study of the most exotic objects in the stellar graveyard [@Abbott2016a; @Abbott2016b; @Abbott2017a; @Abbott2017b; @Abbott2017c; @AbbottCatalog]. In 2017, the direct detection of GWs from BBHs was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Following that, the remarkable discovery of GW170817 [@Abbott2017d], the first binary neutron star (NS) merger detected in GWs with an electromagnetic (EM) counterpart [@Abbott2017e], helped demonstrate the wide impact of multi-messenger astronomy on a variety of fields, including nucleosynthesis, extreme states of nuclear matter, and cosmology [e.g., @Abbott2017f; @Abbott2018].
According to traditional paradigms, one would not expect to detect EM emission accompanying BBH mergers as the immediate circmum-merger environment is expected to be rather clean post merger (i.e., lacking ejecta mass in the merger site). However, the intriguing *Fermi*/GBM $2.9\sigma$-significance detection of a short burst of $\gamma$-rays (GRB) possibly associated with the BBH GW150914 [@Connaughton2016; @Connaughton2018], has spurred the investigation of several new theoretical scenarios for EM emission from BBHs [e.g., @Liebling2016; @Loeb2016; @Perna2016; @Tagawa2016; @Bartos2017; @Dai2017; @deMink2017; @Dolgov2017; @Fedrow2017; @Ioka2017; @Kelly2017; @Kimura2017; @Shapiro2017; @Dorazio2018; @Khan2018]. As of today, the question of whether BBH mergers can be accompanied by a release of energy in the form of a relativistic outflow powering a $\gamma$-ray counterpart remains open and highly debated [e.g., @Bhalerao2017; @Stalder2017; @Verrecchia2017; @Perna2018; @Perna2019]. Certainly, the detection of an EM counterpart to BBHs would start a revolution in the way we have traditionally thought of stellar evolution and accretion processes in astrophysics. Observationally, if at least some BBHs are associated with GRBs, one can hope to strengthen the significance of a potential association by searching for their broad-band afterglows [e.g., @Kasliwal2016; @Morsony2016; @Murase2016; @Palliyaguru2016; @Veres2016; @Yamazaki2016; @Perna2018; @Perna2019]. Indeed, the detection of an afterglow from a candidate GRB counterpart to the GW signal would provide a much improved localization (compared to the GW and $\gamma$-ray localizations), and constrain key physical parameters such as total kinetic energy of the ejecta, density of the surrounding medium, opening angle of the ejecta, and viewing angle.
Here, we report on a search for a potential radio afterglow from the BBH merger observed by the two LIGO detectors on 8 June 2017 UT, henceforth referred to as GW170608 [@Abbott2017c]. This is the least massive BBH merger detected by LIGO to date, with component masses of $12_{-2}^{+7} M_{\odot}$ and $7_{-2}^{+2} M_{\odot}$ [90% credible intervals; @Abbott2017c], and a luminosity distance of $340_{-140}^{+140}$Mpc [@Abbott2017c].
Several EM observatories around the globe have carried out follow-up observations of at least a portion of the sky localization area of GW170608. Our radio observations with the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), executed under program VLA/16A-206 (PI: Corsi), have targeted the location of a potential high-energy $\gamma$-ray transient detected by the *Fermi*/LAT at the 3.5$\sigma$ significance level, $\approx 1200$s after the GW trigger. We supplemented our GHz VLA observations with lower frequency radio observations from the VLA Low-band Ionosphere and Transient Experiment (VLITE).
Here, we present our analysis of the collected VLA and VLITE data, and discuss their implications for models of relativistic ejecta from BBH mergers. Our paper is organized as follows: In Section \[sec:obssumm\], we summarize the observations that led to the identification of a candidate $\gamma$-ray transient in the error area of GW170608. In Section \[sec:obs\], we describe our radio follow-up observations and data reduction. In Section \[sec:results\], we show how no convincing radio transient was found in association with the *Fermi*/LAT candidate event, and discuss the implications of these results. Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusion\], we summarize and conclude.
-------- ------------------------ ----------- ------------------------ --
R.A.Dec. Pos. Err. $F_X$
(hh:mm:ssdeg:mm:ss) (ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$)
XRT-s1 08:33:03.19+43:12:06.8 8.6 6.1$\times 10^{-13}$
XRT-s2 08:32:07.70+43:29:51.0 5.7 1.7$\times 10^{-13}$
XRT-s3 08:31:31.70+43:25:48.0 6.3 5.4$\times 10^{-13}$
XRT-s4 08:32:52.18+43:23:08.9 6.0 3.7$\times 10^{-13}$
XRT-s5 08:34:07.27+43:19:09.1 7.2 4.0$\times 10^{-13}$
XRT-s6 08:33:42.79+43:17:21.1 5.0 2.2$\times 10^{-13}$
XRT-s7 08:31:12.53+43:25:43.7 7.6 5.1$\times 10^{-13}$
-------- ------------------------ ----------- ------------------------ --
: X-ray sources identified by *Swift*/XRT in the error region of GW170608. Columns are, from left to right: Source number, R.A., Dec., localization error, and 0.3-10keV flux. See text for discussion.\[tb:SwiftSources\]
GW170608 detection and candidate $\gamma$-ray transient identification {#sec:obssumm}
======================================================================
The merger associated with the BBH GW170608 was detected by LIGO as a two-detector coincident event at $T_0=$02:01:16.49 UT on 2017 June 8. An alert was issued to EM observing partners $\approx 13.5$hrs later, with a sky localization area spanning $\approx 860$deg$^2$ [90% credible region; @Abbott2017c; @Abbott2017g]. In response to this alert, several observatories searched their data for potential transients located within the large GW sky area[^1]. Among these, the *Fermi*/LAT team performed a search for high-energy transients in data collected during a 10ks time interval after $T_0$ [@Omodei2017]. The highest significance ($\approx 3.5\sigma$ level) excess found was found about 1200s after $T_0$ at R.A.=08h32m26.400s and Dec=+43d23m24.00s (J2000), with a localization uncertainty of 0.24deg (at 90% confidence). The location of this candidate $\gamma$-ray counterpart was occulted by the Earth before $T_0+1200$s. No *Fermi*/GBM counterpart was found for the candidate *Fermi*/LAT transient. The *Fermi*/GBM 3-$\sigma$, 1-second-averaged flux upper limit was in the range $(4.7-5.6)\times10^{-7}$ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ between about $T_0+85$s and $T_0+1$hr [@Goldstein2017], which at a distance of 340Mpc corresponds to an isotropic $\gamma$-ray energy flux upper-limit of $(6.2-7.4)\times10^{48}$ergs$^{-1}$.
The *Swift*/XRT team performed a four-pointing follow up of the possible LAT source, with observations spanning a time interval between $\approx 0.7$d and $\approx 1$d after the GW trigger [@Evans2017]. Seven X-ray sources were identified in the observed fields, two of which were previously catalogued (referred to as XRT sources 4 and 5; see Table \[tb:SwiftSources\]). None of these sources showed evidence for flux variations over *Swift*’s observation period, and none exhibited signs of outburst compared to previous observations. Thus, all of these seven sources were deemed unlikely to being associated with GW170608. For completeness and comparison with our VLA/VLITE results, we report in Table \[tb:SwiftSources\] the R.A., Dec. (J2000), localization error, and 0.3-10keV fluxes of these *Swift*/XRT sources. *Swift*/UVOT observations further revealed that *Swift*/XRT sources 3, 6, and 7 were already present in the SDSS catalog, and none of them exhibited signs of fading over a time interval of $\approx 0.7-1$d after the GW trigger [@Emery2017].
Following the identification of the *Fermi*/LAT high-energy candidate transient, several other optical telescopes observed its LAT localization area. The Nanshan One-meter Wide field Telescope (NOWT) team observed the field of the LAT transient in the $R$-band around 15:30:19 UT on 09 June 2017 [@Xu2017]. They noted the existence of optical counterparts to *Swift*/XRT sources 1, 3, 6 and 7 in PanSTARRS, DSS-II, and/or SDSS, and excluded evidence for significant optical flux variability of these sources. No optical counterpart was found for source 2 down to $R>19.2$mag.
The Arizona Transient Exploration and Characterization (AZTEC) team observed the field of the *Fermi*/LAT candidate in $i$ band with the Large Binocular Camera (LBC) mounted on the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) on beginning on 2017 June 10 [about 2 days post GW trigger; @Fong2017]. The observations covered $\approx 88\%$ of the *Fermi*/LAT localization region, and included the locations of *Swift*/XRT sources 1-4 (see Table \[tb:SwiftSources\]). No new sources were found in or around the positions of XRT sources 1-4, and no evidence for variability was reported. This same team observed the field of the *Fermi*/LAT candidate also with the Wide Field Camera (WFCAM) on the 3.8-m United Kingdom Infrared Telescope [UKIRT; @Fong2017a], beginning on 2017 Jun 9.2 UT ($\approx 1$d after the GW trigger) and 2017 June 10.2 ($\approx 2$d after the GW trigger). The first epoch covered the full 90% *Fermi*/LAT localization region, and the positions of the seven *Swift*/XRT sources. The second epoch covered 75% of the *Fermi*/LAT localization area, and the positions of XRT sources 2-7 (see Table \[tb:SwiftSources\]). Again no new sources or evidence for variability were found [@Fong2017a].
The LIGO error region of GW170608 entered the field of view of the HAWC Cherenkov array about 1d after $T_0$. No evidence for transients at a significance level of $\gtrsim 3\sigma$ was reported in the 0.5-100TeV band [@Smith2017a].
The J-GEM collaboration covered almost the entire error region of the *Fermi*/LAT transient candidate, and the location of all *Swift*/XRT sources 1-7, with the 1.05-m Kiso Schmidt telescope. Observations were performed in $i$-band on 2017 June 9.483, 9.489, 9.527, and 9.529UT, approximately 1.4d after the GW detection, at a median $5\sigma$ depth of $i=15.6$mag (AB system). No new transients were found and lack of variability was established for *Swift*/XRT source 7 [@Morokuma2017].
Finally, the Pan-STAARS1 telescope observed the *Fermi*/LAT error circle for 11 nights beginning a day after the GW detection. No new sources were detected within the 90% *Fermi*/LAT localization area of the candidate $\gamma$-ray transient at a depth of $i,z \approx 18.5$mag (within 1d post merger) and $i,z \approx 20.5$ [daily stacked limits up to 5d after $T_0$, see @Smith2017b].
Radio follow-up observations {#sec:obs}
============================
VLA observations and data reduction
-----------------------------------
We observed the field of the *Fermi*/LAT candidate $\gamma$-ray counterpart to GW170608 with the VLA at a central frequency of 1.4GHz, and with a nominal bandwidth of 2GHz [@Corsi2017]. Three observations were carried out on 2017 June 12, June 29, and August 18UT, all with the VLA in its C configuration. We imaged an area with a nominal $\approx 0.54$deg FWHM primary beam centered around the position of the LAT excess (R.A.=08h32m30s, Dec=+43d24m00s), fully enclosing the 90% confidence error area of the LAT localization.
The VLA data were calibrated using the VLA automated pipeline in CASA [@McMullin2007]. After calibration, we inspected the data for RFI and applied any necessary flagging. Images of the field were formed using the CLEAN algorithm in interactive mode. The FWHM of the major axis of our synthesized beam ranged between $\approx 14$–$17$, consistent with expectations for the VLA in its C configuration. While forming images, we included primary beam corrections to account for the shape of the primary beam up to a region extending to 20% of the power radius ,which is the standard option in CLEAN, translating to images of angular diameter $\approx 0.7$deg. Over the three epochs, we reached a typical central image RMS of $\approx 45$[$\mu$Jy]{}. The last was estimated with IMSTAT using a circle of radius 60 from the center of the images. Our image rms is $\approx 2.5\times$ higher than expected based on the time spent on-source ($\approx 1$h and 20min) and considering a typical RFI bandwidth reduction effect of $\approx 40\%$. This is due to limited dynamic range of our images related to the presence of bright sources in the crowded field.
After calibration, flagging, and imaging, we visually inspected the images and identified sources with signal-to-noise ratio ${\rm SNR}\,\gtrsim 10$, or flux densities greater than $\approx 450\,\mu$Jy at 1.4GHz. At the distance of GW170608 ($\approx 340$Mpc), this flux density limit corresponds to a radio luminosity density of $\approx 6\times10^{28}$ergs$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$. Our results are reported in Table \[tb:VLASources\]. Source coordinates were calculated with the IMFIT algorithm, using a circular region of radius 10(i.e., of diameter comparable to the FWHM of the synthesized beam), centered around the source position determined through visual inspection. We then used the IMSTAT algorithm to determine the peak flux density of each source within a circular region of radius 10centered around the coordinates obtained via IMFIT. Peak flux errors were calculated by adding in quadrature the RMS noise corrected for primary beam effects (by rescaling the central image RMS by the primary beam correction at the location of each source), and a nominal 5% absolute flux calibration error. Finally, position errors were calculated by dividing the FWHM of the semi-major axis of the synthesized beam by the source signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; peak flux density divided by peak flux density error).
VLITE observations and data reduction
-------------------------------------
The VLITE [@Clarke2016] is a commensal, low-frequency system on the VLA that runs in parallel with nearly all observations above 1GHz. VLITE provides real-time correlation of the signal from a subset of VLA antennas using the low band receiver system [@Clarke2011] and a dedicated DiFX-based software correlator [@Deller2007]. The VLITE system processes 64 MHz of bandwidth centered on 352 MHz, but due to strong radio frequency interference (RFI) in the upper portion of the band, the usable frequency range is limited to an RFI-free band of $\sim 40$ MHz, centered on 338 MHz.
VLITE was operational with 15 working antennas during the VLA 1.4GHz observations of the *Fermi*/LAT candidate transient on UT 2017 Aug 18. The VLITE data collected during this epoch were processed using a dedicated calibration pipeline, which is based on a combination of the Obit [@Cotton2008] and AIPS [@VanMoorsel1996] data reduction packages. The calibration pipeline uses standard automated tasks for the removal of RFI and follows common techniques of radio-interferometric data reduction, including delay, gain and bandpass calibration [for details on the pipeline data reduction see @Polisensky2016]. The flux density scale is set using Perley & Butler (2017) and residual amplitude errors are estimated to be less than $20\%$ (Clarke et al., in preparation). The data were imaged using wide-frequency imaging algorithms in Obit (task MFimage), by covering the the full primary beam with facets and placing outlier facets on bright sources out to a radius of $20^{\circ}$. Small clean masks are placed on the sources during the imaging process to reduce the effects of CLEAN bias. The pipeline runs two imaging and phase self-calibration cycles before a final image is created.
To improve the quality of the image for this paper, the pipeline-calibrated data were re-imaged by hand with MFImage using a higher number of cleaning iterations. The final VLITE image has a restoring beam of $73^{\arcsec}\times43^{\arcsec}$ and a RMS noise of $\approx 2.5$ mJybeam$^{-1}$ (1$\sigma$). The image was used to search for counterparts to our VLA sources. These are reported in Table \[tb:VLITESources\] with their position, flux, and errors. Flux densities were measured in AIPS using a Gaussian fit (JMFIT) and corrected for the primary beam attenuation using factors appropriate for VLITE (Polisensky et al. in preparation). Flux density errors include local image noise and flux scale uncertainty.
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
Observational results
---------------------
---- --------- ------------------------ ----------- --------------------
VLA\# R.A.Dec. Pos. Err. $F_{\rm 338\,MHz}$
(hh:mm:ssdeg:mm:ss) () (mJy)
V1 S1 08:33:16.53+43:23:50.1 9.43 $15.1 \pm\,3.9$
V2 S2 08:31:25.95+43:25:13.4 7.30 $520 \pm\,100$
V3 S3 08:32:43.15+43:14:38.1 7.37 $100 \pm\,20$
V4 S4+S6 08:32:28.64+43:02:56.1 7.30 $381 \pm\,76$
V5 S5 08:31:11.47+43:16:08.7 7.85 $32.1 \pm\,6.9$
V6 S7 08:31:00.19+43:27:27.9 8.07 $26.7 \pm\,5.9$
V7 S10+S11 08:33:49.38+43:20:25.0 7.35 $127 \pm\,26$
---- --------- ------------------------ ----------- --------------------
In our analysis of the 1.4GHz VLA images of the field of the *Fermi*/LAT candidate $\gamma$-ray transient, we have identified a total of 25 radio sources with $SNR\gtrsim 10$, or $F_{1.4\,GHz}\gtrsim 450\,\mu$Jy ($L_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}\approx 6\times10^{28}$ergs$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$ at the distance of GW170618). These sources are listed in Table 3. In the most optimistic scenarios for afterglows associated with BBH mergers,$\approx 20\%$ of BBH events occurring in massive (spiral or elliptical) hosts could be associated with GRB-like outflows of radio luminosity density larger than or equal to this value. [see e.g. Figure 8 in @Perna2018].
A comparison of the VLA sources (Table 3) with those found by the *Swift*/XRT team in the GW error region (Table \[tb:SwiftSources\]) shows that only two of the *Swift*/XRT sources are within a distance of 2 from any of our VLA sources. Specifically, *Swift*/XRT-s1 is located within $\approx 1.6$ of our VLA source S13, and *Swift*/XRT-s2 is located within $\approx 0.9$of our VLA source S20. We note that at the distance of GW170608 ($\approx 340$Mpc), an angular radius of $2\arcmin$ corresponds to a physical distance of about 170kpc. As shown by @Perna2018, this radial distance is likely to enclose the host galaxy of $\gtrsim 70-90\%$ of BBH mergers occurring in massive hosts (see their Figure 3). Thus, searching for sources located within 2of the position of our VLA sources leaves room to find not only coincident counterparts but also potential host galaxies.
We also searched for any counterpart to our VLA sources in VLITE images. Only a few of the VLA sources were found with $SNR\gtrsim 5$ (or flux density $\gtrsim 12.5$mJy) in the VLITE image taken on 2017 August 18 UT at 338MHz. These V1-7 sources are reported in Table \[tb:VLITESources\]. They were unresolved at the angular resolution of the image (73x 43).
To gain additional information on the possible nature of the 25 sources identified in our VLA images, we searched for previously known sources co-located with them. To this end, we queried the catalogs by the National VLA Sky Survey (NVSS), the University of Strasbourg’s SIMBAD, VLA FIRST, and the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED). Table 3 reports information about the closest previously known radio source found within $2\arcmin$ of each of our VLA sources (see S1-S16, and S19). When a previously known radio source is indeed found, we report its R.A. and Dec., radio peak flux density, and semi-major position uncertainty as reported in NVSS or FIRST [@Condon1998]. If a radio source is not found within 2, we report in the Table 3 only information about the classification of the closest known source found in SIMBAD or NED (see sources S17-S18 and S20 in Table 3). Finally, if no known source is found in any of the above catalogs within the same search radius of 2, then we dub the corresponding VLA sources as “unknown” (U1-U5 in Table 3).
Overall, a total of 20 out of the 25 VLA sources (all but U1-U5) are associated with a previously known source spatially within a $2\arcmin$ radius, and for 15 out of the 17 with a radio source in NVSS or FIRST the VLA position is consistent with the NVSS/FIRST position within the estimated errors (the two exceptions being S4 and S17). For most of the VLA sources with a counterpart in FIRST or NVSS, the flux density measured in our VLA images is significantly different from the one measured in NVSS/FIRST, which in the case of a real association could be ascribed to either significant long-term variability, or to contribution from extended emission (our VLA observations were carried out in a more compact configuration than that used for NVSS). We note that it is not surprising that we don’t find any NVSS source coincident with our VLA U1-U5 as the 1.4GHz flux density of these sources is below the NVSS completeness limit $\approx 2.5$mJy.
None of the 25 sources identified in our VLA images, including the previously unknown U1-U5, showed any evidence for significant variability within the timescales of our 3 VLA epochs, which covered days 4, 21, and 67 since the BBH merger. Although large uncertainties affect predictions for radio emission from BBHs, the lack of variability on these timescales strongly suggests that all of the identified VLA sources are unrelated to possible afterglow-like emission from the *Fermi*/LAT candidate. Specifically, in the standard synchrotron model for radio emission from fast GRB ejecta, one would expect a temporal evolution of the optically thin radio afterglow such that $F_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}\propto t^{-0.75}-t^{-1.1}$ [@Perna2018 and references therein], which would ensure flux variations of a factor of $\gtrsim 2$ between successive epochs of our follow-up campaign.
Constraints on the presence of a relativistic jet
-------------------------------------------------
Given the lack of a radio counterpart to the candidate *Fermi*/LAT transient, our VLA observations constrain the flux density of any potential radio afterglow to $F_{1.4\,GHz}\lesssim 450\,\mu$Jy. We thus explore whether this constraint can rule out at least some portions of the parameter space allowed for a relativistic jet potentially produced in association with the GW170608 merger. Light curves for jets propagating in the clean environment expected around BBH mergers (i.e. one that lacks ejecta mass in the merger site) have been computed by @Perna2019. We use their online library[^2] to derive the model radio luminosities at 1.4GHz, and compare them with our limits. The models are characterized by the jet energy $E_{\rm jet}$ and the angle $\theta_{\rm jet}$ over which the bulk of the energy is distributed. For any of these parameters, the luminosity is then a strong function of the viewing angle with the jet axis, and the time of the observation. We set the last to 4d after the merger for comparison with our VLA observations, as this is the most constraining epoch. For the viewing angle, we assume that our line of sight is along the jet axis (given the potential detection of a *Fermi*/LAT high-energy transient and the GW selection effects which favor a face-on orientation for detection).
Figure \[fig:Lradio\] shows a comparison of the on-axis jet luminosity for a range of relativistic jets (Lorentz factor of $\Gamma=100$ [^3]) with energies varying between $10^{46}-10^{49}$ ergs, and opening angles between $10^\circ-40^\circ$. These models were chosen to bracket the energetics of the candidate [*Fermi*]{} counterpart to GW150914 [@Connaughton2016; @Connaughton2018] which had an isotropic inferred energy of $\approx 10^{49}$ ergs, which translates into a jet energy of $10^{49}(1-\cos\theta_{\rm jet})$ergs. The dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:Lradio\] mark the range of observational upper limits on the radio luminosity density corresponding to the uncertainty on the distance in GW170608 (i.e. $L_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}\approx (2.1-12)\times10^{28}$ergs$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$). As evident from this Figure, for a jet of energy $E=10^{49}$ ergs, only jet angles $\theta_{\rm jet}\gtrsim 40^\circ$ are compatible with the full range for the flux limit.
We should note that the afterglow models are computed for a typical interstellar density of $n=0.01$ cm$^{-3}$ [@Perna2018]. However, the flux brightness scales roughly as $n^{1/2}$ for a range of conditions [@Sari1998]. Hence merger events in lower densities could be more energetic and still be below the observational limits, while mergers in denser regions would be constrained to being less energetic.
![1.4 GHz luminosity density at 4d after the merger, from a relativistic jet with Lorentz factor $\Gamma=100$ seen on axis. Models are considered for a range of jet energies $E_{\rm jet}$ and opening angles $\theta_{\rm jet}$ of the jet. The dashed lines mark the region of upper limits on the 1.4 GHz luminosity density derived from our VLA observations given the uncertainties on the estimated distance of GW170608. See text for discussion. \[fig:Lradio\]](L_radio.pdf){width="8cm"}
Summary and conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
======================
We have presented radio follow-up observations of a *Fermi*/LAT candidate transient identified in the error region of GW170608, a BBH merger discovered by the LIGO detectors. Our observations with the VLA at 1.4GHz were complemented with VLITE data at 338MHz. We identify 25 sources with $SNR\gtrsim 10$ in the crowded VLA images of the LAT field. A few of these also had a counterpart with $SNR\gtrsim 5$ in VLITE data. Over the three epochs of our VLA follow up, none of the sources showed evidence for significance variability (and 20 of them were found to be spatially coincident with previously cataloged sources). Based on the lack of variability, we conclude that it is very unlikely that any of the VLA sources in our field are associated with the radio afterglow of the *Fermi*/LAT candidate burst.
We have compared the limits derived from our VLA observations with theoretical expectations for the radio afterglows potentially associated with jets launched in BBH mergers [@Perna2019]. Altogether, our analysis shows the key role that broad-band follow ups to GW events can play to gradually restrict the allowed parameter space for electromagnetically bright, relativistic outflows driven by the merger of two BHs.
With this study we have demonstrated the feasibility of radio follow-up observations that, in the near-future observing runs of the advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, could clarify the fundamental physics question of whether BBH mergers can be accompanied by relativistic outflows powering GRB-like bursts and afterglows. With the number of well-localized BBH mergers destined to increase thanks to the improving sensitivity of ground-based GW detectors [@LivRev], it is crucial that the community maintains active follow-up efforts of nearby BBHs. If appropriately planned, these follow-up efforts may ultimately help us identify a BBH afterglow, or set constraining upper-limits on the numerous models that have been proposed in the literature to explain the still largely debated, possible association between GW150914 and a *Fermi*/GBM $\gamma$-ray transient.
We finally note that commensal VLITE observation could also uncover potential coherent radio emission generated near the instant of merger. The last, in turn, could probe the immediate magnetic environment and the properties of the intergalactic medium [@Callister2019].
K.A., R.S., and A.C. acknowledge support from the NSF CAREER award \#1455090. R.P. acknowledges support from the NSF under grant AST-1616157. Basic research in radio astronomy at the Naval Research Laboratory is supported by 6.1 Base funding. The Center for Computational Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute is supported by the Simons Foundation. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. We thank Dale Frail, Mansi Kasliwal, Namir Kassim, and Nipuni Palliyaguru for constructive comments.
------ ------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- -------- ------------------------ --------------
Name R.A.Dec. Class Epoch $\Delta T$ Freq. $F_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}$ $F_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}$ Offset Pos.Err. Pos.Err.
(VLA) (VLA) (NVSS/ (VLA) (NVSS/
FIRST) FIRST)
(hh:mm:ssdeg:mm:ss) (MJD) (day) (GHz) (mJy) (mJy) () ( ) ( )
U1 08:32:12.72+43:23:06.47 ? 57917.333 4 1.4 1.61 $\pm$ 0.10 ... ... 0.390 -
“ ” 57933.500 21 “ &1.72 $\pm$ 0.10& ...& ...&0.462 & -\ 1.70 $\pm$ 0.10 ... ... 0.498 -
&” “ & & 57983.500 & 67& ”
U2 08:32:05.46+43:17:27.99 ? 57917.333 4 1.4 1.69 $\pm$ 0.09 ... ... 0.420 -
“ ” 57933.500 21 “ &1.84 $\pm$ 0.10& ...& ...&0.469 & -\ 1.76 $\pm$ 0.10 ... ... 0.512 -
&” “ & & 57983.500 & 67& ”
U3 08:32:19.72+43:16:11.42 ? 57917.333 4 1.4 1.49 $\pm$ 0.07 ... ... 0.555 -
“ ” 57933.500 21 “ &1.54 $\pm$ 0.09& ...& ...&0.494 & -\ 1.44 $\pm$ 0.09 ... ... 0.552 -
&” “ & & 57983.500 & 67& ”
U4 08:32:43.90+43:10:43.91 ? 57917.333 4 1.4 0.85 $\pm$ 0.11 ... ... 0.485 -
“ ” 57933.500 21 “ &0.92 $\pm$ 0.09& ...& ...&0.790 & -\ 0.88 $\pm$ 0.10 ... ... 0.941 -
&” “ & & 57983.500 & 67& ”
U5 08:32:35.05+43:33:46.81 ? 57917.333 4 1.4 0.87 $\pm$ 0.08 ... ... 0.619 -
“ ” 57933.500 21 “ &0.67 $\pm$ 0.07& ...& ...&0.865 & -\ 0.78 $\pm$ 0.08 ... ... 0.893 -
&” “ & & 57983.500 & 67& ”
S1 08:33:16.15+43:23:51.01 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 3.12 $\pm$ 0.40 3.9 $\pm$ 0.6 11.8 0.347 16.5
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 3.16 $\pm$ 0.17 “ &” 0.438 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &2.86 $\pm$ 0.16& ” “ &0.473 & ”
&” “ & ”
S2 08:31:26.13+43:25:12.49 Quasar 57917.333 4 1.4 98.4 $\pm$ 4.9 147 $\pm$ 4.5 1.19 0.343 1.50
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 110.0 $\pm$ 5.5 “ &” 0.414 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &109.1 $\pm$ 5.5& ” “ &0.433 & ”
&” “ & ”
S3 08:32:43.30+43:14:36.05 GalaxyC 57917.333 4 1.4 31.5 $\pm$ 1.6 42.5 $\pm$ 1.4 0.63 0.343 0.50
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 33.4 $\pm$ 1.7 “ &” 0.414 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &31.7 $\pm$ 1.6& ” “ &0.433 & ”
&” “ & ”
S4 08:32:29.39+43:02:58.04 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 24.7 $\pm$ 1.3 118.5 $\pm$ 4.6 12.2 0.348 1.50
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 26.6 $\pm$ 1.4 “ &” 0.418 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &29.5 $\pm$ 1.5& ” “ &0.438 & ”
&” “ & ”
S5 08:31:11.34+43:16:06.66 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 11.6 $\pm$ 0.1 14.7 $\pm$ 0.6 1.03 0.715 0.50
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 13.4 $\pm$ 0.7 “ &” 0.418 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &12.8 $\pm$ 0.7& ” “ &0.440 & ”
&” “ & ”
S6 08:32:28.84+43:03:20.21 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 17.99 $\pm$ 0.93 3.3 $\pm$ 0.5 8.73 0.354 10.5
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 22.83 $\pm$ 1.16 “ &” 0.421 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &18.29 $\pm$ 0.95& ” “ &0.449 & ”
&” “ & ”
S7 08:31:00.04+43:27:28.96 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 9.22 $\pm$ 0.16 14.5 $\pm$ 1.0 1.63 0.530 3.80
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 8.96 $\pm$ 0.45 “ &” 0.417 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &8.82 $\pm$ 0.46& ” “ &0.452 & ”
&” “ & ”
S8 08:31:14.21+43:11:19.64 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 2.11 $\pm$ 0.16 2.7 $\pm$ 0.5 1.26 0.949 14.0
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 2.76 $\pm$ 0.17 “ &” 0.704 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &2.32 $\pm$ 0.18& ” “ &0.786 & ”
&” “ & ”
S9 08:32:56.03+43:13:24.65 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 5.43 $\pm$ 0.47 5.6 $\pm$ 0.4 4.28 0.347 7.00
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 4.60 $\pm$ 0.24 “ &” 0.430 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &4.95 $\pm$ 0.26& ” “ &0.452 & ”
&” “ & ”
S10 08:33:50.53+43:20:39.09 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 7.82 $\pm$ 0.29 26.4 $\pm$ 1.5 1.16 0.366 4.30
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 7.52 $\pm$ 0.39 “ &” 0.427 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &7.16 $\pm$ 0.37& ” “ &0.452 & ”
&” “ & ”
S11 08:33:48.59+43:20:04.31 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 5.14 $\pm$ 0.19 2.15 $\pm$ 0.14 1.00 0.420 0.98
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 4.50 $\pm$ 0.25 “ &” 0.455 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &4.86 $\pm$ 0.27& ” “ &0.480 & ”
&” “ & ”
S12 08:31:20.18+43:33:00.13 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 3.62 $\pm$ 0.28 6.3 $\pm$ 0.5 2.48 0.369 7.40
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 3.61 $\pm$ 0.20 “ &” 0.469 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &4.13 $\pm$ 0.23& ” “ &0.490 & ”
&” “ & ”
S13 08:33:05.09+43:13:37.07 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 2.14 $\pm$ 0.13 2.6 $\pm$ 0.5 0.99 0.416 18.8
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 2.26 $\pm$ 0.13 “ &” 0.484 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &1.99 $\pm$ 0.13& ” “ &0.549 & ”
&” “ & ”
S14 08:32:45.34+43:29:49.34 Quasar 57917.333 4 1.4 1.59 $\pm$ 0.19 3.6 $\pm$ 0.6 7.02 0.358 19.5
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 1.48 $\pm$ 0.09 “ &” 0.500 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &1.31 $\pm$ 0.09& ” “ &0.574 & ”
&” “ & ”
------ ------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- -------- ------------------------ --------------
------ ------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------- ------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------- --------------
Name RA Dec Class Epoch $\Delta T$ Freq. $F_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}$ $F_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}$ Offset Pos. Err. Pos. Err.
(VLA) (NVSS) (VLA) (NVSS)
(hh:mm:ssdeg:mm:ss) (MJD) (day) (GHz) (mJy) (mJy) () ( ) ( )
S15 08:32:08.63+43:40:05.18 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 3.65 $\pm$ 0.15 3.8 $\pm$ 0.5 2.50 0.664 9.10
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 3.30 $\pm$ 0.21 “ &” 0.516 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &3.20 $\pm$ 0.21& ” “ &0.575 & ”
&” “ & ”
S16 08:32:59.90+43:40:03.57 RadioS 57917.333 4 1.4 3.90 $\pm$ 0.23 4.0 $\pm$ 0.5 2.21 0.437 10.7
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 3.05 $\pm$ 0.20 “ &” 0.552 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &3.51 $\pm$ 0.23& ” “ &0.574 & ”
&” “ & ”
S17 08:31:53.81+43:27:20.12 Galaxy 57917.333 4 1.4 0.99 $\pm$ 0.20 - 7.62 0.36 -
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 1.05 $\pm$ 0.07 - “ &0.569 & -\ 57983.500 67 “ &0.65 $\pm$ 0.07& - &” 0.862 -
&” “ & ”
S18 08:32:24.99+43:18:26.14 Galaxy 57917.333 4 1.4 0.67 $\pm$ 0.06 - 0.86 0.521 -
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 0.88 $\pm$ 0.06 - “ &0.594 & -\ 57983.500 67 “ &0.64 $\pm$ 0.06& - &” 0.826 -
&” “ & ”
S19 08:33:04.28+43:32:37.78 Galaxy 57917.333 4 1.4 1.12 $\pm$ 0.09 9.7 $\pm$ 0.9 87.5 0.599 0.50
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 0.98 $\pm$ 0.08 “ &” 0.697 “\ 57983.500 67 “ &0.99 $\pm$ 0.09& ” “ &0.784 & ”
&” “ & ”
S20 08:32:02.84+43:29:45.43 Quasar 57917.333 4 1.4 0.89 $\pm$ 0.07 - 7.56 0.546 -
“ ” “ & 57933.500 & 21& ” 0.75 $\pm$ 0.06 - “ &0.699 & -\ 57983.500 67 “ &0.85 $\pm$ 0.07& - &” 0.735 -
&” “ & ”
------ ------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------- ------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------- --------------
[^1]: GRB Coordinates Network Circulars (GCNs) related to the EM follow-up of GW170608 are archived at https:$//$gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov$/$other$/$G288732.gcn3 .
[^2]: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/EMmod/models.html
[^3]: For the same model parameters, lower Lorentz factors yield lower luminosities. E.g, for $\Gamma=10$ the brightest point in Fig. \[fig:Lradio\] would be 80% of the one for $\Gamma=100$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The spectra of emission-line galaxies (ELGs) from the extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS) of the Sloan Digit Sky Survey (SDSS) are used to study the mass-metallicity relation (MZR) at $z\sim0.8$. The selected sample contains about 180,000 massive star-forming galaxies with $0.6 < z < 1.05$ and $9 < {\rm log}(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) < 12$. The spectra are stacked in bins of different parameters including redshift, stellar mass, star formation rate (SFR), specific star formation rate (sSFR), half-light radius, mass density, and optical color. The average MZR at $z\sim0.83$ has a downward evolution in the MZR from local to high-redshift universe, which is consistent with previous works. At a specified stellar mass, galaxies with higher SFR/sSFR and larger half-light radius have systematically lower metallicity. This behavior is reversed for galaxies with larger mass density and optical color. Among the above physical parameters, the MZR has the most significant dependency on SFR. Our galaxy sample at $0.6<z<1.05$ approximately follows the fundamental metallicity relation (FMR) in the local universe, although the sample inhomogeneity and incompleteness might have effect on our MZR and FMR.'
author:
- Chi Huang
- Hu Zou
- Xu Kong
- Johan Comparat
- Zesen Lin
- Yulong Gao
- Zhixiong Liang
- Timothee Delubac
- Anand Raichoor
- 'Jean-Paul Kneib'
- 'Donald P. Schneider'
- Xu Zhou
- Qirong Yuan
- 'Matthew A. Bershady'
title: 'The Mass-Metallicity Relation at $z\sim0.8$: Redshift Evolution and Parameter Dependency'
---
Introduction\[intro\]
=====================
The gas-phase metallicity is an important physical parameter to study the evolution of galaxies. It reflects the long-term metal enrichment from star-forming activities, regulated by gas inflow, gas outflow, and stellar winds. Metallicity has tight correlations with stellar mass, luminosity, and rotation velocity [@Lequeux1979; @Rubin1984; @Zaritsky1994], among which the one with stellar mass is the tightest. Stellar mass traces the total amount of long-term star formation, so it is naturally related to metallicity [@Lequeux1979; @Tremonti2004; @Andrews2013]. The relation between stellar mass and gas-phase metallicity (mass-metallicity relation) was first investigated in the local universe and then expanded to redshifts up to $z\sim3.5$ [@Tremonti2004; @Savaglio2005; @Erb2006; @Maiolino2008; @Zahid2011]. As redshift increases, the MZR shifts downwards, indicating that more evolved galaxies tend to be more metal-rich [@Maiolino2008].
There have been a number of studies about the influence of other physical properties on MZR, including SFR [@Mannucci2010], morphology [@SolAlonso2010], optical color [@Yabe2014], $D_{n}(4000)$ [@Lian2015], gas mass fraction [@Hughes2013], etc. @Ellison2008 selected more than 40,000 galaxies from SDSS Data Release 4 to study the systematic effect of sSFR and galaxy size (half-light radius) on MZR and found that galaxies with higher sSFR or larger size have systematically lower gas-phase metallicities by up to 0.2 dex. @Mannucci2010 reported a general relation between stellar mass, gas-phase metallicity, and SFR, designated as fundamental metallicity relation (FMR). By introducing a new quantity $\mu = \rm log(M_{\star}) - 0.32\rm{log(SFR)}$, they defined a projection of the FMR that can reduce the metallicity scatter. This FMR remains valid up to $z\sim2.5$, and the redshift evolution in MZR may be due to the difference of SFR of individual galaxies. Many investigations had confirmed this result in the local universe [@Lopez2010; @Yates2012; @Andrews2013] and at high redshift [@Cresci2012; @Yabe2014; @Salim2015], while some authors expressed reservations regarding the FMR [@Sanchez2013; @Steidel2014; @Sanders2015].
The eBOSS program [@Dawson2016] is one of the three main surveys of the fourth generation of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [SDSS-IV; @Blanton2017], and it is designed to explore the expansion history of the Universe throughout 80% of cosmic time. Although eBOSS is originally designed for cosmology, it provides an unprecedented large number of spectra of star-forming galaxies (SFGs) at medium redshift, which can be used to statistically obtain many physical properties of galaxies in the eBOSS redshift range. The MZR at medium redshift has previously been investigated with relatively small galaxy samples. In this paper, we use a large number of spectra from eBOSS ELGs and compose high signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) spectra by stacking the spectra of single galaxies in bins of different physical properties. These high S/N composite spectra are used to study the MZR at $z\sim 0.8$ and its dependence on different physical properties, which may assist in understanding the galaxy evolution.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[data\] describes our spectroscopic samples and corresponding photometric data. Section \[reduction\] presents the stacking procedure and flux measurements of emission-lines. Section \[sec-pars\] describes the measurements of different physical parameters. The MZR relation and parameter dependency are analyzed in Section \[result\], and Section \[summary\] is the summary. Throughout this paper, we adopt a flat $\Lambda$CDM model with $H_{0}=70\ \rm km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_{M}=0.3$ The initial mass function (IMF) of @Chabrier2003 is used in this work.
Spectroscopic and photometric data \[data\]
===========================================
eBOSS survey and ELG sample\[data1\]
------------------------------------
The eBOSS program is one of the three main surveys of SDSS IV, aiming to explore the expansion history of the universe using different spectroscopic galaxy samples. During July 2014 to March 2019, eBOSS obtained spectra of $\sim$183,000 luminous red galaxies over 4600 $\rm deg^{2}$ at $0.6<z<0.8$, $\sim$185,000 ELGs over 1200 $\rm deg^{2}$ at $0.6<z<1.1$, and $\sim$342,000 quasars over 4600 $\rm deg^{2}$ at $0.8<z<3.5$. These surveys use the Sloan Foundation 2.5m Telescope at Apache Point Observatory [@Gunn2006], and the BOSS spectrograph, which covers the wavelength range of $360\sim1000$ nm with 1000 fibers per 7-deg$^2$ plate at a resolution of $R\sim2000$ [@Smee2013]. The ELG target selection is based on $grz$-band photometry [@Comparat2016; @Raichoor2017] from the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey [DECaLS @Dey2019], favoring strong ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}\lambda3727$ emission in the desired redshift range [@Comparat2013; @Comparat2015]. The ELG survey covers an area of $\sim620$ $\rm deg^{2}$ in the Southern Galactic Cap (SGC) and $\sim600$ $\rm deg^{2}$ in the Northern Galactic Cap (NGC) at a target density of 200 $\rm deg^{-2}$ in the NGC and 240 $\rm deg^{-2}$ in the SGC, respectively.
The spectra of ELGs are processed by the SDSS spectroscopic pipeline (version of v5\_13\_0), which can reliably derives the redshifts and properties of emission-lines. The ELG observations were completed in 2019 February and the spectra will be released in the SDSS DR16. A total of 235,123 ELG spectra were obtained. We only select those ELGs with reliably measured redshifts in $0.6 < z < 1.05$, where the redshift quality flags satisfy the conditions of Equation (1) in [@Raichoor2017]. The upper limit of $z<1.05$ is set to cover the line. The stellar mass is within $9<{\rm log}(M_{\star}/M_{\odot})<12$. These constraints produce a sample of 180,020 ELGs for analyses in this paper. Figure \[distribution\] presents the properties of our galaxy sample, including the distributions of redshift, stellar mass, SFR, and half-light radius ($R_h$) and the diagrams of mass, SFR, and $R_h$ as a function of redshift. See Section \[sec-pars\] for the parameter estimations. Our ELG sample has medians of $z\sim0.83$, ${\rm log}(M/M\odot)\sim10.35$, ${\rm SFR}\sim 10\ M_{\odot}\ \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and $R_{h}\sim 5.5\ \rm kpc$.
DECaLS survey and photometric data\[data2\]
-------------------------------------------
The DECaLS survey is one of the three recent imaging surveys that are specially designed for the target selections of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) [@Dey2019]. DECaLS uses the Dark Energy Camera [@Flaugher2015] on the Blanco 4m telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory to cover an sky area of more than 9,000 deg$^2$ along the equator. It provides $grz$ photometry to fiducial depths of $g = 24.0$, $r=23.4$, and $z=22.5$ mag for $5\sigma$ extended sources. The eBOSS ELG target selection is based on the DECaLS photometry [@Raichoor2017]. In addition to the optical imaging, DECaLS integrates historic and latest near-infrared data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer [WISE @Wright2010]. The new coadds of WISE imaging [unWISE; @Lang2014] are more than one magnitude deeper than the official ALLWISE. *The Tractor* code [^1] [@Lang2016] is utilized to calculate the model fluxes of detected sources. Based on the optical and near-infrared fluxes, we obtain a reliable estimation of the stellar mass.
There are five morphological types: “PSF" for point sources, “DEV" for deVaucouleurs profiles, “EXP" for general exponential profiles, “REX" for round exponential profiles, and “COMP" for composite profiles (DEV$+$EXP). The model photometry also provides the shape parameters, among which the half-light radius is taken as an indicator of galaxy size in this paper. The half-light radius is seeing-corrected.
Spectrum stacking and line measurements\[reduction\]
====================================================
Stacking procedure\[reduction1\]
--------------------------------
The continuum S/Ns of individual eBOSS spectra in the ELGs are quite low (at $\sim$0.9); in addition, these spectra are significantly contaminated by bright night sky emissions. We stack the spectra using a binning algorithm to obtain high S/N composite spectra. The stacking procedure is as follows, which is similar to @Zhu2015 and @Lan2018.
1. Each single spectrum is corrected for the Galactic extinction using the extinction law of @Cardelli1989 and Galactic extinction map of @Schlegel1998.
2. The spectra are shifted to rest-frame according to measured spectroscopic redshifts.
3. A wavelength grid is constructed, ranging from 2500–5030 $\rm \AA$ with an interval of $0.5\ \rm \AA$. The wavelength range is selected to cover the strong emission-lines bluer than [${\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}}\lambda\lambda5007$]{}. The step of [0.5 Å]{} is selected smaller than the median pixel scale of the eBOSS spectra.
4. The shifted spectra are linearly interpolated onto the above wavelength grid. At a given wavelength, the composite spectrum flux is calculated as the median of the individual spectra. Here, the medians instead of the means are adopted in order to reduce the influence of extreme points.
5. The uncertainties in the pixels in each composite spectrum is estimated from 200 bootstrapping samples.
Figure \[spec\_total\] displays a stacked spectrum composed of all 180,020 ELG spectra at $0.6 < z < 1.05$. This composite spectrum contains several strong emission-lines including ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}\lambda3727$, ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}}\lambda4959$, ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc iii}]}}\lambda5007$, , , and some absorption features of $\hbox{Mg\,{\sc ii}}\lambda\lambda2796,2803$ and $\hbox{Fe\ {\sc ii}}\lambda\lambda2586,2600$ at the blue end.
Flux measurements of emission-lines\[reduction2\]
-------------------------------------------------
In order to measure the fluxes of emission-lines, we adopt the spectral fitting code of STARLIGHT [@CidFernandes2005] to derive the underlying stellar continuum and subtract it from the composite spectrum. The spectral fitting uses 45 single stellar populations from [@Bruzual2003] model, [@Cardelli1989] extinction law, and [@Chabrier2003] IMF. The fluxes and flux errors of emission-lines are calculated by fitting the line profiles with Gaussian functions. Assuming the intrinsic Balmer series ratio of ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}/{\hbox{H$\gamma$}}=2.137$, we estimate the intrinsic extinction for each composite spectrum. All the fluxes of emission-lines are dereddened using the estimated extinction and [@Calzetti2000] attenuation curve.
Parameter measurements\[sec-pars\]
==================================
Stellar Mass\[parameter1\]
--------------------------
The availability of deep optical DECaLS $grz$ photometry and near-infrared WISE $W1W2$ photometry permits a reliable estimation of the stellar mass. The eBOSS team has obtained the stellar mass of ELGs through a stellar population synthesis fitting [@Raichoor2017], which fits the spectral energy distribution (SEDs) of ELGs with the FAST code [@Kriek2009]. @Raichoor2017 adopts the [@Bruzual2003] stellar population models with solar metallicity, [@Chabrier2003] IMF, [@Kriek2013] dust attenuation law, and exponentially declining star formation history with star formation timescale $\tau$ ranging from 300 Myr to 10 Gyr. During the fit, the redshift is fixed to the spectroscopic redshift. Compared with the COSMOS2015 catalogue [@Laigle2016], which used accurate photometric redshifts and deep optical and near-infrared imaging in 30 bands, @Raichoor2017 showed a good agreement of the stellar mass with a difference of 0.05$\pm$0.21 dex. In this paper, we adopt the stellar mass derived by the eBOSS team. A total of 99% of our selected ELGs having the stellar mass within $8.5<{\rm log}(M_{\star}/M_{\odot})<11.2$.
Metallicity\[parameter2\]
-------------------------
There are two widely-used methods to measure the gas-phase metallicity of galaxies: one based on electron temperature ($T_{e}$) [@Aller1984; @Izotov2012; @Gao2018] and one based on emission-line ratio of strong lines [@McGaugh1991; @Zaritsky1994; @Pettini2004; @Kobulnicky2004; @Maiolino2008]. Because $\lambda4363$ becomes too weak to be detected for massive metal-rich galaxies, this line is not detectable in our composite spectra (See Figure \[spec\_total\]). We cannot apply the $T_{e}$ method to estimate the metallicity. Instead, we choose the method described in @Kobulnicky2004 [KK04], which is based on four strong emission-lines: $$R_{23}\equiv\frac{I_\mathrm{[O{\sc II}]\lambda3727}+I_\mathrm{[O{\sc III}]\lambda4959}+I_\mathrm{[O{\sc III}]\lambda5007}}{I_\mathrm{H\beta}}.
\label{R23}$$ However, $R_{23}$ is sensitive to both metallicity and ionization parameter. The relation between $R_{23}$ and metallicity has two branches, so other emission-lines such as $\hbox{[N\,{\sc ii}]}$ and $\hbox{[S\,{\sc ii}]}$ are needed to break the degeneracy [@Denicolo2002; @Pettini2004]. Unfortunately, these two lines are undetectable in our composite spectra. We adopt the strong line ratio of $O_{32}$ to initially estimate the metallicity: $$O_{32}\equiv\frac{I_\mathrm{[OIII]\lambda4959}+I_\mathrm{[OIII]\lambda5007}}{I_\mathrm{[OII]\lambda3727}}.
\label{O32}$$ This quantity has a monotonic correlation with metallicity but suffers a large dispersion due to its sensitivity to the ionization parameter. @Maiolino2008 [M08] provided polynomial correlations for the above strong-line metallicity calibrations: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm log}R_{23}=0.7462 &- 0.7149x - 0.9401x^{2}\\
& - 0.6154x^{3} - 0.2524x^{4},
\label{logR23}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm log}O_{32}=-0.2839 - 1.3881x - 0.3172x^{2},
\label{logO32}
\end{aligned}$$ where $x=12+{\rm log(O/H)}-8.69$. We solve both Equation (\[logR23\]) and Equation (\[logO32\]) to find the closest solution of Equation (\[logR23\]) to the solution of Equation (\[logO32\]). As a result, all our composite spectra appear in the upper branch in the metallicity calibration based on $R_{23}$. The relatively high metallicity is reasonable because our selected galaxies are massive. Finally, we apply the polynomial formula for the upper branch specially derived by KK04 (as shown in their Equation (18)) to calculate the metallicity: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm 12+log(O/H)}_{\rm upper}\sim&9.11-0.218x-0.0587x^{2}-0.330x^{3} \\
&-0.199x^{4}-y(0.00235\\
&-0.01105x-0.051x^{2}\\
&-0.04085x^{3}-0.003585x^{4}),
\label{KK04}
\end{aligned}$$ where $x={\rm log}R_{23}$ and $y={\rm log}O_{32}$.
Star Formation Rate\[parameter3\]
---------------------------------
To explore whether the MZR has a star formation rate (SFR) dependence, we need to estimate the SFR of single eBOSS spectrum. There are two widely-used methods to calculate SFR: one relies on SED fitting and the other is based on the emission-line luminosity. Due to the lack of far-infrared photometry for our sample, the SFR from SED fitting can not be measured reliably, thus we adopt the method based on the the emission-line luminosity. The luminosity of , ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$ and ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}\lambda3727$ are generally used to infer SFR, among which ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ is the most accurate one. ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ is redshifted to 10,500 $\rm \AA$ at $z\sim0.6$, beyond the maximum wavelength of our spectra. We choose ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$ and ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}\lambda3727$ fluxes as our SFR indicators of single spectrum and adopt the calibrations from [@Kennicutt1998] (K98): $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm SFR}(M_{\odot}\ \rm yr^{-1})&=1.4\times10^{-41}L_\mathrm{[OII]}(\rm erg\ s^{-1})\\
&=7.9\times10^{-42}L_\mathrm{H{\alpha}}(\rm erg\ s^{-1}).
\label{SFR}
\end{aligned}$$ The above calibrations are based on the [@Salpeter1955] IMF. We use a conversion factor 0.58 as described in @Speagle2014 to convert the SFR to the [@Chabrier2003] IMF, which is adopted throughout this paper. In addition, the intrinsic Balmer line flux ratio of ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}/{\hbox{H$\beta$}}=2.86$ is used to convert the ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$ luminosity to the ${\hbox{H$\alpha$}}$ one. For dust attenuation, we corrected the fluxes by assuming an average $E(B-V)=0.21$, which is calculated from the overall stack spectra (as shown in Table \[tab2\]).
Half-light Radius\[parameter4\]
-------------------------------
The half-light radius $R_h$ is treated as the galaxy size of our sample. We apply the following restrictions of quality flags in the DECaLS photometric catalogs to obtain reliable photometry: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{BRIGHTSTARINBLOB = FALSE}, \\
\mathrm{ALLMASK\_G,R,Z} = 0, \\
\mathrm{FRACMASKED\_G,R,Z} < 0.7, \\
\mathrm{FRACIN\_G,R,Z} < 0.3.
\end{aligned}
\label{equ-quality}$$ These quality cuts remove sources with too many masked pixels and avoid photometric contaminations from nearby objects[^2]. In addition, we only choose the “EXP" and “REX" types with exponential profiles that are suitable for disk-like galaxies. This approach can avoid possible systematic difference of the $r_h$ measurement due to different galaxy models.
In order to check the reliability of the DECaLS $R_h$ measurement at $0.6 < z < 1.05$, we cross-match our samples with the public data from Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program [HSC-SSP @Aihara2018][^3]. The imaging of HSC-SSP is almost three magnitudes deeper than the DECaLS and has an exquisite PSF. Comparing the $R_h$ measurements from these two surveys indicates that the two measurements are in good agreement (with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.62).
Results\[result\]
=================
Mass-Metallicity Relation\[result1\]
------------------------------------
The MZR indicates that more massive galaxies tend to be more metal-rich, a trend that holds from local, mid-redshift to distant universe [e.g., @Lequeux1979; @Tremonti2004; @Savaglio2005; @Maiolino2008; @Zahid2011; @Yabe2014; @Lian2015]. We stack the spectra of our sample in six stellar mass bins to obtain six composite spectra with extremely high S/Ns. The median redshift is $z\sim0.83$. We explore the MZR at this redshift.
As shown in black stars of Figure \[MZR\], there is an obvious correlation between mass and metallicity. As the mass increases from $10^{10}M_{\odot}$ to $10^{11}M_{\odot}$, the metallicity 12+log(O/H) rises from 8.77 to 8.96. It appears that there is a change around $10^{10.7} M_{\odot}$, beyond which the metallicity reaches a plateau. We fit this MZR using an analytic form defined by @Zahid2014: $$\begin{aligned}
12+{\rm log(O/H)}=Z_{0}+{\rm log}\left[1-{\rm exp}\left(-\left[\frac{M_{\star}}{M_{0}}\right]^{\gamma}\right)\right],
\label{curvefit}
\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{0}$ is the asymptotic metallicity at which the MZR flattens, $M_{0}$ is the turnover mass above which the metallicity asymptotically approches $Z_{0}$, and $\gamma$ is the power-law slope of the MZR for stellar masses $\ll M_{0}$. The best-fit parameters are $Z_{0}=8.977$, $M_{0}=9.961$, and $\gamma=0.661$ (also see Table \[tab1\]).
We compare our result with previous studies in Figure \[MZR\] and show the MZR evolution. There is a remarkable downward evolution trend from $z\sim0.1$ [@Tremonti2004], $z\sim0.78$ [@Zahid2014], $z\sim0.83$ (this work), to $z\sim2.2$ [@Erb2006], which confirms that more evolved galaxies become more metal-rich. All MZRs have been corrected to the same [@Chabrier2003] IMF as used in this work. The local MZR at $z\sim0.1$ is from @Tremonti2004, but it has been transformed by [@Savaglio2005] to the same metallicity calibration as ours. The MZR $z\sim2.2$ is derived by @Erb2006 and redetermined in M08, who obtained their own metallicity calibration based on the photoionization model of [@Kewley2002]. We apply the calibration of M08 to our sample and find that the average difference of estimated metallicity using the M08 and KK04 calibrations is less than 0.01 dex, suggesting that there is no significant difference in the metallicity estimations between M08 and KK04 as used in this paper. The MZR at $z\sim0.78$ was derived by @Zahid2014, who used 50,000 galaxies from the Deep Extragalactic Evolutionary Probe 2 survey [DEEP2 @Davis2003]. Although @Zahid2014 also adopted the KK04 calibration, they used the calibration formulae as presented in Equation (13) and (17) of KK04. However, we use the calibration formula as described in Equation (18) of KK04, which was considered as the “best estimate" of the oxygen abundance. There is a systematic offset of -0.082 between the above two calibrations according to Table 1 in KK04. This offset is applied to the metallicity of @Zahid2014 for a consistent comparison. The corresponding MZR curve is indicated in magenta dashed line in Figure \[MZR\]. The MZR of @Zahid2014 is higher than our measurement, which is reasonable as our median redshift of $z\sim0.83$ is somewhat higher than their value.
[ccrccc]{} $0.60\sim1.05$ & 0.83 & 180,020 & $8.977\pm0.044$ & $9.961\pm0.018$ & $0.661\pm0.082$\
$0.60\sim0.80$ & 0.75 & 67,960 & $8.997\pm0.083$ & $9.929\pm0.031$ & $0.623\pm0.107$\
$0.80\sim0.90$ & 0.84 & 67,292 & $8.990\pm0.030$ & $10.054\pm0.012$ & $0.707\pm0.050$\
$0.90\sim1.05$ & 0.95 & 44,768 & $8.975\pm0.134$ & $10.072\pm0.050$ & $0.616\pm0.199$
We further divide our galaxy sample into different redshift bins to investigate the MZR evolution in our redshift range. Three redshift bins with median redshifts of 0.75, 0.84 and 0.95 are selected: $0.60<z<0.80$, $0.80<z<0.90$, and $0.90<z<1.05$. The MZRs in these redshift ranges are shown in Figure \[redshiftevolution\]. The best-fit curves with Equation (\[curvefit\]) are displayed and the corresponding fitted parameters are listed in Table \[tab1\]. Related physical properties for different stacked spectra are listed in Table \[tab2\]. For the lowest redshift bin ($0.60<z<0.80$), the point for the most massive subsample is indicated in open star in Figure \[redshiftevolution\] as it has unusually low metallicity. This subsample has a smaller number of spectra than other subsamples, and the S/Ns of emission-lines in the composite spectrum are relatively low, resulting in a larger uncertainty in the metallicity estimation. Figure \[redshiftevolution\] reveals shifted MZRs in three redshift bins. The MZR moves downward as the redshift increases, and at the same time the saturation metallicity $Z_{0}$ becomes lower. Comparing the MZR for the total sample in $0.6 < z < 1.05$ (median $z\sim 0.83$) with the one for the subsample at $0.80<z<0.90$ (median $z \sim 0.84$), the overall MZR suffers more redshift inhomogeneity of the galaxy samples so that the narrower redshift ranges generate more accurate MZRs.
Physical Parameter Dependency\[phydep\]
---------------------------------------
Our galaxy sample is divided into different bins of SFR (sSFR), half-light radius, mass density, and optical color to investigate their effect on the MZR. The redshift is restricted to $0.8<z<0.9$ to improve the sample redshift homogeneity. Figure \[spec\_bins\] presents the stacked spectra in different parameter bins and Table \[tab2\] lists the corresponding spectral properties. Figure \[spec\_bins\] has two unsurprising features: (1) the continuum and UV slope of the high-SFR (sSFR) spectrum is higher than the low SFR(sSFR) one, which reflects more active star-forming activity; (2) the continuum of the high mass density group is lower than the low mass density one.
**Star Formation Rate.** As illustrated in Figure \[phyevo1\], the MZR has an obvious deviation between low- and high-SFR (sSFR) bins. The ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}$ luminosity not only depends on SFR but also correlates with metallicity. The ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$ luminosity is a better tracer of the SFR than ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}$. SFR has been considered as a third parameter of MZR in many previous works [e.g., @Ellison2008; @Mannucci2010; @Andrews2013]. SFR represents the star-forming activity, implying the information of gas inflow and outflow in galaxies, which are the main physical processes to change the gas-phase metallicity. @Mannucci2010 derived a FMR using local SDSS galaxy sample. The FMR is considered to be a general relation between the mass, metallicity and SFR. @Mannucci2010 introduced a quantity $\mu_{\alpha}=\rm log(M_{\star})-\alpha\rm{log(SFR)}$ to minimize the scatter of MZR ($\alpha=0.32$), and reported that galaxies up to $z\sim2.5$ still follow this relation.
Although the SFRs estimated by ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}$ and ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$ luminosities from single spectrum are not corrected by dust attenuation, the availability of high-S/N lines for ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}$ and ${\hbox{H$\gamma$}}$ in the stacked spectra enables a calculation of the dust attenuation using the flux ratio of ${\hbox{H$\beta$}}/{\hbox{H$\gamma$}}$, allowing us to reliably explore the FMR in different SFR bins at $0.8 < z < 0.9$ as well as in different redshift bins. Figure \[FMR\] presents our FMRs in the $12+\rm{log(O/H)}$ vs. $\mu$ plane. We redetermined the metallicity using M08 calibration, which is used in the FMR derived by [@Mannucci2010]. The stellar mass and SFR are corrected to @Chabrier2003 IMF. All our FMRs agree with the local FMR derived by [@Mannucci2010] within the measurement uncertainties, implying that the FMR at $0.6 < z < 1.05$ still follows the local relation; our work provides a good supplement for FMR at $z\sim0.8$. At $\mu > 10.2$, the metallicity become flatter, which is likely caused by the sample incompleteness.
**Galaxy size and mass density.** [@Ellison2008] found that the MZR has a dependency on half-light radius in local universe. At a specified stellar mass, the metallicity decreases as the half-light radius increases. Our MZRs for different $R_h$ bins (shown in Figure \[phyevo2\]) reveal a similar result to [@Ellison2008]. We also separate our sample in bins of mass density, which defined as $\Sigma=M_{\star}/\pi R_{h}^{2}$. Figure \[phyevo2\] suggests the slight trend that galaxies with higher mass density at a fixed mass have higher metallicity. Higher mass density yields stronger gravitational potential, so that galaxies with high mass density have more ability to keep their metal material from escaping. The correlation between metallicity and mass density may have a more direct physical association than the one between metallicity and half-light radius.
**Optical color.** The optical color to a considerable extent reflects the stellar age, i.e., a redder color means an older age. The MZRs for different color bins in observed $g - r$ are shown in Figure \[phyevo3\]. The galaxies with redder colors tend to be more metal-rich and hence higher MZRs. The quantity of $D_{n}(4000)$, related to the 4000 $\rm \AA$ break, is defined as the ratio of average fluxes in $\rm4000\sim4100\ \AA$ and $\rm3850\sim3950\ \AA$ [@Balogh1999], and is regarded as a good indicator of galaxy age . [@Lian2015] discovered that the MZR has a dependency on $D_{n}(4000)$ at $z\sim1.4$ using a sample of Lyman-break analogues. The metallicity increases as $D_{n}(4000)$ increases for a specified stellar mass. As shown in Table \[tab2\], $D_{n}(4000)$ is larger for redder optical color. Given that galaxies with redder colors in general have larger stellar age and hence more evolved, it is logical that redder galaxies have relatively higher metallicity.
In conclusion, at a specified stellar mass, galaxies with higher SFR/sSFR and half-light radius have lower metallicity, causing the MZR to move downwards. Conversely, galaxies with higher mass density and larger ages have higher metallicity, producing an upward shift in the MZR shift upwards. Our results reflect a possible galaxy evolution picture: galaxies with lower $R_{h}$ at a fixed stellar mass lead to the higher surface mass density triggering higher star formation efficiency (SFE); a long-term higher SFE yields higher present-day metallicity and lower present-day SFR due to the gas depletion. Among the above physical parameters, according to the average $\Delta \rm{[12+log(O/H)]}$ for different parameter bins (shown in left-upper corner in Figure \[phyevo1\] and \[phyevo2\]), the MZR has the strongest dependency on the SFR. The significance of the MZR dependency gradually degrades for optical color of $g-r$, half-light radius and mass density.
[ccccccccccc]{}\
(0.60,1.05) & (9.0,12.0) &$0.83 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 10.35 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 0.98 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 5.52 \pm 1.84 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.18 \pm 0.00 $ & 180020 & 398\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.79 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 9.91 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.76 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.96 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 4.39 \pm 1.62 $ & $ 0.16 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.12 \pm 0.00 $ & 16989 & 104\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.81 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 10.12 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.83 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.98 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 4.78 \pm 1.63 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 38581 & 173\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.82 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 10.30 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.99 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 5.45 \pm 1.69 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 47983 & 209\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.97 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.04 \pm 1.82 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 37887 & 198\
.. & (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.86 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 10.68 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.96 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.92 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.42 \pm 1.96 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.22 \pm 0.00 $ & 25150 & 169\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.90 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 10.89 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 8.95 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.94 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.74 \pm 2.22 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.25 \pm 0.00 $ & 13430 & 129\
\
(0.60,0.80) &(9.0,12.0) &$ 0.75 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.28 \pm 0.18 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.86 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 5.26 \pm 1.67 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 67960 & 249\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.75 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 9.89 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 8.79 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.81 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.55 \pm 1.59 $ & $ 0.13 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 8955 & 76\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.75 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.12 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.85 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.89 \pm 1.50 $ & $ 0.20 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 16998 & 117\
.. & (10.2,10.4)&$ 0.75 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.30 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.91 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.86 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.42 \pm 1.60 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 20538 & 142\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.76 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.95 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.80 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.73 \pm 1.77 $ & $ 0.20 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.22 \pm 0.00 $ & 13077 & 124\
.. & (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.76 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.67 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.79 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 5.81 \pm 1.90 $ & $ 0.23 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.24 \pm 0.00 $ & 6210 & 89\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.76 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.88 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.76 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 5.56 \pm 2.03 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.28 \pm 0.00 $ & 2182 & 55\
\
(0.80,0.90) & (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.35 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 8.88 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.04 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 5.55 \pm 1.83 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 67292 & 253\
.. & (9.0,10.0)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.74 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.22 \pm 1.60 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 6561 & 66\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.11 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.81 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.06 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.69 \pm 1.64 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.12 \pm 0.00 $ & 14450 & 110\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.31 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.88 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.04 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.51 \pm 1.70 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 17096 & 128\
..& (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.04 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.14 \pm 1.77 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 14346 & 126\
..& (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.68 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.95 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.44 \pm 1.90 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 10273 & 115\
.. & (10.8,12.0)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.88 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 6.81 \pm 2.22 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.26 \pm 0.00 $ & 4566 & 81\
\
(0.90,1.05) & (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.95 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.46 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 8.88 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.18 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 5.97 \pm 2.03 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 44768 & 194\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.93 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 9.94 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.73 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.28 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 4.26 \pm 1.83 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 1473 & 30\
..& (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.95 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.12 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.80 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.63 \pm 1.90 $ & $ 0.16 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 7133 & 72\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.95 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.31 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.83 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.29 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.39 \pm 1.86 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 10349 & 91\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.96 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.50 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.90 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.27 \pm 1.91 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 10464 & 94\
..& (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.96 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.69 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.95 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.03 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.79 \pm 2.01 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.20 \pm 0.00 $ & 8667 & 89\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.97 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 10.90 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 7.08 \pm 2.23 $ & $ 0.26 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 6682 & 86\
\
(0.80,0.90) &(9.0,12.0)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.46 \pm 0.18 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.97 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.35 \pm 1.88 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.21 \pm 0.00 $ & 33034 & 168\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.75 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.07 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.08 \pm 1.78 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.12 \pm 0.00 $ & 3260 & 42\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.11 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.84 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.95 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.47 \pm 1.74 $ & $ 0.17 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 7176 & 70\
.. & (10.2,10.4)&$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.32 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.90 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.99 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.11 \pm 1.75 $ & $ 0.23 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 8418 & 81\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.50 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.95 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.02 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.54 \pm 1.81 $ & $ 0.28 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.21 \pm 0.00 $ & 7015 & 81\
.. & (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.68 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.99 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.91 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 6.84 \pm 1.91 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.25 \pm 0.00 $ & 4973 & 75\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.87 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.99 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.89 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 7.30 \pm 2.23 $ & $ 0.28 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.28 \pm 0.00 $ & 2190 & 54\
\
(0.80,0.90) &(9.0,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.24 \pm 0.17 $ & $ 8.81 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 4.73 \pm 1.60 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 33034 & 191\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.70 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.63 \pm 1.19 $ & $ 0.20 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.09 \pm 0.00 $ & 3260 & 53\
.. & (10.0,10.2)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.10 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.77 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.02 \pm 1.37 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 7177 & 90\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.30 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.83 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.87 \pm 1.54 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 8419 & 103\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.72 \pm 1.68 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 7016 & 100\
.. & (10.6,10.8)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.67 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.92 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.99 \pm 1.84 $ & $ 0.30 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.20 \pm 0.00 $ & 4974 & 90\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.88 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.92 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.99 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 6.17 \pm 2.11 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 2190 & 61\
\
(0.80,0.90) & (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.36 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.81 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 5.99 \pm 1.85 $ & $ 0.13 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.18 \pm 0.00 $ & 29792 & 159\
..& (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.74 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.66 \pm 1.70 $ & $ 0.11 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 2960 & 42\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.11 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.83 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.78 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.18 \pm 1.68 $ & $ 0.06 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 6626 & 69\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.31 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.88 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.91 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.91 \pm 1.71 $ & $ 0.17 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 7662 & 80\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.50 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.51 \pm 1.77 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.20 \pm 0.00 $ & 6283 & 78\
.. & (10.6,10.8)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.68 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.96 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.82 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 6.78 \pm 1.92 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.24 \pm 0.00 $ & 4356 & 70\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.87 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.58 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 7.23 \pm 2.25 $ & $ 0.09 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.26 \pm 0.00 $ & 1905 & 50\
\
(0.80,0.90)&(9.0,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.33 \pm 0.18 $ & $ 8.85 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.37 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 4.90 \pm 1.68 $ & $ 0.35 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.15 \pm 0.00 $ & 29793 & 190\
..& (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.71 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.46 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.74 \pm 1.35 $ & $ 0.33 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 2960 & 50\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.11 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.77 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.41 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.10 \pm 1.44 $ & $ 0.33 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 6626 & 85\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.31 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.38 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.90 \pm 1.57 $ & $ 0.35 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 7662 & 98\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.90 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.37 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.58 \pm 1.69 $ & $ 0.38 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 6283 & 95\
.. & (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.68 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.37 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 5.92 \pm 1.77 $ & $ 0.41 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.21 \pm 0.00 $ & 4356 & 84\
..& (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.88 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.30 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 6.05 \pm 2.07 $ & $ 0.41 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.24 \pm 0.00 $ & 1906 & 59\
\
(0.80,0.90) & (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.55 \pm 0.14 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.99 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.40 \pm 1.88 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.21 \pm 0.00 $ & 33034 & 181\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.94 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.76 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.08 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.04 \pm 1.76 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.12 \pm 0.00 $ & 3260 & 43\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.13 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.84 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.93 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.48 \pm 1.73 $ & $ 0.15 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 7176 & 71\
..& (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.33 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.91 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.98 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.13 \pm 1.75 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 8418 & 82\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.51 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.96 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.98 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.55 \pm 1.80 $ & $ 0.26 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.21 \pm 0.00 $ & 7015 & 81\
.. & (10.6,10.8)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.70 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.99 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.90 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 6.84 \pm 1.92 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.25 \pm 0.00 $ & 4973 & 75\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.90 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 8.99 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.91 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 7.31 \pm 2.27 $ & $ 0.28 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.28 \pm 0.00 $ & 2190 & 53\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.16 \pm 0.12 $ & $ 8.81 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 4.70 \pm 1.58 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 33034 & 177\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.91 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.70 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.63 \pm 1.24 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.09 \pm 0.00 $ & 3260 & 52\
..& (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.08 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.77 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.15 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.01 \pm 1.37 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 7177 & 89\
.. &(10.2,10.4) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.28 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.83 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.84 \pm 1.52 $ & $ 0.23 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 8419 & 102\
..& (10.4,10.6)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.47 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.71 \pm 1.69 $ & $ 0.27 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 7016 & 100\
.. & (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.66 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.92 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.99 \pm 1.83 $ & $ 0.28 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.20 \pm 0.00 $ & 4974 & 89\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.86 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.97 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 6.25 \pm 2.06 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 2190 & 61\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.52 \pm 0.16 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.90 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.27 \pm 1.85 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.20 \pm 0.00 $ & 29792 & 170\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.94 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.75 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.64 \pm 1.69 $ & $ 0.10 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 2960 & 42\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.12 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.83 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.78 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.23 \pm 1.68 $ & $ 0.06 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 6626 & 69\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.32 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.88 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.95 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.93 \pm 1.71 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 7662 & 80\
..& (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.51 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.86 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.53 \pm 1.78 $ & $ 0.17 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.20 \pm 0.00 $ & 6283 & 78\
..& (10.6,10.8)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.69 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 6.80 \pm 1.93 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.24 \pm 0.00 $ & 4356 & 70\
.. & (10.8,12.0)&$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.89 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 8.98 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.61 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 7.22 \pm 2.26 $ & $ 0.11 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.27 \pm 0.00 $ & 1905 & 50\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.18 \pm 0.14 $ & $ 8.82 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.28 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 4.65 \pm 1.59 $ & $ 0.29 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 29793 & 173\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.91 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.71 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.44 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.75 \pm 1.37 $ & $ 0.32 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 2960 & 49\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.09 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.77 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.37 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.08 \pm 1.44 $ & $ 0.31 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 6626 & 85\
..& (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.29 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.37 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.87 \pm 1.57 $ & $ 0.34 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 7662 & 97\
..& (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.48 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.90 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.38 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.56 \pm 1.67 $ & $ 0.38 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.17 \pm 0.00 $ & 6283 & 94\
.. & (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.67 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.37 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 5.91 \pm 1.77 $ & $ 0.41 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.21 \pm 0.00 $ & 4356 & 84\
.. & (10.8,12.0)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.86 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.24 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 6.09 \pm 2.06 $ & $ 0.37 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.24 \pm 0.00 $ & 1906 & 58\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.27 \pm 0.18 $ & $ 8.87 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.07 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 3.88 \pm 0.71 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 30675 & 180\
.. &(9.0,10.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.74 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 2.98 \pm 0.49 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 2920 & 47\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.10 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.81 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.09 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.31 \pm 0.56 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.12 \pm 0.00 $ & 6583 & 82\
.. & (10.2,10.4)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.30 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.09 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.95 \pm 0.69 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.15 \pm 0.00 $ & 7899 & 96\
.. & (10.4,10.6)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.06 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.56 \pm 0.78 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 6637 & 95\
..& (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.68 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.00 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 4.74 \pm 0.85 $ & $ 0.26 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 4686 & 85\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.87 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.98 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.72 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 4.68 \pm 0.94 $ & $ 0.14 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.25 \pm 0.00 $ & 1948 & 58\
\
(0.80,0.90)&(9.0,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.43 \pm 0.18 $ & $ 8.90 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.99 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 7.47 \pm 1.47 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 30676 & 165\
..&(9.0,10.0) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.74 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.06 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.91 \pm 1.44 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 2921 & 41\
.. & (10.0,10.2)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.11 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.82 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.96 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.44 \pm 1.39 $ & $ 0.14 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 6584 & 68\
..& (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.31 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.87 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.02 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 7.23 \pm 1.38 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 7900 & 80\
..& (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.50 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.92 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.02 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 7.92 \pm 1.40 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 6638 & 79\
..& (10.6,10.8)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.68 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.96 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.95 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 8.41 \pm 1.46 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 4686 & 73\
..& (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.87 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.92 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 9.16 \pm 1.68 $ & $ 0.25 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.26 \pm 0.00 $ & 1949 & 51\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.28 \pm 0.17 $ & $ 8.86 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.02 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 7.18 \pm 1.72 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 30675 & 159\
..&(9.0,10.0) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.92 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.74 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.04 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.92 \pm 1.45 $ & $ 0.17 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 2920 & 41\
..& (10.0,10.2)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.10 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.82 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 0.96 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.44 \pm 1.40 $ & $ 0.14 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 6583 & 68\
..& (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.30 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.87 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.01 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 7.23 \pm 1.40 $ & $ 0.20 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 7899 & 80\
..& (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.49 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.92 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.01 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 7.92 \pm 1.41 $ & $ 0.23 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 6637 & 78\
..& (10.6,10.8)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.67 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.92 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 8.41 \pm 1.48 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 4686 & 72\
..& (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.86 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.90 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 9.15 \pm 1.72 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.26 \pm 0.00 $ & 1948 & 51\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.45 \pm 0.19 $ & $ 8.91 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.04 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.01 \pm 1.13 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.18 \pm 0.00 $ & 30676 & 194\
.. & (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.93 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.75 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 2.98 \pm 0.51 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 2921 & 47\
.. & (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.11 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.81 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.09 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.31 \pm 0.58 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.12 \pm 0.00 $ & 6584 & 82\
.. & (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.31 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.89 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.09 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 3.95 \pm 0.71 $ & $ 0.22 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.15 \pm 0.00 $ & 7900 & 96\
.. & (10.4,10.6) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.50 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.08 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.56 \pm 0.81 $ & $ 0.26 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 6638 & 95\
..& (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.69 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.01 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 4.74 \pm 0.87 $ & $ 0.27 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.23 \pm 0.00 $ & 4686 & 85\
.. & (10.8,12.0) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.88 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.97 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.74 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 4.68 \pm 1.01 $ & $ 0.16 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 1.25 \pm 0.00 $ & 1949 & 59\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.17 \pm 0.16 $ & $ 8.82 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.05 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 5.07 \pm 1.77 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.00 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.00 $ & 33646 & 170\
..&(9.0,10.0)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.91 \pm 0.05 $ & $ 8.72 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.14 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.10 \pm 1.62 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.10 \pm 0.00 $ & 3280 & 47\
..& (10.0,10.2) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.09 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.80 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.02 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.66 \pm 1.66 $ & $ 0.15 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 7225 & 78\
..& (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.29 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.87 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.03 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.56 \pm 1.71 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.15 \pm 0.00 $ & 8548 & 90\
..& (10.4,10.6)&$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.48 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.92 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.04 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.32 \pm 1.83 $ & $ 0.23 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.18 \pm 0.00 $ & 7173 & 87\
..& (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.67 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.96 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.96 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 6.56 \pm 1.95 $ & $ 0.23 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.22 \pm 0.00 $ & 5136 & 79\
..& (10.8,12.0)&$ 0.86 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.88 \pm 0.07 $ & $ 8.96 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 0.78 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 6.69 \pm 2.28 $ & $ 0.17 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.25 \pm 0.00 $ & 2283 & 55\
\
(0.80,0.90)& (9.0,12.0) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.52 \pm 0.15 $ & $ 8.93 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.00 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 6.01 \pm 1.85 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.20 \pm 0.00 $ & 33646 & 194\
..& (9.0,10.0) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 9.94 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.76 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.07 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.32 \pm 1.59 $ & $ 0.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.11 \pm 0.00 $ & 3281 & 47\
.. &(10.0,10.2)&$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.12 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.83 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.05 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 4.72 \pm 1.61 $ & $ 0.19 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.13 \pm 0.00 $ & 7225 & 77\
..& (10.2,10.4) &$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.32 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.90 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.02 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.47 \pm 1.70 $ & $ 0.21 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.16 \pm 0.00 $ & 8548 & 90\
..& (10.4,10.6)&$ 0.83 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.51 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.94 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.04 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 5.98 \pm 1.71 $ & $ 0.26 \pm 0.01 $ & $ 1.19 \pm 0.00 $ & 7173 & 89\
..& (10.6,10.8) &$ 0.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.69 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 8.98 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 0.93 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 6.34 \pm 1.85 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 1.24 \pm 0.00 $ & 5137 & 81\
..& (10.8,12.0)&$ 0.85 \pm 0.02 $ & $ 10.88 \pm 0.06 $ & $ 8.98 \pm 0.04 $ & $ 0.90 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 6.93 \pm 2.15 $ & $ 0.24 \pm 0.03 $ & $ 1.26 \pm 0.00 $ & 2283 & 59\
Effect of sample selection
--------------------------
@Raichoor2017 investigated the properties of the eBOSS ELG sample and presented the typical features of star-forming galaxies. Our stellar mass and SFR measurements of the composite ELG spectrum lie on the star formation sequence of star-forming galaxies at $0.5<z<1.0$ of @Whitaker2014, which also supports that the eBOSS ELGs are typical star-forming galaxies. Although we have made comparisons of our MZR and FMR with those for star-forming galaxies in other studies as consistent as possible (e.g., using identical IMF and dust extinction law), there remains the issue that sample inhomogeneity and incompleteness as well as the metallicity calibration method and measurement uncertainties might affect such comparisons. As explored by @Guo2019 and @Gonzalez2018, the eBOSS ELG samples are incomplete in both stellar mass and ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}$ luminosity functions.
The overall MZR relation in the redshift range of $0.6<z<1.05$ presented in Figure \[MZR\] suffers from the redshift sample inhomogeneity, which makes the most massive subsample drop down. Such inhomogeneity can be seen in the statistics of the overall redshift bin in Table \[tab2\], where the median redshift increases with the median mass. Thus, the MZRs in smaller redshift bins should be more accurate. @Guo2019 derived the stellar mass completeness function of eBOSS ELG sample, illustrating that stellar mass completeness in $0.8<z<0.9$ is higher than those in $0.7<z<0.8$ and $0.9<z<1.0$. Therefore, Figure \[redshiftevolution\] shows a more clear trend in $0.8<z<0.9$ than the other two redshift range. The MZR and FMR in $0.8<z<0.9$ will suffer less from the mass incompleteness.
The sample selections are different for eBOSS ELGs and other samples at a similar redshift. From a direct comparison between Figure \[MZR\] and \[redshiftevolution\], our MZR for the subsample with median $z\sim0.75$ is systematically lower than that for the sample of @Zahid2014 at $z\sim0.78$, which presents an opposite trend of the MZR redshift evolution. In addition to the measurement uncertainties and different metallicity calibrations, the most important factor causing this befaviour is the sample selection difference between eBOSS and DEEP2. The eBOSS target selection favours the ELGs with relatively strong ${\hbox{[O\,{\sc ii}]}}$ emission. Figure \[sfrcomp\] gives a SFR comparison between the eBOSS and DEEP2 galaxy samples in the same redshift range of $0.75 < z < 0.82$ as used in @Zahid2014. Both SFR estimations are derived from the luminosity measurement. The median SFR for the eBOSS ELGs is about 0.3 dex higher than that of the DEEP2 galaxies. As seen in Figure \[phyevo1\], a higher SFR can lead to a lower MZR.
From the target selections of DEEP2 and eBOSS, the DEEP2 samples are selected with the magnitude limit of $R<24.1$, while the eBOSS ELGs are selected with the magnitude limit of $21.8<g<22.8$. The blue color box and the bright cut ($g>21.8$) for the eBOSS ELG selection drives the incompleteness of the stellar mass at the high mass end. Moreover, as presented by @Comparat2015 and @Gonzalez2018, the eBOSS ELG sample is incomplete in luminosity functions at both bright and faint ends, produced by the $g$-band magnitude cut of $21.8<g<22.8$. The luminosity has a strong correlation with the gas-phase metallicity. Therefore, both the incompletenesses of luminosity and stellar mass may cause the lower plateau of our FMR relative to the local FMR.
However, the sample incompleteness would not affect our analyses of the MZR dependency on different physical parameters. Our most robust results concern the significance of the parameter dependency and the deviation of MZR between low and high parameter bins.
Summary\[summary\]
==================
This paper investigates the relation between stellar mass and gas-phase metallicity for galaxies at $z\sim0.8$ and explore the dependency of the MZR relation on different physical properties. The sample consists of 180,020 massive ELGs from SDSS IV/eBOSS, in the redshift range $0.6<z<1.05$ with median redshift at $0.83$, and the stellar mass covers $9 < {\rm log}(M_{\star}/M_{\odot}) < 12$. Although the S/Ns of single eBOSS spectra are low, construction of high-S/N composite spectra through stacking in different parameter bins enable us to accurately derive average properties in different parameter space and study the MZR at the specified redshift range.
The MZR relation at $z\sim0.83$ is derived. Combining this result with other studies in the local and high-redshift universe, we confirm that the MZR has a clear redshift evolution, where more evolved galaxies have higher metallicity at a specified stellar mass. By dividing the total galaxy sample into subsamples in three redshift bins ranging from 0.6 to 1.05, we obtain the MZRs at $z\sim0.75$, 0.84, and 0.95 and also see the MZR evolution. The MZRs in smaller redshift bins should be more accurate since they suffer less from the sample inhomogeneity.
We explore the influence of different physical parameters on the MZR including SFR/sSFR, high-light radius, mass density, and optical color. The redshift is constrained to $0.8<z<0.9$ to improve the homogeneity of the galaxy samples. The MZR moves downwards for galaxies with higher SFR/sSFR and half-light radius, while this relation increases for higher mass density and optical color. According to the amount of deviations of the MZRs obtained in different bins of each parameter, we conclude that the SFR is the most significant factor that affects MZR, and the FMR at $0.6<z<1.05$ approximately follows the local one if considering the sample inhomogeneity and incompleteness.
The stacked spectra and the derived properties can be accessed at <http://batc.bao.ac.cn/~zouhu/doku.php?id=projects:mzr_ebosselg:start>.
This work is supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program; Grant Nos. 2015CB857004, 2017YFA0402600, and 2014CB845704), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC; Grant Nos. 11433005, 11673027, 11733007, 11320101002, 11421303, 11973038, and 11873032), and the External Cooperation Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. 114A11KYSB20160057).
The Legacy Surveys consist of three individual and complementary projects: the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey (DECaLS; NOAO Proposal ID \# 2014B-0404; PIs: David Schlegel and Arjun Dey), the Beijing-Arizona Sky Survey (BASS; NOAO Proposal ID \# 2015A-0801; PIs: Zhou Xu and Xiaohui Fan), and the Mayall z-band Legacy Survey (MzLS; NOAO Proposal ID \# 2016A-0453; PI: Arjun Dey). DECaLS, BASS and MzLS together include data obtained, respectively, at the Blanco telescope, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO); the Bok telescope, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona; and the Mayall telescope, Kitt Peak National Observatory, NOAO. The Legacy Surveys project is honored to be permitted to conduct astronomical research on Iolkam Du’ag (Kitt Peak), a mountain with particular significance to the Tohono O’odham Nation. The Legacy Survey team makes use of data products from the Near-Earth Object Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (NEOWISE), which is a project of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology. NEOWISE is funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS acknowledges support and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is www.sdss.org.
SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS Collaboration including the Brazilian Participation Group, the Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participation Group, the French Participation Group, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) / University of Tokyo, the Korean Participation Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Leibniz Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik (MPA Garching), Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), National Astronomical Observatories of China, New Mexico State University, New York University, University of Notre Dame, Observatório Nacional / MCTI, The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, United Kingdom Participation Group, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, University of Arizona, University of Colorado Boulder, University of Oxford, University of Portsmouth, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University.
[plain]{}
Abolfathi, B., Aguado, D. S., Aguilar, G., et al. 2018, , 235, 42 Aihara, H., Arimoto, N., Armstrong, R., et al. 2018, , 70, S4 Allen, R. J., Kacprzak, G. G., Spitler, L. R., et al. 2015, , 806, 3 Andrews, B. H., & Martini, P. 2013, , 765, 140 Almosallam, I. A., Jarvis, M. J., & Roberts, S. J. 2016, , 462, 726 Aller, L. H. 1984, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Balogh, M. L., Morris, S. L., Yee, H. K. C., Carlberg, R. G., & Ellingson, E. 1999, , 527, 54 Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, , 154, 28 Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000 Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, , 345, 245 Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodr[é]{}, L., et al. 2005, , 358, 363 Cresci, G., Mannucci, F., Sommariva, V., et al. 2012, , 421, 262 Chabrier, G. 2003, , 115, 763 Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., et al. 2000, , 533, 682 Comparat, J., Kneib, J.-P., Escoffier, S., et al. 2013, , 428, 1498 Comparat, J., Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2015, , 575, A40 Comparat, J., Delubac, T., Jouvel, S., et al. 2016, , 592, A121 Denicol[ó]{}, G., Terlevich, R., & Terlevich, E. 2002, , 330, 69 Dawson, K. S., Kneib, J.-P., Percival, W. J., et al. 2016, , 151, 44 Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, , 157, 168 Davis, M., Faber, S. M., Newman, J., et al. 2003, , 161 Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E., Pettini, M., et al. 2006, , 644, 813 Ellison, S. L., Patton, D. R., Simard, L., et al. 2008, , 672, L107 Flaugher, B., Diehl, H. T., Honscheid, K., et al. 2015, , 150, 150 Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, , 131, 2332 Gonzalez-Perez, V., Comparat, J., Norberg, P., et al. 2018, , 474, 4024 Guo, H., Yang, X., Raichoor, A., et al. 2019, , 871, 147 Gao, Y., Bao, M., Yuan, Q., et al. 2018, , 869, 15 Hughes, T. M., Cortese, L., Boselli, A., et al. 2013, , 550, A115 Hunt, L., Magrini, L., Galli, D., et al. 2012, , 427, 906 Izotov, Y. I., Thuan, T. X., & Privon, G. 2012, , 427, 1229 Kobulnicky, H. A., & Kewley, L. J. 2004, , 617, 240 Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Labb[é]{}, I., et al. 2009, , 700, 221 Kriek, M., & Conroy, C. 2013, , 775, L16 Kewley, L. J., & Dopita, M. A. 2002, , 142, 35 Kewley, L. J., & Ellison, S. L. 2008, , 681, 1183 Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, , 36, 189 Kroupa, P. 2001, , 322, 231 Ly, C., Malkan, M. A., Nagao, T., et al. 2014, , 780, 122 Lan, T.-W., & Mo, H. 2018, , 866, 36 Lequeux, J., Peimbert, M., Rayo, J. F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, , 80, 155 Lara-L[ó]{}pez, M. A., Cepa, J., Bongiovanni, A., et al. 2010, , 521, L53 Lian, J. H., Li, J. R., Yan, W., et al. 2015, , 446, 1449 Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., et al. 2016, , 224, 24 Lilly, S. J., Le Fevre, O., Crampton, D., et al. 1995, , 455, 50 Lang, D. 2014, , 147, 108 Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., & Mykytyn, D. 2016, The Tractor: Probabilistic astronomical source detection and measurement, ascl:1604.008 McGaugh, S. S. 1991, , 380, 140 Meisner, A. M., Lang, D., & Schlegel, D. J. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 1 Maiolino, R., Nagao, T., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, , 488, 463 Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2010, , 408, 2115 Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, , 348, L59 Raichoor, A., Comparat, J., Delubac, T., et al. 2017, , 471, 3955 Rubin, V. C., Ford, W. K., & Whitmore, B. C. 1984, , 281, L21 Savaglio, S., Glazebrook, K., Le Borgne, D., et al. 2005, , 635, 260 Salpeter, E. E. 1955, , 121, 161 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2015, , 799, 138 Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Kriek, M., et al. 2018, , 858, 99 Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., et al. 2014, , 214, 15 Salim, S., Lee, J. C., Dav[é]{}, R., et al. 2015, , 808, 25 S[á]{}nchez, S. F., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Jungwiert, B., et al. 2013, , 554, A58 Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, , 146, 32 Steidel, C. C., Rudie, G. C., Strom, A. L., et al. 2014, , 795, 165 Sol Alonso, M., Michel-Dansac, L., & Lambas, D. G. 2010, , 514, A57 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, , 613, 898 Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868 Whitaker, K. E., Franx, M., Leja, J., et al. 2014, , 795, 104 Yabe, K., Ohta, K., Iwamuro, F., et al. 2014, , 437, 3647 Yates, R. M., Kauffmann, G., & Guo, Q. 2012, , 422, 215 Zahid, H. J., Dima, G. I., Kudritzki, R.-P., et al. 2014, , 791, 130 Zahid, H. J., Kewley, L. J., & Bresolin, F. 2011, , 730, 137 Zaritsky, D., Kennicutt, R. C., & Huchra, J. P. 1994, , 420, 87 Zhu, G. B., Comparat, J., Kneib, J.-P., et al. 2015, , 815, 48
[^1]: https://github.com/dstndstn/tractor
[^2]: <http://legacysurvey.org/dr7/files/#sweep-catalogs>
[^3]: https://hsc-release.mtk.nao.ac.jp/doc/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.